Obama administration has SLASHED budget for domestic bombing

[Phurfur 70]

- $20 million budget under Bush became $11 million under Obama

- Both administrations neglected domestic bombing prevention, devoting a tiny fraction of the $1 billion earmarked for IED prevention overseas

 

Barack Obama's administration has cut the budget nearly in half for preventing domestic bombings, MailOnline can reveal.

 

Under President George W. Bush, the Department of Homeland Security had $20 million allocated for preventing the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) by terrorists working inside the United States. The current White House has cut that funding down to $11 million.

 

That assessment comes from Robert Liscouski, a former Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings on April 15 that killed three Americans and injured at least 173 others.

 

He told MailOnline that the Obama-era DHS is, on the whole, about as well-positioned as it was during the Bush administration to handle the aftermath of the April 15 bombings in Boston, 'but the Obama administration has continued to cut the budget for offices such as the Office for Bombing Prevention from $20 million started under Bush, to $11 million today.'

 

'Comparatively,' he added, 'the Defense Department's Joint IED Defeat Organization had a budget of $1 billion per year focused on preventing IEDs in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters.'

 

'Clearly more money needs to be focused on countering domestic IEDs,' Liscouski concluded.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2310110/Obama-administration-SLASHED-budget-domestic-bombing-prevention-45-cent-says-Homeland-Security-Assistant-Secretary.html#ixzz2QowEfHzl

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[MDC 5,895]

More government isn't the answer! Except in this particular case. Then it's Obummer's fault the bad thing happened.

[Phurfur 70]

More government isn't the answer! Except in this particular case. Then it's Obummer's fault the bad thing happened.

 

You are a Moron! Try reading the post, I think you missed this.

 

Both administrations neglected domestic bombing prevention, devoting a tiny fraction of the $1 billion earmarked for IED prevention overseas

 

More government was not needed Idiot.

[hoytdwow 202]

We need more government spending!

[MDC 5,895]

We need more government spending!

 

That's always the answer for deadbeat welfare queens like Phurphag.

[Phurfur 70]

We need more government spending!

You can't fix stupid.

 

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.

- John Lennon

[rholio 339]

Obama administration slashing spending? Awesome, about time.

[NewbieJr 540]

Doesn't slash spending= Obama's bad

Slashed spending= Obama's bad.

 

Phurfur= Dumbest fock ever

[MDC 5,895]

When is Phurphag going to bootstrap himself up and take responsibility for his own anti-terrorism needs?

[The Moz 69]

Doesn't slash spending= Obama's bad

Slashed spending= Obama's bad.

 

Phurfur= Dumbest fock ever

 

Well I got to say Obama is basically a pretty shitty POTUS ... maybe not as bad a W. but he is getting close.

[rholio 339]

Well I got to say Obama is basically a pretty shitty POTUS ... maybe not as bad a W. but he is getting close.

 

Agreed. These types of fishing trips make the other side hard to take seriously, though.

[Phurfur 70]

Doesn't slash spending= Obama's bad

Slashed spending= Obama's bad.

Phurfur= Dumbest fock ever

 

from the OP for the second time.

 

Both administrations neglected domestic bombing prevention, devoting a tiny fraction of the $1 billion earmarked for IED prevention overseas

 

NewbieJr = Dumbest fock ever

 

 

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.

- John Lennon

[hoytdwow 202]

Obumbler doesn't spend government spending right!

[Phurfur 70]

Obumbler doesn't spend government spending right!

 

You forgot about Bush imagine that.

[wiffleball 4,646]

Now that we know that these guys are Chechen, we can immediately begin making plans to invade Yemen.

[MDC 5,895]

You forgot about Bush imagine that.

 

You did too in your thread title, geezer.

[cbfalcon 824]

You did too in your thread title, geezer.

 

 

The thread is titled "Obama administration has SLASHED budget for domestic bombing". So Obama SLASHING the budget isn't about Obama cutting the budget at all? It was actually about our past 2 presidents not spending as much on domestic terror as it does on overseas terror?

 

I almost suspect that the actual goal was to criticize Obama for spending so much less than Bush, as oppose to be a scathing critique of both guys. I'm just saying, maybe.

[rholio 339]

Obama continuing his practice of trying to 'one-up' W. Bush... business as usual.

[wiffleball 4,646]

Okay, can we look at the number of people killed by IED's in say, Amurica, vs. the attacks on Americans during the same 24 hr time frame for REST of the world?

 

Why wouldn't you skew your funding accordingly?

 

Stupid focking post. Again.

[tikigods 76]

Jesus Fvcking Christ....

 

Phartfur can you just write out a fvcking list of things Obama can spend on and what he can't?

 

Save us having to read this stupid sh1t.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Okay, can we look at the number of people killed by IED's in say, Amurica, vs. the attacks on Americans during the same 24 hr time frame for REST of the world?

 

Why wouldn't you skew your funding accordingly?

 

Stupid focking post. Again.

 

I see, the libtard mantra is now, obama is better because less people have been killed under his watch instead of no terrorist attacts on the US. Keep moving the bar, I hope it doesn't go much lower. ):

[tikigods 76]

I see, the libtard mantra is now, obama is better because less people have been killed under his watch instead of no terrorist attacts on the US. Keep moving the bar, I hope it doesn't go much lower. ):

 

I see the right wing mantra now, obama let this go on for two days and a cop was killed under his watch because his administration SLASHED budget for domestic bombings.

 

CUT SPENDING!!!!

 

DON'T CUT SPENDING!!!!

 

Make up your fvcking minds.

[hoytdwow 202]

You did too in your thread title, geezer.

 

MK ULTRA

 

[Finbabble Garp 1]

lol @ thread.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Now that we know that these guys are Chechen, we can immediately begin making plans to invade Yemen.

Obama already invaded Yemen.

 

HTH

[MDC 5,895]

Obama already invaded Yemen.

 

HTH

 

Link?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I got into a discussion with Volty a while back where he claimed we invaded Iraq in 1991 cuz our troops crossed the border. I disagreed, but was corrected by Parrot, who brought this definition:

 

 

invade [ɪnˈveɪd]

vb

1. (Military) to enter (a country, territory, etc.) by military force

 

So, using this definition Obama has invaded Libya with all the air strikes he sent in.

 

Not sure if all the drone strikes around the world qualifies as us invading all those countries. I will need clarification from Parrot on that one.

 

 

HTH

[Phurfur 70]

You did too in your thread title, geezer.

 

It is the title of the article you Moron. Try reading something before you post.

[cbfalcon 824]

It is the tread title of the article you Moron. Try reading something before you post.

 

[Phurfur 70]

 

The thread is titled "Obama administration has SLASHED budget for domestic bombing". So Obama SLASHING the budget isn't about Obama cutting the budget at all? It was actually about our past 2 presidents not spending as much on domestic terror as it does on overseas terror?

 

 

Very Good.

 

If you check, I did not give an opinion at all, I just posted the article. The rest was the lefties jumping to conclusions to defend their POTUS rather than looking at the facts.

[cbfalcon 824]

Very Good.

 

If you check, I did not give an opinion at all, I just posted the article. The rest was the lefties jumping to conclusions to defend their POTUS rather than looking at the facts.

 

"their POTUS"?? Is your's different?

[Phurfur 70]

"their POTUS"?? Is your's different?

 

Yes, but I didn't vote for him and I can look at him objectively while they feel a need to defend him right or wrong. It is very sad.

[cbfalcon 824]

Yes, but I didn't vote for him and I can look at him objectively while they feel a need to defend him right or wrong. It is very sad.

 

Yes he is your president? Or yes, your's is different?

 

At least we now know you don't care at all that he slashed spending on domestic bombings, and that your thread titles are unrelated to the point of threads you start.

Good to know going forward.

[Phurfur 70]

Yes he is your president? Or yes, your's is different?

 

At least we now know you don't care at all that he slashed spending on domestic bombings, and that your thread titles are unrelated to the point of threads you start.

Good to know going forward.

 

I always use the title of the article as the tread title and rarely post an opinion. Check on it, there are dozens of examples. HTH

 

The problem with the lefties on this bored is that they jump to conclusions without looking at the article. It is very pathetic.

[cbfalcon 824]

I always use the title of the article as the tread title and rarely post an opinion. Check on it, there are dozens of examples. HTH

 

Ok. I will check on it.

 

 

First thread I checked was titled "Textbooks to push climate change in new curriculum"

 

Yet the article you posted was titled "New science standards have America’s educational publishers turning the page".

 

So 0 for 1.

[cbfalcon 824]

Second thread I checked is titled "57 Terrible Consequences of the Sequester"

 

Yet the article is titled "White House chef to be furloughed because of sequester cuts"

 

So 0 for 2.

 

I have to admit I am checking these from my phone, so I can't see which thread you started without opening them. Having to base in on the topic. But 0 for 2 thus far.

[cbfalcon 824]

3rd thread I checked is titled "Florida teacher tells fourth-graders to give up constitutional rights"

 

Yet the article you posted is titled "Florida teacher tells fourth-graders to give up constitutional rights, report says"

 

So 0 for 3, as you didnt include "Report Says", which changes the whole meaning.

[mobb_deep 917]

I always use the title of the article as the tread title and rarely post an opinion. Check on it, there are dozens of examples. HTH

 

The problem with the lefties on this bored is that they jump to conclusions without looking at the article. It is very pathetic.

 

Wouldn't want you to actually use a forum for what it's intended for, now would we. Do you alteast post your opinion about things on news websites, to be consistent?

[drobeski 3,061]

Is this > or < the cost of the girls spring break vacation ?

[cbfalcon 824]

Is this > or < the cost of the girls spring break vacation ?

 

this thread isn't about Obama. Furfural says its about Bush not spending enough on domestic terror. And it's about Obama for not fixing Bush's mistake.