President Obama: Will He Resign If We Are Attacked Again?

Remember 9/11? Remember the 9/11 Commission, and all of that stuff about how we had restricted the CIA too much, and needed to beef up our intelligence?


Well, I never thought much of the 9/11 Commission. I thought it too much a "blame game", and too much of a committee approach to "solutions" (camel: horse designed by committee). I never had any doubt about what caused 9/11: COMPLACENCY.


During the Clinton Administration, the CIA became pretty much useless. Yes, this was because of leftist attacks upon, and restrictions upon, the CIA since the Vietnam War. But I never thought it was useful to "blame" Clinton, or even those politicians that had hamstrung the CIA. They were wrong, but so were all of us in our complacency. It looked like we could afford a "nice" CIA--that we could afford to avoid getting our hands dirty. The Soviet Union was no more. We were not at war (apparently, although al-Qaida did not look at it that way). Thus, 9/11 happened because the "other side" was at war, while we were not. In that situation, I though "blame" was not appropriate--any more than "blame" was really appropriate for Pearl Harbor.


That is not the case now. We have already been attacked. We know we NEED INTELLIGENCE, and can't always play "fair" and "nice" to get it. We may have to deal with unsavory people, and get information from vicious killers out to kill us. I BLAME you if you are complacent now.


That means I BLAME President Obama for his actions weakening the CIA. See entries over the past few days. I don't believe there is any excuse, NOW, for the insistence that we give TERRORISTS (foreign kind) Constitutional rights, to the extent of reading Miranda "rights" to enemies picked up on foreign battle fields. I don't believe in being "fair" to terrorists, or that our CIA people should be more worried about being stabbed in the back by their own government t (plus the mainstream media and leftists like those ACLU people that have discovered the names of CIA agents and shown PHOTOGRAPHS to terrorists). In short, I don't believe we should go back to the pre-9/11 COMPLACENT attitude.


What if we are attacked again by terrorists, in some substantial way? For that matter, what if CIA agents started getting killed around the world? In short, what if terrorists succeed in attacking Americans because our intelligence is inadequate (automatic if we get attacked), or there are leaks?


Would we need a "Commission"? Nope. You might never be able to "prove" that a stronger CIA would have prevented the attack(s). Doesn't matter. At that point, I will BLAME PRESIDENT OBAMA. He can't claim ignorance. He is weakening our intelligence. Are we LESS SAFE now than 9 months ago? I have no doubt that we are less safe now, and getting less safe all of the time.


What does this mean if we are attacked again? What does it mean when I say Obama has to accept the BLAME for any such attack (Harry Truman)? It means that, in the event of a substantially successful attack--really anywhere in the world--PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN OR BE IMPEACHED. This blog has a policy of asserting things in foresight, rather than hindsight, and therefore I am telling you exactly where I stand in the event we are unable to stop a terrorist attack on the U.S., or on a number of U.S. citizens.


Nope. It is not like President Obama has done his best, and can't be held responsible for all breaches of security. That is the problem. President Obama has done his best to WEAKEN our intelligence, and has to accept the consequences. I know he claims he is not weakening our security. Well, I think he is in a position of GUARANTEEING that. If we avoid attack, fine. That did not stop the mainstream media (hypocrites all) from claiming that we were "less safe", even though the Bush Administration prevented any further successful attacks. But--hypocrites in the mainstream media aside--results count. If we are not successfully attacked, then Obama has a case that he has not weakened our security. I would still argue complacency is dangerous, but results matter. However, if we are successfully attacked, PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN.


What is a "successful attack"? Obviously, it is not a single person being shot, or a truck bomb blowing up pretty much harmlessly. No CIA could stop those kinds of attacks completely, if nuts want to go berserk. But, as far as I am concerned, President Obama is on the hook, PERSONALLY, for any substantial terrorist attack on the United States or its citizens--especially by foreign terrorists. I will let you know if/when such an attack occurs, although I don't expect you will need me to tell you if such an attack occurs. In such event, I will call upon President Obama to RESIGN. I warn both he and you of than it advance. .