Obama criticized on airline incident when Bush wasn't

[TomCADem]

Source: Seattle Times

Eight years ago, a terrorist bomber's attempt to blow up a trans-Atlantic airliner was thwarted by passengers and revealed gaping holes in airline security only months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

But President George W. Bush, then on vacation, made no public remarks for six days about the so-called shoe bomber, Richard Reid, and there were virtually no complaints from the media or Democrats that Bush's response was sluggish or inadequate.

That stands in sharp contrast to the Republicans' withering criticism of President Obama — and some in the media — for his reaction to the Christmas Day incident on a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight.

***

Democrats are making the disparity a centerpiece of their efforts to counter GOP attacks on the White House. "This hypocrisy demonstrates Republicans are playing politics with issues of national security and terrorism," Democratic National Committee (DNC) spokesman Hari Sevugan said. "That they would use this incident as an opportunity to fan partisan flames ... tells you all you need to know about how far the Republican Party has fallen and how out of step with the American people they have become."


Read more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010643179_airlineprez31.html

[progressoid]

1. Hypocrisy in the GOP??

No way.

[ShockediSay]

51. M eanwhile, Bush was vacationing in Crawford, reportedly,

more than he was in Washington on the job.

[No Elephants]

2. Really? Bush was not criticized over 911? Are you serious?

Bush is still being criticized. As well he should be. As should Clinton, Poppy Bush and Reagan, all of whom watched terrorism escalate without doing a thing about, for just one example, trying to make airplane cockpits inaccessible. Bush was at fault, yes, but so were his predecessors from BOTH parties.

Bush was in office on 911 for a shorter time than Obama was when this happened. Yet, one of the first things I heard was that Obamadmin was only using the anti-terrorism measures that Bushco had put in place. Much as Bushco blamed Clinton for 911. Meanwhile, both Republicans and Democrats were getting very dead and we were letting the bs about which Party was MORE to blame distract us from the fact that BOTH Parties had failed to make smart efforts to keep Americans safer.

This is about the safety of the American people versus those who want to kill American people. We should all be focusing on how American (and people of all countries) can be safer. Saying "Republicans made more mistakes" or "Democrats made more mistakes" just doesn't cut it.

If you are on a plane that these clowns detonate successfully, I hope you get a lot of satisfaction on the way down to your death from thinking that the Republicans are supposedly more hypocritical than Democrats.

Grow the fuck up and get your priorities straight. Don't let EITHER Party get away with this shell game when your lives and those of your families hang in the balance. Demand that government do its job on this issue, no matter who happens to be sitting in the Oval Office or holding the majority in Congress.

[Patchuli]

4. While I agree with part of your post

I don't agree with all of it. Why the HELL didn't the airport security catch this?????????????? Is it not their JOB?

[No Elephants]

6. Even Obama says our country messed up the intelligence. You may as well ask how come this guy

made it to UK's no fly list but not to ours. Or why we are not cooperating more with the UK on matters like this

As far as Netherlands airport security, there was a story posted in this forum recently saying that Netherlands is one of the few countries in the world that uses the kind of body scanner that would have revealed what this guy had in his shorts (and his rectum), but the Netherlands is forbidden from using those scanners on people bound for the U.S. And, if this was partly Nigeria's fault, you cannot possibly compare Nigeria's resources to ours.

Again, IMO, YOUR focus is on the wrong issue. If, for you, it's all about Obama/Democrats, or more about Obama/Democrats, than about the safety of the American people, that's pathetic.

Oh, and fyi, I never unrecommend any thread because I consider that babyish. I do recommend threads I think it immportant for folks here to see and therefore did recommend this one.

[samsingh]

37. Clinton was going after al queda until the imbecile repugs impeached him

over nothing while the repugs under bush should have been impeached for

- lying to get into war
- exposing the secrets of a CIA agent
- torturing prisoners
- giving untendered billions to haliburton and other companies that repugs like cheney held options and/or stock in

the joke is that repugs are not going to jail left and right and these morons have the audacity to still show their treacherous faces in public.

the coward cheney has said more publicly since leaving office with his tail between his legs than he did in the 8 years he was hiding in office and destroying Democracy. i guess he's left his hiding place of 8 years.

[zbdent]

20. and why is the American airport security being attacked for this

when it was the failure at a foreign airport???

Does that mean that all terrorist attacks that took place 9/12/2001-1/20/2009 in foreign lands is now Bush's fault? (Oh wait ... it's either Clinton's or Obama's fault ... nothing's ever Bush's fault, according to the "liberal media" ...)

[No Elephants]

56. Who attacked American airport security for what happened in a Netherlands airport? However,

Homeland Security is much broader than American airport security, as is the sphere of U.S. intelligence in general. And, we do have some control, and even more influence, over what goes on in foreign airports, especially when a plane is headed to the U.S. Netherlands missed the one way ticket, cash payment and no luggage flags, but we missed flagging this guy.

And, whether our order to the Netherland not to use their body scanners on passengers destined for the U.S. was right or wrong, I'll leave for someone else to decide. However, the explosives and syringe would have shown up on their scanners, if used.

Your claim about the liberal media is pure bs. They attacked Bush with a vengeance, daily, including blaming Bush for 911.

[zbdent]

73. Your claim that the liberal media "attacked Bush with a vengeance, daily" is the real bull f*cking

shi* ...

The "liberal media" finally got a chance to say something when even the dumbest of Americans realized that Bush f*cked up the response to Hurricane Katrina ... that was when "America" woke up and realized that he wasn't the right guy for the job. AND it allowed a bunch of die-hard Bush fanatics to sit there and now claim "Oh, I'm an independent!" and "I really didn't agree with X" ...

At best, the "liberal media" was allowed to make fun of his speech, which, according to a lot of RWers, really was masking how smart he really was (really smart to be born a Senator's son & grandson, and to have his daddy get him everything he got in his life ...)

Gee ... liberal media ... right ... the bastion of the "liberal media", the New York Times, kissed George W. Bush's ass when he told them to sit on the illegal wiretapping story, only being able to muster the courage to release that story AFTER the 2004 election.

[pangaia]

25. AMS

Well, for starters the guy boarded the aircraft in Amsterdam. That is in Nederland, which is not in the US of A. It's just a wee bit north of Belgium. So you should jump on the Nederlanders.

[Igel]

44. No, not really.

US security should have revoked his visa or at least suspended it; it should have put his name on the no-fly list.

Security in Amsterdam and Nigeria did absolutely nothing that they shouldn't have done, given the information they had. Now, if they had the necessary information, the available information, then we could blame them. They didn't have the information. They're blameless.

Instead, the blame falls on those who had the information but who didn't disseminate it, who didn't "connect the dots" (to use a notorious phrase that's coming back to bite us on the arse).

[Patchuli]

79. I jumped on whoever the fuck missed this

and I don't give a crap where they are. If the plane's flying into my country, I want this shit stopped. God knows, American airport security inconveniences the hell out of me and will again tomorrow.

[V_Byl]

30. If someone is willing to trade their life...

to kill people, they'll usually be successful. It's a reality we might as well accept, we can try all we want, make security tight, strip away privacy rights, cause 2-3 hour lines at airports for security... at the end of the day, if someone is set on killing people for whatever ideologically contrived reason they may have - and they are willing to die in the process - most of the time they're going to be successful. I don't see how rational minds can totally prepare for the irrational.

Politics is making me sick lately (more so than usual). This redundant merry-go-round of blame never ends. I was thrilled when Obama was elected, and now it appears pointless - certainly not anywhere near the liberal I had hoped for - he's no more at fault for somebody boarding a plane in a foreign country than Bush would've been. So what? Republicans are full of hot air and hypocrisy, and Democrats can get a majority and the House, Senate, and have the White House and still not pass real health care reform, stop the country from endless war, or reform financial regulation. Security relies on human beings, and they make mistakes, they can be bribed, and some of them are just in it for the pay check.

Airport security should have caught this, and obviously there is something going on here that isn't being reported, at least not yet. I think this family that noticed this all go down should have spoken up - sorry, but I would have, especially with my family on the plane. Even if the guy was escorted away, I still would've wanted to know what was going on - is this guy really going to get on the plane without a passport?!? WTF!

[zanana1]

38. The article wasn't about the breach itself...

So I don't understand your post. The article was about the difference two presidents (Bush and Obama) fared when security was breached. During Bush's terms, the media and the Democrats didn't utter one world of criticism, but it only took the media and Republicans one day to criticize Obama in every way possible. So, it's about hypocrisy, not lack of security.

[regnaD kciN]

5. Did you even bother to read the story?

It had nothing to do with Bush being criticized over 9/11 (although he certainly didn't get much heat in the crucial first "we must all stand together" weeks after the attack). This is dealing with how the administration didn't get practically any flak over the "shoe bomber" incident the next year, even though it showed exactly the same type and degree of security failure we saw this past week.

Next time, before climbing up on your soapbox, you might want to try to find out exactly what it is you're supposed to be so bloody indignant about.

:eyes:

[No Elephants]

7. You missed the point of my post. So, backatcha about figuring stuff out first.

the point is manipulation by BOTH parties of mindless partisans. Successful manipulation, I might add. Whether it was 911 or Reid is a meaningless detail.

But, while we are on that point, if Bush was "criticism worthy" about Reid, coming "months after" 911, and all, what should the criticism be now? 911 was an unprecedented kind of (although it did bear some resemblance to Pearl Harbor and also to kamikaze pilots). The Reid incident was not the same as 911 and only months had passed since 911 had thrown the nation into a frenzy on many fronts. This clown was 8 years after Reid and did almost the exact same thing as did Reid.

So, I might have a tough time figuring out which Party's partisans are more hypocritical--IF THAT WERE MY POINT. But, it wasn't my point, so I don't have to parse it.

[Teaser]

17. I don't care about your point.

But please use more caps. It makes you more fun to read.

[No Elephants]

53. Happy to oblige you. YAWN.

[leveymg]

10. Bush was personally warned about the 9/11 plot by George Tenet. Did nothing. That's the difference.

AFAIK, Obama had no forewarning about this one. A major difference.

[No Elephants]

11. Some might say Ried was the warning. Some might say this guy's father was the warning.

As was the reason the CIA was watching "the Nigerian guy," without even knowing about the father.

But again, you are missing the point. For instance, beyond making us remove our shoes, neither Party did anything smart after Reid.

BTW, I don't blame Obama for this. He cannot do everything. But, the CIA, FBI and Napolitano should have been making sure info was shared. That was the whole point of creating Homeland Security after 911--our agencies had failed to share info, let alone add up 1 +1.

On edit: do you have a link showing exactly what Tenet warned Bush about re: 911 and/or Reid?

[leveymg]

12. You seem to be a Bush 9/11 apologist. The two events are not equivalent.

You're missing my point that the major difference between 9/11 and the Xmas day bombing was that Bush had been personally warned that AQ was planning a major attack involving airliner hijackings and destruction on landmark buildings in NY and DC, yet refused to issue an order for the FBI to round up the attack cells known to be inside the US. By contrast, there's no evidence that Obama, personally, or anyone in the White House, received any particular warning about this attack. That decision seems to have stopped at the NCTC.

The Haskells and the third witness interviewed report some extremely strange circumstances regarding boarding for that flight. Here's the AC 360 interview, watch it yourself and come back with comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAtK7FFDukQ

These certainly seem to be sober and credible eyewitnesses.

If what these people are saying is true, this is very strange, indeed. Put the pieces together -- 1) the statement by the well-dressed second man that the bomber had no passport (but the official accounts say he indeed had a US visa, which implies a PP or travel document), 2) the witnesses report the pair bypassed normal ticketing and went into a back room to speak with an airline manager, and the bomber was given special handling to board the flight, 3) the bomber wasn't searched, 4) the other passengers were allowed on with water bottles and without having their shoes inspected, as is SOP, 5) the bomber was named on a UK watch list that is shared with the US, 6) the US was warned weeks ago about this guy's ties to al-Qaeda (CIA has had some knowledge of him as long ago as August).

Put it all together, and you have more than a routine security lapse. Now, what exactly is it that I'm missing or have misconstrued?

As for a link on Tenet and Bush, see: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/258 If you want more, I can provide it.

[No Elephants]

54. My post did not even mention Bush, nor am I anyone's apologist.

And I never said or implied that the Christmas bombing attempt was the equivalent of 911.

Passing that, you have not at all supported your statement about exactly what Bush was warned about. The link you supplied is to a blog. Not exactly authoritative. Even if it were, nothing in the link you provided supports your claim that Bush was "personally warned that AQ was planning a major attack involving airliner hijackings and destruction on landmark buildings in NY and DC."]

Rather, the link that you provided says only, "For the first time, the former CIA Director admits he flew to Crawford in late August, just weeks before the attack by al-Qaeda cells known to be in the U.S., and briefed President George W. Bush personally about the threat." Not quite as specific as your claim.

Your link does not even support that vague statement with any link or direct quote, except this quote, which is said to be from Tenet's book (italics and bolding mine, not that of the blog you linked):

"Here's the relevant extract from Tenet's book: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/050607....


"A few weeks after the Aug. 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the President stayed current on events,” Tenet wrote in his memoir, At the Center of the Storm. “This was my first visit to the ranch. I remember the President graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and my trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna, none of which were native to Queens'"


That supports something? Are you kidding?


All that aside, "We're about to be attacked by Al Qaida in the U.S." s nowhere near as as specific as the information we had about the attempted Christmas attack.

As far as your claim that Bush should have rounded up up everyone we "knew" to be in a terrorist "attack cell" within the U.S. shouldn't we have done that whether we had been warned or not? And shouldn't we still be doing it? Bear in mind, though, what we know and what we may suspect are two very different things under our law.


As to the Christmas wannabe bomber: The perp's father warned our embassy a bit over a month ago that his son had become radicalized and he feared his son might attempt an attack on the US. We also had intelligence that an attack from Yemen was in the works. We also had intelligence about an attack this holiday. We also had intelligence that a Nigerian was being prepared to carry out an attack. And there was the ban on his entry into the UK. (Do we even share info like that with the UK and other nations? If not, why not?) None of this was put together, even to the point of requesting extra scrutiny of this guy at airports.

As my prior post to you said, I do not hold Obama personally responsible for this failure, but it did happen on his watch and the buck does stop with him. However, did Obama ever even order a review of the Bush security policies, or did he just continue them, even though he was so critical of Bush while he campaigned?

From all I've read, no review was ordered or occurred, yet people like Gibbs are subtly trying to blame this on "Bush policies." Trouble with that is, Obama campaigned on change from Bush; Obama took office almost a year ago; and nothing compelled Obama to continue any of Bush policies. At what point does something become the responsiblity of the current administration, rather than the prior one?

As for the Haskell story you mentioned, per another LBN thread, The TSA is investigating (and apparently doubting) the Haskell story. However, lack of a valid passport really has nothing to do with the information that was within our own system. Maybe mistakes were made in Nigeria, in Yemen and in the Netherlands, but that does not excuse our own foul ups. I agree this was more than a routine security lapse, but I think that was as true of us as it was of anyone else.

As far as the Netherlands not inspecting shoes, etc.--That may be because that is not necessary with the body scanners hey normally use--and would have used on this guy but for U.S. directives not to use the machines on those bound for the U.S. In any case, the explosives were in his drawers, not his shoes. So, if this was a conspiracy of some kind, it was sure one heck of an incompetent one.

On edit: OMG. I just noticed that the link you supplied to support the claims you made in your prior post is not merely a link to a blog, but a link to your own blog. You are citing your own blog as authority for your own claims? come on, now.

[leveymg]

77. MY responses in BOLD to your comments.

And I never said or implied that the Christmas bombing attempt was the equivalent of 911. THAT IS WHAT YOU IMPLY WHEN YOU MAKE STATEMENTS, LIKE THAT BELOW, "I do not hold Obama personally responsible for this failure, but it did happen on his watch and the buck does stop with him." YOU ARE COMPARING THE TWO EVENTS, AND FIND OBAMA GUILTY OF FAILING TO ORDER A REVIEW AND SUFFICIENTLY CHANGE PROTOCOLS. THERE WAS A REVIEW, AND YOU MAY BE RIGHT THAT PROCEDURES MAY NOT HAVE CHANGED ENOUGH, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE DEGREE OF NEGLIGENCE IS OF THE SAME ORDER.

Passing that, you have not at all supported your statement about exactly what Bush was warned about. The link you supplied is to a blog. Not exactly authoritative.WHAT YOU DERIDE AS "A BLOG" IS THE CULMINATION OF YEARS OF RESEARCH AND ON-LINE PUBLISHING ON THE SUBJECT OF THE FAILURES OF U.S. COUNTER-TERRORISM. I HAVE BEEN WRITING ABOUT THIS SUBJECT AT LENGTH SINCE 2002. IF YOU WANT TO QUESTION THE FACTS AND SOURCING, FINE, BUT DON'T NEGATE THE CONTENT BECAUSE OF THE MEDIA IN WHICH IT APPEARS. WHY DO YOU BOTHER POSTING HERE? Even if it were, nothing in the link you provided supports your claim that Bush was "personally warned that AQ was planning a major attack involving airliner hijackings and destruction on landmark buildings in NY and DC." READ THE 08/06 PDB - THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS.

Rather, the link that you provided says only, "For the first time, the former CIA Director admits he flew to Crawford in late August, just weeks before the attack by al-Qaeda cells known to be in the U.S., and briefed President George W. Bush personally about the threat." Not quite as specific as your claim. TENET STATES IN HIS BOOK THAT BRIEFING IN CRAWFORD WAS TO FOLLOW-UP ON THE 08/06 PDB.

Your link does not even support that vague statement with any link or direct quote, except this quote, which is said to be from Tenet's book (italics and bolding mine, not that of the blog you linked):

"Here's the relevant extract from Tenet's book: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/050607 ....


"A few weeks after the Aug. 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the President stayed current on events,” Tenet wrote in his memoir, At the Center of the Storm. “This was my first visit to the ranch. I remember the President graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and my trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna, none of which were native to Queens'"


That supports something? Are you kidding? YES, IT DOES. TENET SAYS HE TALKED TO BUSH ABOUT THE SAME SUBJECTS AS IN THE 08/06 PDB, WHEREAS HE HAD PERJURED HIMSELF PREVIOUSLY BEFORE THE 9/11 COMMISSION TO DENY THAT THEY HAD ANY SUCH CONVERSATIONS DURING THE MONTH BEFORE THE ATTACKS.


All that aside, "We're about to be attacked by Al Qaida in the U.S." s nowhere near as as specific as the information we had about the attempted Christmas attack. THAT IS NOT TRUE. YOU DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF WHAT U.S. INTELLIGENCE ACTUALLY -- AND THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE -- KNEW ABOUT THE 9/11 ATTACKS. WE KNEW THE WHO, WHAT, WHERE AND APPROXIMATELY WHEN SINCE THE JANUARY 2000 AL-QAEDA PLANNING SUMMIT IN KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA WHICH WAS VIDEOTAPED BY THE CIA AND INFILTRATED BY SEVERAL DOUBLE-AGENTS.

As far as your claim that Bush should have rounded up up everyone we "knew" to be in a terrorist "attack cell" within the U.S. shouldn't we have done that whether we had been warned or not? And shouldn't we still be doing it? Bear in mind, though, what we know and what we may suspect are two very different things under our law. U.S. INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED KNOWN AL-QAEDA OPERATIVES TO FREELY TRAVEL IN AND OUT OF THE U.S. FOR OVER A DECADE PRIOR TO 9/11. THEY WORKED WITH US AND ALLIED INTEL AGENCIES (SAUDIS AND PAKISTANI ISI) AGAINST THE RUSSIANS AND SERBS.


As to the Christmas wannabe bomber: The perp's father warned our embassy a bit over a month ago that his son had become radicalized and he feared his son might attempt an attack on the US. We also had intelligence that an attack from Yemen was in the works. We also had intelligence about an attack this holiday. We also had intelligence that a Nigerian was being prepared to carry out an attack. And there was the ban on his entry into the UK. (Do we even share info like that with the UK and other nations? If not, why not?) None of this was put together, even to the point of requesting extra scrutiny of this guy at airports. YES, THAT IS EXTREMELY STRANGE, AND IT SUGGESTS THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING GOING ON THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD ABOUT.

As my prior post to you said, I do not hold Obama personally responsible for this failure, but it did happen on his watch and the buck does stop with him. However, did Obama ever even order a review of the Bush security policies, or did he just continue them, even though he was so critical of Bush while he campaigned? SEE COMMENT ABOVE.

From all I've read, no review was ordered or occurred, yet people like Gibbs are subtly trying to blame this on "Bush policies." Trouble with that is, Obama campaigned on change from Bush; Obama took office almost a year ago; and nothing compelled Obama to continue any of Bush policies. At what point does something become the responsiblity of the current administration, rather than the prior one? I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT GIBBS STATEMENT. PLEASE LINK.

As for the Haskell story you mentioned, per another LBN thread, The TSA is investigating (and apparently doubting) the Haskell story. However, lack of a valid passport really has nothing to do with the information that was within our own system. Maybe mistakes were made in Nigeria, in Yemen and in the Netherlands, but that does not excuse our own foul ups. I agree this was more than a routine security lapse, but I think that was as true of us as it was of anyone else.

As far as the Netherlands not inspecting shoes, etc.--That may be because that is not necessary with the body scanners hey normally use--and would have used on this guy but for U.S. directives not to use the machines on those bound for the U.S. In any case, the explosives were in his drawers, not his shoes. So, if this was a conspiracy of some kind, it was sure one heck of an incompetent one. I NOTED THAT WHEN YOU ADD UP THE ANOMALIES, ONE SEES A PATTERN THAT SUGGESTS THE POSSIBILITY OF SOME INTENT AND ORGANIZATION BEHIND IT THAT NEEDS FURTHER INVESTIGATION. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE AUTHORITIES HAVE SAID.

On edit: OMG. I just noticed that the link you supplied to support the claims you made in your prior post is not merely a link to a blog, but a link to your own blog. You are citing your own blog as authority for your own claims? come on, now. MY EARLIER POSTS ALL HAVE LINKS TO AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES. FOLLOW THEM BACK. IF YOU CAN'T FIND A CITATION OR SOURCING, LET ME KNOW. I WILL PROVIDE ONE.

[CTyankee]

78. The REAL difference is that Bush was explicitly warned in a Presidential Daily Briefing

which landed right on his desk about an impending attack by Al Quaeda. Obama had no such PDB.

That being said, I will add that it seems that the Obama Administration's State Dept. did its part in passing along the info from the guy's father to the CIA. It appears to me that the CIA is the weakest link here. Of course, Obama is the President of all of the executive agencies and so he is ultimately responsible and it also seems to me that he is taking appropriate action.

But this is WAY different from the August 01 PDB that Bush got...and ignored.

[marmar]

13. No Donkeys is more like it......

:eyes:

[No Elephants]

57. Does this relate to my post? If so, I am not geting your reference. I apologize.

[natrat]

15. demand they do their jobs? that's rich-what should we do, call them up

or maybe we should vote in a crew of democrats to clean things up, yea that will do it. It's fucking broken and would take an act of god to get those freaks off the corporate tit.

[No Elephants]

58. I agree. But focusing on whether Republicans are more

hypocritcal than Democrats when it comes to national security, or vice versa, is not even a good starting place for anything likely to lead to something productive about our safety is it? And demanding that government do its job has to be more productive than forgetting about our own safety while we allow ourselves to be distracted in Pavlovian fashion by a meaningless partisan battle over who is more hypocritical, no?

Defining a problem correctly is 50% of the solution. Dr. Phil.

Can't abide him, but defining a problem incorrectly is zero percent of the solution, right? And focusing on the completely wrong issue is even worse than defining the right issue incorrectly. As my MIL might say, "That's just too far out in left field."

[maseman]

16. No Elephant No Reada da story

This had nothing to do with the 9/11 terror plot. It had to do with the attemtped bombing of an airline after Sept. 11 and it revealed serious airline security gaps.

[No Elephants]

55. Maseman no reada Reply # 7..

And, if we had almost the same thing happen years ago (Reid), all the more reason to be critical of the Christmas incident, no?

[FarLeftFist]

19. I think the OP was talking about the shoe-bomber incident

Bush does deserve all the criticism he gets.

[No Elephants]

60. Please see Reply #7. Agree on Bush. In fact, he deserves even much more criticism than he gets.

And, IMO, impeachment and prosecution, too. But none of that excuses the security lapse over the Christmas attacker, which Obama himself described as a massive failure, or the attempt to distract us by debating over hypocrisy.

[mzmolly]

75. To my understanding the attempted bomber boarded the plane

without a passport, which makes detection impossible. I think if this story is true, it's a failure on the part of the airlines, period. That said, there needs to be a change and we need international standards and cooperation in order to implement change. Not to mention the 911 commission recommendations need to be put in place, pronto.

[pangaia]

27. 911

Ar I read it, the poster is not even talking about 911 but the "shoe bomber."
(Now we have the 'underpants bomber." next it will be the 'bra bomber." Then women will be prohibited from wearing bras on planes.)

[No Elephants]

61. Please see Reply #7.

[NewJeffCT]

28. Criticized on places like DU...

but, did any prominent Democrats criticize Bush after 9/11 or after Richard Reid or after the anthrax attacks? The media searched far & wide for months and the best they came up with was Ward Churchill, an obscure professor from Colorado.

[No Elephants]

62. Not only on message boards, but in media too, by Democratic pundits and the like.

As far as prominent Democrats, I think they did criticize Bush, at least they did if someone blamed Clinton, by pointing out that it happened on Bush's watch. However, American politics at the time of the Reid incident werer much different than are American politics today. Also, Bush's approval ratings then were much higher than Obama's are now. So, it is politically safer for Republicans to criticize Obama now than it was for Democrats to criticize Bush then.

Overall, IMO, though, Democrats do behave better than Republicans. However, all of that is beside the point, IMO. The issue for me about this attempted attack is why it slipped through the cracks and how we can fix whatever it was.

[Frances]

29. Can you read?

Or do you just post without reading--or thinking?

The article is comparing the underpants bomber with the SHOE BOMBER.

[No Elephants]

63. Can you? Please see Reply #7.

(I love irony.)

[Ms. Toad]

31. Not even close to the point of the article.

Here it is in bullet points:

2001 shoe bomber:
* Occurred on 12/22
* Bush on vacation
* Bush silent for 6 days
* No comment or criticism by the Dems or MSM for his 6-day silence

2009 underpants bomber:
* Occurred on 12/25
* Obama on vacation
* Obama silent for 3 days
* Blistering criticism by Repubs for 3 day silence, prominently featured on right wing talk shows, and picked up by MSM

While you may have valid points about other matters, they are virtually unrelated to the subject of the article - which is the political and media response to the virtually identical delayed reaction to security failures which occurred while the respective presidents were vacationing.

[No Elephants]

64. Please see Reply # 7.

And, if you understood Reply @ 2, you would understand that I am saying the article is unrelated to any reaction sensible people should be having to what Obama himself described as a massive failure by our intelligence and security communities. People we pay to protect us massively failed to do their jobs and sane people are supposed to be worrying about which party is more hypocritical? That is an attempt to get us into knee jerk partisan loyalty, rather than to be demanding improvement. That was my point.


No, I don't want to be distracted by the issue raised in the OP and I am dismayed that anyone does.



BTW, I don't see Reid as virtually identical to the Christmas attempt at all. IMO, the failure as to the Christmas bomber wannabe was far less excusable. I believe I may have discussed that in a prior post on this thread, too.

[1monster]

35. You misread the OP. The ATTEMPTED bombing in question was several months AFTER 9/11... I think it

refers to the shoe bomber?

[No Elephants]

65. Thanks. Please see Reply # 7.

[wickerwoman]

40. The article is about the shoe bomber, not 911.

nt

[No Elephants]

66. Thanks, but please see Reply # 7.

[LisaM]

42. The OP is about Richard Reid, not 9/11. n/t

[No Elephants]

67. Thanks, but please see Reply #7.

[RoccoR5955]

43. Really, I heard Bush's former press secratary say that 911 didn't happen on Bush's watch...

Dana Perino said it. I heard her on Olbermann or Maddow last week. They just deny anything that they do not agree with.

[No Elephants]

68. They do lie. They say Obama did the TARP, too, when Bush did it. (Not Perino, but

folks like Scarborough, whom I KNOW knows better than that.)


Still, knowing that doesn't make us any safer or excuse the failure of the CIA and Homeland Security over "the Nigerian guy," does it? Can't we hold someone accountable for that, even though Republicans are not worth a spitoon?

[w4rma]

46. It's very obvious you didn't read the article (did you even skim it?), No Elephants. (nt)

[No Elephants]

69. Please see Reply #7 (read or skim, as you like).

[mzmolly]

50. No, he wasn't. And yes, I'm SERIOUS.

People "stood with" or "behind" the President during that "difficult" time. According to the media, it was no time to "point fingers" it was a time to "rally together"... And, while the OP didn't mention 911, I will. And I'll say it LOUD. Bush was not criticized by Democrats or anyone en masse, for the failure to protect the nation on that day.

The OP made a political statement, not one about airline safety. That's another topic all together. However given you mentioned it, Republicans voted down additional funding for airline security.

[No Elephants]

71. Thanks. Not on the day of 911, you're right about that. However, I'm guessing no one

criticized FDR on Pearl Harbor Day. Neither of those events, though, are in any way comparable to the the failed Christmas attempt. Bush was criticized later though. As to voting down addiitonal funding for airline security, that probably had little to do with the Christmas attacker. That was a failure on the part of the American intelligence community and the the Netherlands airport people, neither fo which would have been affected by that vote. As to some of the other points you mentioned, please see Posts 62 and 64.

But, none of that makes us any safer than we were on December 24, does it? And that was my point in Reply #2--that we are being distracted from the real issue. As to the OP not mentioning 911, please see Reply #7.

[Patchuli]

3. Thank you for posting this

and a big FU to the unrec'ers on this one!

[RFKHumphreyObama]

8. That's certainly true and the MSM should be ashamed in their white-washing

and coverup of *'s security failures while being ever willing to blow Obama's "alleged" failure all out of proportion.

Congratulations to the Seattle Times for being one of the few newspapers to buck this trend and point out the hypocrisy

[leveymg]

9. It's time to reopen the 9/11 investigation, and subject it to the same level of scrutiny.

The most amazing things might pop out.

[SpiralHawk]

14. Republicons are pitiful hypocrites

in every realm of life.

[Independent_Liberal]

39. GOP: Hypocrisy is the Best Policy

That would be a good motto for them.

[groundloop]

18. By the way, as for this guy being denied a visa by UK

A reporter on CNN this morning said that our govt had asked the UK to share info about people who have been denied travel visas, but the EU refused based on privacy concerns.

And as for the OP, yes, I think the hypocracy of the Greedy Obstructionist Party is shameful. Instead of looking for facts and finding ways to improve the system they use this situation as a way to score political points. Pathetic.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

21. The GOP is a disgusting pile of ****

[Oldtimeralso]

48. What is With You?

Insulting a disgusting pile of **** like that.
You should be ashamed of yourself!
:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:

[Gman2]

22. Crying hypocrisy is weak sauce. They will beat the wimpy lefty drum till the vote

I believe though, that they will burn out the public. Apocalypse, doom. Death and destruction to come. With no ideas, but to roll back all Obama. Everywhere. They will appeal to a 50's neverworld. As they always have, in my lifetime. These are powerful themes. But they dont offer any substance, just imagery. It is a sophisticated approach. and very psy-ops.

[boston bean]

23. What is most regretful is that

The Dems back then didn't take advantage of it the way Republicans do.

That is what pisses me off. And it is what continues to make me think they really aren't in the fight.

[City Lights]

24. The double standards sicken me.

I have absolutely no use for Republicans nor their corporate media masters. I have completely tuned out the televised media.

[chelsea0011]

26. At this point there is only one direction for the republicants and that

is to criticize Obama about everything. It is not a question of fair or what's right and wrong. It is all about 2010 and the next election.

[Kokonoe]

32. Where are the blue dogs.

Pulling wool off their eyes is partisan behavior.:sarcasm:

But it needs to happen for the good of the people.

[NorthCarolina]

33. Given a Public Media predominantly controlled by Conservatives, does this really

surprise anyone? If so, you really haven't been paying attention.

[nvme]

34. I never thought I would hear myself say this

Are we a party of wimps? for chrissake, an airliner almost got taken out! We are whining about Bush not getting criticism. If you recall Bush was always on that lil compound of inbreeding in Crawford. So kids we are in charge now. If our dear leader is going to have the reigns of power, then expect criticism. The point is not whether he has been office for less than a year, it is the fact that our security measures failed. We got lucky! the explosives react properly. Had the explosives worked, we would be having a different discussion. Let them (the press) howl. By next week another story will take the place of this one.

[treestar]

41. "dear leader?"

I know from whom I've heard that one.

"Dear Leader" Bush created the system that didn't work. How do you like that? Now you know how we felt to hear Clinton blamed for 911.

[TomCADem]

74. The Question Is Are Republicans National Security Experts?

I think that is the point that should be raised and questioned. Republicans are acting outraged, yet the track record during the Bush years was absolutely abysmal. It is absolutely correct to demand an explanation and improvements, but to campaign on this incident under the premise that Republicans would do a better job or that Democrats are weak on national security?

That is the hypocrisy and lie that needs to be exposed.

[greengestalt]

36. What else is new?

That's one of the reasons I'm starting to really worry about Obama...


He should have gone after the media FIRST. They are turning every victory into a defeat, and turning every error, every hesitance to act into willful treason. The media is clearly biased, and I don't mean (absolutely) "Right" but rather "The short term goals of the Monied interests". Slap the "Fairness Doctrine" back on them, backed up by a direct threat to abuse the "Patriot Act" on them if they give a word about it.


Earlier, I did a comedy about the media's treatment of Dubya:

"If the Media treated Bush like they treated Clinton:"

The "Trifecta Joke" would be national headlines.
The phrase "Bring 'em ON" would be broadcast before every announcement of a serviceman death in Iraq along with a number.
Every single slip up, such as calling America the "Mexican Canadian border" would be given national attention, making him look like an evil Dan Quayle.
-and so forth.

[katty]

45. predictable kneejerk reaction from GOP

[LynneSin]

47. Remember this is the guy that kept vacationing when Katrina happened

:cry:

[Oldtimeralso]

49. Remember this is the guy that kept MENTALLY vacationing when ANYTHING happened...

From Jan 2001 to Jan 2009!

[marshall]

52. I imagine most people have higher expectations of Obama than they did of Bush

It's naturally going to lead to more criticism.

He of whom much is expected....

[No Elephants]

72. Yes. And other factors mentioned in Replies 7 and 62.

Comparing the Reid incident and this one is a false equivalency. Reid not only happened soon after 911, but Bushco did not have the intelligence on Reid or that attack that Obamadmin had about "the Nigerian guy" and the Christmas attack attempt. Or, for that matter, the intelligence about Reid and that attack that Bush had about Atta and the 911 attack.

So, it's something of a false equivalency, as well as an attempt to distract us into partisan loyalty, rather than having us focus on the recent failure, which Obama himself called a massive failure.

[MotorCityMan]

59. And this surprises... Who?

[disndat]

70. Obama will fight back

if the, tea baggers, Glen Beck, the whole gang of RW thugs, as Obama did to Cheney's accusations of incompetency and security laxity with this latest incident of the Nigerian "terrorist." Obama is sitting on a pile of restored "lost" email tapes, as well as all the documents hard evidences of treasonous Bush deeds that Obama can reel out if those fools insist on pressing hard enough.

[grahamhgreen]

76. They hate him. He's abandoned us. What's next?