Obama mentioned his fear of a nuclear attack in New York the other day only in the context of minimizing a threat from Russia. He doesn’t really fear a nuclear attack in New York, or he wouldn’t be cutting the budget required to protect the city from precisely that. But the mainstream media, true to form, will not challenge him on this, or on much of anything else, either.
“Obama fears NYC nuclear attack, but he again proposes to cut budget for city’s protection,” by Richard Falkenrath for the New York Daily News, March 25 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):
President Obama is right to be worried about the possibility of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan. Attacking the city is on virtually every terrorist’s bucket list.
The odds of a nuclear weapon falling into terrorist hands are not zero; therefore the odds are too high. The President, I think, recognizes this. He gives the issue priority in his speeches and it is high on his international, diplomatic agenda.
But at home, the President has not put his money where his mouth is. This year, his administration again proposed to slash the budget for the one initiative designed to protect Manhattan from nuclear threats.
The NYPD’s Securing the Cities program, has developed a first-of-its-kind radiological detection ring around Manhattan and the greater New York area. Yet, every year since he took office, the President has proposed significant reductions to the program. Every year, the New York congressional delegation has labored to reverse the cuts on the House and Senate floor.
The disconnect between the President’s blunt talk about the nuclear threat to Manhattan and his administration’s attempt to eviscerate Securing the Cities program is absurd. The White House needs to intervene and show the same nuclear security leadership at home that it does abroad.
Alec Bursop says
Obama is right to fear some type of nuclear attack from radical Moslems.
The responsibility to deal with all these terrorist groups should not be solely the job of the United States.
The problem is an International one, and therefore non of us should shirk our responsibilities.
Terrorists need to be rooted-out and neutralised before they can do any more harm to our various societies.
Cutting budgets is not the answer, because if we do that there will be even less resources available to deal with these very real dangers.
Maybe the answer is the complete opposite, and for all civilized nations to increase the amount of funding available, and thereby the manpower to try to get this problem in hand.
After all, it will be too late if some mad-hatter radical fundamentalist group obtains and then detonates a nuclear device in or near to one of our cities.
SaturnV says
I guess New York City is expendable. I wonder if the same type of radiation detection net, or similar, is surrounding DC. If so, is the president as anxious to cut the budget to sustain it?
Champ ✿ says
Perfect photo’op from our commander-in-deceit! …right back at you obama for being such a shameless liar.
Will Doohan says
I usually don’t believe most of the bad things that are said about Obama, but that is a weird picture. I tried holding my hand and finger to my face like that and it is a very unnatural gesture. He looks like he is deliberately looking into the camera and giving ‘the middle finger’ to everyone. That and his meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood in the White House and his atrocious foreign policy make me ever more suspicious of his motives and goals.
ApolloSpeaks says
OBAMA’S FORTRESS AMERICA
Click my name to understand how Obama’s comment about the nuking of New York is a clue to understanding his radical and very dangerous national security agenda.
gravenimage says
Obama fears NYC nuclear attack, but he again proposes to cut budget for city’s protection
……………………..
And yet, this comes as no surprise to me…