Public Domain Photos (CC)

“This timing will enable TSA to incorporate the feedback about the changes to the Prohibited Items List and continue workforce training,” the TSA said in a statement.

The TSA had planned to let the knives, with blades up to 2.36 inches, on flights starting Thursday. It would have been the first time they would have been back on passenger planes since Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists armed with box cutters hijacked four jetliners.

The decision to allow small knives on planes had been under protest by flight attendant unions, and wasn’t well-received by air marshals either. Whether or not the decision is directly related to the recent bombing apparently wasn’t stated officially. However, it was a consideration for at least one person in the industry.

“In the wake of the terrorist bombing in Boston last week … now is not the time to weaken transportation security,” said Sara Nelson, international vice president of the Association of Flight Attendants. “Flight attendants are breathing a sigh of relief that the weapons that led to the deadliest attack on U.S. soil in our nation’s history will not be allowed in the aircraft cabin this week.”

Pistole made the policy change on March 5th. Whether or not it will be reinstated remains to be seen.

Do Democrats see the United Kingdom as a model for their version of the surveillance society?  What on earth could Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) be thinking offering legislation that gives authorities access to personal information with no more than a formal written request and the contents of those communications with nothing more than a subpoena?

According to Declan McCullagh of C|Net, Sen. Leahy thinks it’s perfectly fine for law enforcement officials to troll your emails, twitter, and Facebook without a warrant.  It’s a perverse exploitation of the law, which hasn’t caught up to 21st Century standards – and any American who values their liberty should be appalled by this gross incident of congressional overreach.

McCullagh wrote today that:

Leahy’s rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — to access Americans’ e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

It’s an abrupt departure from Leahy’s earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boastedlast year that his bill “provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by… requiring that the government obtain a search warrant.”

Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designed to update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. But after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys’ Association and the National Sheriffs’ Association organizations objected to the legislation and asked him to “reconsider acting” on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworked the bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday. The package (PDF) is a substitute for H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.

Here are the revisions:

✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans’ electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.

✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans’ correspondence stored on systems not offered “to the public,” including university networks.

✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant — or subsequent court review — if they claim “emergency” situations exist.

✭ Says providers “shall notify” law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they’ve been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.

✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to “10 business days.” This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.

Now, this afternoon, The Hill reported that the senator had no such intention to support a bill with warrantlees searches.

CNET has it wrong,” an aide tweeted from Leahy’s account.”Sen. Leahy does NOT support an #ECPA exception to search warrant requirement [for] civil enforcement [for agencies] like FTC, SEC.” A Judiciary Committee aide confirmed to The Hill that Leahy “does not support broad carve-outs for warrantless email searches.” Leahy is pushing a bill that would revise the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986. The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Leahy’s measure next week.

Ideas from many sources always circulate b4 a markup 4 disc., but Sen.Leahy does NOT support such an exception for #ECPA search warrants

— Sen. Patrick Leahy (@SenatorLeahy) November 20, 2012

But we must remain vigilant. As long as Federalism remains under threat, we must keep a close eye on bills, from both parties, that seek to make us safer – while sacrificing our freedoms in the process.

….This post will be inspected by the US Department Of Homeland Security, I’m sure.  Because the words listed below raise “red flags” when used on the internet.

So, don’t talk about the illegal immigrant who gave you a denial of service at the deli when you wanted a pork sandwich….. just saying.

Download Full Document here: http://t-j.cc/KIKNMn

TERRORISM
Terrorism, Al Qaeda (all spellings), Terror, Attack, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Agro, Environmental terrorist, Eco terrorism, Conventional weapon, Target, Weapons grade, Dirty bomb, Enriched, Nuclear, Chemical weapon, Biological weapon, Ammonium nitrate, Improvised explosive device, IED (Improvised Explosive Device), Abu Sayyaf, Hamas, FARC (Armed Revolutionary Forces Colombia), IRA (Irish Republican Army), ETA (Euskadi ta Askatasuna), Basque Separatists, Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, PLF (Palestine Liberation Front), PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), Car bomb, Jihad, Taliban, Weapons cache, Suicide bomber, Suicide attack, Suspicious substance, AQAP (AL Qaeda Arabian Peninsula), AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan), Yemen, Pirates, Extremism, Somalia, Nigeria, Radicals, Al-Shabaab, Home grown Plot, Nationalist, Recruitment, Fundamentalism, Islamist

WEATHER/DISASTER/EMERGENCY
Emergency, Hurricane, Tornado, Twister, Tsunami, Earthquake, Tremor, Flood, Storm, Crest, Temblor, Extreme weather, Forest fire, Brush fire, Ice, Stranded/Stuck, Help, Hail, Wildfire, Tsunami Warning Center, Magnitude, Avalanche, Typhoon, Shelter-in-place, Disaster, Snow, Blizzard, Sleet, Mud slide or Mudslide, Erosion, Power outage, Brown out, Warning, Watch, Lightening, Aid, Relief, Closure, Interstate, Burst, Emergency Broadcast System

CYBER SECURITY
Cyber security, Botnet, DDOS (dedicated denial of service), Denial of service, Malware, Virus, Trojan, Keylogger, Cyber Command, 2600, Spammer, Phishing, Rootkit, Phreaking, Cain and abel, Brute forcing, Mysql injection, Cyber attack, Cyber terror, Hacker, China, Conficker, Worm, Scammers, Social media

DOMESTIC SECURITY
Assassination, Attack, Domestic security, Drill, Exercise, Cops, Law enforcement, Authorities, Disaster assistance, Disaster management, DNDO (Domestic Nuclear Detection Office), National preparedness, Mitigation, Prevention, Response, Recovery, Dirty bomb, Domestic nuclear detection, Emergency management, Emergency response, First responder, Homeland security, Maritime domain awareness (MDA), National preparedness initiative, Militia, Shooting, Shots fired, Evacuation, Deaths, Hostage, Explosion (explosive), Police, Disaster medical assistance team (DMAT), Organized crime, Gangs, National security, State of emergency, Security, Breach, Threat, Standoff, SWAT, Screening, Lockdown, Bomb (squad or threat), Crash, Looting, Riot, Emergency Landing, Pipe bomb, Incident, Facility

HAZMAT & NUCLEAR
Hazmat, Nuclear, Chemical spill, Suspicious package/device, Toxic, National laboratory, Nuclear facility, Nuclear threat, Cloud, Plume, Radiation, Radioactive, Leak, Biological infection (or event), Chemical, Chemical burn, Biological, Epidemic, Hazardous, Hazardous material incident, Industrial spill, Infection, Powder (white), Gas, Spillover, Anthrax, Blister agent, Chemical agent, Exposure, Burn, Nerve agent, Ricin, Sarin, North Korea

HEALTH CONCERN + H1N1
Outbreak, Contamination, Exposure, Virus, Evacuation, Bacteria, Recall, Ebola, Food Poisoning, Foot and Mouth (FMD), H5N1, Avian, Flu, Salmonella, Small Pox, Plague, Human to human, Human to Animal, Influenza, Center for Disease Control (CDC), Drug Administration (FDA), Public Health, Toxic, Agro Terror, Tuberculosis (TB), Agriculture, Listeria, Symptoms, Mutation, Resistant, Antiviral, Wave, Pandemic, Infection, Water/air borne, Sick, Swine, Pork, Strain, Quarantine, H1N1, Vaccine, Tamiflu, Norvo Virus, Epidemic, World Health Organization (WHO) (and components), Viral Hemorrhagic Fever, E. Coli

INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY
Infrastructure security, Airport, Airplane (and derivatives), Chemical fire, CIKR (Critical Infrastructure & Key Resources), AMTRAK, Collapse, Computer infrastructure, Communications infrastructure, Telecommunications, Critical infrastructure, National infrastructure, Metro, WMATA, Subway, BART, MARTA, Port Authority, NBIC (National Biosurveillance Integration Center), Transportation security, Grid, Power, Smart, Body scanner, Electric, Failure or outage, Black out, Brown out, Port, Dock, Bridge, Cancelled, Delays, Service disruption, Power lines

SOUTHWEST BORDER VIOLENCE
Drug cartel, Violence, Gang, Drug, Narcotics, Cocaine, Marijuana, Heroin, Border, Mexico, Cartel, Southwest, Juarez, Sinaloa, Tijuana, Torreon, Yuma, Tucson, Decapitated, U.S. Consulate, Consular, El Paso, Fort Hancock, San Diego, Ciudad Juarez, Nogales, Sonora, Colombia, Mara salvatrucha, MS13 or MS-13, Drug war, Mexican army, Methamphetamine, Cartel de Golfo, Gulf Cartel, La Familia, Reynosa, Nuevo Leon, Narcos, Narco banners (Spanish equivalents), Los Zetas, Shootout, Execution, Gunfight, Trafficking, Kidnap, Calderon, Reyosa, Bust, Tamaulipas, Meth Lab, Drug trade, Illegal immigrants, Smuggling (smugglers), Matamoros, Michoacana, Guzman, Arellano-Felix, Beltran-Leyva, Barrio Azteca, Artistic Assassins, Mexicles, New Federation

The administration’s push to approve the treaty comes at a time of increased focus by the Pentagon on China’s military buildup and the expansion of its influence in the Asia-Pacific region. The Pentagon is also watching escalation of a dispute between Beijing and the Philippines over a South China Sea island.

Ratification of the treaty has long been blocked due to congressional concerns that the treaty gives the UN far too much control over American oil and mineral rights while threatening U.S. sovereignty. Treaty opponents contend that China will not to change its maritime claims even if the treaty is ratified.

On the high seas, the U.S. Navy “locks in” its rights and freedoms by its capacity to sink any ship that would try to deny those rights.

The United States doesn’t need the Law of the Sea Treaty (or LOST). The Continental Congress established the U.S. Navy in 1775, and over the next 236 years it has become the greatest, most powerful maritime force in world history. LOST was first adopted by the United Nations back in 1982. Since then, the United States Navy has managed to protect the U.S. and her maritime interests without benefit of LOST.

In the interest of national security and sovereignty, the United States should withdraw from the UN, stop paying all dues to what’s become an Islamofascist/Communist criminal organization, and expel them from American shores permanently.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/obama-administration-renews-push-to-ratify-law-of-sea-treaty/

From Fox Business

FNC national security analyst K.T. McFarland on the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and why Obama’s policies on Iran have failed.

Army Secretary John McHugh discusses the impact of upcoming defense cuts and the tough times facing the military.

Herman Cain is doing his homework, as always.  It’s one of the things I really appreciate about him as a candidate.  He is obviously weak on foreign policy and security issues.  Of course he is; he’s a business man.  He does not have the advantage of being privy to the tidbits of information and exchanges that result from working inside government.  Cain has to develop his foreign policy and domestic security stances just like the rest of us – by studying and employing old-fashioned common sense.  It puts him at a disadvantage, no doubt; but Cain has proven he is up to the challenge and he always seems to go into every debate knowing more than he did the last time.  Cain is what it looks like when a regular, average Joe runs for President.  Some people don’t like that, but I think its kind of neat.

This was the first debate that didn’t turn into the Mitt Romney show.  In fact, Romney probably got less camera time on Tuesday night than he has in any debate so far this year.  It was refreshing.  That being said, he (predictably) made the best use of every second. He was confident and assured in his answers.  Romney said nothing out of line or out of order or out of Romney.  Even his hair was on board. 

Maybe that is my problem with this debate.  It was predictable.  Everyone performed according to their character descriptions in the GOP Primary Field Handbook.  Cain was weak but adequate in his depth of knowledge on the subject.  Ron Paul gave his typical RonPaul-y answers about minding our own business as a nation and if we would just be nice to the terrorists they would stop hating us and leave us alone in peace.  Predictably there were more than a few Ron Paul fans in the audience.  Santorum stayed true to form: feisty, with a touch of whine but bolstered by his strong conservative stance on social and security issues alike.  Jon Huntsman was…there.  His daughters graced CNN with an appearance on the debate pre-show.  They were way more interesting than their father and they seemed like lovely young ladies.  I didn’t care for their lipstick, though.  The shade of red made me suspicious.  Rick Perry was just fine, but I always feel like I’m holding my breath when he speaks.  He seems like a nice man and I hate to see him struggle up there, which he does all too often.  But Tuesday he was fine.

Perhaps the only two people who really interested me in this debate were Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann.  This was Newt’s first debate as a “front-runner” and it remained to be seen how his platform/performance would change in light of that.  It didn’t really change at all which is a good thing, I suppose.  Newt was simply Newt, the smartest (if not crankiest) guy in the room.  Newt knows his stuff…and Newt does not like gotcha questions.  For the most part I believe Wolf Blitzer behaved accordingly.

If anyone “won” that debate it was Michele Bachmann.  Bachmann has a seat on the House Intelligence Committee and she is obviously privy to some very sensitive information.  She knows what she is talking about and when Bachmann speaks on foreign policy, security and Obamacare she sounds more competent than any of her compatriots on the stage.  In fact, it infuriates me to hear people refer to her as an idot, a la Sarah Palin.  I don’t know how you can listen to her speak of the nuances of foreign aid and intelligence and conclude that she is dumb.  You may not care for her social stances or her tea party label, but the woman is wickedly smart and deserves respect for that.  I really feel we need a woman like Bachmann in the House for as long as possible, but if she were our President, I have no doubt she would fight for this country every day she was in office.

In the end, the predictability was my problem.  No one came out with anything new or different.  Everyone pretty much held the line on the stances they have developed throughout this process.  There were no surprises; besides a couple of small differences on withdrawing troops and securing the border the candidates pretty much in line with each other and the Republican outlook on such issues.  Except Ron Paul, of course…but there’s an “except Ron Paul” implied in every line I write about these debates.  I know, ultimately it is a good thing that there were no fireworks.  Its important for the people to see the candidates lay out their positions logically as much as possible.  Its good that they were predictable because it helps us feel confident about how they will behave in the general elections.  But it makes for boring television sometimes.  I admit, debate fatigue is setting in.  There are at least four more debates to go.  I think I’m going to need a bigger box of wine.

The debate will be hosted by CBS News and the National Journal. The focus of tonight’s event will be on national security and foreign policy.

What to Watch For:

Rick Perry will need to have a strong performance tonight to overcome a string of debate mis-steps. He also has little foreign policy experience which may come through this evening.

Newt Gingrich will most-likely come on strong keeping-up with his strong debate appearances throughout the year. The former speaker has polled above all other candidates in the area of the military and international crisis handling.

While his domestic policies are popular among Republicans, views differ on his foreign policy and national security stances. This could be a differentiating moment for Rep. Paul, positive or negative.

Herman Cain’s business experience may not help tonight. The 9-9-9 plan will probably show up somehow, but overall expect Cain to focus on his “peace through strength and clarity” foreign policy. Specifics have been light the few times he’s mentioned it in campaign speeches and his foreign policy views have not been the subject of any real media focus or debate questioning.

Mitt Romney led the pack in a recent CBS News Poll that asked which candidate is best-suited to be Commander-in-Chief. Among likely Republican primary voters, 26% chose Romney to Gingrich’s 21%. Cain and Perry were 11% and 9% respectively.

This may be the last debate that features the entire current cast of 8. Future debates will start limiting invites to those with a larger share of support. Expect Huntsman and Santorum to miss future debate appearances as their poll numbers have stayed consistently below 5%. Bachmann could fail to receive invites shortly after that if her numbers continue to hold right at or near the 5% mark.

Where to Watch: Here is the Recording of tonight’s debate – full-length (long blank pauses are commercial breaks, be patient or forward through to the next segment)

This time, the former Illinois senator is no longer the fresh political face seeking to become the first black U.S. president. His 2012 campaign will be a bigger, slicker machine likely to dwarf that of his eventual Republican opponent.

Aides note the huge number of individual donors who gave to Obama’s campaign — a record 4 million. But only 25 percent of the money came from small donors who gave $200 or less, according to the non-partisan Campaign Finance Institute in Washington. (emphasis mine)

That is right, Obama relies on big donations from big corporations, UNIONS,  and political activist groups, not the small donations from the voting tax-payer he claims to rely upon for his power-base. So the next time we hear Obama and the DNC chastising the GOP for their taking donations from evil corporations and big money groups, we need to remember the historic billion-dollar man sitting in the White House today, and take note of his Democratic party’s vote buying schemes in 2012. Further on down in that very same MSNBC article we see another interesting statement:

Although he has received boost from the recovering economy, Obama’s approval ratings could easily fall if the Libya war drags on and gas prices stay high, or if voters blame him for the huge U.S. budget deficit. (emphasis mine)

If voters blame him for the budget deficit he has rung up in the last two years, along with the past four years of reckless spending by his Democratic party who controlled both houses of Congress during that time ? Who the hell else are we supposed to blame? An informed voting public can very easily see just what Obama and the Democrats are responsible for as far as budget deficits are concerned, with just one simple click of the mouse on the Internet. Just click here, and you will see that in 2006, our national debt was a little over 8 trillion dollars. (That is the TOTAL debt for all of U.S. history combined) After 4 straight years of Democratic control of Congress and 2 years of Obaman-omics, our debt now stands at a whopping $14.3 trillion dollars. That puts the responsibility of the massive debt amount of over $6 trillion dollars square on the shoulders of today’s Democrats and Barack Hussein Obama period! Yet MSNBC says “if voters chose to blame Obama for the massive budget deficits ? “  Only the most ignorant and uniformed of voters would try to hang the recent irresponsible massive budget deficits on anyone other than Obama and the Democrats, no matter how you spin it!  The simple truth is that America can not afford four more years of Obama-nomics and the irresponsible debt spending of the Socialist Democratic party of today. ( along with help from the progressive RINOS posing as conservatives that are entrenched in Congress today )

Over at The Hill.com we see some more early spin for Obama’s reelection campaign today from this article:

Barring an unforeseen but high-profile foreign-policy failure, the elimination of America’s Public Enemy No. 1 will neutralize any Republican suggestion that the president is weak on national security.

But this only underscores the fact that 2012 will be all about the economy and jobs — and there, the president is deeply vulnerable.

Excuse me, but at a time when Obama and the Democrats are demanding major cuts to defense spending due to the massive deficits they have rung up for the past four years, doesn’t the economy have a direct impact on our national security ? Yes it certainly does! A failing, stagnate economy means less revenue for the federal government to spend on protecting America, so therefor it goes hand in hand with national security. Add to this the fact that the Obama administration and his Socialistic Democratic party of today are endangering Americans through the refusal to enforce federal immigration laws at historic levels for the attempted Hispanic vote-buying schemes, and we see that Obama is the weakest president in U.S. history on national security, no matter how you spin that one. Secure our borders and kick all illegal immigrants out of the country, or face the wrath of informed voters that are tired of the lies and spin about the border being the most secure in history.

You simply cannot hide the fact that everywhere we look today there are non-English speaking Mexicans committing crimes and taking jobs from legal American citizens, period. Why do you think Obama and the Democrats are pushing for Amnesty for illegals, and refusing to enact strict Voter ID laws, along with making the use of E-Verify mandatory to ensure only legal, American citizens work in America today? If you do not understand about E-Verify and Voter ID laws ( or lack of same) see this article here. When you hear a Democrat bragging about  the need for fair democracy today, ask them about why E-Verify isn’t mandatory, and why they are against solid Voter ID laws that would in fact ensure only legal voters are casting votes that dictate who is running our government. Maybe someone in the media could ask Obama how he feels about his Democrats constantly voting down E-verify and Voter ID laws today when they see him campaigning.

Until we see Obama stand up for American workers and legal voters, instead of amnesty for illegals, and the refusal to allow law enforcement to deport said illegals, anything else is just more campaign spin. A wide open U.S.- Mexico border with terrorists, guns, drugs and criminals crossing at historic levels on a daily basis is hardly my idea of protecting our national security, no matter how many terrorists are killed by Navy Seals in Pakistan. Obama is weak on national security across the board and that fact is proven every single day he is in office.

Just look at the Socialists and Communists rallying with his Union bed-pals and activist groups across the country today. The fact that these anti-Americans are right out in the open today while working for the collapse of America speaks volumes about Obama and his administration.  This is the reality of the danger of having a rabble-rousing community organizer who is also a proven Marxist steeped in anti-American ideology sitting in the oval office today. Again, all the spin in the world can not hide those facts when we take a good, close look at his actions since being elected to the most powerful position on the planet, the U.S. presidency. The Billion-dollar man says he can dupe Americans into voting for him in 2012. Lets show him different.

According to Who Runs Gov, Donilon is a long time Democrat political figure.  From 1999 to 2005 he worked as a lobbyist solely for Fannie Mae, but he’s been involved with politics for much longer:

The Democratic operative worked on his first Democratic National Convention at 24, and he’s been helping elect candidates ever since. He has worked for Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Joseph R. Biden.

He has also served in policy roles, working as assistant secretary of state for public affairs and as former Clinton secretary of State Warren Christopher’s chief of staff. In that role, Donilon was intimately involved in many major foreign policy issues, including negotiating the Bosnian peace agreement and the expansion of NATO. [1]

While his appointment seems common-sense considering his present job as Deputy NSA, it doesn’t come without contention.

In veteran U.S. journalist Bob Woodward’s new book “Obama’s Wars,” which gives an inside look at how Obama crafted his Afghan war strategy, Donilon is shown as deeply skeptical of a big troop increase in Afghanistan.

Donilon was part of a circle of close aides who urged Obama to push back against the military’s request for a large U.S. troop increase. [2]

It turns out that his stint lobbying for Fannie Mae, one of the root causes of the current financial mess, was also not without issue:

In 1999, Donilon accepted an executive vice president position at Fannie Mae. [1]

..Thomas Donilon, oversaw an aggressive, backdoor lobbying campaign by mortgage giant Fannie Mae to undermine the credibility of a probe into the firm’s accounting irregularities, according to a 2006 government report on the company.

The effort — which reportedly included attacks on the funding for the oversight agency, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, and an attempt to launch a separate investigation into OFHEO itself — was ultimately unsuccessful, and regulators eventually discovered top Fannie Mae executives had been manipulating the company’s financial reporting to maximize their bonuses.

According to politico.com he was a VP during the time period that the investigation covered

Donilon left the firm as it was mired in an accounting scandal in 2005, three years before Fannie Mae’s spectacular collapse when the mortgage market imploded in 2008. Investigators never accused Donilon of wrongdoing in the accounting scandal, but Fannie ultimately paid $400 million to the federal government to settle charges that the company misstated its earnings between 1998 and 2004. The government sued three top Fannie Mae executives to recover millions in bonuses based on the allegedly falsified reports, but Donilon was not among them.

A former official who led one of the main investigations into Fannie Mae said Friday that Donilon didn’t play a role in the misstatements but tried to pressure lawmakers to derail the probe.[4]

And ABC news had this to say about the whole thing:

Facing accusations of misstating its earnings from 1998 to 2004, Fannie Mae settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission for $400 million in 2006, although it did not admit any wrongdoing.[3]

How about his views on national security issues?  Well, it turns out, he’s a yes man.  He lines up perfectly with Obama’s stances on everything.  Although unnecessary, this should do much to boost Obama’s confidence in his disastrous handling of foreign affairs.

Donilon views a nuclear Iran and North Korea as the gravest national security threat facing the country. He has called on the president to pursue robust diplomacy along with stricter sanctions on these two states.[1]

Unfortunately according to Woodward’s “Obama’s Wars”, he has the same lack of foreign affairs and military experience as Obama as the outgoing Security Advisor pointed out in this exchange.

First, he had never gone to Afghanistan or Iraq, or really left the office for a serious field trip. As a result, he said, you have no direct understanding of these places. “You have no credibility with the military.” You should go overseas. The White House, Situation Room, interagency byplay, as important as they are, are not everything.Second, Jones continued, you frequently pop off with absolute declarations about places you’ve never been, leaders you’ve never met, or colleagues you work with. Gates had mentioned this to Jones, saying that Donilon’s sound-offs and strong spur-of-the-moment opinions, especially about one general, had offended him so much at an Oval Office meeting that he nearly walked out.

Donilon is not the typical academician with which the the President usually surrounds himself and the new Security Advisor will be one less dissenting voice in the administration.  Just one less sanity check for a President that desperately needs every last one he can get.

[1] Thomas Donilon – http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Thomas_Donilon
[2] New Obama Security Advisor Clashed With Military – http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101008/pl_nm/us_obama_jones_6
[3] Obama Transition Member Oversaw Fannie’s Lobbying – http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Politics/Story?id=6269682&page=1
[4] Tom Donilon’s résumé: Policy, law and Fannie Maehttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43348.html#ixzz11qGlm5Pl