Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

This is going to take about 25 or so minutes to watch, but there is some really good history not taight in schools anymore, here.

Part 1 of 5

O36fzi4M_Jc


Part 2

pcq-2isWUII

Part 3

Some really good meat in this one.

zPDuIgXDIUs

Part 4

ajg9ySYW7dU

Part 5

3mZO2Pkiebk

I credit Power House Five - Power House Five (http://www.powerhousefive.com) for pointing me to this original link. Feel free to donate to any of the candidates they are working against.

I only had time to click on the last one while I was making breakfast, Creek. I used to like watching Napolitano on Fox in the morning but haven't seen him in a long time.

As much as I like him, his analysis of Bush is way off because he has no understanding of what really went on and goes on in the world of national defense. It's not his fault because Bush, Cheney, and Blair were not going to walk to the microphone and telegraph the missing pieces. Some of the information was so sensitive that only only a handful of people in the entire White House knew it, and none of them were political advisers, including Carl Rove. I've seen some people grasp things without having access - Brit Hume is one of those geniuses - but I don't care how intelligent these talking heads are, unless they understand the intersection of economics/business, the most sensitive information about national defense, and how our political and judicial systems work, their analysis is going to have holes in it. Greenspan's another one. He's one of the biggest brains when it comes to economics, but he's clueless about defense. Clueless. I'm not necessarily a Mitt Romney fan, but he's an example of someone who grasps national defense without having access to extremely sensitive information. In his case, he's probably just a superior student of history who can apply general principles to current events without knowing specifics. As for Napolitano, way f'ing off.