home

Obama's Response To The Attempted Terrorist Attack

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:36:10 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I largely agree with Glenn Greenwald that President Obama's response to the attempted terrorist attack on Northwest flight 253 was appropriate and intelligent.

I thought that the President's remarks acknowledging a "systemic failure" and promising a full investigation was the right thing to do. It certainly did not merit a "red alert" situation with meetings in the Situation Room. That said, I disagree with Glenn's description of the terror attempt as a "a lame, failed attempt to kill people by a fractured band of criminals." It was a failed attempt surely. But it was a serious threat and Islamic extremists are not just a "fractured band of criminals." The threat of terrorism by Islamic extremists is very serious. The President recognizes this. I disagree with progressives who attempt to diminish the seriousness of that threat.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | Rationalizing Incompetence >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Response To The Attempted Terrorist Attack | 74 comments (74 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    That one part of Greenwald's post (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:49:05 AM EST
    stood out to me too, especially when the rest of it was so right on target. Diminishing the threat is just as bad as exaggerating it.

    I also think Obama reacted correctly. Napolitano on the other hand with the happy talk was a little off kilter. I think if she had not tried her little 'look on the bright side' routine, it would have been a better overall response.

    I'll add that the leadship response has to in some (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:54:05 AM EST
    respects mirror the response of the country. People want to see that their leaders feel the same way they do. I think Obama was just about right on target. No one I was with was freaking out and acting scared about this. They were very concerned, glad the guy was caught, and wanted to know how it happened.

    Napolitano on the other hand was a little too smiley and tone deaf.

    Parent

    Do you think any of the administration (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:25:16 AM EST
    appointees are allowed to just get themselves on tv and start talking without being told exactly what to say and what image to project?

    Napolitano failed to convince the people with the happy talk, so her boss needed to take the microphone away.

    In the end, it's still just talk. I'm waiting to hear that the threatened bold insistence that people involved admit their accountability actually happens.

    Parent

    No, they don't (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:29:39 AM EST
    When they get on TV, their comments have been vetted through the WH.  The WH knew exactly what she would say before she said it.

    Another lead test balloon.

    Parent

    Inspector (none / 0) (#74)
    by norris morris on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 08:03:53 PM EST
    It would be nice to know the details, yes.

    Parent
    Serious (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:51:41 AM EST
    The way in which I don't think Obama takes the threat of "Isamic extremists" seriously is that he does not appear to take any of their complaints into account.

    I, for one, think that a lot if not all of the animosity directed at us is caused by the perception that we are imperialists. Our behavior in the Middle East and South East Asia certainly supports that perception, imo. Sometimes our behavior is cruel.

    We can try to build one huge wall around ourselves.
    But I don't see that as leading to any solution - even short term.

    We must find a way to talk to people who are angry with us.
    We must modify our aggressive behavior.

    well said (none / 0) (#8)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:59:08 AM EST


    Parent
    Well, we have been imperialists (none / 0) (#14)
    by hairspray on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:15:24 AM EST
    and never more so than under King George Bush in the last 8 years.  In "Bad Money", by Kevin Phillips he lays out the fall of the various empires of the past and then plots our course next to those.  Very scary, and never more so than with G. Bush.  It will take Obama a time to change course, and it can't come soon ehough for me.

    Parent
    Aren't you forgetting the drones? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 01:50:00 PM EST
    And the fact that we are sending 30,000 more troops in?  How do you see that as any sort of winding down?

    Parent
    Jihadis have been ANGRY with the west (none / 0) (#58)
    by star on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 02:28:47 PM EST
    way before they ever heard of George Bush.. It is the liberty and freedom and the fact that USA is not a muslim country that is their main beef. Any hard core muslim be in the caves of Afghanistan or apartments of London or Amsterdam or in a suburb of virginia dreams of establishing an islamic caliphate ruling the WHOLE WORLD. American can pour billions of $ into muslim countires and still they will be hated NON believers.Even the most moderate of imams preach in mosques that "we cannot rest so long as there are non believers in this world"..This is an exact quote from a sermon from an imam at eid prayers in south carolina..
    I am a registered democrat and half muslim. I am frustrated with the constant ignoring or mis representing of the sentiments of jihadis for the sake of being politically correct. Please wake up and listen to these people. they DO represent a large majority of muslims and they DO mean what they are saying.
    I dont think Obama gets it yet. I hope he and his administration will before it is too late. calling  last weeks incident as an isolated incident shows the level of their ignorance.

    Parent
    Whoa (none / 0) (#59)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 02:55:56 PM EST
    "A large majority of Muslims" are enraged by the existence of non-believers?  That was quite a rant.

    Parent
    It is part of the teachings (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 01:31:43 PM EST
    of Islam.  And sadly this is what so many left Americans are having such a hard time with all of this.  As time passes though it is a reality that we we will all come to grasp more firmly.  They were coming for us no matter what any of us did when or how or why.  It is where the faith is at in its own growth and transitions.  It is accepted as well that more moderate Muslims will seldom if ever call out the radicals because there is a tenent of Islam that calls for them all to save the world by MAKING it all Muslim.  If an argument can be made that a terrorist attack is somehow fulfilling this Islamic tenent...well, there you have the rub.

    Parent
    Why am I reminded of (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 03:19:23 PM EST
    certain Germans in the thirties who said "they" will never be loyal to anything but each other and Zionism?

    Take that bullsh*t back to The Savage Nation.

    Parent

    I think they get it (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 01:43:42 PM EST
    The Muslim faith has not always been so though.  It would seem that between the Christian and Muslim faiths and the financial largesse that has consumed the globe for quite some time......that everyone lost their humility of faith.  I do want you to know though that people out there fighting this right now, they know about how the extremism has become rooted in basic Islamic doctrine just as how killing doctor Tiller is sadly rooted in a lot of basic Christian doctrine to the point that his murder was not grieved by my nation as a whole or even a half.

    Parent
    Caveat Emperor (none / 0) (#75)
    by norris morris on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 08:06:09 PM EST
    I just can't wait soon enough for Obama to start reacting and stop parsing. Like "I never said I was for a Public Option."

    We're waiting.

    Parent

    I wish you right, but you're not. (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:57:11 AM EST
    Here is what bin Ladin had to say about such things in a March 1997 interview with Peter Arnett, then with CNN:

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    BIN LADIN: ..... So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    Link

    That spells out what the radicals want very clearly.


    Parent

    Bin Laden (none / 0) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 11:44:20 AM EST
    if he's even still active in anything, but at any rate his wannabes, you're right, are like Republicans.  It doesn't matter what the U.S. does or says.

    However, there's the little matter of the voters, or the portion of the larger Muslim population, which enables them, hides them, funds them, supports them and from whom they draw their recruits.

    Parent

    Your reply (none / 0) (#62)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 06:32:39 PM EST
    makes no sense to me.

    What Bin Laden is quoted as saying is what causes him and his followers to wish our destruction is aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    That's what I'm talking about. Our aggressive intervention in foreign countries - Muslim countries,  South American countries, Asian countries.

    "Aggressive intervention" is a rather mild description of what we have done in Iraq, for example. Do you expect no one to notice?

    Parent

    It is serious but not the be all end all (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:53:22 AM EST
    that the GOP and cable TV would have us believe.

    This, as far as I can recall, is only the second attempt to blow up a US plane in the nine years since 9/11.  Like the shoe bomber it was a rather bizarre and unsuccessful attempt.  It is not anything I am losing sleep over or cancelling air travel.

    I agree completely with Greenwald that these are members of a fractured band of crimnals and that these events should be handled by police, not the full "might" of our military.  Our societal response to this has been predictably ridiculous, over the top.

    When I heard about it I was happy the folks on that flight all were OK and resigned to a period of nonsensical additional airport "security." I was a bit surprised by the calls from Leiberman etc to invade Yemen, but that is my fault.  These war mongering, chickenhawk fools know no boundaries.

    Terrorists are criminals and should be the subject of law enforcement not the military.  And that is not enough, we must remove the reasons that people want to become terrorists.  The principal reason is our time and again indiscriminate killing of men, women, children, babies, unborn babies and anything else that finds itself in the path of an American bomb.  Secondarily is our economic exploitation of resources belonging to other peoples and of the people themslves.

    Terrorism is a serious problem.  It is also a problem we have had a large role in creating.  End the empire and you will end terrorism, at least that directed at US citizens.

    That's what I always come back too (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:59:51 AM EST
    The best way to minimize Islamic terrorism (we will probably never end it)is to minimize our footprint in the Islamic regions of the world. To that end we have to break our dependence on the dang oil.  The militarists never want to come to that conclusion.

    Parent
    Uh I seem to recall (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 11:14:54 AM EST
    a whole bunch of bombers plotting to blow up airplanes on flights from England to the US..

    And then their was the foiled plot to fly one into a building in LA...

    Parent

    Fort Hood (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    Aren't we forgetting Fort Hood massacre only a month ago?  That sort of disappeared from the media when the "secondary PTSD" scenario didn't play out, and he turned out to be a radical Islam with terrorist links. I understand that that guy had links to the same imam that this guy did.

    Parent
    The perp was a US Army officer, no? (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 11:10:04 AM EST
    And you seriously think purported ties to terrorism is a reaosn he dropped from media attention?  If he were connected to AQ he woudl be on cable TV 24/7.

    Parent
    Good point (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 09:06:07 AM EST


    Parent
    good police work foiling these plots (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 11:11:20 AM EST
    that's what we need more of, not military interventions which only enrage and radicalize more Muslims

    Parent
    I'm From New York (none / 0) (#76)
    by norris morris on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 08:22:17 PM EST
    Listen Dudes,

    I'm a Democrat and have been an activist fighting for women's rights all my life, so no lip.

    I lived through 9/11 amd if you think for one dumb minute that there isn't a concerted effort to do us more harm than you can believe then you are armchair idiots.

    I opposed Iraq. But....not Afghanistan. There will always be terrorism, but leaving ourselves open is unthinkable. Whether we stay or leave, the threats will continue.

    Unfortunately Bush screwed up in Afghanistan and if we don't know how to deal with this unquestionably attacks will increase.

    Since none of us is privvy to intelligence, it would be smart to believe that Islamic style terrorism is unrelenting and not "scattershot" attempts. It's really uninformed stupidity to be so naive.  Many threats have been thwarted in England and elswhere by vigilant intelligence and law enforcement.

    If you could stop prating the old line about "imperialism" it might occur to you that no matter what we think or do at this point...
    we are vulnerable and should be aware of it and hold our leaders responsible for protecting us.

    After getting a load of zombie "Brownie" Napolitano and 72 hours for American Idol to get to a mike, it's not asking too much that we have the right to assume there is reasonable concern considering the idiots who are in charge of Homeland Security, et al.

    In fact we have the right to have the right.

    Parent

    oh really? (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:01:30 AM EST
    But it was a serious threat and Islamic extremists are not just a "fractured band of criminals."

    and you know this kid, with what appears to be serious emotional "issues", was actually part of some organized islamic terrorist cabal how, exactly?

    any idiot with a cell phone can claim responsibility for pretty much anything (see: newt gringrich), so i take that with the large grain of salt it deserves, until some actual evidence is reported that sustains the claim.

    so far, he's a wannabe, who may have met someone, who gave him (or sold them to him) the explosives, with basic instructions on how to detonate it. that hardly, in and of itself, qualifies him as part of any group.

    AP reported that the Somali (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:35:30 AM EST
    government found another guy at their airport in Mogadishu trying to fly with the same kind of explosive device.

    I think this stuff is very serious, but I also think that these extremists are largely people who aren't playing with a full deck of cards which in theory should be to our advantage.  The problem with our current policies is that a lot of it is about PR and making the public "feel" safe by creating elaborate and labyrinthian computer systems - and patting down little old ladies in wheel chairs - rather than about simply doing the gumshoe investigating that is required if you want to track and limit the activities of criminals.

    We made the mistake of becoming as driven in our decisions and actions by emotion rather than engaging in sensible problem-solving.  That was understandable to a degree in the aftermath of 2001, but now many years later we are still engaging those policies.  I hope that this event brings about some much needed analysis and change to the system.

    Parent

    It is serious... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:04:28 AM EST
    just as any murder is serious...my biggest concern is our counter-terror efforts doing more harm than good and furthering the cycle of retaliatory violence...we drop a bomb from a drone, they strap a bomb on a kid, we drop another, they strap another.  It'll never end till one side buts the bombs away and gets serious about peaceful co-existence...we talk the talk but our foreign policy doesn't walk the walk.

    I laud Pres. Obama's response and (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:11:39 AM EST
    question Greenwald's devotion to the theory if the U.S. withdrew from every primarily Muslim country and never tortured another person of the Islamic faith all would be well.  Israel would, presumably, still exist.

    Fire on any airplane loaded with passengers and in the air is not a just a failed attempt IMO.  

    Failed bomb but successful fire (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 12:01:53 PM EST
    and successful disruption of many flights on a peak day -- and definitely a successful fear tactic, yes.

    Thanks for pointing out, as ever, how foolish are those who dismiss this (including Napolitano).

    It would seem in more traditional legal terms that this was attempted murder, and since when do we dismiss that with an "oh, well, so what"?!

    Parent

    Very frightening. But I am (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 12:06:34 PM EST
    gaging my reaction to 9 11, when I was out of the country (and possibly stuck abroad!) and my reaction to this incident, when I was here and flying home the next day.

    Parent
    Something to be concerned about (none / 0) (#48)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 01:07:49 PM EST
    Like Cream City, I believe that there are serious lessons to be learned from this close-call episode. While no operation can be risk-free, this incident had clues and more almost hitting any observer on the head. And, while I am thankful for the courageous passengers near the potential bomber, I keep wondering why exactly and precisely did Amsterdam allow him to board in view of those facts.  Despite the present controversies about future regulations that may stem from this attempt, it is important that a straightforward report be made to the American public as to the thinking or non-thinking that would result in boarding such an obvious risk. Also: Secretary Napolitano's response has definitely left me with a diminished impression of her. Recognizing that her response undoubtedly coordinated with the WH, yet the manner & approach of presentation is often entrusted to the Cabinet level official. I now question her ability to perform in potential crisis...until she demonstrates a fuller comprehension. Perhaps, a behind-the-barn door talking to and thorough discussion (and private reprimand) are really called for in the case of Napolitano's dismal initial reaction.

    Parent
    It isn't her first boo-boo (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 01:15:47 PM EST
    A few weeks ago, she riled the Canadians up by stating that the 9/11 hijackers came through Canada - even though they didn't (one would think the Secretary of DHS would know a little about 9/11).

    Napolitano was born in New York and yet takes so little interest in us that as recently as last April she seemed unaware of some basic facts regarding the attack on the World Trade Center.

    That became apparent in an interview with Canadian television. Napolitano suggested that the Canadian and Mexican borders warranted equal attention.

    "Yes, Canada is not Mexico. It doesn't have a drug war going on," Napolitano said. "Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country ...it's been across the Canadian border."

    The interviewer inquired if the terrorists included those who had staged the 9/11 attacks.

    "Not just those, but others as well," Napolitano said.

    The Canadian ambassador to the U.S., Michael Wilson, subsequently lamented that "misconceptions arise on something as fundamental as where the 9/11 terrorists came from."

    "As the 9/11 commission reported in 2004, all of the 9/11 terrorists arrived in the United States from outside North America," Wilson noted. "They flew to major U.S. airports. They entered the U.S. with documents issued by the United States government. No 9/11 terrorists came from Canada."

    Napolitano announced through an aide she had "misunderstood" the interviewer and had actually been speaking about the lone would-be bomber who had been caught crossing from Canada into Washington State in 1999.

    I'm not sure how you confuse a foiled plot in Washington State with 9/11, but hey, what do I know?

    Parent

    Boo- Boos (none / 0) (#77)
    by norris morris on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 08:32:26 PM EST
    Janet Napolitano is totally unprepared or equipped on any level to be in charge of DHS.

    Thanks for all the details. Her performance was that of a detached zombie on Ambien.

    Napolitano is an embarrassment and if Team Obama doesn't wake up our administration will appear even more  politically naive and timid in the current paralysis it finds itself re: Healthcare, The Economy,  and...

    Wait until the next expected HUGE bailout of totally corrupt and inept Fannie/Freddie happens which I understand is imminent.

    A BIG mistake.

    Parent

    The Netherlands did the job (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 01:15:44 PM EST
    apparently, from what I can see following Jeralyn's and others' posts.  He did have some sort of passport acceptable to us, we did not want our people subjected to full-body scanners there, etc.

    Now the Netherlands may be less willing to abide by U.S. requests to be less lax than the Dutch tend to be.  (I understand that they really cracked down on bag-snatching in the airport, as we endured years ago -- warned as we were even then, before 9/11, that it tended to be by crime rings of Muslims!  The Dutch, as well we know, are much harder on them, and sometimes wrongly, than we tend to be.)

    Parent

    Errrrr, (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Jackson Hunter on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    I'm conflicted about this.  I agree that Obama is doing a good job on this, he had no reason to panic since the plot did not work.  If the plot had and he stayed in Hawaii (which I seriously doubt he'd do) then it'd be fair to rip into him.

    The part of your post I disagree with is that we don't acknowledge the seriousness of the threat.  I think we do, except Liberals don't wet themselves in panic over the resurection of the Caliphate because that's a silly notion.  How will they do that?  If they knock down the Space Needle, Sears Tower, and the Empire State Building all in one day, are all Americans simply going to surrender to 5,000 terrorists?  Maybe we will if it's six buildings?  10?  20?

    Terrorism is a very serious threat, and we need to combat it, but your more likely to be killed attending a Chicago Public School than if you fly.  (And no, that's not an Obama shot, it just happens that's where a lot of young kids are getting killed.)  

    What scares me much more than Al Queda is the nutballs in our own country.  Glen Beck is pretty much calling for an armed revolt for Christ's sake.  And there are millions of those people with millions of guns right here, right now.  That is a serious threat, one which was ignored last time until Oklahoma City happened.

    Happy New Year everyone btw.

    Jackson

    Nutballs and Beck (none / 0) (#78)
    by norris morris on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 09:06:27 PM EST
    Big error in thinking so one dimensionally is that
    the nutballs don't change one thing.

    Terrorism is a real threat and we must be vigilant and not play pretend because right wingnuts are over the top. They always will be.

    We still have to pay attention and react appropriately which American Idol Team didn't do.

     Abamabots are in denial about Obama's tardy and detached response.   Mr Cool and Zombie Napolitano he sent to us as  spokesperson was utterly boneheaded and backfired. Obama has been behind the moment since he stopped his Oration Campaign.

    I hope Obama succeeds as we all will succeed with him, but honest and appropriate critique is a necessary component of any success.

    The Villagers can't stop being preoccupied with a political given. Republicans and other rightwingnuts will attack on every issue all the time. Duh.  So what's new?  This is not a reasonable reason for not keeping our leaders honest.

    So far Obama's boo-bbos regarding backroom deals with BigPharma from the get-go, along with other secret deals and compromises made with Big Insurance, and a line up of financial cabinet
    members who were responsible for our economic mess, make him appear weak and two faced and he has to expect criticism.  I'm not even gonna mention the sham of Copenhagen and our faux position.

    If Obama feels he's above it and the Obamabot Village keeps justifying obvious errors, we will all go down with this.

    The next big thing? Legalized gambling online and I understand it will happen. Another UGH!

    Oh yes,expect  bailout in billions for Freddie and Fannie after all their corruptionn & mismanagement which has been a heavy part of
    the Mortgage Meltdown.

    Obama's next big gift of our money to  failed
    F&F is an insult and as Rham was on the Board previously he should know, as the previous commissioner was investigating Emanuel.  Guess what?? As soon as Rham entered the WH a new Commisioner was named, and Voila! no more invstigation.

    It is absurd to think for one second that the right wing will avoid selecting both the good stuff as well as the bad coming out of DC to demonize.

    I'm only interested in that we get the good stuff, and speak up to get it.

    Parent

    I'm still trying to figure out (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by dk on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:32:30 AM EST
    how this is a "systemic failure."  The system seems to work quite well as far as I can tell.  All in all, airline travel is stastically quite safe.  Now and then things will slip through the cracks.  Perhaps that sounds cavalier, but such is life, IMO.

    I imagine that Obama probably doesn't think there is much of a systemic failure either.  He just wanted to sound serious and "Presidential."  I suppose our culture demands that, but it seems rather silly to me.  As for the promise of a "full investigation," my bet is that that is just words as well.  Nothing much will happen because nothing much really needs to happen.  Of course, by promising something he won't deliver, he just further squanders his credibility.

    Imagining what someone really meant (none / 0) (#51)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 01:17:21 PM EST
    It seems to me that we borrow trouble as groups or individuals when we "imagine" what someone really meant. The President said "systemic failure," and I think that to say "nah, he really didn't mean that" in this serious situation could only arise from your own belief, dk, of what "seems...silly" or not. Why does it matter? Well, for one thing, it has a lot to do with what was called the "reality based community."

    Parent
    My take on this whole issue (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:33:49 AM EST
    I think that this incident will result in further erosion of our civil liberties and more unnecessary draconian security measures. This whole thing could have been avoided using the laws and restrictions that were on the books even prior to 9/11. This was the result of people failing to do their job and not the result of not having enough laws or restrictions.    

    The statement was (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:36:21 AM EST
    fine but the timing and the visuals were simply awful.

    My hope: U.S. will require full body (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:41:23 AM EST
    scan for everyone and all carry ons flying w/i U.S. and into U.S.  Apparently these scans will be "read" by computer, with human eyes looking at the scan only if the computer refers it to a human.  Also, the scanners have been improved so genetalia are not visible.

    My next hope is that we will no longer need the other measures imposed on passengers, with the except of metal detector.  

    Perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 11:34:07 AM EST
    we could save the visual images and make them available on an Internet site for a monthly fee, proceeds to be used to pay down the national debt.  Win-win.

    Parent
    Have you seen (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 11:35:06 AM EST
    The majority of people who fly?

    Ick.

    Parent

    Well hey (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 12:06:38 PM EST
    considering I am taking a trip to LA next week, I will do my best to bring the average up.

    Parent
    I'm sure you will (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    And thanks for doing your civic duty to try and raise the scores!  :)

    Parent
    These images (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 11:47:28 AM EST
    are as far from erotic as it's possible to be.  They'd be far more likely to crush any urges than feed them.

    Parent
    True, but (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 01:59:34 PM EST
    given my choices, I'd rather not be responsible for crushing anyone's libido.

    Parent
    This is my daughter's concern. (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 11:52:47 AM EST
    But she isn't a frequent, or even occasional, flyer.  I am.  

    Parent
    There's got to be a better way than that (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 11:58:37 AM EST
    Has it come to people consenting to being in effect stripped searched to get on a plane....

    Actually, if people had acted appropriately on what they knew of the underwear bomber, he could have been stopped.  A strip search of everyone was not necessary.  The system alomst worked--and should have worked....

    Parent

    Completely agree all the way (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:42:22 AM EST
    around with you.  This was an appropriate response by the President.  And the threat is very real and will not go away if we somehow just become nicer people.  And I say this while actually meaning it.  I'm not pretending to fully agree with the President today hoping that that will make me important enough to him tomorrow that he won't step on my face.

    So no thought at all... (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:45:38 AM EST
    ...that the threat is overblown by just as many if not more people? And that overblowing it isn't just as bad? Or, in fact, worse?

    I would respectfully suggest those who overplay this threat far outnumber those who underplay it. And underplaying it has so far resulted in about a quarter of a million less murders of innocents.

    Our response to this "threat", on all fronts, continues to be pathetic, utterly failed, and pathologically unimaginative.

    Additionally... (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:53:25 AM EST
    ...to talk about terrorism and the wars we are in and the threats we face and the violence the world endures and how to "solve" it, to do this and NOT forcefully call for and fight for an end to the international arms trade is to support the endless continuation of all this madness. For it is only with the viral spread of arms that any of this sh*t is possible. And guess who sells more arms to more scumbags than anyone on earth?

     

    Parent

    Good politicians, like good comedians (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:49:56 AM EST
    know that timing is all-important.  Good response but lousy timing.

    And as others have pointed out here, the visuals also were poor, as was the context, which also is crucial.

    Obama's poll numbers are (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 11:59:41 AM EST
    up--according to both Ras and Gallup.

     

    Parent

    Imo (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 12:12:51 PM EST
    this is a natural "really round the flag" result.

    But time will tell.

    Parent

    Actually, slightly (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 12:19:53 PM EST
    down today.

    Luck has been on our side....so far

    If just one attack succeeds, Cheney and his pro-torture ilk will be out in force....

    Parent

    In my view, the President's (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 12:07:09 PM EST
    response was was miss.  The story has the legs of a centipede--traveler's and their families' easy identification with the terror, busy travel period, new rules bruited about that appear to make little sense, such as no lap tops,  blankets or bathroom privileges for the final hour of flight.  The more we learn, the more puzzling it all is.  The importance of the need for an effective first response seemed to be underestimated and Gibbs and Napolitano's characterization of the incident was pollyannish.  President Obama's delayed response was too nonchalant in addressing the "system".  The danger for the president is that this could be his Katrina moment in that the studiously cultivated aura of competency may be undermined--the, you know, they are so much smarter than we are, and, besides, they know a lot that we do not, so just sit back, relax, and change the channel from time to time.  

    Napolitano the new Brownie (none / 0) (#71)
    by norris morris on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 07:41:23 PM EST
    KeysDan,

    Thanks for your astute post. American Idol's responses have been calculating and slow about everything and this seems to be his style of governance.

    My hunch is that if he doesn't stop acting so cool he'll be a one trick wonder like Carter.

    There have been far too many miscalculations and false assumptions about public reaction from Team Obama.  There is an obtuse attitude on the part of Axelrod and Co. that Obama should rule from an emotionally removed distance.

    Caveat Emperor.

    Parent

    Glenn goes a bit far (none / 0) (#1)
    by Salo on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:44:37 AM EST
    The bombing at Kings Cross/Russell Square happened while I lived in London. I would often use that stop to get on to conecting lines. Any high explosive going off in confined spaces is serious matter. It could have been me easily enough down in that hole. Obama has not reacted hysterically. That's all we ask of him on such matters. It's a shame Obama is letting us down on stuff like healthcare though.

    I think (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:51:59 AM EST
    Obama's remarks should not have come three days later, and then again the next day, especially after his DHS Secretary was all over the airwaves talking about how the system worked, and then it didn't work. Did he have to come back?  No - but it looks bad as he throws on a jacket to make comments and then proceeds to go golfing.

    It's amateur hour in the administration once again.

    I don't know one person (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:02:04 AM EST
    including myself, who was waiting for Obama to talk about it. I was pretty sure there were investigations going on. I didn't need to hear from him personally. This was not an incident that required a group hug.

    Parent
    I guess things (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:21:50 AM EST
    Were a little different where I was - in Detroit.  Lots of frayed nerves there.  Would have been nice to have someone, you know, look like they were in charge and handling the situation.

    Too much to ask, I guess.

    Parent

    I wouldn't say that I was on the edge (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:28:11 AM EST
    of my seat, waiting for Obama to respond, mainly because I wasn't flying and knew no one who was, but I did have a sense of, "is he going to address this, and what will be the tone?"  Especially coming as it did during one of the busiest travel times of the year.  There were a lot of people still in transit, or about to travel, who had to have been upset and anxious - and even though it was a failed attempt, there had to be concern on the part of travelers, and those at home waiting for them to arrive, whether this failed attempt was part of a larger plan, or an isolated incident.

    That's where the president coming out ASAP would have, I think, been helpful.  Yes, I'm sure there was a lot of scrambling to get all the ducks in a row - not altogether successfully, given Napolitano's inartful comments and the immediate pouncing on them - but even a simple statement of reassurance would probably have been a good idea.

    I don't buy the argument that Bush's 6-day wait after the shoe-bomber incident makes Obama's 3-day lag-time okay; nor do I think Obama should have been in vacation-persona when he did make his remarks - sometimes these things call for a certain gravitas that looking like you reluctantly came off the golf course to do your job just doesn't provide.

    Admittedly, it's hard to say "we're on it, and everything's under control," when something just happened that indicates maybe we didn't have things under control - but people getting ready to fly somewhere need to hear something, I think.

    I think I have a greater concern that this has provided a golden opportunity to the warmongers who would like nothing better, apparently, than to crank up something military in Yemen; I'm not usually a paranoid person, but there's something about this that just doesn't feel right.

    And, sadly, I'm not sure I can rely on my government to tell me the truth.


    Parent

    That is, something called "leadership" (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 02:03:46 PM EST


    Parent
    That reminds me of the famous (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 11:03:16 AM EST
    story of the New York city "famous" type who could never believe that Truman beat Dewey because she knew no one who voted for him.

    I got several calls from friends, one a staunch Democrat, all wondering when Obama was going to speak and tell us what he knew. He never did.

    Parent

    Try reading before commenting (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 01:00:40 PM EST
    The lady in question was a Repub.

    Parent
    Obama's Silences Are Deafening (none / 0) (#72)
    by norris morris on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 07:54:22 PM EST
    This style of governance or er, non governance isn't working and will take the whole party down.

    A 180 degree turn is needed and so are job replacements.   Napolitano, and another disengaged zombie Sibelius, are but a few deadhead political appointments in critical jobs.

      Aside from  the importance of their visibility , questions arise as whether  they can handle their Departments, and are run with really experienced individuals.  Napolitano certainly didn't appear credible.

    So the American Idol form of governance is not working and real CHANGE is called for at the White House.

    Parent

    Yes I was (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:20:29 AM EST
    Bush should have at least made brief remarks sooner.  No, you can't comment on specifics when you don't know them yet, but waiting several days is wrong.

    This isn't the first time Obama has delayed in making comments about a subject of national interest and instead has waited days. This Politico writer puts it best:

    HONOLULU -- There is a sense of déjà vu in the Obama administration's response to the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day. A by-now familiar pattern has been established for dealing with unexpected problems.

    First, White House aides downplay the notion that something may have gone wrong on their part. While staying out of the spotlight, the president conveys his efforts to address the situation and his feelings about it through administration officials. After a few days, the White House concedes on the issue, and perhaps Barack Obama even steps out to address it.

    (And while Politico isn't in vogue around here, she makes an excellent point)

    Especially in light of the fact that the very next day, on the same flight (Amsterdam-Detroit) there was an issue with someone in the bathroom for an hour.  Now it turns out, the passenger was ill, but for several hours, no one knew if it was the another attempt. I know he was briefed, but it would be nice to hear our leaders say that they are working on the situation.

    Also politically stupid, as all I saw on my teevee all weekend were Republican politicians and talking heads discussing this issue, all the while we saw shots of Obama playing basketball, going to the gym, and golfing in Hawaii.

    Parent

    Just curious (none / 0) (#52)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 01:30:34 PM EST
    We've heard about the general similarities regarding the earlier "shoe bomber" incident. I recall that the response timing from former Pres. Bush was somewhat similar? Was that wrong too?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 01:36:31 PM EST
    see above

    Parent
    Bush ? You're kidding. (none / 0) (#73)
    by norris morris on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 08:01:44 PM EST
    I wasn't happy about anything Bush did. Obama's here now and that's all that matters in this conversation.

    What the f***k does that have to do with necessary criticism which is the soul of Democracy and the soul of any political party pretending to represent its constituents as promised?

    It's not lock step love that creates
    credible and responsible governing. We must speakout to keep Congress and the President aware of what we need and why. Obama and the Democratic Party must know how we feel or we will be out on asses again in a long wilderness for not course correcting.

    Parent

    Our response (none / 0) (#61)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 03:30:51 PM EST
    Our response to this "threat", on all fronts, continues to be pathetic, utterly failed, and pathologically unimaginative.

    Now, now, how can you say that when we our response is producing such blissful results as this:

    American-led troops were accused yesterday of dragging innocent children from their beds and shooting them during a night raid that left ten people dead.

    Afghan government investigators said that eight schoolchildren were killed, all but one of them from the same family. Locals said that some victims were handcuffed before being killed.

    Western military sources said that the dead were all part of an Afghan terrorist cell responsible for manufacturing improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which have claimed the lives of countless soldiers and civilians.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6971638.ece

    Obama's Response To The Attempted Terrorist Attack | 74 comments (74 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment