On Undiebomber

Thank you Joe. I linked to this article on Karen’s thread. All this hyperbole by the press and blame tossing by amateurs isn’t making us any safer.

ps: Love the Undiebomber title.

Will we ever have a time where individuals from either party don’t try to politicize for their party’s gain?

Everyone seems to be in perpetual battlefield campaign mode, always looking to score points for their team, regardless of the potential implications for the country.

Joe, you’re beyond parody:
.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/12/30/aww-how-cute-the-politico-attempts-to-provide-cover-for-obama-over-terrorist-attack/
.
And you know what–the “we warned them” defense is pretty lame. A problem builds up on your watch, and you do little about it (and I’m not saying that there would have been a ton of political support for Clinton doing what Bush did post 9/11), giving a “warning” isnt more than simple CYA.

Thanks, Joe. Joan Walsh at Slate makes the same point. The unity of the nation after 9/11 was inspiring, & the carping of Republicans now is abominable. Yes, yes, we still have not done enough to coordinate our intelligence — which was the key finding of the 9/11 commission way back when — but it is anti-American to treat our nation’s safety as a political opportunity.

Hoesktra, who is running for governor of Michigan, put out a fundraising letter Sunday night asking for contributions to help him fight terrorism — as every governor of Michigan is tasked to do, & King appeared almost immediately on every network live from his basement TV studio — or wherever. These guys have no credibility, a scary thing when you realize Hoekstra is the Republican’s ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee & King is the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

P.S. I notice Hoekstra is a fereigner — he was born in the Netherlands. Maybe the CIA should investigate him for his ties to Flight 253, since its last stop before Detroit was Amsterdam. If we’re going to do racial profiling, let’s go all out! The Dutchman seems mighty suspicious to me.

Joe: there will be no rational reaction from those determined to pin the blame on Obama. We saw some of that play when Bush was the Man. I don’t know whether either side has clean hands. The shocking this is that when Americans are killed or our soldiers die fighting Al-Queda no one puts Republican or Democrat after his/her name.

Both Hoekstra and King are reliable bloviators. If the sides changed then no doubt a couple of Democrats will be front and center with indignant commentary. That’s the pity. It’s party before country.

The only difference between “blaming Bush” for 9/11, and the current Obama “undiebomber” event is that the undiebomber was not successful in killing hundreds of people.
.
Perhaps the outcry you are witnessing across this Nation to Obama’s failure to protect our citizens, is simply saying “get on task, Bubba”. Quit all the pie in the sky liberal idealism for programs we all know will not work, and will end up costing trillions of tax payer dollars.
.
Instead put your focus and concern on how to protect us from “undiebombers”, but first start by calling them exactly what they are TERRORISTS.
.
Today, post 1993′s attempt during the Clinton Administration on the first terrorist attempt to now, I do not believe we are any safer. This most recent event proves my point.
.
Yes, Bush may have failed, and I blame him for not reacting before 9/11 on those memos. But, blame today is even more disheartening because of what we already know. I do give Bush credit for ramping up security measures since 9/11. However, Obama seems to want to dismantle it. To change how we perceive Islamic extremists. He goes way out of his way to emphasize that “not all Muslims are extremists”, rather than saying, “ok, they are hell bent on destroying anything not muslim based”. Where has his diplomacy of appeasement gotten us? Are you safer now Joe than what you were in 1993? 2001?
.
Why is that Joe? Rather than focusing solely on the past mistakes, and point fingers. Your hypocritical posting here should be calling out for more and better changes to occur. It is very evident that what we do have in place is not working. Our entire “system” should be reviewed as soon as possible.
.
Democrats would rather focus on providing health care to every Tom, Dick or Harry illegal immigrant, than to provide safety and security for its citizens. Obama swore and oath to “Protect and defend the Constitution”. The Constitution is not a single entity, it is as it starts out “We the People”. Obama has failed to protect us, and he will continue to fail so long as he continues to listen to the whims of the ACLU and people like Joe Klein.

The Northern part of Nigeria is predominately Muslim. Infact in the South West, there is a significant Muslim population as well, however, the Southern Muslims are less militant than the Northern Muslims.

The corruption in Nigeria makes it impossible for the government to properly monitor Terrorist activities in the country because Nigerian Security officials–in that culture of institutionalized corruption– can be very easily paid to ignore real and obvious threats.

There is a culture of corruption which is endemic but nonetheless accepted in that society– and therefore it is also entirely possible that some lazy US embassy official who was notified by the father of this Terrorist might have been fed so fat on visa bribes that he did not see the need to properly examine the veracity of the report made by this Terrorist’s father.

Some years ago, the American embassy was overhauled because of corruption in the ranks and file. US officials in Nigeria are not insulated from the prevailing culture of corruption.

It appears that despite the strong representations made by the Father of this man, he was discredited and discounted! Why????
I hope this is security lapse by the American Security Agents based in Nigeria is investigated, and those who missed the opportunity to stop this attack, fired.

I am always amazed when I read in the papers that the officials contacted by the father of this Terrorist said they had little to go on!
Did they want the father to provide a picture of his son in bed with Bin Laden???

All that was required to red flag this case was the motive of the Father. What was his motive in turning in his son?
Once it was determined that his motive could not have been anything malicious, then the authorities should have prevented that maniac from boarding the flight by simply canceling his visa.

I have always stated here and elsewhere that the pervasive ignorance with which the developing world is viewed and the rife misinformation spread creates real problems here in the US and the West in general. My parents who were both British educated and Lawyers resided and worked in Nigeria for a while.

Nigerians are not the bone in nose, hovel dwelling hoi polloi as portrayed for frequently in the media.
Criminality and Terrorism amng Nigerians should be taken seriously by the US.

There ARE Islamic fanatics, in Nigeria and a growing mercenary and vicious criminal element as well. Militant Nigerian Terrorists who reside here in the US, Europe and Nigeria will, if the opportunity arises, commit acts of terror in the West.

It is almost 2010 YET the FBI is still warning people about email scams– meanwhile the “new” Nigerian criminal has ‘graduated’ to hacking in computers, stealing passwords, creating and using a systematic and in depth identity theft and fraud network, and through the help of technology adroit Nigerian fiends have taken Nigerian Scam crimes to stunning levels.

This Terrorist could have succeeded. His near success will give impetus to other charlatans who want similar mention and glory.

I hope the Obama Administration moves fast to stem the growing threats which Terrorists and other criminal elements in Nigeria and elsewhere constitute to innocent/law abiding and other citizens.

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/technology-savvy-nigerian-criminals-are-the-greatest-threat-to-national-security/

I always find it funny when people (or columnists) are shocked or outraged that politicians of all stripes would politicize a “foiled terror attempt.”

Just how big is that rock you’ve been living under?

Joe, can you tell us just how large Jim Demint’s balls are?

Because DeMint must have an enormous pair to criticize the TSA for its screening practices when it’s been crippled by the hold DeMint himself has placed on the Obama administration’s pick to head the agency.

Also, for the 117 Republicans who voted against additional funding for TSA — any chance the media will call them out on their hypocrisy, either?

Yeah, that was a rhetorical question too. We all know Republicans are strong on national security, despite their atrocious record.

Spob — You’re clearly detached from reality. The Clinton Administration warning W that Al Qaeda should be his top priority isnt more than simple CYA? You are deluding yourself. W was determined to go after Iraq before he even took the oath. He ignored Clinton’s warning at our peril and we have suffered for it. Worse, he then proceeded to use 9/11 as justification for almost everything his Administration did. Get a clue already as you are beyond comical.
..
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a121901clintonbush#a121901clintonbush
..
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/20/us/clinton-aides-plan-to-tell-panel-of-warning-bush-team-on-qaeda.html?pagewanted=1

JK

“refused to take seriously warnings from the Clinton Administration–especially National Security Adviser Sandy Berger–”

Were those warnings the same reports that Sandy stuffed down his shorts and destroyed? Sandy may have been the first undiebomber!

Rusty — That post of yours is quite the steaming pile of crap.
..
“I do give Bush credit for ramping up security measures since 9/11. However, Obama seems to want to dismantle it.
..
How exactly is Obama dismantling these security measures? Please explain that one.
..
“Perhaps the outcry you are witnessing across this Nation to Obama’s failure to protect our citizens, is simply saying “get on task, Bubba”"
..
So now Obama is responsible for airport security in Ghana, Nigeria and the Netherlands? Good to know.
..
“He goes way out of his way to emphasize that “not all Muslims are extremists”, rather than saying, “ok, they are hell bent on destroying anything not muslim based”"
..
So are you saying that all Muslims ARE extremist or that they are all “hell bent on destroying anything not muslim based”? Either statement is entirely false but it’s nice to know that you can generalize all Muslims so easily.
..
“Democrats would rather focus on providing health care to every Tom, Dick or Harry illegal immigrant, than to provide safety and security for its citizens.”
..
Another complete falsehood.
..
“Obama swore and oath to “Protect and defend the Constitution”
..
Did it bother you when W pissed upon the Constitution for eight years? It certainly doesn’t seem so.
..
Obama has failed to protect us, and he will continue to fail so long as he continues to listen to the whims of the ACLU and people like Joe Klein.”
..
Another completely baseless assertion. Again, how exactly did Obama fail us? Where exactly in his policies is he listening to the whims of the ACLU and JK?
..
Santa certainly didn’t bring you any sense of facts, history or honest debate for Christmas did he Rusty?

Obama seems to want to dismantle it. To change how we perceive Islamic extremists. He goes way out of his way to emphasize that “not all Muslims are extremists”, rather than saying, “ok, they are hell bent on destroying anything not muslim based”. Where has his diplomacy of appeasement gotten us?
.
.
versus (link):
.
Actually, if you count our occupation of Iraq, our twice-escalated war in Afghanistan, our rapidly escalating bombing campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, and various forms of covert war involvement in Somalia, one could reasonably say that we’re fighting five different wars in Muslim countries — or, to use the NYT’s jargon, “five fronts” in the “Terror War”… Add to those five fronts the “crippling” sanctions on Iran many Democratic Party luminaries are now advocating, combined with the chest-besting threats from our Middle East client state that the next wars they fight against Muslims will be even “harsher” than the prior ones, and it’s almost easier to count the Muslim countries we’re not attacking or threatening than to count the ones we are. Yet this still isn’t enough for America’s right-wing super-warriors…
.
.
What Obama is doing is hardly appeasement, he’s following the gameplan laid out by his predecessor with only modest (largely rhetorical) adjustments.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/to_the_democrats_living_outsid.asp

Cheney and Rumsfeld. .. fixed on two vestigial non-threats:

2. threats to the oil supply like Saddam Hussein
.
.
Mr. Klein, thank you. This is, as I’m sure you know, basic neoconservative theory dating back to the Bush Sr. administration.
.
Why, given that today’s military decision-makers are the very individuals that Cheney and Rumsfeld selected to carry out their plans, do you believe the objective has changed? Al Qaeda has been routed in Afghanistan, therefore, don’t the current infrastructure projects there serve the same purpose as the permanent policing stations in Cheney and Rumsfeld desired in Iraq?

* should read: “policing stations that Cheney and…”

Wow, the Weakly Standard. Have they ever been right about anything?

I guess they’re just following Bill Kristol’s lead. Hard to keep up with a guy who had as many corrections notices as he had columns, but they keep trying.

How about answering Debra Burlingame’s point, not whining about Bill Kristol . . . .
.
I suspect you cannot.

Really?

I don’t seem to recall one instance where the Dems shamelessly promoted anything like a failed terrorist attack to bolster their political party. If I’m wrong, I’d welcome examples if you can come up with any.

If anything, I think the Dems are weak on their responses – they need to call out the pathetic republicans for their ridiculous comments and their fundraising in light of the latest incident. The republican response has been pretty pathetic – I believe that their actions would have been considered treasonous or unAmerican just a short time ago. It’s pathetic.

I can’t respond to her because she — like everyone on the staff of the WS — is an utter moron.

Imagine, on December 22, 2001, when Richard Reid tried to bring down that plane, the attorney general emerging to call this an “isolated incident” of “extremism”….

Actually, I’d have to imagine the Attorney General saying anything at all on December 22, 2001. President Bush didn’t say anything about it for eight days — apparently, it’s a disaster for Obama to wait three days, but Bush waiting eight days was perfectly fine.

The Obama administration called this an act of terrorism. The Bush administration never used that phrase for Reid.

Listen, spob, you go ahead and pee your pants in fear — it’s all conservatives seem to be able to do these days — but don’t throw a tantrum because the rest of us aren’t joining in.

How exactly is Obama dismantling these security measures? Please explain that one.

.
As Joe and other liberal jounalists like to neglect pointing out, Obama has made many major changes to the security of the US and how we treat terrorism.
.
“Recently, in a LtGen [John] Bergman, USMC, statement for the 25 March [congressional] hearing, OMB required that the following change be made before going to the Hill,” Dave Riedel, of the Office of Security Review, wrote in an e-mail.

“OMB says: ‘This Administration prefers to avoid using the term “Long War” or “Global War on Terror” [GWOT]. Please use “Overseas Contingency Operation.”
.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/23/the_end_of_the_global_war_on_t.html
.
“Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that the Obama administration will “raise the risk” of a terrorist attack by overhauling his predecessor’s approach to the War on Terror.

Cheney sharply criticized Obama’s decisions to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, limit the methods CIA officers use to interrogate terror suspects and suspend military tribunals for alleged terrorists, saying those decisions taken together will make Americans less safe.”
.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/15/cheney-obamas-changes-anti-terrorism-policy-raise-risk-attack/
.
Of course we are not hearing or seeing headlines from the liberal media, as represented right here in the swamp by the likes of Joe Klein stating “Dick Cheney was right, Obama’s changes have made an impact and we are seeing an increase the terrorist plots”.
.

The Justice Department’s ethics office has recommended reversing the Bush administration and reopening nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, potentially exposing Central Intelligence Agency employees and contractors to prosecution for brutal treatment of terrorism suspects, according to a person officially briefed on the matter.

.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/us/politics/24detain.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
.
and last but not least…
.

“New Unit to Question Key Terror Suspects Move Shifts Interrogation Oversight From the CIA to the White House”

.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/23/AR2009082302598.html
.
Yes, dismantling would be an appropriate word choice for what this Administration has been doing to our counter-espionage / counter-terrorism endeavors by the CIA in particular but all of our National Security combined.

What he said:
.
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/12/reruns-wait-arent-you-scared.html

Very shortly after the shoe bomber incident, before Bush even addressed the issue, then Senator Joe Biden was on Face the Nation. He supported the investigation and their was no criticism of Bushes’ delayed response.
The INSANE Republicans talking points:
Obama responded too slowly
Too relaxed in response
Doesn’t use the word terrorist (although he does)
He wore a polo shirt when discussing the event on TV
And, there is much more. No the Dems have never been as CRAZY as the Republicans. After all, if you can state that John Kerry and Max Cleland were cowards and unpatriotic, you will say anything.

Geez Rusty, I guess you’re right. W’s team did everything so perfectly that there is no need to possibly question or change the way things are done. For the challenged among us, the preceding was entirely facetious.
..
Let’s see, your first point: Changing the way we talk about terrorism will somehow embolden the terrorists? Only in your and Cheney’s warped world.
..
Point two: Recognizing that people, even suspected terrorists have rights is a terrible thing in your world. Many people were abducted w/o benefit of evidence in W’s rendition program and tortured, only to discover that they were not terrorists. Many were summarily dumped in whatever country was convenient. I know, I know, you, Gonzo and Cheney still feel that the Geneva Convention is some quaint old document w/o meaning.
..
Point three: Having someone else other than the CIA do the interrogating is a bad thing? They have done an abysmal job of it so far and contracting it out has not worked out much better.
..
So far you are 0 for 3. It doesn’t appear that Obama is dismantling anything. It appears that he is trying to make it more effective and perhaps, more legal.
..
You may resume wetting yourself in fear of terrorists in 3…2…1…….uh oh, time for a new Depends!

Tell us about the van in Times Square, Mr. Klein:

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/movers-and-shakers/

“Cheney and Rumsfeld couldn’t imagine that a non-state actor could pose a significant threat”

But they could turn back the clock, Mr. Klein:

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/12/18/clock-stoppers/

Like I told gysgt the other day diecast, go F yourself buddy!!
.
Weak kneed and limip wristed pansies like you are why we are now worrying about Islamic terrorists in the first place. Had Clinton done his job in the first place we would not even be having this conversation.
.
As you say, “Point two: Recognizing that people, even suspected terrorists have rights is a terrible thing in your world”. They have RIGHTS? You are incredibly STUIPD and NAIVE. Not to mention, TOTALLY INSANE!
.
Your statement says more than I could ever say as to why the likes of You and Obama will allow many thousands of Americans to die.
.
One can only hope that it is you and your family members they kill off first, since you believe giving a terrorist “rights” is the thing to do. Unbelieveable.

Well die, since Clinton actually had UBL in custody and let him go, and on other occasions had him in the crosshairs only to tell our men to stand down, I think the least he could do was give a little heads up about it.
.
And everyone seems to want to forget that it was Hillary herself that warned that Saddam Hussein was developing a nuclear program and must be stopped at all cost.

Well Rusty, it’s good to know that I can always count on you to resort to bluster and insults when you are unable to make a reasoned, cogent argument. Nice job!
..
While I realize that in the land of the flat-earthers it is naive to believe in the rule of law and things like the Geneva Convention are quaint, but the rule of law is the basis for our society. Glad to see that you feel free to piss all over it, I would expect nothing less from you. How long until your kind tires of the Constitution and decides that it is “naive” or quaint? Pathetic.

Well .6667, since you’re busy assessing blame, don’t forget that it was Reagan that funded, armed and trained Osama and his gang and then cut them loose, enraging them and creating a new terrorist enemy of the U.S. Credit where credit is due.

Well, at least McClatchy — one of the last surviving examples of a dying profession known as “journalism” — is on this:
.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/81356.html

I am sick and tired of Obama’s “turn the other cheek” approach to these Republican scoundrels. He is being hammered by these nitwits, whose actions, or non-actions, are what have led us into these situations, and NO ONE is calling them out!!!!! It is absolutely outrageous that this criminal Cheney can go on TV month after month, he whose policies inflamed terrorism, and not the other way around, and pound Obama without anyone hitting him back, and HARD. This scoundrel needs to be pounced on severely–him and and his other Rethugithan lackeys, DeMInt, Hoekstra, King and Co. This laid back approach on the part of the White House is simply incomprehensible, especially in light of the fact that the MSM give these dodos a microphone without holding them to even an iota of accountability–especially Cheney, who is allowed to softball in his “comments” with virtually no challenge whatsoever. Enough is enough!! The White House is botching this, as it botched the initial response to the incident. As one reader commented over at Salon, it’s time for Obama to stick his foot on the Rethugithans’ necks once and for all!!!!!!!!

I think you already know the answer to that die. Not to minimize what Reagan did, but at that point in history, He had not yet bombed the WTC, or the embassy, or the Uss cole. Big difference, but you already know that.

Now that you mention it, Reagan deserves his share of blame for all those acts as well. Thanks!
..
As for the “big difference”, the origins of said terrorist don’t matter? Methinks they do. The point being that the methods of Reagan, Bush and W created more terrorists for us to fight and be attacked by, not less. All of them and Clinton deserve a share in the blame for the events that have transpired.

“While I realize that in the land of the flat-earthers it is naive to believe in the rule of law and things like the Geneva Convention are quaint, but the rule of law is the basis for our society.”

.
Yes, in a perfect world where everyone is law-abiding, the “rule of law” does provide for some form of civility. However in the real world, full of terrorist and individuals who wish harm for the sake of some perverted ideology, then you may as well use a document like the constitution to wipe your arse.
.
In a world where you have people flying into this country with their crotches full of PETN, and will KILL nearly 300 people, then your “rule of law” has no bearing what-so-ever. Since time immemorial, evil bad people have walked this earth. People have killed other people for no reason other than a good laugh. We can feel safe for a majority of the time, but if the luck of the draw has you sitting next to one of these lunatics, you can kiss your a$$ goodbye. So much for your “rule of law” when you are 6 feet under. Ain’t that right Mr I know it all diecash?
.
Make your speech in front of the families of the 9/11 victims. I am sure you will get a very warm welcome indeed. Or, better yet, why don’t you go on a crusade to the Middle East, right into the heart of Yemen, and teach all of these good people about the “rule of law”. Persuade them that this is the noble cause, not their jihadist plot to destroy all non-Muslims.
.
Oh, and pack a copy of the Geneva Convention rules while you are at it. I am sure when they are preparing you for a good old fashioned Islamic beheading, they will have a good laugh!

“However in the real world, full of terrorist and individuals who wish harm for the sake of some perverted ideology, then you may as well use a document like the constitution to wipe your arse.”
.
Well, there you have it folks.
.
Tell you what pal, keep your piss-drenched ass crack off my constitution and move to some lawless third-world backwater where you so obviously belong. I don’t see one whit of difference between the way a terrorist thinks and your self-righteous panic, and valueless savagery. You are Osama bin Laden’s wet dream.

———————–
Purpose – For A More Perfect Union
On This Fifth Day of Kwanzaa
———————–

Apparently Hawaii is still a foreign country.
.

“OMB says: ‘This Administration prefers to avoid using the term “Long War” or “Global War on Terror” [GWOT]. Please use “Overseas Contingency Operation.”
.
In other words, if we don’t say “Global War on Terror,” the terrorists will kill us all?
.
Cheney sharply criticized Obama’s decisions to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, limit the methods CIA officers use to interrogate terror suspects and suspend military tribunals for alleged terrorists
.
When a noted liar, criminal and torturer criticizes Obama, I find that to be a mark in Obama’s favor.
.
But more to the point, your articles don’t prove your point at all that Obama is making the US less safe.

One can only hope that it is you and your family members they kill off first, since you believe giving a terrorist “rights” is the thing to do.
.
Oh, Rusty, you are such a good Christian.
.
Is everyone else at your church as stupid and cowardly as you?

Bill Clinton, quite plainly, has the blood of virtually all of the 9/11 victims on his hands. That the man can show his face in public ever again is shameless to say the least. Diecash you’re a legend in your own mind, quite witty possibly to a third grader, nothing more. On here you’re just a bothersome little fly. A little boy dreaming of the day his first pubic hair shows up. Go find yoursef a playground.

Kwanzaa: A holiday fabricated in the seventies by a convicted black militant rapist while sitting in his jailcell. 7 days of drunkeness, following Christmas, with it’s popularity fading as each year passes.

.6667 your just another ignorant hater without a wit of intelligence. You spend most of your time here making inane comments and insulting people. You and Rusty are some fine, upstanding members of the extreme right wing — stupid to the core.

“Yes, in a perfect world where everyone is law-abiding, the “rule of law” does provide for some form of civility.”
..
It’s exactly this time of commentary that demonstrates your complete lack of moral fiber and utter stupidity. Yes, the rule of law is only for use in a “perfect” world — obviously you lack any knowledge of history. You claim to support this country but you are so completely oblivious to the fact that its founding was based upon the RULE OF LAW. You obviously have not grasped that it is what separates us from those such as the terrorists. Try actually reading what many of the founders wrote on the subject. I guarantee that none of them wrote anything as stupid as you did.

Nice posting tools. The above was in response to 7.7

He sets a new low regularly, I’m certain.

Ooops. Make that you’re, not your.

Perhaps even more important than Sandy Berger’s warnings, Clinton advised “the Bushies” to hold onto Richard Clarke.

For the year or so that he was there, he was constantly ringing the bell about al-Qaeda. His persistent requests for a National Security Principal’s meeting fell on deaf ears; Ironically, it was finally scheduled for September 11th.

Actually, Reps. Eric Massa and Chris Van Hollen are punching back.
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021702.php

“Like I told gysgt the other day diecast, go F yourself buddy!!”
.
WTF did I do to deserve two. Its not fair!

.

The blame tossing should, in fact, be the real story here.
.
Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo asked:
.
When does the story became the GOP’s unprecedented politicization of a terror attack? Three days before the first fund-raising letters go out? The obviousness of the point would seem even more obvious since the main complainers are demonstrably hypocritical on their basic arguments.

Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823
.
We have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Holmes, Apr 22, 1820
.
It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf.

Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, December 19, 1776
.
There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.

George Washington, Annual Message, December 1793

I guess Clinton doesn’t get any blame for passing up Sudan’s offer on bin Laden. And by the way, blaming Reagan for bin Laden attacking us 13 years later is completely idiotic, the fact is that at the time it was a mutually beneficial arrangement (they got to fight back against Soviet helicopters ravaging their villages, and we got to indirectly fight against our enemy, the USSR). What should we have done with him after? Killed him because he was a Muslim fundamentalist?
.
I’m one of the people who think that 9/11 was an example of the failure of government in general, just as this last episode is (which is apparently currently being marginalized with the “undiebomber” nickname). Yes Bush himself deserves hefty blame but there is plenty of blame to go around.
.
Also, can we all agree now that airport security sucks? All it does is make travelers go through a bunch of hoops, combined with tons of little rules (“no liquids!”) that in the end (apparently) can’t prevent a basic terrorist attack. The system did NOT work, we got lucky that the terrorist was too incompetent to make the explosive go off. Though I guess to some people getting lucky is the margin that our security system’s effectiveness is judged (the attack occurs= failure; the attack does not occur= success).
.
To me, if a terrorist like this has gotten on the plane, then the system has already failed.

I guess Clinton does not deserve any blame for turning down Sudan’s offer on bin Laden. By the way, blaming Reagan for bin Laden attacking us 13 years later is QUITE a stretch, at the time the aid to the Mujahideen was mutually beneficial. They got to fight back against the Soviet helicopters who were ravaging their villages, and we got to indirectly fight against our enemy, the Soviets. What should we have done with them after they forced a Soviet retreat (and thus, a huge Cold War win for us)? Killed them because they might attack us over a decade later?
.
To me 9/11, just like this recent near-miss, was another example of the failure of government in general. Bush obviously deserves a hefty, is not majority, amount of the blame, but there is plenty of blame to go around (obviously pants stuffer Sandy Berger was aware of that). SO what did our government do after 9/11, which it appears it will do now? The same things that had been done in the past, just MORE of it.
.
Also, can we all agree now that airport security sucks? It makes us go through hoops with a bunch of rules (“no liquids!”) that in the end apparently cannot prevent a simple terrorist attack. To me, if a terrorist has made it onto the plane, then the system has already failed. We got lucky, folks. Just because the terrorist was too incompetent to properly set off the bomb does not mean that the system worked. There needs to be a serious attempt to revolutionize our airport security. Maybe a change in philosophy wouldn’t hurt.

And my browser sucks, thus the (near) double post. How embarrassing.

Nowhere did I excuse Clinton from blame. He shares in it too.
..
As to your assertion that it’s “idiotic” to blame Reagan: It was Reagan’s short-sighted policy decisions that led directly to the rise of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. After training and arming them it wasn’t difficult to see that there would be serious blowback for abandoning our newly created allies. BTW, it wasn’t 13 years later, it was much, much sooner as Al Qaeda was active under Bin Laden’s leadership from the early 90s forward.
..
As for the remainder of your post, we are in relative agreement.

Are you kidding me Klein? You’re a great writer, but you’re making Dan Rather look good with this retarded bunch of assertions.

Apparently time and/or other motivations have dimmed your recollection. By now it’s common knowledge that from 1996 up until July of 2000—within three months of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole— Sudan’s president had numerous times offered up Osama bin Laden as well as detailed intelligence data on other radical Islamic groups to Sandy Berger and the Clinton administration, in exchange for the lifting of trade sanctions.

In each case Clinton took a pass! Mansoor Ijaz helped organize the informal talks, and has written about Clinton’s lack of interest and/or response.

But now, eight years after the facts of 9/11, revisionist Klein wants us to believe that Bush/Cheney resisted dire warnings by the Clinton administration of the imminent peril, should they not act immediately against bin Laden and Al Qaeda. This logic doesn’t make sense- that when given numerous opportunities to eliminate the threat themselves they passed, but then would turn around and give such dire warnings to an uninterested/unwilling Bush/Cheney administration.

It’s impossible to determine here if Klein is naive, ignorant, intoxicated by his sleight of hand abilities, devious, nefarious, has Alzheimer’s, is stupid or all of the above. Apparently politicians aren’t the only ones to bank on Americans’ short memories.

Bush/Cheney were incompetent buffoons most of the time, but to try to paint the Democratic administrations bookending the Bush/Cheney as illuminati is disingenuous and retarded.

Joe, you’re a better reporter than salesman- stick with your bread and butter lest you look like a fool.

Ooops, I forgot to add in the body of my comment that my parents were both of Nigerian origin!

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/technology-savvy-nigerian-criminals-are-the-greatest-threat-to-national-security/

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Ben Franklin.
..
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy” James Madison
..
“Tyrants have always some slight shade of virtue; they support the laws before destroying them” Voltaire

…yes, airport security sucks. And for all that, what happens outside the plane? Overcrowded flight paths and overworked air traffic controllers? People trying to point lasers at cockpits? Taking off shoes won’t fix these problems.

Like I told gysgt the other day diecast, go F yourself buddy!!
.
Weak kneed and limip wristed pansies like you are why we are now worrying about Islamic terrorists in the first place.

Wow. Talk about completely baseless and unprovoked ad hominum attacks. Good job, diecast. Whenever the wingnuts start using personal attacks, it’s a sign you’re winning the actual issue argument, and they’re getting scared.
.
As you say, “Point two: Recognizing that people, even suspected terrorists have rights is a terrible thing in your world”. They have RIGHTS? You are incredibly STUIPD and NAIVE. Not to mention, TOTALLY INSANE!

Actually, rusty, refusing to acknowledge that suspects have rights is not only insane but runs against not only American law but legal history. Why? because not not everyone accused is guilty. For example, look at the Gitmo prisoners. How many of them are guilty? By the looks of things, only a very small percent. But by all means, torture and shoot the rest. That’s a GREAT idea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/17/AR2006121700700.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/ex-bush-official-guantanamo-bay-innocent/

If you want to live in a world of “guilty until proven innocent” move to Mexico.

Please provide links that verifies your post

cd- I gladly will, which parts are you looking for verification?

^ Yes, see this way Clinton can claim credit for something he doesn’t deserve. Kind of like welfare reform!

diecash- I agree that we should have done much more to help Afghanistan rebuild after their country was ravaged (not by us, the Soviets), but I just don’t connect this to blaming Reagan for bin Laden attacking us on 9/11 (my 13 years later remark referred to the time in between the Soviets leaving and 9/11; 1988-2001). Also, do you agree or disagree that the aid of the Afghanis in the first place was good for our foreign policy? That seems like something that most of us can agree on. We turned Afghanistan into a Vietnam for the Reds, and it cost them dearly. And I wasn’t responding directly to you, if it seemed that way.

I understood your timeline which is why I pointed out that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were active much sooner than 9/11 as a result of Reagan’s poor decision making.
..
As to your question: I believe that if we were to support the resistance in Afghanistan, we should have had a more thoughtful policy. Supporting them and then cutting them loose because is was politically expedient was an awful choice. Obviously they failed to consider the ramifications of this choice much like they (Reagan Adm) failed to consider what would happen if they trained death squads at the School of the Americas and then turned them loose in Central America. My point is that policy decisions such as these are not well thought out and this practice has been rife in the (especially Republican) administrations over the last 30 years. This same poor decision making was evident in the wake of 9/11 when W and the rest of the idiot brigade promptly invaded Iraq without considering the outcome.

I can’t speak for Klein, but my impression is that he was referring to the “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside United States” memo. The one that was killed because no one took it seriously.

“As to your assertion that it’s “idiotic” to blame Reagan: It was Reagan’s short-sighted policy decisions that led directly to the rise of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. After training and arming them it wasn’t difficult to see that there would be serious blowback for abandoning our newly created allies.”
.
Not only that, bin Laden specifically cited Reagan’s retreat from Lebanon after the Marine Corps. Barrack bombing as formative to how he would attack the west.

“However in the real world, full of terrorist and individuals who wish harm for the sake of some perverted ideology, then you may as well use a document like the constitution to wipe your arse.” ~ Rustyreturns
.
After being a part of this community for so long I did not think I could be shocked by any comments on here, but this one was pretty awe inspiring.
.
In a “perfect world” there are no laws because people already act appropriately. The values and principles of most religions, philosophies, and the United States Constitution are not about what’s in it for “us” on a personal level per se, but what it means to the greater society in the long term. It is the pursuit of the “more perfect union”.
.
One must understand that pursuit will continue beyond their lives, and their childrens lives. And even if none of their line live to see or benifit from today’s efforts, they are still worthy aspirations. That’s what makes them values, vice short term goals. The death of Ghandi, MLK, Jesus, etc. was not a sign of weakness, but of strength of conviction to act and pursue outcomes that reached beyond their own personal gain.
.
Terrorists (at least at the “mastermind” level) do not have a goal of killing a few thousand people. As terrible as that is, and perhaps some sick form of percieved vengeance, that is essentially a means to an end. The exact same end we (as the world’s only remaining super-power) at times try to enact: to bend others to our will through force of pain. Terrorists want to prove that under duress, our “values” will prove to be hypocrisy that we will quickly toss away in order to remove pain, death, or the threat there of.
.
When people make statements like Rusty’s above, THAT is a sign of terrorism winning, not whether or not a bomb somewhere successfully goes off. This speaks directly to age-old questions about morality and philosophy that far exceed the limits of the United States’ limited history. And I dare say these questions will exceed the end of the United States (as we know it) just as they have out lasted all other previous civilizations. That in no way lessens the value of the Constitution. It only serves to cement it’s place in the (hopefully) eventual social evolution of human beings to whatever the next level of civilization will be. Just as the Greeks, Roman, Egyptians, British, etc did.
.
Assuming we survive long enough to get there.

“Yes, see this way Clinton can claim credit for something he doesn’t deserve.”
.
Young republican female obsessed with The Clenis.
.
His power never fades.

Rut-ro.
.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-05-06-fbi-terror-list_N.htm
.
That really undermines the “it was Bush’s system that failed” narrative. Looks like they identified the issue and then dropped the ball.
.
Moreover, in July, DHS announced that it was going to conduct a 60-day review of security procedures. Wonder what that review found . . . .
.
So to review, we have:
.
A systemic failure, according to POTUS.
.
Some untruths being peddled to the American people, viz, Napolitano’s comment that there was no basis to believe that this was other than one guy acting alone and Obama’s tall tale that “all” planes were notified.
.
Spin and dissembling instead of the truth by the DHS Sec’y.
.
And apparently no lessons from the Hasan massacre, which was an obvious failure to connect the dots.
.
Heckuva job, Barack.
.
Let’s see if Joe has the stones to reply to this comment. I doubt it.

Joe. I really could care less about comparing Bush and Obama………”get it?”

What I do care about is what is going “now” in my country to keep me safe.

I really get sick to my stomach when this Administration messes’ up and the first thing I hear is what “Bush” did or did not do.

Man what is wrong with you people who try to feed us trash? Do you really care about America? or making someone or some party look good or better than the other?

Defend Napolitano if you need to defend anyone.

She is over her head.

Just weeks ago she was slandering our Veterans.

If you are going to write something, write something worth reading.

“After being a part of this community for so long I did not think I could be shocked by any comments on here, but this one was pretty awe inspiring.”

.
Perhaps you are open-minded enough to understand where I am coming from, maurice. It is not, nor my desire for our great Constitution to be used as toilet paper. Far from it. I was making a point that terrorists or anyone who want to do harm to those of us who are law abiding, do not give a damn about our constitution or our laws. Period. People like you are so naive to believe that because you hold someone accountable to the same laws we have in our country, that somehow those laws will bring justification for the dire act committed by the felon.
.
Will this prevent the next radicalized bomber from boarding a plane bound for America in hopes of slaughtering our citizens? I think not. Will trying in a court of law make these evil-doers repent, and ask forgiveness for their transgressions? I think not. These people are on a crusade, a religious crusade to rid the planet of anything non-Muslim. They believe we are the evil in the world, with much passion. The radicalization of some of the Muslim world began well before Iraq, despite liberal accusations from the liberal likes of Joe Klein. It began a long long time ago. A thousand years or more ago. No constitution on this earth or set of laws will ever stop it completely or keep your family safe from this time forward. That is simply my point. You may rehabilitate some. You may even rehabilitate most, but you will never rehabilitate all of them.
.
Yes the Constitution and our laws are fanstastic, and I abide by them everyday. For the most part it allows the vast majority of us to live in a civilized country. We have many rights and priviledges, the most important of all our freedom. We do not have a tyranical leader or leadership, however I do believe under Obama we are moving in that direction with all of the big Government take overs.
.
For the average American citizen our constitution and laws work extremely well. But, to afford them, all of our rights and priviledges, to terrorists? That is as I have said not only naive, but stupid. If you want the pleasure to try them, spend millions of dollars, and then lock them away forever or kill them, so be it. That is your choice and your opinion to feel that way. I on the other hand believe we can try them in a military court of law, lay the charges before them and provide a conviction. Then execute them to show others after them that we will take the necessary steps in order to stop their radical attempts. To show others that if they make the choice to come to America, to kill Americans, we will not only protect and defend ourselves, but if we catch you, you will be put to death. Period.
.
Your statment:

“Terrorists (at least at the “mastermind” level) do not have a goal of killing a few thousand people.”

.
Youa re partly right, but worong. Terrorists HAVE the goal to kill as many people as possible, millions if they could. This goal is a means to end control of the world by the “great Satan”, America. Not until our entire way of life is brought down, will they stop. Not until you bow before them and pledge your allegience to them will they stop. That is what evil wants from you maurice, not your laws or constitution.

Your link doesn’t support your assertions. The point of the article (and the audit) is that it has been a problem since the creation of the terror watch list in 2004. No where does it break down precisely when the problems occurred. As such, it is pointless to attempt to inject partisanship into the managing of the watch list. It is poorly designed and managed, not to mention entirely unwieldy.

I agree with you. Some people spread a lot of lies ………I guess they care more about defending “their ” party than hearing the truth.

Wonder if they are getting their pockets padded?

Very well said, and so true.

Makes you sick doesn’t it?

These people never think for themselves.

I never vote just for a party……….but everyone has their right.

“just hard to understand.”

” I think not.”
..
You said it all right there Rusty. You fail to think. You are nothing but a chickenhawk who would sooner destroy our freedoms in order to punish anyone you deemed to be an “evildoer.” Pathetic.
..
Individuals arrested on American soil are subject to the laws of the land and the civilian courts, not military justice. Next you’ll be making the same discredited argument that the civilian trial of Richard Reid (the shoebomber) was wholly different than the latest attempted terrorist attack. You are the one that is utterly clueless.

sevenoaks07,
until this country stops fighting for the “party” and starts standing up for our country we have no hope for change.

Congress is full of liars………we send them to Washington to work for us. To make America better.

What do we get? “LIES”
They can’t balance a budget and we pay for it. They sit up there and give themselves raises’ that we pay for.and they raise our tax to do it.

When are we going to learn who Congress works?

They do not punish their own, look at Charley Rangel, he cheats on the own tax laws he helps write, does he suffer? “no”

Did we see “ACORN” doing all kind of corrupt things?
No, guess we did not see those videos…..or the committee that investigated them is lying………”no, not CONGRESS……….

People wake up………….
We will never get out of this debt we are in even if Napolitano does not let us get killed by all those Muslims.
The parties fight and want us to fight for them.

rustyreturns,
Have you ever read the family history of Bush or Cheney?
You really should. It is just beautiful read. The families are wonderful. A lot can be said by the father who raises’ you. I love to read the wonderful family histories.
Condi Rice once said that the thing she admire most about President Bush was his life with Laura.

Dick Cheney is a self made man who has a history worth reading. A wonderful family man.

Obama from all I see is a great father, husband and his history will speak for it’s self.

should have been watching “Fox News’
they were right on it.

Cheney wanted to use the nonsensically phrased ‘war on terror’ as a wedge to destroy the Bill of Rights and permanently undermine the US constitution, and is annoyed that all the groundwork he laid for the return of rightwing monarchy has been sensibly tossed aside by the constitutional lawyer who succeeded him.

These are the standard grievances in the al-Qaeda recruitment videos. All of them contravene basic American values.
.
- Juan Cole
.
.
Cheney believes that if Americans focus on the “War” on terror, the Bill of Rights will seem “quaint” rather than essential.
.
Please consider what makes al Qaeda stronger. Prof Cole translates these recruitment videos, he spends time traveling among and talking to people in these areas, he is considered, perhaps, the foremost American expert on Middle Eastern language, customs and politics. Be assured that when we abandon the Law which guarantees freedom and equality for all, we strengthen the forces that oppose us. When we attack, invade and occupy foreign countries, when we inflict brutality upon the people there, we are all made less safe.

* I should add that I do not agree that Obama has sufficiently “tossed aside” Cheney’s groundwork. Black sites are still in operation, prisoners are still denied due process, and he continues the occupation of Afghanistan in order to police the region. Further, our on-going missile attacks enrage local peoples and provide images of women, children and innocents laid to waste.

First of all, the GOP is being partisan stuff is nonsense. When Napolitano said that the “system worked”, it merited criticism. Only the most partisan of Dems would think otherwise–I mean, really, you guys lost Maureen Dowd for pete’s sake.
.
Second of all, the bottom line is that in May, there were indications of problems, and then we had the Hasan massacre. And it appears that not a lot was done. That’s just reality.
.
Third of all, the Administration has been trying to deflect blame on this issue. That’s naked partisanship. Napolitano did so long before Cheney weighed in. So now it’s an issue when the GOP defends itself. Ok, gotcha. By the way, whatever hack in the WH press operation that thinks it’s a good idea to link the Bush Administration’s conduct of the war in Afghanistan with the current issue is simply on drugs. It cannot be forgotten that as a Senator, Obama failed to conduct any oversight on Afghanistan. Yes, he was a Senator, but he certainly dropped the ball. And when you’re part of the problem, you cannot point to others who are a bigger part.

The level of hypocrisy from Republicans on this issue is astounding. To make a terror attack a political issue after their inflated rhetoric concerning “emboldening our enemies” with criticism of the Bush administration is pure insanity.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

and when napolitano was deflecting blame to bush, you were appalled, right?

I didn’t say that the GOP was partisan. They are partisan by definition. What I said was: “it is pointless to attempt to inject partisanship into the managing of the watch list.” You injected partisanship into this issue with your post blaming the WH for all of these issues and that is pointless.
..
As for Hasan: There were signs for YEARS that this guy was a problem so don’t attempt again to make it partisan and lay the blame at Obama’s feet. It’s entirely disingenuous.
..
Both the WH and toadies from the Bush administration have been attempting to lay blame on each other for a variety of issues. Other than making clear some of the history and facts, it’s not useful. It’s also incorrect to lay the blame at Obama’s feet for a lack of oversight of the war in Afghanistan when he was a Senator. While he may share some culpability, he was hardly alone in that. A fairer-minded view might be that the Republicans in charge of the various committees that have oversight duties in the foreign policy arena are due the larger share of the blame.

It took Obama 4 days to respond to the terrorists (or man made disaster for the PC crowd) and less than one day to respond to Cheney. That tells you everything about Obama and this administration as to who they believe is the enemy.

They respond immediately and harshly to anyone who criticizes them but excuses anyone force trying to kill US citizens.

We should be very afraid.

Haha Paul, I’m not a female but if I was I doubt I’d be enchanted by a 63 year old sex offender.

diecash, apparently elementary logic escapes you, although I do take your point that you were commenting on my alleged injection of partisanship.
.
I don’t think I am being partisan here. Obama campaigned on the watch lists. He lectured us about “redoubling efforts” etc. That’s certainly worthy of mention, given (a) the fact that there was a DOJ audit which identified issues, (b) there was a 60 day review ordered by Napolitano in July and (c) there was a dot connection failure with respect to Hasan. Criticism is clearly warranted, particularly where the Administration (before Cheney even opened his mouth) tried to deflect blame.

Second, that Obama is hardly the most blameworthy actor with respect to Afghanistan pre-president Obama does not mean that he really gets to use Afghanistan as a means of deflecting blame here. Bottom line, it’s a glass house issue–he wasn’t doing anything about Afghanistan when it was in his bailiwick (and Dems controlled the Senate from 2006 on). It’s not disingenuous to point that out. And fair-minded news reporting would mention the issue.
.
Third, it’s certainly true that there were issues with hasan for years, but the bottom line is that Hasan didn’t prompt any review of security procedures, despite the existence of 13 (or 14 if you count the unborn) dead people. I didn’t blame Obama for Hasan–but his Administration is certainly open for criticism because no lessons were apparently learned.

“Then execute them to show others after them that we will take the necessary steps in order to stop their radical attempts. To show others that if they make the choice to come to America, to kill Americans, we will not only protect and defend ourselves, but if we catch you, you will be put to death. Period.”
.
Does not reconcile with:
.
“It began a long long time ago. A thousand years or more ago. No constitution on this earth or set of laws will ever stop it completely or keep your family safe from this time forward. That is simply my point. You may rehabilitate some. You may even rehabilitate most, but you will never rehabilitate all of them.”
.
You seem to be under the belief that since their goal is to change our way of life, our goal is to change theirs. It is not. Our objective is (or should be) to not allow ourselves to change based on their will. If you can’t rehabilitate everyone (and you can’t) you sure can’t kill enough of them to stop there from being evil people either. If the concept is to throw up your hands and say “oh well, screw it” you might as well just nuke everybody. Oddly enough, the only country on the planet to ever do just that was us.
.
This isn’t football. There isn’t some magic status we reach where we “win” and they “lose”. It is life, a constant struggle to do the best we can. When we prescribe to the “high ground” that is for better or for worse. It doesn’t come with an asterik that say “well, as long as they don’t hurt us too bad along the way”. Yes, that sucks, but that’s why it is the high ground. Life is easiest if you don’t know and/or don’t care, but who wants to be an ignorant jackass? As such, life is harder for those who “try” to do the right thing. Suck it up.

Addiionally, I wonder why you would believe that executing people who are committing suicide missions would be a deterrent anyway. Heh.
.
“Then execute them to show others after them that we will take the necessary steps in order to stop their radical attempts. To show others that if they make the choice to come to America, to kill Americans, we will not only protect and defend ourselves, but if we catch you, you will be put to death. Period.”
.
Seems rather illogical considering the type of adversary we are talking about. “Stop, don’t blow yourself up or we’ll kill you.” Really?