Inconvenient Timing for Barack Obama’s “Surprise” Visit to Afghanistan

May 1, 2012 | Comments (0)

As we know, Barack Obama is all about the show (think white-coated doctors in the Rose Garden and a memorial/pep-rally in Tucson), so there was no way he would pass up the chance on this first anniversary of Osama Bin Laden’s death to make a “surprise” trip to Afghanistan to take credit for both Bin Laden’s demise and what he has called the end of the war on terror.  (How better, too, for Obama to deflect attention away from this May Day and the Occupy movement he has so publicly and unpopularly embraced?)

Indeed the president probably thought the timing perfect for such a dramatic commemoration of his only true success as president: giving the Navy Seals the go-ahead to take out Bin Laden.  But upon closer examination, it would appear the timing is proving rather inconvenient.  How inconvenient for Obama, for example, that Jose Rodgriguez, head of the post-9/11 enhanced interrogation of the vicious souls responsible for that terrible day, has chosen this same moment in time to broadcast how critical those enhanced techniques were for locating Bin Laden and for the ongoing safety of our nation.  With a fearlessness Obama can only imagine, Mr. Rodgriquez has made it clear that these techniques have been repeatedly denounced by this president and his followers, yet they have saved thousands of American lives in our post-9/11 world.  Mr. Rodgriguez has made clear who the true heroes of this story are, and a gloating, showboating president is not one of them.

How inconvenient for Obama, as well, to have his most recent desperate campaign tactic against Mitt Romney fly back in his face.  You know the one: his campaign ad starring himself and Bill Clinton, claiming that probable republican candidate Romney would not have given the order to take out Bin Laden.  And how inconvenient for the president that Governor Romney would so easily dismiss the charge as ridiculous, claiming that “even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.”

And finally, how inconvenient for Obama’s theatrics to be overshadowed by Navy Seals, retired and current, who have chosen this same moment in time to denounce the president’s opportunistic boasting of his own success in this mission, a mission, they remind us, that was carried out, not by Obama, but by their Seal brethren.  The Seals have gone on to suggest that perhaps the president is fudging a bit when detailing his role in the mission, knowing he can because those active in the armed forces are not allowed to speak out against their commander-in-chief.  But as retired Seal Sniper Chris Kyle has said, someday the truth will come out, as the truth always does, and it’s not likely to match what the president has told us for the past year from various podiums, various stages, both foreign and domestic.  When that truth does make its appearance, I have a feeling most of us will find it just as “surprising” as we found the president’s carefully orchestrated “surprise” visit to Afghanistan today.

Betsy Siino | Comments (0)

Let the Spin Begin

May 5, 2011 | Comments (1)

What a difference a day makes. One day, leftwingers who for almost a decade vilified George W., his “fictitious” war on terror, and his methods and policies are rejoicing that the spiritual leader at the root of that “fictitious” war is dead. America, they assume, will ignore that those vilified Bush-era methods and policies helped lead to said terrorist’s demise. We just won’t think about that, they say. And no one else will either, right?

Wrong.

Within hours of their beloved’s announcement that he pulled the trigger, an avalanche of information and conspiracy theories came tumbling down upon the heads of smirky leftists. They thought it would be so easy. Ding, dong, Bin Laden is dead. This president got Bin Laden. Yay, Obama! Let’s all fall in behind him. Happy days are here again.

They never expected the blowback….

….He’s not really dead! Yes he is! We saw the pictures, proclaim the senators. Trust us. Oops. Nope. Those were faked. But he’s still dead! Yes, says the CIA chief, still dead, and you will all see the pictures. Oh no you won’t, says the president. You can’t handle the truth. And we can’t spike the football. What would we think if they posted pictures of the Americans they kill. Oh. Daniel Pearl. And so many others….He used a woman as a human shield. Oh no he didn’t. He wouldn’t. But a woman was shot and killed. No, not killed. Shot, not killed. Whew!….He had a gun. No, he didn’t. But that’s okay, squeals the White House. Isn’t it? Still okay to shoot him, wasn’t it? The Han Solo moment. Han shot first, at least before the politically-corrected version of the film he did. It’s okay then, isn’t it? That we shot first? And without a warrant. Say it’s okay!….Without waterboarding we wouldn’t have gotten him. No! cry the dems. Say it ain’t so! I saw the intel myself, bleats the senator. None of it came from that. Did it? So, Madam Senator, you won’t act when and if the intel does come from that? When American lives are at stake? Now that will surely resonate with America….

Shame on you people! the left shouts now in panic as they scramble for a position in this unexpected aftermath. A man is dead and you are celebrating! They lash out. At us. For recognizing their hypocrisy. For defying the narrative and refusing their leader a big bump in the polls. And for continuing to demand an election in 2012.

And today their candidate visits Ground Zero. Never has as president. Not in two-and-a-half years. Symbolic place, that Ground Zero. The perfect backdrop for this grand-daddy of all photo-ops now that the most-wanted is dead. Shanksville isn’t sexy. And the Pentagon….well, come on, it’s the Pentagon. But this…Ground Zero…yes! Especially now. So find a mirror and perfect that furrowed brow. And ask your predecessor to join the party. What’s that? He declines the invite. Smart move, President Bush. The right move. Ever the class act you are. And undeniably authentic, something we haven’t seen in a very long time.

Betsy Siino | Comments (1)

Seeing Clearly Bin Laden’s End and Continued Threats to America

May 3, 2011 | Comments (0)

Yesterday morning, in the wake of Osama Bin Laden’s announced death, a gentleman called a local talk-radio host to express how grateful he is to know that his son, who has served several tours in Iraq, did not serve in vain. What I urge this man to remember, what I urge us all to remember, is that even if Bin Laden was never found, never killed by our Navy Seals, none of our service men and women protecting our nation over the past 10 years has served in vain. We have remained safe for the past 10 years because of their sacrifice, and because of the controversial foresight of our former President, who stayed the course in this mission, despite efforts led by the mainstream media, leftwing politicos and Hollywood types, and our current president to appease our enemies.

While we celebrated yesterday, so did we also witness those leftwing minions genuflecting at the alter of their messiah. Don’t even bother holding a 2012 presidential election, they shouted from the rooftops, virtually ignoring the fact that it was U.S. Navy Seals who actually carried out the mission (ignoring, as well, that many on the left have for almost a decade chalked 9/11 up to an evil plan perpetrated by George W.).

Yet certain tidbits of information nevertheless trickled out into the light of day, as tidbits always do. The intel, for one, that led to Bin Laden’s ultimate demise, apparently came from extreme interrogation methods carried out under the former administration’s watch — the same methods the left, including the current president, have fought valiantly to render obsolete. And apparently the Navy Seals who took out the world’s most wanted terrorist were members of an elite force referred to derisively by the left when they operated under a different administration, as Dick Cheney’s “Assassination Ring.”

The information I find most troubling, however, relates to the fact that Bin Laden was buried at sea almost instantly after he was killed. We can’t let his burial place become a shrine, we were told. That’s all well and good, but why was he dispatched so quickly? And, even more importantly, why was he given full Islamic funeral rites before the burial? No legitimate justification has been offered to answer this latter question, and, frankly, there is none.

What I have not heard floated is the idea that perhaps this administration mandated the sacred/speedy burial in an attempt to play both sides: “Sorry guys,” they may have been telling the Islamic world, “you know we had to take him out, but, hey, look, we are honoring him according to your rituals so you’ll like us!” Already we are hearing noisy grumbles over this from so-called “average” Americans (or “slugs,” as our president allegedly called us several days ago at one of his pricey campaign fundraisers). Expect those grumbles to become louder in the days, weeks, even months ahead.

While yesterday was a day of celebration, we must today remember that the war on terror continues, and it is just that: a war on terror, not a series of “manmade disasters” or “cultural misunderstandings” or whatever foolish euphemism this administration has mandated it be called. While we may thank this president for defying his own documented opposition to the war on terror and giving the order this last weekend, given what we have experienced over the last two-and-a-half years, I have come to regard with suspicion and skepticism anything that emanates from this White House. So much theater. So many photo-ops. So much trite and artificial symbolism. And always such “coincidental” timing. Indeed how provident that this president would announce that he took out Bin Laden on the anniversary of the day the American people learned Adolf Hitler was dead — and, lo and behold, eight years from the day that George W. made his much-vilified “mission accomplished” speech.

Providence? Coincidence? You be the judge. But amid the careful timing and the theatrics (lab-coated doctors in the Rose Garden, a fake Parthenon in Denver), let us not forget this Thursday, when Obama accepts his accolades at Ground Zero for “getting” Bin Laden, that if he had had his way, there would have been no critical intel gathered by methods this president and his ilk have vehemently opposed.  There would have been no Navy Seals in Pakistan to pull the trigger on the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda. And if he has way, the end of Bin Laden and his own golden words will blind the fawning masses, the slugs, to the crushing debt facing our country; to gas, and, thus, ultimately food, prices that threaten to grind our nation to a halt; and to unemployment rates skyrocketing as fast as our taxes into the stratosphere.

I, for one, do not intend to ignore the current state of our nation. Today, and every day, I will pray that we the people will continue to maintain our vigilance, as our founders urged, toward all, both foreign and domestic, who seek to harm our nation and blind us to the threat.

Betsy Siino | Comments (0)

The Navy Seals Take Out Osama Bin Laden

May 2, 2011 | Comments (0)

A great day for America. Osama Bin Laden is dead. Almost 10 years after that terrible day in September of 2001, our U.S. Navy Seals, in a mission seemingly scripted for an over-the-top action/adventure flick starring Bruce Willis or Sylvester Stallone, shot the 9/11 mastermind in a protected compound in Pakistan, took his body, and escaped the scene without a single American casualty.

My heart and thanks go out to the Navy Seals who made this happen; to our U.S. troops who serve so courageously in this most treacherous corner of the world (and, of course, to their families); to the American intelligence network that has stayed the course despite a precarious political landscape on the homefront; and to George W. Bush, who, amid the ravenous vitriol sent his way while he occupied the White House, ensured our military presence remained a strong foundation in the Middle East for the protection of us here at home.

As we celebrate this momentous day, let us remember that this war is not over. The Navy Seals who carried out this mission this weekend and our troops who keep us safe know this. And we must know it, too.

Betsy Siino | Comments (0)

Lessons Learned: Beware of Arbitrary, Undefined “Change”

February 15, 2011 | Comments (0)

To all who were lured into the touchy-feely belief two years ago or so that change for change’s sake is a goal to which we all should aspire, I would imagine, and hope, most of you are having second thoughts by now.

Those not so easily swayed know now, just as they (we) knew then, that in its most simplistic terms, change can be good, and change can be bad. To sign on haphazardly to arbitrary, undefined “change,” is to enter dangerous territory for yourself, your family, and, as we have witnessed firsthand, your country.

A quick look at history is all we need to see where that dangerous territory can lead. Hitler wanted “change.” Remember? And he made it happen.  Mao, Castro and Lenin wanted “change.”  And they made it happen.  Indeed just about every tyrant and dictator in human history has wanted change – sometimes defined for the masses, sometimes not – and with long-term, often damning consequences. On the flip side, our nation’s founders wanted change, too — clearly defined, clearly documented change — and they made it happen. Tyrants and dictators of the world (including those within our own nation’s capitol) no doubt view the success of the American experiment “dangerous,” and indeed it is for those who hunger for unbridled power and control of we the people.

And today the mainstream lapdog media, the United States president, and various pundits with undefined qualifications but clearly defined agendas, are singing the praises of change in Egypt after several weeks of undefined Egyptians demonstrating and causing mass destruction in the streets of Cairo. I won’t pretend to understand precisely what is going on in Egypt, but we all know that the Egyptian president Mubarak has stepped down, it appears the military has stepped in (the word “coup” being somewhat avoided), and the Egyptian parliament is being dissolved.  Our president, in turn, using these events to court college students in his bid for reelection in 2012, is congratulating those who have made these dreams a reality, insisting that such undefined, revolutionary “change” is what the slobbering college students are all about.

Because I am no expert, I will look to Israel, rather than the current U.S. president, for clues as to the true significance of the events in Egypt. Said U.S. president has not been what we might call supportive of Israel, so I will assume that his support for the undefined change in Egypt does not necessarily bode well for the Jewish State. Israel, in turn, has hardly been rejoicing over the events in a nation that has been the closest they have to an ally in their shared and very volatile region of the world. I also personally don’t find comforting the words “Sharia Law” and “Muslim Brotherhood” as potential consequences of the Egyptian rebellion.

Meanwhile, our president stands smiling before those cheering, maybe hungover, college students, taking credit for that rebellion, which has thus far resulted in a military coup, the loss of a parliament, and the opening of floodgates to other nations in the region who seek to destroy Israel.  But fear not, America, one of this administration’s top security officials is out there smoothing the feathers of skeptical Americans by insisting that the Muslim Brotherhood, mild and moderate “secular” organization that it is, is nothing to fear.

Sorry, this skeptical American intends to remain so.  In an era of undefined, arbitrary change, only a fool signs on without thought of consequence. Whether we’re talking light bulbs, portion control at restaurants, tin-can death-trappy “smart” cars, or national security and stability, the consequence of change for the sake of change, arbitrary and undefined, can be, and usually is, tyranny.

Betsy Siino | Comments (0)

We Will Never Forget

September 11, 2010 | Comments (1)

“Where were you when the world stopped turning on that September day?”

I awoke this morning with these words from Alan Jackson on my radio, my country station featuring such songs as Jackson’s “Where Were You” to commemorate this day, September 11th.

I know where I was. We all know where we were. And though there are some in this country with screeching voices and amplified microphones who would rather we forget, we won’t. Ever.

And that is why the vast, vast majority of Americans, all Americans, never dreamed that nine years after that September day, we would be arguing not over the design of the buildings that should replace the Twin Towers, but the building of a mosque upon the sacred ground where the Twin Towers once stood.

The opposition hurls names at this majority of Americans who wish to keep that ground, and the remains of the thousands of souls lost on that ground, sacred. They scream that we are anti-this, anti-that, phobic-this, phobic-that, and, most laughably, they claim we are un-American. For this instance and this instance only, the fundamentally frightened appeasers haul out the Constitution, claiming we who oppose the plan are defying our founders’ intent – and, most importantly, placing ourselves in grave danger.

From politicians to media hacks to talk show hosts, the politically correct ignore pleas to investigate the shady funding behind the project (which, if terror-rooted, would throw the whole “freedom of religion” argument out the window), pleading instead in so many words that if we don’t do this, if we don’t obey, they’ll hurt as again. And indeed, more than one imam has declared publicly, one on national television: If you don’t build it on that site, on that ground, where we say it must go, more attacks will follow.

The left, including the President of the United States, has heeded such threats, and, with the help of New York City’s mayor, New York’s leading candidate for Governor, various New York Congresspeople, leftwing media outlets and formerly funny late night talk-show hosts, they are trying desperately to obey the edict.

The only trouble is, we the people are not so obedient. We know conquest when we see it. We know that the same people pleading the mosque’s case would be singing a different tune if the targets on that September day had instead been Rockefeller Center or the Ed Sullivan Theater. We also happen to be far more familiar than they with our Constitution and our founders’ intent. We believe good and evil exist in this world, we believe in right and wrong, and, above all, we remember where we were when the world stopped turning on that September day. So, no, we won’t obey. And we won’t forget. Ever.

Betsy Siino | Comments (1)

Newsweek Scolds Us for Overreacting to 9/11

September 8, 2010 | Comments (2)

After circling the drain of financial ruin for several years, thanks to the changing face of print journalism and an unseemly allegiance to leftwing extremism, Newsweek magazine sold last month for a buck to a benevolent billionaire. Inspired by the promise of second chances and new beginnings, Newsweek is now apparently back on track, ready to return to its glory days, when subscribers actually paid to receive its pages in their homes.

To demonstrate its born-again connection to 21st century America, a Newsweek columnist, on the eve of the ninth anniversary of 9/11, has commented in the magazine that:

“September 11 was a shock to the American psyche and the American system. As a result, we overreacted.”

Anyone with a soul was indeed shocked on that day, when more than 3,000 Americans were lost in a swift and well-orchestrated attack on our home by Islamic terrorists. Most of us know precisely what we were doing the instant we heard how we had been so violently blindsided on that terrible September morning, and we remember everything we did and thought every moment following it for weeks thereafter.

How silly of us to take it so hard, Newsweek scolds us now. How ridiculous for us to overreact so. Just look at the lack of similar attacks since that day, continues the columnist, conveniently ignoring America’s “overreaction” as the reason for that.

Time will tell if this brilliant insight will bring the magazine back into the black financially. I have my theory on this, of course.  In the meantime, I’m content to ignore the Newsweek scolding and to continue “overreacting” whenever possible, whenever necessary. I hope you’ll join me.

Betsy Siino | Comments (2)

General McChrystal’s Dismissal and a Failing President’s Panic

June 23, 2010 | Comments (4)
So General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of our U.S. troops in Afghanistan, is summoned to the White House to explain comments critical of the Obama administration in Rolling Stone Magazine. The military hit piece insinuates that the General and his inner circle are not all that pleased with Obama and his minions (even though he, the General, allegedly voted for Obama). General McChrystal is summarily dismissed by Commander-in-Chief Obama, a man unworthy even to lick the combat boots of this American hero, who for decades has upheld his Constitutional oath to protect this nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

And I say, thank you, General McChrystal. Perhaps by your own design, you find yourself playing a key role in this flagging President’s pathetic effort to suggest he is a leader in a time when his incompetence is being showcased in circus-like clarity to America and the world. Perhaps you and your staff were insubordinate in even considering (for whatever reason) speaking with Rolling Stone, but you are no fool, Sir, and I am confident you knew exactly what you were doing.

For months I have ranted that our military cannot possibly respect this man they are forced to regard as their Commander-in-Chief. Perhaps this recent event, then, is a message, a sign sent to us from our troops, reassuring us that despite their mandated courtesy, the military at large does not in any way respect or trust this radical left-wing administration and the man at their helm.

We have seen glimmers of this, particularly in the less-than-boisterous response our military tends to offer the President when he enters a room. This occurred most recently, when the light applause that greeted Obama for his West Point commencement address forced him to delete a reference to overwhelming cheers from his telepromptered speech. It’s downright laughable to imagine that this anti-war, anti-military “community organizer,” who surrounds himself only with like-minded sixties throwbacks (“wimps,” their critics in Rolling Stone called them) would somehow believe that the greatest military force in the world would follow them blindly in their efforts to bring our great nation to her knees.

Nevertheless, Obama today justified his dismissal of a man so blatantly his superior in a phony, hawkish speech, insisting, without any shred of authenticity, that he values debate among his team and that he reveres the greatness of America and her military. If he says it, he figures once again, we will believe.  And, once again, he is wrong. In fact, early response to his latest phony speech indicates that far too many Americans for Obama’s comfort are once again viewing him, his words and his actions as wrong, ineffectual and dangerous.

 Obama has told us, as well, that General David Petraeus will be taking the reins in Afghanistan. In his phony-hawk speech Obama sang General Petraeus’ praises, apparently hoping we’ll forget those halcyon days when he counted himself among the tyrants in our government who referred to this American hero as General “Betrayus” and treated him with abject disrespect when he testified before Congress about our troops’ success in Iraq. But we won’t forget, Mr. Obama. Ever. And you can bet that despite whatever you discussed today, General Petraeus hasn’t forgotten either.

The bottom line here is that this is simply another wrench thrown into Obama’s ongoing troubles that seem to be spiraling out of control by the day. And, as with all the pathetic, face-saving, panic-driven decisions he makes, he will soon be reminded yet again that there are consequences to his unique blend of thuggery and ineptitude.

Though Barack Obama attempted to appear strong and decisive to the masses today (his expression revealing another truth), his decision unleashed a man of true leadership and heroism who can squish him like a bug, both literally and with his now-liberated freedom of speech. The General has street cred among us “regular Americans” that the current occupant of the White House will never have. Despite General McChrystal’s alleged vote for Obama – which, frankly, I find the most shocking element of this entire story – I have a feeling the General  will do much in the months ahead to make amends for a vote that helped to sentence our nation to Obama’s twisted dominion.

In the meantime, as we await the fallout of General McChrystal’s dismissal and a failing President’s panic, my prayers remain with our troops in Afghanistan. Once again they find themselves pawns in an insidious game of wonton D.C. decisions that place political aspirations and posturing above their safety, their security, and their dedication to protecting our United States. May God be with them. May God be with us all.

Betsy Siino | Comments (4)

Obama Belittles the Murder of Daniel Pearl

May 19, 2010 | Comments (4)

Just when you think Barack Obama can’t be more lacking in conscience, emotion, blood and heart, he gets out there and outdoes himself again.

I offer this most recent example, given to us earlier this week when Obama signed the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act, remarking that:

“Obviously the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is…blah, blah, blah…sends a strong message… State Department is paying attention…blah, blah, blah….how other governments are operating… blah, blah, blah….”

I’m sorry, never mind all the typical Obama rhetoric that simply reveals once more how disconnected this President is from the real America, real people, and his own refusal to recognize evil for what it is and give it a name. No, this droid of a President had me at “captured the world’s imagination.”

For the record, Mr. President, movies “capture the imagination.” Books “capture the imagination.” The horrific murder of a man at the hand of Islamic terrorists – terrorists you won’t name as such but whom you will protect with the precious rights of an American citizen….that is an act of war, Mr. President, an act of terror, and a desecration of life and dignity. Nothing inspiring or imaginative about it, and disgraceful and disgusting is the man who would view it so.

Barack Obama’s imagination was apparently captured on February 1, 2002, when the rest of us watched in horror as Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was beheaded by masked terrorists in Pakistan.  Revealing to all the world the raw nature of evil, they tortured him, and they murdered him. On camera. Not because he was a journalist, but because he was an American. And a Jewish American at that.

Now Obama tells us that this atrocity was not what we all perceived it to be. It was not in fact yet another testament to the evil driving those who seek to destroy us and our children. No, he tells us in his customary cold, robotic manner, that it was a tribute to a free press.

Meanwhile, the colleagues in that free press that Daniel Pearl left behind continue to ignore the void within their beloved President, who would regard the violent death of one of their own as an imagination-capturing event. This should be their wake-up call, the signal that perhaps it’s time for them to open their eyes and acknowledge the shattering lack of humanity at the root of this and so many other Obama comments like it. I won’t count on this happening, of course. I trust these so-called journalists will continue to find it more comfortable to fill their cozy niches within this administration’s army of “useful idiots.” Indeed their President is relying on them to do just that.

Betsy Siino | Comments (4)

Taking Us for Fools Yet Again in the Wake of a Would-Be Attack

May 8, 2010 | Comments (1)

Update (May 10):  Attorney General, Eric Holder, perhaps realizing that the American people weren’t buying the party line, has acknowledged that previous claims about the would-be Times Square bomber acting alone, reacting to his inability to reach the American Dream, yada, yada, yada, were apparently off base.  The United States, he now says, has ”developed evidence that shows the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack.” No surprise there, Eric. Maybe next time you’ll listen to us.

Original Post (May 8):  Lots of polls – scientific and otherwise — making the rounds almost hourly these days. Let’s conduct our own completely unscientific poll here, and measure what might be labeled the most humorous aspects of Faisal Shahzad’s attempted bombing of Times Square on May 1st, and the administration’s and their lapdog media’s response to that would-be attack.

*  Lapdog media hacks presuming the alleged perpetrator, before and after he was identified and apprehended, to be an obvious member of the Tea Party. See how violent those right-wingers are? (They fell short of calling him a teabagger.)

*  The lapdogs’ anguish upon learning that the alleged perpetrator was a Muslim named Shahzad rather than a Christian named Billy Bob, Jeff, Bubba or Sarah Palin.

*  Shahzad painted as a disgruntled family man, just trying to make ends meet and facing mortgage foreclosure in the unfair, cutthroat, racist world that is America.

*  Shahzad proclaimed an obvious amateur (thus no real threat), who had no idea what he was doing, despite his knowledge of explosives, his possession of explosives, and his knowledge of airline/airport operations and vehicular identification practices.

*  Media and administration alike proclaiming the White House victorious in stopping this attack — at the same time claiming there was no threat because of the alleged perpetrator’s amateur status.

*  Shahzad’s being granted American citizenship one year ago, despite his many trips back and forth to Pakistan and documented meetings with known suspicious individuals.

*  Shahzad’s ability to board a plane for the Middle East without that pesky “no-fly list” from which he was removed a year ago to stop him, despite his many trips back and forth to Pakistan and documented meetings with known suspicious individuals.

*  White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ now-familiar stuttering and stammering, finally resorting to that now-familiar standby: “Blame Fox News. It’s their fault.”

*  Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s now-familiar channeling of the deer in the headlights as she is once again asked to explain this administration’s actions (or lack thereof) and the safety of our America.

*  Shahzad hated George Bush, so what do you expect?

*  He acted alone.

Hmm. Come to think of it, none of these are funny. We the people end up the losers once more, our country at risk, our families in danger. No, not funny at all.

Betsy Siino | Comments (1)