Politics | 01/28/2009 9:55 am

Ladies in the Know Offer Obama WMD Advice

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Frances Fragos Townsend and Ret. Maj. General Donna Barbisch have some advice for how President Obama should approach the war on terror: Don’t underestimate the threat, and don’t just throw money at the problem.

In New York to talk about weapons of mass destruction at a Center for Security Policy event on Tuesday, Townsend, former homeland security adviser to President Bush, and Ret. Maj. General Donna Barbisch, former Defense Department director of the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear program integration, stressed that while Obama could usher in a new era of diplomacy and fence-mending when it comes to how the U.S. deals with terror threats, he can’t let up on hunting the terrorists down — whether they be Al-Qaeda or anyone else.

Obama’s decision to give his first formal presidential interview to Al-Arabiya was "really smart," Townsend said, but "even if people around the world like us better, let us make no mistake: We are not going to prevent an attack by being liked more."

Barbisch cited particular concern with biological weapons, also known as "the poor man’s weapon of mass destruction."

"You can make ricin in your bathtub," she said, stressing the need for the public-health community to be involved in any preventative security efforts here at home.

Her advice to Obama as to how to handle this particular threat? Don’t put up a "false wall" and pretend we’re safe from biological warfare if we’re far from prepared. "We’re spending way too much money on things that don’t make a difference," she said.

155 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Exactly, Marjorie. How does America’s private enterprise system differ from your first definition? . Ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of capital, land (assetts) is vested in individuals or corporate entities. Not the community as a whole. So it would seem to me, the more tax-payer dollars are spend to sustain private enterprise, the more closely we’re moving toward community ownership. Except tax-payer dollars are no longer our dollars or community dollar, they’re government dollars. So the government owns everything? Aren’t we closer to an autocratic economy than a socialistic economy since the Tarp was passed by Congress? And what’s the difference between nationalism and autocracy? . I’m just asking.

By Ms. Dee on 01/28/2009 12:59 pm

e-mail alert

Marjorie, Socialism was around a hell of a long time before Communism. Just a reality check!

By beverly linens on 01/28/2009 1:01 pm

e-mail alert

Yup Beverly :-)

By f p on 01/29/2009 8:10 am

e-mail alert

Hi, Frank. I guess we are liberal socialist pinko commie pigs? Any other words you can think of?

By Diana T on 01/28/2009 12:25 pm

e-mail alert

Geez from some of the brain-dead here—i’d say you’re b=probably right.

By f p on 01/28/2009 1:38 pm

e-mail alert

Gee, count me in. I would like to be on the smart side, the winning side, the side with some intelligence.

By Dab-a- do on 01/29/2009 8:10 am

e-mail alert

Could “Better dead than red” be making a comeback with the knothead repubs? Or maybe My country—love it or leave it!?

By f p on 01/29/2009 8:44 am

e-mail alert

heah, frank i’m with you. I think the repub’s can leave if they don’t love it.

By Dab-a- do on 01/29/2009 2:09 pm

e-mail alert

fp What bothers me here is that Dems are not basically socialists but lean into giving help to people they think needs to be helped. On the other hand, the Republicans are eager to keep the war on the Middle East growing. I fear those men on the Commission as they are basically neoconservatives who feel the power of war. We all have seen results of this war on terror and the threat of WMD. It has bankrupt the American economy. We are leaning too far into debt and asking the generations of America to pick up the tab. Nationalizing the banks is a socialist action. In the past it was the citizens who finanaced business but with the corruption found in the corporations and government, nobody in America can afford to hire any employees and making any profit will be taxed due to our growing debts. I tend to follow Libertarian concepts here. I want my government to tighten up the laws and stop trying to save the world with other people’s money. The time spent on fools like Palin and Blogojevich is wasting our time and money. We must locate serious people to lead us through this mess and not waste energy on Americans who are corrupt. Rush Limbaugh seems to hold a strong voice over the GOP which scares the hell out of me. He has driven more people away from the GOP with his comedy act. I had hoped President Obama would be the voice of reason but Rush continues to use race and socialism against the man. Our American culture is changing but not fast enough for conservatives. All we can do is change our own family generations to have the academics to prepare themselves to love and respect our species and not forget to respect all living things.

By Sandra Price on 01/29/2009 5:52 am

e-mail alert

I agree with you fully. As for Rush—he sells snake oil to the gullible—we’ve had an entire history of men like him—they come and they go—best to just ignore his catering to the already converted. NO much can be done about really.

By f p on 01/29/2009 8:09 am

e-mail alert

Amen!!!

By Belinda Joy on 01/29/2009 3:47 pm

e-mail alert

deber: Muslim communities have more than doubled in France and England over the past decade. Years ago, this was called ‘revenge of the cradle’. Good post, incidentally. Another eye opener.

By Marjorie C. on 01/28/2009 11:51 am

e-mail alert

Marjorie, thank you. I brought it up because of the possibility Obama will not react to the middle east weapons of mass destruction with a critical eye towards future terrorist attacks on America. This thread is interesting because a message is being sent to Obama to keep his eye on the ball. In order to understand Obama’s long range Middle East goals for America, it is important to know how he thinks and the environment he was raised in. Socialism, in my opinion, is directly related to how we position America both economically and globally. Let us hope President Obama is an American first and will not continue his path to socialism. Democrats naturally don’t feel that socialism is a problem. They want everyone to have the same thing….they seem to resent the rich, people who have been smart enough and clever enough to work hard towards a financial goal. Only in America can a person realize their dream of owning their own business and buying a home as well as having two or three cars in their driveways. The more money they “earn” the higher tax bracket they are in. I understand completely why people all over the world dream of living in America. However, as we institute more government control, socialized medicine and penalize the wealthy for daring to earn more money we align ourselves with France and England. I don’t know about you, Marjorie, but would you live in either of those two countries? Most Americans would not. I have never heard of “revenge of the cardle.” Share with me how it was used.

By deber B on 01/28/2009 12:13 pm

e-mail alert

I find it interesting that you claim Democrats hate the rich and successful people. Have you been paying attention to the shifts in poltical party affiliation, or are you just repeating the mantra you’ve believed for the last couple of decades. I bet you believe that the Republican party is the party of small government, too. In any case, an increasingly large number of educated, very well off professionals are moving to the democratic side, as less educated, less successful people move to the Republican side. Nothing is static, even conservatives. You also have pulled one issue, progressive income tax, and failed to take into account how the government taxes us. There are many tax breaks for the wealthy, who often don’t earn a set paycheck like “normal” people do. If you figure everything out, you’ll notice that the discrepancy is less. Unfortunately, the issue is so complicated it’s hard to determine exactly how this works out. (Which is why I’m in favor of a flat tax without all these loopholes). You diss socialized medicine, but how many Americans are without insurance and can’t access health care at all? People such as ourselves, with insurance, wouldn’t want to live in England but I imagine that a multitude of people without health care would. Not that it sounds like you care about what happens to the poor.

By R.J.B. Reed on 01/28/2009 1:06 pm

e-mail alert

You diss socialized medicine, but how many Americans are without insurance and can’t access health care at all? People such as ourselves, with insurance, wouldn’t want to live in England but I imagine that a multitude of people without health care would. Not that it sounds like you care about what happens to the poor. By R.J.B. Reed on 01/28/2009 2:06 pm My friends in England say that socialized medicine is a godsend for people who can’t afford private insurance. If you can afford it you can have private care even with socialized medicine. No one is proposing socialzed medicine even though the conservatives use scare tactics on the american public. Obama’s plan is to improve on the current private system. But true to their form conservatives are against any form of government assistance including social security. Conservatives like to think things are static. The republicans used to be the party of the rich. Democrats are actually richer and better educated . Republicans now place no value on intellectuals or higher education. PHD’s and IVY league grads are despised except for george bush. He always acted like a cowboy. I told a group of conservatives as they were bashing Kerry for being a part of the wealthy elite - that George Bush was wealthy they wouldn’t believe me. They said he is just like us he is an average guy you can have a beer with. Doesn’t that remind you of joe six pack and wal-mart mom.

By starry Nite on 01/31/2009 2:28 am