Home > Uncategorized > Obama and the Bomber

Obama and the Bomber

So, here we go: the final posting for 2009. I want to follow up on the discussion we had with Newstand Greg last Monday about the Northwest Airliner, the terrorist, President Obama, and our just plain dumb luck in avoiding a national tragedy.

Many are quick to try and make a comparison between Detroit and New Orleans after Katrina. We have a President off on vacation, slow to react initially, a cabinet secretary who claimed “the system worked” only to reverse herself 24 hours later and admit the obvious. Once again, the system failed us. It gets worse. It only does. The suspect’s father tried to warn the U.S. for months about his son, but nobody would listen. The CIA had reason to suspect him, but didn’t give it a high priority. Stories aobund that someone helped him board the plane in Amsterdam because he didn’t have a valid passport. Haven’t we learned anything from 9-11? apparently not.

There’s enough blame to go around. The Republicans are claiming that this whole incident merely underscores Obama being weak on terrorism. The Democrats rightly point out that one Republican senator is holding up the nomination of the TSA, responsible for airline security, among other things. Meanwhile, airlines are quick to do pointless measures like no passengers allowed blankets during the last hour of the flight and screening liquids more carefully. What is that going to accomplish?

Obama is learning a difficult lesson, a test that has been unfolding daily during his last six months. No matter what he does – or doesn’t do — someone is ready to pounce on him. He was slow to react, but said that which needed to be said: We screwed up. We were lucky. We need to clean up the system. We must have accountability. this must not be allowed to happen again.

  1. December 31, 2009 at 7:41 am

    Oh, Pah-lease, Dave. You lack perspective in an effort to be "fair and balanced". Jim DeMint's hold up of the director of TSA has NOTHING to do with the failure of the TSA to locate the so-called "underwear bomber". It has everything to do with the fact that DeMint, to his credit, is trying to protect American lives by preventing the TSA nominee, who is in favor of allowing the TSA screeners to unionize, from making our air/rail/bus security dependant on collective bargining and a potential strike by a self-serving union. Bottom line is that we all were this close (index finger and thumb an inch apart) from remember the 300+ Americans that would have died on Christmas Day 2009. Obama should thank his lucky stars that fortunes favored him that day. The system failed because we, as Americans, have regressed from the progress made by the Bush Administration to secure our nation. The Obama Administration wishes to turn the clock back to 1993 when terrorism was just a "law enforcement" matter. What we should have learned on 9/11/01 was that the terrorists, regardless of which party is in the White House, are at WAR with the United States and all we represent to the world. The fact is that we now have a president that wishes to give shout-outs instead of addressing a terrorist event on American soil. We have a president that wants to continue his vacation even though a) he has been on "vacation" in his first year than any president in the last fifty years, and b) refuses to cut short that vacation even when the fact that our nation has become less secure under his watch. We also have a president that believes, to his core I might add, that if we are nice to would-be terrorists they will have a change of heart and will no longer wish Americans harm. He does this by proposing to close Gitmo and move those operations onto American soil (big mistake) and by having an incompetent assclown as a Homeland (in)Security Secretary. Janet Napolitano must be fired ASAP.She was the one that changed the Global War on Terrorism to "overseas contingency operations". She is the one that called terrorist events "man-made catastrophes". She is the one that felt it necessary to publish a document that targeted our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan as potential domestic terrorists because nearly a decade ago, Timothy McVey, a dirtbag former soldier, blew up the Murrah Building in OK City… oh and because Obama is black… instead of focusing her energies on those that really do commit terrorist acts, namely Muslims. Now I won't say that all Msulims are terrorists, but, so far, all terrorists attacking America have been Muslim. There haven't been an Mormon Jihadists, or Bhuddist Jihadists (I know Jihad is an Arabic word, dumbass) or even Catholic Crusaders. There has been individuals that have committed individual murders by guys like Eric Rudolph and the guy that aborted Baby-murderer Tiller in Kansas, but those were not terrorist attacks any more than Ted Bundy was a terrorist, despite the number of women that were in "terror" of him.We need a Homeland Security Secretary that is honestly interested in homeland security. Napolitano is just another incompetent politcal hack placed in the administration like Sebellius in HHS as a pay off for doing Obama's bidding during the campaign. If Obama will keep Gates on as SecDef because of how important the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are, than why won't he appoint someone that is honestly capable of defending our nation from attack?Happy New Year

  2. December 31, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    President Obama is doing just fine, and yes, as Big Tent REPUBLICAN points out, fortune DOES tend to favor him, which is a nice change from our previous president. The continual shrill, angry fear-mongering by the "conservatives", aimed at stampeding the American public toward irrational, self-defeating, divisive behavior should continue to be ignored. Americans, as well as humans in general, must not let themselves be demoralized by frightened conservatives and allow fear to guide their decisions. Fear is the enemy of rationality and progress and spiritual enlightenment. Now, as never before, is a time for courage and confidence, knowing that death stalks us all, life is short, and the greatest thing we can do is sacrifice to help our fellow man and promote love and beauty. So much of what the maniacal, shrill, fear-mongering "conservatives" desperately and pathetically cling to is pure, devilish illusion, that will add up to absolutely nothing when one's day of reckoning/impending death is confronted. So many of us will wail, realizing all the time we wasted scaring ourselves and others and avoiding all the timeless lessons we could learn by opening our hearts in the way that all the great religions, at their pure core, advise us to.There is a time and place for war, and a time and place for peace. But there is never a time or place unsuited for love. That is our supreme challenge as humans. Fear is degradation. Love is supreme.

  3. January 1, 2010 at 12:04 am

    More pointless blather and bloviation from Wise Guy.Awww! How sweet. Love is supreme. Read that on a bumper sticker somewhere, did you?How much "love" was in Major Hasan's heart when he murdered 14 people at Fort Hood in the name of Mohammed? How much "love" was in the heart of the 'underwear bomber' as he tried to set off his explosives, in the name of Mohammed, as nearly 300 people were traveling to see the people they loved on Christmas Day? How much love did the 9/11 hijackers, the bombers of the USS Cole, the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the Bali bombers, teh Madrid train bombers, the terrorists that cut off the head of Daniel Pearl and murdered Prvate Maulpin have in their hearts? The answer to all of these question is ZERO love for humanity. But as Major Hasan now famously said in his PowerPoint presentation on Muslim Jihadism in the US Army, "We love death more than you love life." It is wise to be fearful of people that have no problems with murdering hundreds, weven thousands, of innocent, noncombatant, men, women and children in the name of their spiritual leader that has been dead for a millenia.On fear, Wise Guy tries to set up this false dicotomy wereby "conservatives" (love the quotes, as if we are closet liberals or some sort of fake conservative) are fear-mongerers for some unexplained goal and liberals are the cool, rational, adults in the room, unafraid of the potential disaster out there. What a load of crap! First of all, fearmongering is the liberals bread and butter when it comes to pushing their agenda. How many times have we heard how most Americans are "one paycheck away from the soup line" for their bogus "jobs" bills, "one major illness away from bankruptcy" to justify heathcare reform, or one hot summer from massive rising of the seas or dead polar bears from global warming? Literally thousands of times over the last 50 years we have heard these claims. The "liberal" (because true liberals are in favor of Adam Smith free market principles, John Locke's Social Contract, and Jeffersonian style of government; Wise Guy and his ilk are truly socialists) uses the fallacy of Composition, where the anecdotal claims of a few are generalized to the masses, to justify their conquest of our freedoms in exchange for their benevolent form of dictatorship. "Liberals" use fear as a weapon every time they open their mouths. We should be afraid of a president Palin, a senator Oliver North, or a President McCain. Hell, even FDR was lying when he said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. If that was the case and Wise Guy's "love conquers all" pap were true, then why did he support England and Russia with "lend/lease"? Why did he build up forces in the Pacific? Why did he declare war after December 7, 1941? Why did FDR inter tens of thousand of US citizens of japanese decent in concentration camps in California? It was because he was afraid of what those Japanese could do if they were still loyal to the emperor of Japan. Wise Guy's blind and stupid belief that if we love our enemy they will love us back is the surest road to death and destruction. As with the Germans and Japanese, a free people must declare war on those that seek our destruction and fight them as such. Bush had it right with the "Global War on Terrorism"; Obama has it wrong with the "overseas contingency operations" and the failed Clinton doctrine of "terrorism as a law enforcement issue". Wise Guy is just as full of crap at the end of 2009 as he was at the beginning of 2009. Here's hoping he resolves to be less full of crap in 2010.Happy New Year.

  4. January 1, 2010 at 9:02 am

    I don't speak for "liberals" any more than I speak for "conservatives." I speak for myself. I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican.If my words are truly "pointless" then nobody need bother responding. Death stalks us all and conquers all. Politics will not save you or give you lasting comfort before, during or after. Humanity is mired in illusion. Politics is a symptom. Spirituality is the cure. Love is an actual force that holds the world together. Without it everything disintegrates instantly. To love, expecting to be loved in return is proof of a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature and value of love.Most of us will die before we are ready, before we understand, having wasted precious time tilting at windmills.

  5. January 1, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    Yep! WG is still full of shit! hahahahaand dave sucks up to him he will publish anything he says.but buddies…how cute!

  6. January 1, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    Well, we can guess that "fullashit" is really Jerry Dagna. He typically sends 2-3 valentines like this to me a day. 99% get deleted, but I do like to share from time to time.

  7. January 1, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    "fullashit", you illustrate my point with a sad but clear poignancy that I could never.I ask you: Are you happy? If you die tomorrow will you be content? Have you made this world a more beautiful and joyous place? If you knew you would die at the end of this month, are you doing exactly what you would want to do?Are you the kind of person that you would be content to live with for eternity? Do you understand the serious, profound and everlasting opportunity that this life affords those who endeavor to give more than they receive? That love is in everlasting abundance for you to channel wherever and whenever you see fit? That there is no downside to it?Do you appreciate that your time is running out—quickly?

  8. January 1, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    The White House’s response to last week’s attempt to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit could rank as one of the low points of the new president’s first year. Over the course of five days, Obama’s Obama’ reaction ranged from low-keyed to reassuring to, finally, a vow to find out what went wrong.The episode was a baffling, unforced error in presidential symbolism, hardly a small part of the presidency, and the moment at which yet another of the old political maxims that Obama had sought to transcend – the Democrats’ vulnerability on national security – reasserted itself.

  9. January 2, 2010 at 1:05 am

    Suddenly every sneeze and fart from Mr. Obama is being interpreted as a bell weather indication of his success as President. Leave it to the politico nerds to spend their days trying to make mountains out of molehills; trying to fashion soap opera, check-out stand headlines out of mundane politics to compete with the Hollywood and sports celebrity paparazzi.People actually think they know what is really going on in politics based on reporting of information spoon fed to them by people who have every reason to appease the need to know, while protecting the 98 percent of the action, all of which goes on behind the scenes and is virtually unspoken, and NEVER makes it to the six o'clock news or the latest politico-site of the week. Bottom line, the over-whelming majority of Americans—conservative, libeal and in between—are confident that Barack Obama is doing a far better job as president than any Republican would be at this time. Love him or not, sad as it may seem to some, Barrack Obama is the best this nation can come up with to handle the job. So far, no one else even comes close. The very fact that ANYONE would imagine Sarah Palin to be a serious rival is evidence.Obama hasn't even been in office a full year, having come in under the worst circumstances, with a nation teaming with homegrown, opposition-funded domestic propagandists such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity hell-bent on spreading a civil cold-war among the citizenry; while giving aid and comfort to the monstrous, filthy-rich crooks of Wall Street.Obama is doing just fine. Rumors of his demise are ridiculously exaggerated. And wait til you get a load of what Michelle Obama does this year! She will emerge, in many ways, as an heir to Oprah, but on an international basis. These are great times to be alive. In fact, there has never been a time of greater potential of every single human being who understands.

  10. January 2, 2010 at 2:15 am

    I said that Obama should be called "Obush" and I still think I was right about that. How is the underwear bomber episode where Obama stayed mute over the holiday and didn't do ANYTHING for three days any different than Bush playing golf during Katrina and the whole "you're doing a good job, Brownie" bit?Fact is that America has been proven to be less safe under this administration than the last 7 1/2 years under the last. We have already had a Muslim terrorist attack the very heart of our military on his watch. Hasan was enabled by an administration and an Army too worried about, as CSA GEN Casey said it, "the really tragedy would be if the Army lost its diversity". You know Casey didn't come up with those words in a vaccum. That was the crafted talking point from the DOD and from the Obama administration.Bottom line is that Obush has taken his "eye off the ball" with his goals of nationalized healthcare and his overall goal of enslaving every American worker to the millstone of government largess paid for by everyone else.We are less safe under Obush than under Bush and we will see another successful mass casualty event on American soil because of Obama and his policies.

  11. January 2, 2010 at 5:03 am

    America is LESS safe now? Do I need to remind someone that the ENTIRE WORLD TRADE CENTER was DESTROYED and THOUSANDS of innocent lives were lost during the PREVIOUS administration. And our nation continues to suffer threats based on the actions of the Bush administration. It will take a long time to clean up the Bush mess. There is a reason so many political and historical scholars rate George W. Bush as the worst U.S. president ever. The stink of his administration will take decades to dissipate to tolerable levels. Bottom line, any amateur know-it-all conjecture about the "safety" level of the United States now, or trying to link it to President Obama is ridiculous fear-mongering. And once again Big Tent REPUBLICAN is trying to ramp up domestic fear and wish upon our nation a monstrous tragedy, all so he and other fringe propagandists can chant "I told you so". Forget speculation about the future, what is true right NOW is that anti-government fanatics such as Big Tent REPUBLICAN are at this very moment tearing away at the fabric of our nation, creating a cold-war civil war that weakens the United States militarily and financially. All for what? While President Obama works to make our nation safer on a daily basis, people like Big Tent REPUBLICAN work against him, continually, trying to demoralize our citizens and comfort the nation's foreign enemies. The disease grows from within.

  12. January 2, 2010 at 6:01 am

    HEY DAVE — YOU WERE ALWAYS SO CRITICAL OF BUSH BEFORE 9-11. DOESN'T THIS BOTHER YOU EVEN A BIT??President Barack Obama received a high-level briefing only three days before Christmas about possible holiday-period terrorist threats against the US, Newsweek has learned. The briefing was centered on a written report, produced by US intelligence agencies, entitled "Key Homeland Threats", a senior US official said.The senior Administration official, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, said that nowhere in this document was there any mention of Yemen, whose Al-Qaeda affiliate is now believed to have been behind the unsuccessful Christmas Day attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to bring down a transatlantic airliner with a bomb hidden in his underpants. However, the official declined to disclose any other information about the substance of the briefing, including what kind of specific warnings, if any, the President was given about possibly holiday attacks and whether Yemen came up during oral discussions.

  13. January 2, 2010 at 8:42 am

    To recap some of the stale arguments from the right; President Obama did not make any public statements about the underwear bomber for three days and that is just horrible, but the fact that President Bush didn't say anything about the shoe bomber for SIX DAYS doesn't seem to matter … The underwear bomber apparently was in Yemen and may have received some training there; where did all of the people in Yemen come from that are fostering anti-American feelings? Could it be from the those who were released by the Bush Administration from GITMO and sent to Yemen? And how many of the apparent terrorists are really Yemenis? Aren't a lot of terror suspects actually Saudis that have gone to Yemen? And as far as "high-level briefings" go, how did the one that President Bush receive while he was in Crawford that a CIA liaison hand delivered to him in August of 2001 go again? Terrorists may be planning to use airliners as weapons? Who really dropped the ball? Bush, or Obama?

  14. January 2, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    President Obama handled it just fine. He DOES NOT need to immediately rush onto TV in a tizzy and make blustery statements each time some delusional fool threatens the well-being of the United State.He was, thankfully, wise and composed enough not to be pressured into over-reacting and adding more drama to the situation. He did what was prudent and proper under the circumstances. If he did otherwise it would likely have spooked Americans and frightened them from flying. As it was, there was no significant drop off in people using commercial airlines on the days following the incident. President Obama handled in just fine. Mr.Obama was elected by the people to be president of a nation that is in deep internal conflict, with a government that is in many ways dysfunctional. We can assume there are plenty of destructive, divisive, dysfunctional, anti-Obama people working within government agencies, just as there are outside, and on this blog. We can't expect Mr. Obama to be Superman, always knowing where trouble will arise, swooping down to single-handedly fix everything in 30 minute episodes.Bottom line: President Obama has NOT been a destructive force in the way that George W. Bush and his administration was. President Obama, less than 1 year into office, continues to try to fix a mess he was handed. But he can only do so much. We can't continue to expect our government to magically fix everything. We need to work on ourselves and not be distracted by the illusion that the solution to our troubles is a political one.

  15. January 2, 2010 at 8:53 pm

    December was the first month since the official invasion that there were no U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq.Thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership in keeping Iraq stable as you draw down the troops.

  16. January 3, 2010 at 12:04 am

    Danny Glover, actor and activist, recently made a statement where he, through the words of his statement, agrees with me that Obama is no different than Bush in both domestic and foreign policy.As for Obama's performance: you all act like you all were out of the country or something when Bush was in office and didn't say shit when Bush did something. WG, by you words on Obama's reaction to the near successful bombing of a plane on Christmas Day while on vacation was right and proper and you laud him for not running to the podium in a tizzy AND NO DIFFERENT THAN BUSH'S REACTION TO 9/11! Bush didn't run screaming in a panic from the elementary school after he was told the planes hit. He calmly finished the story he was reading to the class of schoolchildren, calmly left and received his intel update on the situation, calmly took charge of the situation and then flew to Ground Zero and resolutely and with great confidence, inspired the nation to rise from the crisis and resume our lives. And for those actions, the bloated tick of a fearmongering lying leftist douchebag, Michael Moore, makes his piece of shit movie "Farenheit 9/11" lambasting Bush for doing EXACTLY what Obama just did during the Christmas holiday.You liberals continue to astound with your contortionist rationalities.Oh, and Chuckman, President Bush appreciates your thanks for the peace now in Iraq. Even though the Surge that brought this peace we all, Americans and Iraqis alike, enjoy, was not his idea per se, it was Bush's decision to make and he made it against the advice of his closest advisors. Obama, on the other hand, has done NOTHING with regard to Iraq but rubber stamp the Bush plan in place that was codified in the Status of Forces Agreement that was signed before Bush left office. The timetable for withdraw was enclosed in there as well. Obama gets NO CREDIT whatsoever for anything in Iraq since Obama voted five times in the Senate to cut off funding for Iraq operations during the Surge. So Bush, I'm sure, doesn't require your thanks, but he would appreciate it all the same for giving credit where credit is due.

  17. January 3, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Big Tent REUBLICAN'S most recent attempt to make a comparison between 9/11 and the recent airline bomb scare is ridiculous. 9?11 was a horrible disaster. The recent bombing attempt was disaster AVERTED. The two incidents called for completely different reactions from the Commander in Chief. Bush was criticized for appearing to be at a loss of what he should do WHILE A MAJOR NATIONAL DISASTER WAS HAPPENING AT THAT VERY MOMENT.In contrast, when President Obama was informed about the airline incident, the immediate threat had been curtailed and there was NO disaster. Since then he has reacted prudently and strongly in calling for measures to prevent similar threats. Bottom line: President Obama continually appears to be a more competent, more prudent, more in control leader than George W.Bush.Should there be a major disaster that President Obama has to deal with immediately, I would expect that he will react in a more effective, more competent manner than would George W. Bush. I'm sure I"m not alone in feeling that I would much prefer to have Obama in charge during a disaster compared with Bush. Who would YOU rather have with your to cover your back in a fox hole during a heated battle? I'd pick Obama without hesitation. Most people would do the same, I'm sure.

  18. January 3, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Tent: Wow, the view from where ever you keep your head must be astounding, if you are a conservative; President Bush's actions on the day of September 11th, 2001 have had much speculation, with very little factual reporting apparently getting out. Why the Secret Service did not whisk him out of that classroom in Florida immediately, we will probably never know. Much has been written about what happened next, but the truth is that President Bush did not arrive in Washington until late that night. And as for President Obama "doing exactly" what Bush did after 9/11; there is no comparison to the two events, unless you are completely deluded. America was under direct attack for the first time in modern history on 9/11; to say that the underwear bomber was the same thing is just plain stupid. I am very glad that the chemical "bomb" was not detonated, as I am sure almost every American is; I just wonder sometimes if Republicans wouldn't somehow "cheer" if there had been fatalities instead.As for the cause for the reduction in violence in Iraq; President Obama may not have had a direct hand in what is or is not happening in Iraq militarily, but the Iraqi people know that Bush is not in office anymore; perhaps they want to give President Obama a chance to prove he is going to do what he said he is going to do, so the violence has subsided enough that there were no US military causalities in December. But you won't go for anything else than believing that all of the credit goes to President Bush, since your world view has such a rosy picture of what you perceive as the record George W. Bush accomplished while he was in office. Reality check please, in the Big Tent.

  19. January 4, 2010 at 1:21 am

    THERE IS, it seems evident, more than enough blame to go around in the botched handling of the botched Christmas bombing. Not for some Republicans. With former vice president Richard B. Cheney in the lead, they have embarked on an ugly course to use the incident to inflict maximum political damage on President Obama.That's bad enough, but their scurrilous line of attack is even worse. The claim that the incident shows the president's fecklessness in the war on terror is unfounded — no matter how often it is repeated.

  20. January 5, 2010 at 3:38 am

    Janet Napolitano — former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security — will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The system worked." The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers. Heck of a job, Brownie. The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters." Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York — a trifecta of political correctness and image management. And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over — that is, if it ever existed. Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare." And produces linguistic — and logical — oddities that littered Obama's public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Ford Hood shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions" — code for daring to associate Nidal Hasan's mass murder with his Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the bomber acted alone. More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor." Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant — an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians — and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen. Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point — surprise! — he stops talking.

  21. January 5, 2010 at 3:39 am

    This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will not rest until we find all who were involved." Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him. This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant. The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator — no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation. The president said that this incident highlights "the nature of those who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as "extremist(s)." A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America. Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy — jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon — turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

  22. January 5, 2010 at 6:59 am

    Obama sped back to his vacation rental from his gold game to "help" when a friend of his kids was hurt? What a jerk! Can a police man speed to his house at will? Can I speed to my house during an emergency? What was he going to do when he and his motorcade rushed back at high speed? What is someone was killed!Then when a terrorist strikes again during Obama's watch, they failed to put the pieces together. Obama failed to stop his gold game to make a statement for a couple of days. They lawyer up the terrorist and give him three hots and a cot INSTEAD of some serious interrogation to find as much out from him as possible about the next planned attack. Criminal matter you know…gotta give him his rights!WOW. Obama is failing and his approval numbers are half way down the toilet. Too bad he is such a piss poor President…he is not my President. I feel sad in advance that by the way OBAMA is handling this foreign policy and treating these captured terrorists that MANY people will be hurt or killed when they are successful. I hope you liberals are proud that you gave these animals constitutional rights when they destroy many lives or an entire city. Then you will understand the nature or terrorism. You coddling will have gained you no favor in the sight of the terrorists. God Bless the USA

  23. January 6, 2010 at 1:14 am

    "When a suspected terrorist is able to board a plane with explosives on Christmas Day, the system has failed in a potentially disastrous way," Obama said. "And it's my responsibility to find out why, and to correct that failure so that we can prevent such attacks in the future.""We have to do better, and we will do better. And we will do it quickly," he said."So Obama will take responsibility for finding out why his system failed (since he is the president) but he takes no responsibility for the fact that the system failed in the first place. "Our intelligence community failed to connect those dots which would have placed the suspect on the no-fly list," he said. "This was not a failure to collect intelligence, it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already have." But didn't Janet Napolitano say the system "worked"? If this is what her Homeland Security Department looks like when it "works", I pray we never see an actual "failure" of the system. It may look like August 6, 1945 somewhere in America. Additionally, Obama likes to share blame and responsibility, doesn't he? No failures are his failures. they are always someone else's failure, much the same way he is still blaming Bush for everything that has happened since he took office. Forget the fact that his Justice Deptment took custody of the Underwear Bomber and encouraged him, through the Miranda Rights, to NOT give our intellegence officials ANY intelligence to work off of to stop further plots and schemes in Yemen. We have an entire Joint Task force operating in the Horn of Africa that hasn't hesitated to blow the shit out of would-be and actual terrorists in Yenmen. Why now is Obama unwilling to make General Petreaus earn his money by taking actions that will neutralize this threat to the American homeland? And what is this nonsense of referring to the Underwear Bomber as an "accused" terrorist? He is absolutely a terrorist. No one else on that plane had explosives strapped to them. No one else was tackled to the ground by a Dutch man after the bomb fizzled. He is not "accused" of trying to blow up a plane; he ACTUALLY TRIED TO DO IT. This insanity of attmepting to couch terrorist acts of war in legalese jargon betrays the fact that the Administration is NOT at war with al Qaida even though al Qaida, in whatever form it takes or whoever is leading it, is ABSOLUTELY at war with us. Bill Clinton should have proved for all time that the legal system is insufficient to combat international terrorism. Unfortunately, as with all liberal lines of thinking, past failures are just the failure of process not of thinking and philosophy. They will eventually get their way of thinking right, whether it is the failed ideology of command economics, statism, fighting wars with law enforcement. Liberals, quixotically and insanely, keep doing the same failed crap over and over again expecting different results every time they try it. If Obama had any mettle, he would fire Napalitano immediately

  24. January 6, 2010 at 3:18 am

    The Christmas bomber was able to perfectly execute his part of the mission by getting on the aircraft and detonating his bomb over Detroit. It was only some presumably minor mistake on the part of a bomb maker in Yemen that saved hundreds of lives. The obvious errors in screening passengers deserve explanation and correction. Expressions of anger at the bureaucracy by the President and a focus on the blame game only distract from the real failing of the Obama Administration in this case.As Charles Krauthammer points out, the Obama Administration is acting as if we were no longer at war. That is the only explanation for deciding to apply normal criminal law to the Christmas bomber, an illegal enemy combatant in civilian clothes who attacked a civilian target as a saboteur. Under the law of war, the Christmas bomber could have been placed in military custody, interrogated as an enemy combatant, deprived of access to counsel until put on trial before a military commission. There would have been no possibility for the defense to turn the proceedings into a podium for the odious message of Al Qaeda. No chance for a plea bargain, no chance of having an irrationally sympathetic juror who cannot sentence a man to death no matter how heinous the crime. The case against the Christmas bomber is open and shut, and he could easily be sentenced to death under the law of war. The War Powers Resolution authorizing the war formerly known as the "Global War on Terror" is still in effect. The fighting and dying continue on a daily basis and the consequences of failure are as dire as ever. The President must conduct the war using all legal means to kill or capture and finally defeat the enemy. Giving up a key prisoner to the protections and whims of the civil justice system was another in a string of failures in the conduct of the war. It follows on the decision to try the main 9/11 terrorists in Federal District Court, the repeated statements and criminal investigations directed against members of the CIA and other services, the closing of Guantanamo and the handling of the decision to send additional forces to Afghanistan while setting a timeline for the start of withdrawal.President Obama has taken every opportunity since coming into office to play down the fact that we are at war. He fails to clearly name the enemy and confront the enemy ideology. The closest he has ever come to challenging militant Islam was in his famous Cairo speech, but even though his words pointed to militant Islam as the source of the problems facing the Middle East, the message was lost in the surrounding fluff of American mea culpa. President Obama fails to motivate his troops. Has there ever been a flatter speech to the troops in time of war than the one President Obama gave at West Point?But for an anonymous bomb maker's mistake in Yemen, President Obama's presidency would have been shattered with the destruction of the Delta flight. That should have opened his eyes to the facts of war and to the realization that he must fight this war with everything he has at his disposal as commander in chief. Instead, President Obama continues to fight as if he were still an adjunct professor of constitutional law in Chicago.

  25. January 6, 2010 at 5:03 am

    New Tone: What a pathetic post; Barack Obama is your President, as he is the President to all Americans. I have very little respect for the job that George W. Bush did during his terms as President, and that is not even going into how he was determined to be the President, but no matter how much I found him distasteful or did not like him, I could still respect that he was the man in the office of President of the United States.It would seem that you either don't know any history of how terrorism has been prosecuted, or you just don't care; Richard Reid, aka the "Shoe Bomber" was eventually tried and convicted in a "court of law" (meaning he was given his legal "rights") and then sentenced to life in prison, during the tenure of President Bush. Was he too "soft" on terrorists? People who think like you have written here often forget that one of the things that does separate us from other societies is that we do have the laws that you want the government to ignore, that we usually follow, and that most of that process is public. A lot of countries that don't have legal rights for their criminal suspects tend to execute many innocent victims, and that is one of the main reasons we have the laws that we have, and why they are for everyone who is a suspect; read the Constitution if you have any other questions about our laws. You also stated: … that MANY people will be hurt or killed when they are successful.; are you wanting a terrorist attack to be successful? I can understand that many conservatives want President Obama to fail, many have said so publicly, but it is beyond the pale for anyone to want a terrorist attack to succeed, simply so President Obama can be discredited. Pathetic.

  26. January 6, 2010 at 6:31 am

    The intent behind the Christmas bomber was to inflame people like Chris and other conservatives into behaving exactly they way they are behaving—issuing angry, aggressive rhetoric and trying to draw the U.S. into greater conflict with the Moslem world. The enemies would LOVE to see the U.S. react with military reprisals and in any other way appear to be an attacker against Islam. That type of reaction empowers our enemies leaders. They feed on conflict and exchanges of angry words. Bombing a plane, and killing a few hundred people will not in any way deal any kind of death blow to the U.S., nor was it intended to. It is simply a way for the enemy to tweak the nose of the U.S. in order to induce conflict on other fronts and make a political statement. A wise president will treat it as such and not over-react and play into the hands of the enemy. Obama's measured response is appropriate and shows a much greater understanding of the various and complex diplomatic, political and cultural factors that are in play in the Middle Eastern world, compared with so many of the people who post on this forum whose "understanding" is way to narrow focussed. Trust me, there isn't any head-strong, over-reactive, militant viewpoint expressed on this blog that President Obama hasn't already heard of and considered. And fortunately he is choosing not to be so naive and simple minded and out-of-step with the reality of the modern world in regards to international conflict and diplomacy and military strategy.

  27. January 6, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    I think we need to remember one thing. This administration does not refer to radical Islamic individuals who wish to harm America and kill Americans as terrorists. They are now "man caused disasters". This administration, according to their DHS document obtained on April 7th, considers conservatives and war veterans as terrorists. This shows what their priorities are. It is their intent to demonize tea baggers and deal with terrorist activities as they occur.Secondly, Bush is not our sitting President. Mr. Obama is. What Bush did or did not do is irrelevant. The difference here is that I can and did criticize Bush whereas it is not in a progressive to disagree with anything President Obama does. The real bottom line here is the person who said "the system worked" has got to go. Janet Napolitano (DHS) is way over her head. 278 people are alive today due to the ineptitude of the bomber, no because the system worked.

  28. January 6, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    For Obama, a former president of the Harvard Law Review, the response to the Under-bomber has been a veritable Review Revue. And it's not just a semantic thing: His instinct when facing all types of problems — Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the Fort Hood shootings, the pending Gitmo closing — has led him to the same approach: Order a review. It is a hallmark of his governing style.

  29. January 6, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    The State Department has awarded 1,011 special “diversity visas” allowing Yemeni nationals to immigrate to the United States since 2000, the year 17 U.S. sailors were killed when the USS Cole was attacked by terrorists in the Yemeni port of Aden.

  30. January 6, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    a passage on page 17 of a report published in July by the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security may interest you. It should. “Not all known or reasonably suspected terrorists are prohibited from boarding an aircraft, or are subject to additional security screening prior to boarding an aircraft,” says the passage. WAKE UP AMERICA!

  31. January 6, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    Krauthammer made a telling point when he writes, "The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension.

  32. January 6, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    OK, so is there ANYONE who posts here who claims to be wiser and more capable with domestic and international politics than Barrack Obama? If so, can they present ANY evidence for their claim? As far as I can tell, most of the anti-Obama comments come from people who have NO hands-on experience in the political and diplomatic big league that President Obama works in. These anti-Obama comments come from Monday morning quarterbacks who prop themselves up each day with their fantasy that they are indeed more capable than the president of the United States. And they can then turn on their radio and hear any number of right wing hate radio talk show hosts play right into that fantasy, telling them, "Yes, yes, you are smarter than the president; if the world would only give you the chance, you could really show everyone. Let's all join together and tell each other how smart we are, how misunderstood we are, how happy we'd be if only everyone would listen to us…."

  33. January 6, 2010 at 10:09 pm

    Wise Guy:Your sycophantic support of President Obama necessarily recalls the "Führerprinzip" (google it). Your only argument in defense of the Administration's handling of national security is to castigate all critics for not having the same level of experience in diplomacy and international affairs as President Obama. This is just plain stupid! Only a very limited number of people will ever have the learning experience that President Obama is obviously going through. Do you truly believe that only past presidents (and perhaps vice-presidents such as Dick Cheney) are qualified to exercise criticism? You were certainly not that reluctant to express criticism about the Bush Administration.We have freedom of speech. This blog lives on that freedom. In keeping with your standard approach on other issues, you fail to address the substance of the discussion and instead launch into a diatribe of personal attacks and insults.Just try, for a change, to address the actual issues. For example, why don't you explain why you believe it is better to place the December bomber (and the main 9/11 terrorists) in the criminal justice system rather than handling them in the military justice system. Let's hear your suggestions for how to deal with Al Qaeda, an ideologically driven organization that has no qualms about slaughtering hundreds or even thousands of innocents in the name of Allah. Or is that too difficult for you?

  34. January 6, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    "The difference here is that I can and did criticize Bush whereas it is not in a progressive to disagree with anything President Obama does." … so Hoosier states; either you suffer from selective or faulty memory- many times I have stated that I have not agreed with what our President Obama has done or said. I knew going into the voting booth that Barack Obama was not a progressive; I had no illusion that he was going to come out swinging like FDR like he absolutely needed to (and still needs to). President Obama is and always has been a "centrist" Democrat, and with his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, he has a very corporatist agenda going right now. Hoosier, you also stated: "What Bush did or did not do is irrelevant. " Seems to me, most of the Bush apologists tried to pin as much blame on the inactions of the Bush Administration on the previous Clinton Administration; do you have any memory of that ever happening? What President Bush did or didn't do does matter; the prosecution of the Blackwater security team for the slaughter of Iraqis is a prime example. The Justice Department under Bush prosecuted that case with such ineptitude that the case was virtually thrown out; you don't believe that happened by design? The actions of President Obama right now on the issue of airline safety and protecting America against terrorism is what needs to be done, not more "fear-mongering" that the right employed for nearly eight years. Implement the the changes suggested by the 9/11 Commission, train the TSA screeners better, put in better equipment, and we can be safer.

  35. January 7, 2010 at 5:45 am

    Hey DownTown, My post is not as miserable as you describe. I think that people on the side of the islamic extremists are what are known as sabatauge and spies during wartime. They were not wearing military uniforms and their targets were non-military. They should be interrogated with the best methods possible to glean any information then executed after a military tribunal if found guilty. They should not receive a lawyer, long trial, etc. An example from WWII (wikipedia)On June 12, 1942, the U-boat U-202 landed Dasch's team with explosives and plans at East Hampton, Long Island, New York.[8] Their mission was to destroy power plants at Niagara Falls and three Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) factories in Illinois, Tennessee and New York. Dasch turned himself in to the FBI, providing them with a complete account of the planned mission, which led to the arrest of the complete team.Kerling's team landed from U-584 at Ponte Vedra Beach (25 miles [40 km] south-east of Jacksonville, Florida), on June 17. They were tasked with laying mines in four areas: the Pennsylvania Railroad in Newark, New Jersey, canal sluices in both St. Louis and Cincinnati, and New York City's water supply pipes. The team made their way to Cincinnati, Ohio and split up, with two going to Chicago, Illinois and the others to New York. The Dasch confession led to the arrest of all of the men by July 10.All eight were tried, convicted by the Military Commission with six men sentenced to death. President Roosevelt approved the sentences. The constitutionality of the military commissions was upheld by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Quirin and six of the eight men were executed by electrocution on August 8. Dasch and Burger were given thirty-year prison sentences. Both were released in 1948 and deported to Germany.[9] Dasch (aka George Davis), who had been a longtime American resident prior to the war, suffered a difficult life in Germany after his return from U.S. custody due to his cooperation with U.S. authorities. As a condition of his deportation, he was not permitted to return to the United States, even though he spent many years writing letters to prominent American authorities (J. Edgar Hoover, President Eisenhower, etc.) requesting permission to return. He eventually moved to Switzerland and wrote a book, titled Eight Spies Against America. [10]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_North_America_during_World_War_IINow Bob, you can see quite a contrast between this President Obama and the government of WWII. Also Bob, no excuses for Obama to rush back to the expensive beach condo to be the hero stopping his golf game, costing thousands for a high speed return. Can't he trust the hundreds of US Secret Service members to attend to a small accident? He probably doesn't even visit the soldiers in the hospital but he runs back home to see a kid with a skinned knee. THAT is PITIFUL and I am thankful he is NOT MY President. I have that right to look forward to Jan. 2013 when Obama hits the road 🙂

  36. January 7, 2010 at 5:47 am

    If you asked me a couple years ago, who would you rather have as U.S. president, making foreign policy decisions: George W. Bush or Chris in Paso? I would have answered "Chris In Paso!" Bush proved himself an incompetent, puppet-on-a-string leader who consistently made decisions that harmed the well-being of the U.S. and our citizens. It would be hard to imagine that Chris, who can string a few cohesive sentences together, would do worse.But times are different today. If the choice is between Chris in Paso and Barrack Obama, I would have no hesitation in choosing Barrack Obama. There has been nothing that Chris or any of the other conservatives on this blog have stated that gives me any confidence whatsoever that they could come close to dealing with foreign policy issues better than President Obama. All I hear from these conservatives is the most stale, regressive, bankrupt attitudes and ideas that seem to come from the same ideological base that has brought on so many problems for the United States. Why would anyone in their right mind assume that Chris in Paso would be a better statesman and foreign policy strategist than Barrack Obama, who, in addition to having a resume and political track record more impressive than Chris's, has the benefit of access to virtually any foreign policy expert and untold amounts of intelligence briefings? Do I personally think I have knowledge to map out a specific plan to deal with these issues? No. Chris apparently thinks he does, and good for him. But he's got a long way to go until he convinces me that he has a better plan than President Obama. We'll see how the Christmas bomber prosecution goes. I think it will be interesting and I suspect that there is more strategy being employed and more reasons for proceeding that way than Chris has a clue about. Do I know all the reasons? No. I believe there is always more going on behind the scenes than either Chris or I have had the opportunity of know about. But I like the idea that the world will have a chance to see how the American justice system works, outside of the military justice system. Is it a gamble? Perhaps. But unlike his predecessor, fortune tends to favor President Obama. And I have no doubt he weighs the odds and the facts carefully. I won't bet against him at this point. Everyone who has so far has ended up disappointed.

  37. January 7, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    Actually, I think that Chris, from the way he writes here, has FAR and AWAY more to bring to the job of president than President Obama did when he first announced his candidacy for president. Chris sounds like he has a college education; so does Obama. Chris sounds like he is knowledgable of world event; so did Obama. Obama never served in a position of leadership of ANYTHING. I can't say that Chris has or has not, but I am willing to give Chris the benefit of the doubt, so advantage Chris. Obama didn't have access to all of the foreign policy experts before he ran for senate, and neither does Chris (as far as I know), so that's a wash. Chris, have you ever served in the military? I know Obama never did, which would have given him a different perspective on the uses and purposes of our military forces, like those that would have manned military tribunals. Let's see… is there anything else? Well, by the way Chris is writing here (and this is a complete supposition here, I admit), he sounds caucasian. This would provide him no succor since only novalties get any pub in the Democrat Party. So he would be facing an uphill battle in the media against any Democrat woman or other minorities that might run against him. I mention this because as paper-thin Obama's resume was, what with his 6 days in the senate before he started running for president, his complete lack of executive experience, his history as a "community organizer" for ACORN. As an aside, this means Obama probably spent his time trying to help pimps and prostitutes evade tax laws while busing in workers to vote in Republican primaries or marching on some corporation's headquarters to shake them down for 'hush' money. I don't think Chris would sit idly by while his minister talked like a Jihadist about Chris' America like Obama did. And I am certain that Chris would never be caught dead with, much less dole out millions of foundation dollars with, an unrepentant Marxist domestic terrorist the way Obama did with William Ayers.So I would say that Chris is MORE than qualified to offer his opinions on the matters of the day and is actually MORE than qualified than Obama is to be president. As Wise Guy said in his blathering, non-substantive way, Obama only knows what he knows because he is president. Therefore, Chris would have the same intelligence briefs, the same clan of Secretaries, advisors and czars (only representing Chris' world view and not Obama's Mao loving, Marxist world view) that Obama does. And thus, Chris would make for a better president than Obama is.There! I said it: Chris is more qualified than Obama to be president.

  38. January 7, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    Big Tent REPUBLICAN, how is it that Chris in Paso, according to you, and based on what he has written in this forum, "sounds caucasian"?What exactly constitutes "sounding caucasian"? What "color" do I "sound" with my writing?Interesting how you continue to try to force racial considerations into so many discussions here, whether relevant or not. Voting does not always have to be a "black or white" consideration.

  39. January 7, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    The top official in charge of analyzing terror threats did not cut short his ski vacation after the underwear bomber nearly blew up an airliner on Christmas Day, the Daily News has learned.Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center since 2007, decided not to return to his agency's "bat cave" nerve center in McLean, Va., until several days after Christmas, two U.S. officials said."People have been grumbling that he didn't let a little terrorism interrupt his vacation," said one of the sources.The NCTC, the post-9/11 clearinghouse for intelligence to detect terror plots against the U.S., is under intense scrutiny for failing to "connect the dots" on Nigerian bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.Leiter's spokesman declined to say when the terror-center chief returned to Washington and fully retook the helm of his analysis agency, which is near CIA headquarters just outside the nation's capital.

  40. January 7, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    "Black or white" is NOW a voting consideration for you liberals and the sychophants in the liberal mainstream media. I only brought it up to illustrate the obsession you liberals have with "firsts". I have no way of knowing if Chris is black, white, yellow brown or green. But the fact that of all I said, that was the only thing you picked up on shows how race-obsessed YOU are. That is YOUR problem, not mine. What's funny is that you fall for these traps I set for you EVERY TIME.

  41. January 7, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    What liberals and this bonehead administration fails to understand is that ALL terrorist acts, whether the act achieves its goals or not (liek trying to blow up a plane on Christmas and failing) is a SUCCESSFUL terrorist attack. Look at what a FAILURE of a terrorist act has done. We are now seeing full body scanners (which wouldn't have detected the explosives in the diaper) appear in American airports over the objections of civil libertarians. We see the presdient through the entire law enforcement and intelligence communities under the bus for still not "connecting the dots" inthis post-9/11 world. This is why, whether or not the act is actually kills or destroys their intended targets, all terrorist acts need to be addressed for what they are, a deliberate act of war on this nation. Obama does NOT understand that and his actions and the actions of his administration show that.

  42. January 10, 2010 at 8:42 pm

    A mindless "one size fits all" response to every "terrorist" threat is not the answer and is neither wise or prudent. A more fluid type of response strategy, where the unique facts of each threat or attack are taken under consideration is preferable. These terrorist situations and their ramifications are often more complex than some people appreciate and the tendency for predictable knee-jerk reactions is best avoided, if only because then if becomes too easy for enemies to manipulate us, knowing what the response will be, and, like in a game of chess, always staying at least three moves ahead. Already terrorists can count on the fact that even a failed attempt will spur the U.S.'s "conservative" anti-Obama contingent to criticize and attempt to weaken the power and international prestige of our nation's president. And thus we have the situation today: While President Obama works to deal with terrorist threats from abroad, he has to simultaneously deal with all the domestic attacks on himself and his administration. And rarely is the rightwing criticism of Obama legitimate. Whereas the Democrats used to criticize George Bush for all the well documented failures and travesties he was responsible for, the Republican attacks against Obama are generally for imaginary "failures" or tragedies that the rightwing PREDICTS will happen sometime in the FUTURE because of Obama's actions. In other words, much of the criticism against Obama is in regards to things that have NOT even happened. It is fear-mongering at its worst, because it harms the safety and well-being of this nation, creating unnecessary divisions at a time when greater unity will serve our nation best.President Obama continues to prove himself more capable and effective than his harshest rightwing critics, who, true to form spend little or no effort to tell us about capable rightwing leaders, preferring to attack one man who is actually in the fray, doing his best to serve his nation, and making significant strides in international diplomacy while doing so.

  43. January 12, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    It is well documented that they want to destroy Israel and the West. Is this fear mongering Wise Guy? President Obama is perceived as so weak and will not retaliate against countries that provide or disregard training facilities that this in itself will encourage terrorism.

  44. January 12, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    But when he failed to immediately step up to the microphones in Hawaii after the Christmas terror and thank the passengers for bravely foiling the plot that his intelligence community had failed to see, President Cool reached the limits of cool.No Drama Obama is reticent about displays of emotion. The Spock in him needs to exert mental and emotional control. That is why he stubbornly insists on staying aloof and setting his own deliberate pace for responding — whether it’s in a debate or after a debacle. But it’s not O.K. to be cool about national security when Americans are scared.Our professorial president is no feckless W., biking through Katrina. He is no doubt on top of the crisis in terms of studying it top to bottom. But his inner certainty creates an outer disconnect.He’s so sure of himself and his actions that he fails to see that he misses the moment to be president — to be the strong father who protects the home from invaders, who reassures and instructs the public at traumatic moments.He’s more like the aloof father who’s turned the Situation Room into a Seminar Room.

  45. January 12, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    It took George W. Bush SIX DAYS to publicly respond regarding the "shoe bomber." President Obama handled everything just fine. It is only because the Republicans are desperate and bankrupt that they are making this trivia some kind of "issue." They have nothing productive to talk about. So all they do is tear down, tear down, tear down.What a distraction. What a shame.

  46. January 13, 2010 at 12:23 am

    The senior Democrat in the senate is exposed to be a racist, other senior Democrats are bailing on the Obama agenda by not running for re-election in 2012, the over half of the MAerican people do not support Obama, his healthcare nationalization attempt, or his Porkulus bill… and the Republicans are bankrupt? Wise Guy is the very definition of "delusional".And to be like Wise Guy, I will also post a response on the wrong thread: List for me the stations that Rush Limbaugh has a license to own or operate. You can't do it because he has NONE. What a loon!

  47. January 13, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    Typical lefty. Forget about this President's shortcomings and blame Bush. Try to prove a double standard and remove the spotlight from the inability of this President and administration. Typical liberal response. We expect it. Getting real tired of that four letter word though. Bush. So, let's discuss the differences. Reid was only a couple months after 9/11. The administration and congress were still working on policies and procedures to implement following the disaster. Reid had a valid visa. Reid's father did not warn the US Embassy and tell them his son was a danger. Reid was not on a terror watch list. State department fail twice to identify his Visa problems. Bush's Secretary of State did not say the system worked. Abdulmutallab has nothing to do with Bush. It is just a liberal game and much easier to blame Bush than realize the shortcomings of this administration. Pathetic. Think for yourselves for once. Was there a failure by this adminstration to prevent this attempted suicide bomer? If you answer no, there is absolutely no reason for further discussions as your minds are totally closed to reason.

  48. January 13, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    The dittohead apologists can try to spin it any way they want, but that doesn't change the fact that Rush Limbaugh continually lying to his audience is NOT good radio. It doesn't matter how many radio station's Limbaugh owns or doesn't own. Treating his audience like fools and spreading anti-government propaganda (based on lies) for his personal enrichment is a poor use of the PUBLIC airwaves. I think it harms the well-being of the United States and gives support and comfort to our enemies who savor hearing a multi-millionaire cigar-chomping tyrant stirring up irrational anger, attacking our leaders, spreading animosity and dividing our nation on a daily basis. Radio could be used as a healing force. The Dave Congalton show does this at times. Limbaugh, on the other hand, corrupts the airwaves and the public.

  49. January 13, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    President Obama handled the underwear bomber situation just fine. Get over it.We don't need hysteric "Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Palin" dramatics or cheap "get out the vote" saber rattling from our president at a time like this. President Obama handled it just right. No drama Obama. That's what we want and that's what we voted for and that's what we got. Let the Republicans have all the wild-eyed drama kings and queens. They have nothing else going for them. Should we be expecting a rant from Joe the Plumber soon? Or some more "roguishness" from Sarah Palin? Can't wait…

  50. January 14, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    I had no problem with how Obama handled the bomber. I have a huge problem with how the administration had systematic failures in preventing this guy from getting on the plane.

  51. January 14, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    Fair enough, Hoosier, in which case may I suggest you encourage your "conservative" brethren to quit attacking President Obama about this, as we all know that the system and the vast majority of people involved in maintaining air safety are the same as under the George W. Bush administration.Maybe if "conservatives" would stop wasting everyone's time and energy with all their baseless, non-constructive "mountains out of molehills" attacks, and would instead devote energy into working with the administration we would all be safer in the future. In fact, I'm sure we would be safer. I'm confident that our current president and administration is handling all of this better than the Bush administration would have or a McCain/Palin administration would have. I think most Americans would agree with me. In matters of domestic air safety, I don't think it is too much to ask of the "conservatives" to put aside their petty, vindictive and frequently baseless personal political agendas and work WITH the president to make our nation safer. Is that too much to ask?

  52. January 16, 2010 at 11:53 pm

    Typical liberal whining: "Why can't you stop picking on my guy and work WITH him to make the nation safer?"BULLSHITWhy? It's called THE EIGHT YEARS OF BUSH.Every day, even during terrorist attacks and natural disasters, you liberals attacked, attacked and attacked some more. You all were relentless in your attemps to destroy Bush at every turn. There was only ONE day that Democrats didn't attack Bush and that was on 9/11 itself… and that was because your side's spin machine couldn't react fast enough to figure out how to make it Bush's fault, but that came soon enough.That said, MY criticism will be directed at the individual that deserves criticism, not just Obama because he is president (unlike you liberals). I still say that Janet Napolitano must either resign or be fired. Her statement that "the system worked" is dangerously incompetent. Obviously the system failed or else LAX and JFK airports wouldn't be installing full body scanners. Napalitano has no business being Homeland Security Secretary. The cristicism of Obama comes from the fact that he keeps his own "Brownie" on the job after the system failed on her watch. The fact that the guy failed has ZERO to do with "the system". A smarter, better trained bomber wouldn't of failed. It is gambling with people's lives to rely on the competence of your adversary as a means of providing security. Fire Napalitano now.

  53. January 17, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    The difference between the George W. Bush years and the Obama presidency is that what Bush was doing was lying and harming the U.S.. What Obama is doing is obviously aimed at helping the U.S., not simply for his own personal interests. Bush lied when he told us we had to send our men and women to die in Iraq and kill civilians to prevent Saddam Hussein from getting "weapons of mass destruction." So the U.S. people protested against Bush because he was deceiving the public and not doing what he said and it was obvious he was harming the interests of the U.S.President Obama, on the other hand, clearly has the best interests of the U.S. as a whole in mind, and he is clearly making progress on raising the stature and well-being of the U.S. He is making the world a better place. Bush was not worthy of our support. His presidency was a sham and a con job. President Obama, on the other hand, is doing what he said he would do. He helped save our economy from disaster and he is making significant strides in international relations. He is working to bring more peace, prosperity and health to this world. He is a worthy leader and deserves our support. We can only imagine what a disaster we would be living through at this moment if President Obama had not prevailed and we had elected John McCain and Sarah Palin. President Obama has already accomplished more positive things for the U.S. in his first year than both Bush's did during their entire terms. Improving healthcare is now a priority issue; so it getting troops out of Iraq, so is getting TARP funds back from the Wall Street scoundrels, so is getting new regulations for the financial industry; so is getting more efficient vehicles on the road; so is building stronger diplomatic relations with other nations, etc, etc.Who in their right mind would oppose these things?

  54. January 19, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    What Bush lies are you referring to? Anytime, President Obama's lies versus President Bush's. I have a list now that is pages and pages long, although I don't know how to count some. If he says he is gong to do something a dozen times and than does not do it, is this 12 lies or one lie 12 times?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: