Yesterday, I blamed Obama for causing a problem; today, I echo Pamela Geller’s complaint that federal agencies are useless

My head is spinning.   I just wrote a post for Mr. Conservative based upon the most current news stories saying that an arrest had been made.  From the time of those stories to the time I published the post, it was about 10 minutes.  Within one minute after the post went up, all of the major news sites were recanting the story, saying a suspect had been identified, but not arrested.  (See here for an example of the swift turnaround in news reports.)  Breitbart has given up on specific headlines and just says “Chaos in Boston,” which is about as accurate as anything I’ve seen today.  CNN still has its stand-by fallback position, which is that it’s the Tea Party’s fault, while Fox reminds everyone that pressure cooker bombers are commonly used in such Islamic war places as Pakistan and Afghanistan.

That last point — about the differing CNN and Fox News stories — highlights one of the two truths we know with certainty amidst this swirl of rumors.  The first is that Obama lied through his teeth when he promised in 2008 that his election would heal divisions within America and that his presidency would further smooth the rift, once again creating a truly United States of America.  Instead, using his bully pulpit to demonize half of America (something no president has ever done before), Obama has deepened the rift between Blue and Red America to a point probably not seen since 1860.  Obama, therefore, is easy to blame for the bombing, because a truly united America would not be a good target for this type of attack, no matter who launched it.

The other thing we know with certainty is something that Pamela Geller highlights — we’re not getting any bang for the buck from the alphabet soup of federal law enforcement agencies we taxpayers support.  After commenting derisively on reports that law enforcement describes the terrorism attack investigation as “wide open,” and is begging media outlets to help, Geller points out how embarrassing this is:

This is where the status of the investigation is.  In Europe, and in Israel, whenever there is a terrorist attack, they have someone or some group in their sights or in custody every time.  Take 3/11 in Madrid, 7/7 in London, the Glasgow jihad plot — every jihad attack and jihad plot in Europe, European authorities are right on it, identifying and apprehending the perpetrators.  They know exactly who the bad guys are.  They know exactly where to go.  This is a historical first: that America is not dramatically ahead of the curve, but dramatically behind the curve.  So American citizens are now considered expendable, just the way our soldiers are in Afghanistan.

It should bother every American that Europe and Israel are so far ahead of us in intel that we’re begging CNN and Fox for clues — and apparently detaining people who have nothing to do with the bombing, raiding their homes, taking bagfuls of evidence out, and then saying, “Never mind.”

Really?  The billions that Americans spend for the CIA, FBI, DHS, NSA, JTTF, and all the other various counterterrorism agencies, and they don’t have a clue?  All they have for us is 1-800-CALL-FBI?  This is unconscionable.  If that’s where we are, disband these incompetent, inane agencies that call jihad “workplace violence” and name Atlas Shrugs as a “domestic hate group,” when in fact Atlas Shrugs is battling violence and mass murder across the world.  How did this happen eleven years after 9/11?

In 1995 (Oklahoma City) and 1998 (Atlanta), we didn’t have a multi-armed federal law enforcement infrastructure that, in return for tax dollars and vast, often unconstitutional powers, promised to keep us safe.  Just as Obama broke his promise to heal the rifts in American society, the federal alphabet soup has broken its promise to keep us safe and/or to bring wrongdoers quickly before the law.  Indeed, I seem to remember that it’s been more than half a year since the FBI jetted out to investigate what happened in Benghazi.  So far . . . nothing (although with Hillary screaming “what difference does it make,” investigators may have lost their momentum).

I guess we should all resign ourselves that for at least the next three years, the best we can hope for from our administration is “What difference does it make?”  Unless, of course, the difference is about emasculating our once robust Constitution.  But that’s another story for another post….

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. jj says

    Sad to say, but what it adds up to is that when you hire the not-so-bright to begin with, it doesn’t matter whether you hire ten of them or ten thousand: what you have is morons.
     
    I occasionally find myself beginning to suspect that George W. Bush was every bit as stupid as the liberals have always claimed him to be.  I don’t know anybody whose first reaction to an event like 9/11 would be to create two new federal agencies.  Is that really the first thing you think to do?  Create two new unaccountable cadres of dopes, arm them, give them unprecedented powers to interfere with and annoy law-abiding citizens, and turn them loose on everybody?
     
    If that’s your first reaction to the problem – any problem – then I reluctantly conclude you’re (a) a liberal, or (b) not too swift.  (George, you’re a RINO but I’m pretty sure you’re not liberal.  See option (b))
     
    I don’t know how the idea got started that the American people need overseeing by six armed internal armies – that’s more than the Soviet Union ever had – but somehow we’ve ended up with the FBI; the Secret Service/Treasury; the BATFEXLMNOPQZ (or whatever the hell they are, “jackasses” about sums it up); the TSA; the department of Homeland Security, and the DEA.  All heavily armed and dangerous, generally to the wrong people.  And of course the CIA never does anything internally, as we all know.  And cats don’t fart.  And we have police departments with armored personnel carriers, tanks, cops themselves better equipped and dressed for combat than anybody in the 3rd Infantry Divison – what the hell goes on here?  What the hell country is this?
     
    Anybody with live brain cells unlike, apparently, Bush, would have focused the money and expertise on the existing agencies – FBI primarily, and given them the tools to be of some use, instead of pissing it away on two entirely new unnecessary-and mostly-useless-but-really-un-American bureaucracies.  Bang for the buck?  You must be kidding.  There is none whatsoever, with not a check nor a balance in sight. And they’ll be there, underfoot, self-important, and immune from criticism, to irritate the intelligent for the rest of time.

  2. JKB says

    Now, let’s be fair.  The agencies have been run by the “new regime” for these last few years.  So the priorities haven’t been competency but rather placing “global warming” above North Korea in the threat to national security list and rewriting “official” history to reflect Obama or blame Republicans
     
    Just this morning I found this little tidbit when verify what I’d read that Woodrow  Wilson (Democrat) had imposed segregation on the federal workforce back in April 1913.
     
    A Letter to President Woodrow Wilson -   Exhibitions - myLOC.gov (Library of Congress) 
     
    Seems the Library of Congress isn’t above slanting the story.  Or perhaps I’m reading to much into the last sentence
     
    In 1913 President Woodrow Wilson introduced segregation into federal government agencies. Black employees were separated from other workers in offices, restrooms, and cafeterias.  Some were also downgraded; others discharged on fictitious grounds. Oswald Garrison Villard met privately with President Wilson to recommend the appointment of a National Race Commission to counter the new discriminatory policies. When President Wilson refused, the NAACP released this open letter of protest to the press.  Segregation in the federal government persisted through the next three Republican administrations.  
     
    Just another example of the creeping low quality scholarship that now passes for government, and increasingly, academic work.  
     
    Granted the blurb is factual but it doesn’t take a Ph.D. in critical thinking to see the bias and slanting of the presentation.  In fact, saying segregation persisted until the New Deal would be more informative.

  3. SADIE says

     
    We’re not getting a “bang for the buck” – we are getting “banged” and that buck is only worth a quarter now. Here we are, two days after Boston, seven months after Benghazi, two years after Fast and Furious and the only law that applies is the Law of Diminishing Returns.

  4. 11B40 says

    Greetings:
    I’m currently reading “The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against Al-Qaeda” by Ali H. Soufan. The author was/is a Special Agent for the FBI and a Arabic-speaking Lebanese-American who was heavily involved with Islamic terrorism as far back as the mid-90s. 
    While I’m only about one-third of the way into the book, one of the things that has struck me is Agent Soufan’s focus on building “prosecutable” cases.  For me that is an echo of my days in the Federal bureaucracy in which where one stood correlated highly with where one sat. Now, this is not to say that the agent didn’t do a lot of very effective work. He certainly seems to have made significant and ongoing contributions. 
    But, like the ghost of Hamlet’s father, there always seems to be a lawyer or two (not that I lawyer-phobic or anything even close to that) looking over his shoulder or standing behind his back. While the author/agent does a good job of laying out Al-Qaeda’s evolution and both its fatwas and declaration of war, he never seems to question whether criminal investigations are an appropriate counter-strategy. Personally, I think not. And, regrettably, I can’t help wondering if the criminal investigation route isn’t some kind of underhanded ploy by an administration that has a proven record of making use of such.
    That being keystroked, I can’t agree with Pamela Geller very much on this one and I use to read a good bit of her work. I don’t think that our guys are that bad or that the others are that good. It seems to me that we have stacked the deck against ourselves. One of my favorite anecdotes is a story about Lebanon when things went off the track during the Reagan administration and Americans were being kidnapped and murdered thereabouts.  A Russian was also kidnapped and murdered. Subsequently, an imammy from one of the Islamaniac groups was found dead with some of his lower parts in one of his upper parts. No more Russian were kidnapped or murdered. 
    Back when Gerald Ford declared assassinations verboten, he took a major card of the table, just as today when too many seem bound and determined to take torture off the card table. However distasteful one finds these techniques removing even the threat of them is a serious handicap.
     

  5. says

    11B40:  You raise a very good point.  It’s not that any one individual working for these agencies is bad; it’s that the nature of the agencies themselves in the modern Progressive bureaucracy is inevitably a CYA race to the bottom.  The men and women are not allowed to do their jobs.  They’re forced, instead, to make their obeisances to the Gods of political correctness that reign supreme in American government.

  6. says

    Bush was against creating one of the agencies, Homeland Security I recall it was, until somebody, like the Democrats, using a combination of persuasion and coercion caused him to reverse his position.
     
    The power of the Left knows no bounds, for they can get anyone to consider their “reasonable” requests for more government to be patriotic and good for America.
     
    The evidence is right there in front of your eyes. It doesn’t matter if Bush is stupid or not. America will burn in Hell because of Americans, and not anyone else.

  7. Charles Martel says

    Appointing committees, naming panels, and creating agencies is the modern Ivy League American response to crisis. It is based on what the Columbia University professor William Barrett called “the illusion of technique,” the superstition-cloaked-in-reason belief that simply by applying certain techniques, you can whistle your way past any graveyard on earth. Think Bob McNamara and his high-tech approach to fighting in Vietnam.
     
    It could have been worse than RINO Dubyah’s response. If Al-Jazeera Gore (pbuh) had won the presidency, he would have appointed a blue-ribbon commission to investigate 1.) why they hate us, 2.) why we deserve their hate, 3.) how we could apologize, and 4.) for how long.

  8. says

    Many martial artists also think that by copying somebody else’s technique that they have achieved power and strength.
     
    Obama already went around the world apologizing for America. That was Gore’s job.

  9. Jose says

    If anyone has purchased a new DVD lately, perhaps they’ve noticed the standard copyright piracy notice that appears before the movie starts has changed.  It used to display an FBI badge.  Now a Homeland Security badge has been added.
     
     
    Duplication? Mission creep?  Someone justifying their budget?  Was the FBI not doing it’s job?
     
     
    I know I can now sleep better at night.
     
     
     
     
     
     

  10. says

    The copyright alliance is a curious mixture of fascist police power with Hollywood business monopolies on Democrat plantations.
     
    God knows how that’ll turn out with SWAT raids into everyday home’s. Perhaps getting rid of guns would allow more SWAT raids, as there would be little defense or news of casualties.

Leave a Reply