He couldn’t bother with a tie? *UPDATED*

Maybe I’m being picky, but it seems to me that a president who makes an official statement three days after a terrorist attack on the United States could bother with a necktie?  I know he’s on vacation, but I’m really, really sure that, even if he didn’t pack a tie, someone could have run to the store and gotten him one.

There’s a whole new level of disrespect for the American people revealed in the fact that, after three days of thinking about a terrorist attack that could have incinerated 300 people he just couldn’t make that little extra effort.   Obama’s not even pretending any more to take the job seriously, is he?

UPDATE:  You know it’s bad when even the New York Times reporter expresses disdain for the President’s casual demeanor and flat affect, especially when contrasted with Americans suffering through airport security procedures that are nothing more than the barn doors closing behind long-vanished horses:

Until now, Mr. Obama had tried to strike a balance between signaling that he is on top of the situation and not drawing more attention to it than it already was generating. Each day since Friday, his staff accompanying him here in his home state put out statements indicating that the president was holding conference calls and requesting action of government agencies. But he declined for three days to address it in public himself, cognizant perhaps of warnings by some terrorism experts against elevating such incidents and by extension their authors.

Yet the visual contrasts have been jarring. Pictures of passengers enduring tougher security screening at the airport were juxtaposed against images of the president soaking in the sun and surf of this tropical getaway. Appearing at a Marine base near the Kailua beachfront house he has rented, Mr. Obama on Monday praised the “quick and heroic actions of passengers and crew” but made no attempt to defend the security system that allowed the suspect onto the plane with jerry-rigged explosives in the first place.

In the run-up to the election, I noted (as did a zillion other conservatives) that Obama has never held a job; he’s just gotten jobs.  He has never demonstrated any ability to do the hard work associated with actual employment.

Even in the first year of his presidency, when he had a compliant Congress that would willingly follow him of any cliff, as long it’s positioned to the Left, Obama couldn’t make himself do the hard work of leadership.  He played golf, he played basketball, he partied with the big shots, he went on TV — but he didn’t work.

And he’s still not working, even as the terrorists make ever greater ingresses on American security.  It’s no coincidence that, after George Bush kept us safe for 8 years, the terrorists are emboldened by Obama.  Even more than the fact that he’s trying to buddy up with the bad guys, they’ve figured out something important about him:  he’s so lazy, he just doesn’t care.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    On that note, since it seems to be a religious practice of AQ to become a martyr by putting highly combustive materials in their underwear, it shouldn’t be a problem if we strap such things to all captive terrorists and set off the explosives.
     
    It would be what they wish and it would be what we wish. Mutual benefit, such is the cycle of justice.
     

  • spiff580

    @Brian: There are different types of adolescent mindsets.  The Obama administration may have serious intentions, but their ideas are still adolescent… like a teenage know-it -all who thinks adults are stupid (like the angst ridden teenage vampire wannabes).  They cling to the their ideas, even though around  the world their ideas have been proven wrong at best, and disastrous at worst where tested.
     
    Sean

  • spiff580

    @Y:
     
    “It isn’t hard for me to say that Matt is the kind of person that when facing dying innocents, would by instinct find a way to find somebody to blame.” – Y
     
    Hell, Y, his ilk are the kind that would blame the victims for being in the wrong place and then turn around and criticize the ones stepping up to save the victims.  Then he would look for someone to blame and demand immediate action.  And if that immediate action affected him, he would whine about that. J

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    <B>They cling to the their ideas, even though around  the world their ideas have been proven wrong at best, and disastrous at worst where tested.</b>
     
    I think Brian’s point is that adolescents with nuclear weapons and armed force in their hands aren’t adolescents anymore; they are enemies.
     
     
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    I’ll describe a tool of conflict resolution, aka diplomacy.
     
    The Left likes to puff themselves up like the good Professor Gates, due to insecurity, on this matter of talking resolving problems, but they would be the worst people you can have to do such.
     
    Conflict resolution via words and negotiation can be used, but it takes good people to use it. Not selfish, insecure, always looking for a fight, wannabe messiahs.
     
    One of the things you have to realize is that people are controlled by their passions, which shortcut their logic. Thus if they feel threatened, they will react emotionally in order to preserve their perception of self and social status. Thus as one side of the negotiations table, you must be careful not to let the subject wander into zones that they can’t do anything about now. If you talk about their past mistakes or accuse them of having done something in the past, you are giving them no chance to correct them because it’s impossible to do so.
     
    Look up blood feud and War of the Roses if you don’t know what I’m talking about. [Chances are, as a Democrat, you will have no idea of what those contexts entail]
     
    If you are looking to resolve a conflict, you can only do so in the present with present problems. Things people can actually change by modifying their actions. Saying that my ancestor burned down your ancestor’s castle, and now you are going to attack me for it, is not going to do anything except cause me to unleash everything I have on you as a self-defense method. There’s no way I can change what my ancestors did, so no way I can change your behavior, so I’m just going to kill you.
     

    If someone has done something wrong, like Obama, then he can still correct it and atone. Obama is still President, so he still has a chance, meaning 3 more years. Bush is not the President, so it doesn’t matter what he did or didn’t do, because nothing he will do will affect the current security climate of the United States.
     
    All of those at Bookworm Room have legitimacy and standing to challenge Obama on this issue because anyone of us can die due to his mistakes. It’s a little too stupid to try to claim that your political opponents that defended Bush on a few points in the past, now shouldn’t criticize Obama for something similar to what Bush did. Nor does it matter whether Bush is a Savior or not, because what matters is the lives of those threatened now. Is Bush going to cause people to die now because he spent 6 days overseeing the war in Afghanistan against Osama Bin Laden or is Obama going to cause more people to die now because he’s retarded and incompetent on national security. That’s the question people should ask, if they weren’t so high on the drug of self-deception.
     
    The Left are terrible mofos. That’s just the plain truth. Conflict resolution doesn’t work with them, but they are not interested in preserving peace. They’re interested in power. They’re in our way, stopping those of us interested in preserving the lives and living standards of others.
    Just terrible.