Note the timing of the dim one’s national security speech.   Janet Napolitano makes her Tour de  Farce on the Sunday talk shows, and by Monday, Barack Obama  is in full damage control mode.

Avi Zenilman, Who Runs Government, seems stunned:

Are Democrats so cowed by Republican attacks on Obama’s foreign policy that they’re unwilling to defend him?

It’s now been five days since the attempted bombing of Flight 253 in Detroit, and Congressional Democrats are still turning the other cheek to Republicans who are using the incident to attack Obama’s entire approach to national security.

There is  a major hole in Barack Obama’s national security plans and the hole is between the ears of  Napolitano.

Dan Riehl, Pajamas Media:

If Barack Obama wants to convince America he takes the “protect and defend” portion of his oath of office seriously, it’s well past time for Janet Napolitano to go.

Mike’s America, Flopping Aces:

And yet, from the beginning of the Obama Administration, they have downplayed the seriousness of the problem. Obama and company refused to call this a “war on terror.” Janet Napolitano, Sec. of Homeland Security choose to call these attacks “man caused disasters.” It’s no wonder that Mark Steyn dubbed Ms. Napolitano “Janet Incompetano.”

Democrats are not afraid of attacking republicans.    It is always two against one.  The media sides with the ‘rats.   However Napolitano is incompetent and has become politically radioactive.

5 Responses to “What Do You Do with Problem Called Janet?”

  1. Read that the Pres has “full confidence” in the DHS Sec…hmmm…might be time to clean out her desk. She sure has a way of stepping in it. Maybe she could move over to the VA or something. Nice quiet job.

  2. I am unconvinced that Napalitano is the locus of the problem.

    A look at the woman’s history gives rise to my thought; Any positions she has attained through political appointment, were just that…. political appointments. She is an ideologue, and a politically oriented boot licker. Each of the politically appointed positions that she has taken on, were given her for political reasons.

    She brought no serious gravitas in the national security area, for example. She was, however, more than willing to run the needs of national security through the political filter of the left… I submit that she is in the position that she is in at the moment, for that reason. She represents the political views of the Obama White House. If she did not share the political views of the white house, and if she was not willing to apply those political views to her job as she has been doing recently, she would not have been given the job.

    Her entire work history shows that’s what she does. She runs every thing through a political filter.  Oh, more than granted, she’s acting stupidly. But we’d expect that of a left-wing ideologue, no?

    As an example; who else but a left-wing ideologue would consider the specter of those who would attack us being imprisoned at Guantánamo bay, to be a larger threat, then such people being released, to attack us again? These are views that are shared by Obama and his current national security adviser.

    Let me be clear, here. This is not a function of Napalitano going off on her own , this is a function of her representing and implementing the wishes of the Obama White House.

    Eliminating the woman from the position would be a nice feather and the cap of Republicans, I don’t doubt, but will it make us safer? I don’t think so.

    The only thing that’s going to do that is to change the policy of the white house itself. Its current occupant has clearly demonstrated that the only way we’re going to be able to do that is to remove the current occupant of the White House.

    All I can say to that is we’re in for a rough three years.

  3. Firing Janet Napolitano is certainly not going to fix BO’s national security problem.  Howsomeever, the first step in solving a problem is admit you have a problem.   Obama needs to come to grips with the fact that his Nine-Ten mentality, Clinton redux,  law enforcement model is not any part of the solution, but rather part of the problem.

    The higher priority for the Commander-in-Chief is not to be popular but to keep the nation safe. 

  4. Admitting one has a problem is certainly a step forward. But is offering Napalitono up as a scapegoat, admitting one has a problem, much less fixing it?

    Is such a firing a path to changes in Obama policy? I doubt it. again: Napalitano is there because she and Obama are of like mind on these things.

  5. Barack Obama was elected because he was purported to an intelligent person with Ivy League educations.   Personally, I doubt all of that.   However, if Obama is both smart and educated, he should have the capacity to learn from his mistakes, and in the process prove  me wrong.

    Speaking of mistakes, I have been remiss in not pointing out  that Mrs. Clinton’s State Department has been a large part of the problem   Clinton’s State Department would rather issue a visa to known radical than offend the Muslim world.    Obama needs crack a few heads in State as well.