Obama fantasists need a reality check [Karl]
Yesterday, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram ran a story reporting that security details at Sen. Barack Obama’s rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena in Dallas.
The left side of the blogosphere found it scary — no, wait,Ã‚Â terrifying, not to mention mind-blowing,Ã‚Â a serious lapse in security, and cause for investigations and dismissals, with an emphasis on the fact that it happened in Dallas, with the spectre of JFK looming large in the backdrop.Ã‚Â My favorite may be the Musharraf-Bhutto assassination innuendo analogy.
Today, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported the other side of the story:
“There were no security lapses at that venue,” said Eric Zahren, a spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington. He added there was “no deviation” from the “comprehensive and layered” security plan, implemented in “very close cooperation with our law enforcement partners.”
Zahren rebutted suggestions by several Dallas police officers at the rally who thought the Secret Service ordered a halt to the time-consuming weapons check because long lines were moving slowly, and many seats remained empty as time neared for Obama to appear.
“It was never a part of the plan at this particular venue to have each and every person in the crowd pass through the Magnetometer,” said Zahren, referring to the device used to detect metal in clothing and bags.
He declined to give the reason for checking people for weapons at the front of the lines and letting those farther back go in without inspection.
“We would not want, by providing those details, to have people trying to derive ways in which they could defeat the security at any particular venue,” Zahren said.
Pam Spaulding, to her credit, did a follow-up post, though she seems to remain skeptical about the situation.Ã‚Â If anyone else followed up, I missed it, and not for lack of looking.
Normally, I would not care, certainly not enough to note it here.Ã‚Â And aÃ‚Â quick blog search suggests no one is being particularly critical about it.
I note it to contrast with the hysterical left-liberal reaction to the questions raised about a claim Obama made at Thursday’s Democratic debate about US troops not having enough ammunition and Humvees in Afghanistan, claiming that it was easier for them to capture Taliban weapons than to get proper equipment from the US.Ã‚Â Jake Tapper spoke to the purported source, upon which we learned: (a) the complaints are four to five years old; (b) getting parts or ammunition for their standard rifles was not a problem; and (c) the issue regarding HumVees had to do with maintenance, not supply.Ã‚Â We also learned (for those who did not know already) from Iraq vet Phil Carter – who isÃ‚Â doingÃ‚Â work for the Obama campaign:
These stories are timeless; youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll see similar ones in the narratives from WWII, Korea and Vietnam vets too. Anyone whoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s dealt with the Army supply system Ã¢â‚¬â€œ particularly at the pointy end of the spear Ã¢â‚¬â€œ ought to be able to sympathize.
The Associated PressÃ‚Â reported that the platoonÃ‚Â was not undermanned. Ã‚Â None of which deterred left-liberals in the slightest from asserting that Obama’s claim that he heard this from a captain (when he heard it from a staffer) wasÃ‚Â completely vindicated and the questions wholly unwarranted.
If this sort of response is a prologue to how left-liberals are going to respond to any criticism of their Obamessiah, perhaps more attention needed to be paid to the way they wigged out over the Dallas story, with almost no follow-up with the other side, perhaps because they preferÃ‚Â in case after case after case after case after case to wallow in morbid fantasies of his martyrdom.