Obama Slashed Bombing Prevention Budget in Half


130415235103-bombing-boston-marathon-single-image-cut

In his defense, sending more money to the Muslim Brotherhood had to come out of someone’s budget. It just had to be DHS which was wasting money trying to stop bombings that could have gone to buying jets for the Brotherhood.

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.’

White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest didn’t respond to a question about whether there were any failures in the president’s National Policy for Countering Improvised Explosive Devices, or whether it was too soon to judge the February 2013 policy’s effectiveness.

Let’s just call the policy non-optimal.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    The budget has little interest in containing jihad within the U.S., at least under the revolutionaries at the help. Most intrinsically, DHS, under "mama Janet", has an inordinately high list for her shopping sprees, and its essence is directed "rightward" – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/03/12/the-increasin

    Follow the money…not their blah, blah….it tells the true tale and clears away the smoke and mirror show.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    The budget has little interest in containing jihad within the U.S., at least under the revolutionaries at the help. Most intrinsically, DHS, under "mama Janet", has an inordinately high list for her shopping sprees, and its essence is directed "rightward" – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/03/12/the-increasin

    Follow the money…not their blah, blah….it tells the true tale and clears away the smoke and mirror show.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "Let’s just call the policy non-optimal."

    Another bump. 3 dead, here, 3 dead there, what difference does it make? We're trying to find out what happened!

    We're scanning upload records for youtube as we speak.

  • figment

    how much has obama and the first lunchlady spent on vacations?

    20 million?

  • Spikey1

    I have no issues with spending cuts; what I do have a problem with is even having a Department of Homeland Security. "Why?" you ask, well; we already had the FBI that is / was their job, DHS was just another power grab by the Federal Government in the wake of a national tragedy. What is next? The Department of Random Bombings? The Department of Sporting Event Security. Give me a fricken break, eliminate DHS and have the FBI do their job.
    Also I believe the security of sporting events should be up to the state not the Federal Government unless the state is willing to pay all the costs for the feds to do it.

  • LindaRivera

    Obama Slashed Bombing Prevention Budget in Half. Obama is OPPOSED to bomb prevention. Obama and his handlers have the blood of innocents on their hands.

    Obama made clear what the most important thing is to him and it is definitely NOT preventing Muslim terror attacks on infidel innocents.

    Devout Muslim Obama at the UN: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam…."

  • dwstick

    This just in from the lamestream news media about this latest revelation…………..

    Crickets chirping. Crickets chirping. Crickets chirping.

  • TMG

    I am not clear on what, exactly, the story is here. Is it meant to show that a $9 million budget cut is responsible for someone building a device according to instructions that can be found on the Internet? Is it meant to show that a larger, more funded governmental agency would have been able to prevent this tragedy? Is it meant to link longstanding foreign military investments (that began well before the current administration) and the awful event that occurred in Boston? I find it surprising to find an article lamenting a decrease in government spending on a website with a clearly conservative slant.
    Or is this an attempt to use the horrible events of Monday to paint the current president in a poor light? While that is certainly the right of anyone in this great country, I find it shameful to capitalize on the loss we all suffered in Boston in an attempt to promote one's political views. This sensationalism is even more repugnant when it is done via such a clearly tenuous logical argument. As the Homeland Security expert quoted in the article stated, "…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…" In my opinion, an attempt to use the April 15 bombing as weapon to attack the administration and push a polarized agenda does more of a disservice to the victims and families of this tragedy than it does any sort of possible good.

    • JesusisLord

      What is your opionion regarding the Federal Government inviting the parents of Sandy Hook Elementary School victims to testify for gun control? What is your opinion on the following quote? "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Rahm Emanuel This quote is not from a conservative slant.

      • TMG

        Great questions. I think that using the families of Sandy Hook as a tool to push gun control is absolutely of questionable legitimacy. It is certainly an effort to capitalize on national emotions to pursue a goal. And the use of tax dollars to fly the families to DC also raises some legitimate questions. But there is a difference between using a tragic story to support a piece of legislature that (according to some views) might address the cause of a tragedy, and using a similar emotional event to demonize an individual or an administration. One is intended to address a problem. The other is intended to inflame emotions.
        The Rahm Emanuel quote is also compelling. It could definitely apply to the Sandy Hook situation. But I fail to see how it applies to the original article.

      • JaneB

        I think the Obama administration exploited the grieving families of Newtown for his own agenda of total gun control in this free United States.Lest we forget that in 1938 Hitler had everyone convinced how guns were bad for all and proceded to Kill a lot of Jews! What ever became of the very first bomber suspect who is a Saudi national with a student visa for Finlay Ohio but had an apartment in Boston? The FBI had an event file on him labeling him 212 3b , as in terrorist activities in the Boston marathon bombings . Once John Kerry spoke with a Saudi ambassador this event file and the Saudi national hasn't been mentioned in the bombings. Oh yeah Obama also had an unscheduled meeting with this same ambassador before this students event file declared him from a suspect to a person of interest, to a witness, to a victim, to nothing. He was suppose to be deported if not already deported. This administration is less than transparent, they are out an out liars about all of the horrible things going on in this country! I am still waiting to here the truth about Benghazi! Don't even get me started!