« Obama's Evolving Sequester Strategy | Main | We Are All Cypriots »

March 14, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

A COMMON DENOMINATOR ? To paraphrase the 'reigning queen' of the CPAC Convention, Govr. Palin; "there was ONE 'backbround check' that went incomplete."

JAKE TAPPER; Pres. 'O' hasn't removed his White House Credential ? (Is he holding someone hostage?) He was as good a show as Ann Coulter at CPAC. A little more 'outspokeness'in the Campaign and the Conservatives would have had us out of this mess. Maybe The New Pope ! Pray for us all.

CERTAINLY CONFUSING.I think your two situations would qualify as "imminent threats". What also confuses, however, is the present day irrelevance of 'Security Clearances'. This President would not qualify for one. What a Country !

Three APPLES---if you have 3 apples and I want as many of them as I can get and I tell you that if you give me one apple then I will discuss your apple needs in the future and you agree then you set the stage for me now negotiating for two apples. An easy solution then becomes ok let's each have one. If you agree I won 2 to 1. After getting one apple in the fiscal cliff tax negotiations, the butter fly like President will now split the difference on the other 2. Alas, the explanation of the emergence of the Butterfly!

CONFUSED? I'm a little confused by today's "left" and "right" positions. And, this article confirmed my reason to be confused. What is the difference between a drone strike in the Montana wilderness to destroy a pirated nuclear bomb being readied for takeoff in a suicide single engine plane from a Montana airstrip targeted for downtown Seattle (authorized by the President) and a single shot to the head of a crazy criminal holding a pistol to the head of a child in NY city(authorized by the commander of a SWAT team)? Seems we are debating limits of power in nightmare situations. Just as we debated for some time in the elections the use of interrogation techniques in similar situations with the slight difference of the timing of the horror in the future. The President is the Commander in Chief, like him/her or not. One has to trust someone to make the decisions in the time of crisis. After all since the 1950's our President and one other person have had their finger on the trigger of nuclear attack and it has not happened again since Truman authorized it in WWII.

We consider the North Koreans to be child like bluffers and yet we consider Iran to be a serious threat for nuclear attacks? Are either anymore likely to trigger nuclear war than the other? That's why we have intelligence agencies, top secret plus security clearances and a President to decide what to do if they are. Who knows in this world perhaps Sean Penn and Dennis Rodman are CIA agents. Wouldn't that be ironic? Can you imagine the Right celebrating the performance of either of these people as providing the information that allowed us to prempt a terrorist attack?

It is almost as confusing as the emergence like a butterfly from his cocoon of the President beginning to talk with Republicans and acting like he learned how to compromise.

The comments to this entry are closed.