Last night (20th) on Aaron Brown concerning the inauguration of Bush:
Some old (jewish looking) guy in Miami: “I'm optimistic because we got [slightly overextends right index finger with left index finger as if counting] tax breaks. We got uh, um… it seems that I think we're going in the right direction.”
Oy gevalt!
That same day during the inauguration Barbara Kellerman gushes about how lucky we are:
PS: I looked for a news story that contained a count on the security personnel on hand for the inauguration to link "division" to. I noticed something weird. The LA times story Google pulls up mentioned 6,000 in the cached excerpt displayed beneath the link, but does not have a specific count in the linked story. That got me wondering. Several other stories cite the 6,000 LEOs and add 2,500 troops, but NewsHour says that there were 7,000 troops (last paragraph) on hand. In addition, CNN's story currently cites the 2,500 figure but the google news excerpt showed 4,700 military personnel.
Now, I know there really are bigger fish to fry for the democrats, but the approximate size of the military resources devoted to various ends should not be kept from the public even though it could be useful to our enemies. The varaiblity in these accounts of the size of the security force is a bad precedent in my opinion. The precedent, if extended, could amount to a fully opaque defense budgeting process; a situation which would beg for corruption.
Some old (jewish looking) guy in Miami: “I'm optimistic because we got [slightly overextends right index finger with left index finger as if counting] tax breaks. We got uh, um… it seems that I think we're going in the right direction.”
Oy gevalt!
That same day during the inauguration Barbara Kellerman gushes about how lucky we are:
KELLERMAN: Yes, but I think having said that, we ourselves were not sure that they would get out of the vehicle. And I think there's a sense of pleasure and relief that at least we do have that.Well thank goodness our elected officials are still confident when practically surrounded by a military division. I mean, I just don't know how I could go on had I not seen Bush walk fifty feet through a crowd of pre-approved supporters. I mean if the President feels confident struting around with only That was close.
We're not so far encased that this is has been made impossible. I at least am seeing with some pleasure and even relief that they are feeling confident enough of the control they have of the situation to let the president and the first lady get out of the car and walk those final steps.
PS: I looked for a news story that contained a count on the security personnel on hand for the inauguration to link "division" to. I noticed something weird. The LA times story Google pulls up mentioned 6,000 in the cached excerpt displayed beneath the link, but does not have a specific count in the linked story. That got me wondering. Several other stories cite the 6,000 LEOs and add 2,500 troops, but NewsHour says that there were 7,000 troops (last paragraph) on hand. In addition, CNN's story currently cites the 2,500 figure but the google news excerpt showed 4,700 military personnel.
Now, I know there really are bigger fish to fry for the democrats, but the approximate size of the military resources devoted to various ends should not be kept from the public even though it could be useful to our enemies. The varaiblity in these accounts of the size of the security force is a bad precedent in my opinion. The precedent, if extended, could amount to a fully opaque defense budgeting process; a situation which would beg for corruption.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home