The top priory of the president--commander in chief is to protect the people. Do you feel safe under Obama?
The commander-in-chief;that is the pesident's most important role.
So now, all this talk of his first 100 days doesn't really address his display of setting Americans up for harm world wide.
President Obama, has reversed many long-standing national security policies since taking over the White House. Ones that ensured our safety for 8 years.
The speed and lack of transparent analysis and robust debate on these choices raises serious questions about the prudence and efficacy of national security decision-making in the new White House. The Administration must develop more deliberate means for formulating its national security policies and immediately move to review the rash decisions made since taking office. Yes, haste does make waste!
What has Mr. Obama been doing these 100 days?
Which has it been?
Leading or Campaigning?
The Obama Administration has directed shifts in direction without clear strategic rationale.
For example take the change on Cuba; what was that all about.
The Castros are thugs!
The President declared that "50 years" of U.S. policy had not worked as justification for reversing long-standing U.S. policies to isolate the Cuban dictatorship. This explanation is fatuous. If the U.S. had followed a similar strategy with the Soviet Union, it would have abandoned containment and left Russia and half of Europe controlled by a nuclear-armed evil empire. What is most troubling and unexamined with this decision is how other dictators will interpret the seriousness of U.S. opposition to a dictatorial regime and its willingness to persevere against oppression and systemic violations of human and civil rights.
G.W.Bush left Obama a serious missle system; not completed, but the best in the world. So, what does Obama decide to do?
He wants to dumb down the missile defense system that is the greatest legacy G.W. Bush gave to him regarding American safety.
The President approved a cut of about 15 percent of the Pentagon's budget for missile defense and abandoning deploying defenses in Western Europe. In addition, the White House downplayed the U.S. response to provocative missile launches by Iran and North Korea, as well as failing to obtain a serious U.N. Security Council response to either incident. Despite the advance of the North Korean and Iranian long-range missile programs, the Administration justified its decision by declaring it was more important to focus on "regional missile threats."
The rationale for this decision is opaque. The ballistic missile threat has not diminished; in fact it is growing. The need to defend the United States and Western Europe has not changed. Abrupt changes in missile defense programs (that have been under development for over a decade) make no sense.
He is to gut the defense budget.
In a speech previewing the impending release of next year's defense budget, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced deep cuts in procurement programs. In addition, the Administration is phasing-out supplemental spending, shifting the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into the "core" Pentagon budget. That will leave even less money for buying new equipment.
The decision included eliminating "Cold War" weapons systems, including the F-22 stealth fighter aircraft and next-generation Navy destroyer. Sounds like a commander in cuief to you? Projected Administration defense budgets over the next five years may underfund defense spending by over a trillion dollars.
On Homeland Security' you REALLY feel safe with the dim-wit he picked as the head of it?
OMG, lucky Canada did not declare war upon us ...What a no-brained Security leader we now have..You still feel safe?
Administration officials have issued a plethora of ambivalent and contradictory statements on homeland security and counterterrorism policies since 9/11. Both the President and the secretary of homeland security have been reticent on the threat of transnational terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security has shown signs of reversing Bush Administration strategies on border security and immigration enforcement.
The Administration lacks a coherent approach to homeland security and has adopted these steps before undertaking the congressionally mandated Quadrennial Homeland Security Review --(QHSR).---
And, oh how sweet.
The President has promised the closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and repudiated interrogation policies. In addition, the Administration has been unclear about its support for vitally important legislation reauthorizing critical investigation tools granted under the USA PATRIOT Act. While the President has dismissed Bush's policies on combating terrorism, the Administration has not offered a credible alternative to address the pre-9/11 problems identified by the 9/11 commission. This gap could leave the nation at risk.Or, maybe just give all the detainees loli-pops!
And, I wonder just how Obaamas will feel when we get attacked. As Joe Biden guara
- alex sLv 41 decade agoFavorite Answer
just wait till we get attacked.
and, this time it is likely to be millions of lives.
then you will see all the obamaphiles crying like babies.
notice, they give 3 answers.
1. ur a racist
2. bush was evil
3. ur ranting
"false prophets and those who seek their guidance shall be punished for their sins."Source(s): the Bible
- 1 decade ago
Wow how unbelievably brainwashed are you? Bush made us lots safer - considering there was 9/11 on his watch, unjust and downright false reasons to invade a sovereign nation - against the U.N., and increasing recruiting of terrorists 10-fold with his torture policies. Yeah, Obama is really making us less safe. Diplomacy is a terrible thing... YOU SHOULD BE STERILIZED.
- ?Lv 71 decade ago
Most people have become complacent because we have not had
a repeat 911~~it would be nice to feel this way but we are going to
find out very soon when this happens
The war on Iraq with President H. W. Bush Sr. was the first time this country was ready to go to war
Every war before this time the American forces had to play catch up
I am proud of our military under George W. Bush Senior and Junior
But now it seem President Obama has other thoughts about protecting
our country~~by weaking our defense. How naive of this man.
God Help the USA
- BOOMLv 71 decade ago
We are safer under Obama than we are under either Bush or Clinton. At any rate, you are wrong about the president's #1 priority - it is NOT to insure our safety but to uphold the US Constitution. In that regard, Obama is FAR better than GWBush.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Boss HLv 71 decade ago
ask me again on September 11th. If by then no plane has been flown into a skyscraper, and no Anthrax attacks by the end of the year, my answer will be... much safer than under Bush.
You waste a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
- ?Lv 51 decade ago
us a little safe was because at a live in the big city on either coast .
- Free ThinkerLv 71 decade ago
Yes, I feel safer with him than Dubya. BTW, Your question is too long. I only had to read just two sentences to realize that it was just rant.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Good Gosh, No way am I reading all of this ****. Now to answer the question. I feel much safer with him in command that I ever did with George Dub ya.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
No I don't , but then again I've never put my trust in government anyways. That's liberals that do that. Ultimately God is responsible for my safety, not any corrupt government leader. God bless.
- cdguyLv 51 decade ago