The Christmas Bomber Story

[Maggie]

I didn’t get a chance to read or listen to much news over the weekend and when relatives (all vote Democrat and most fairly liberal) kept asking me what I thought about this bombing attempt – I couldn’t really comment. People around here, including me, are very sensitive to this type of news. So I fired up the computer and turned on the T.V. on Sunday. I probably should have left well enough alone, stayed in a fetal position and kept my middle finger raised high. Or better yet continued to humiliate my father in COD – how is that for escapism?

Understandably, the White House is trying very hard to get out in front of the would-be Christmas bomber story. The head of the Department of Homeland Security isn't helping. I watched her on three shows and each time she was more annoying, maddening and absurd than the previous appearance. As near as I could tell it is her basic position that the "system worked" because the bureaucrats responded properly after the attack. That the attack was "foiled" by a bad detonator and some civilian passengers is proof, you see, that her agency is doing everything right.

Frankly, that is just about the dumbest thing she could say, on the merits and politically. I would wager that not one percent of Americans think the system is "working" when terrorists successfully get bombs onto planes (and succeed in activating them). Probably even fewer think it's fair that they have to take off their shoes, endure delays and madness while a known Islamic radical - turned in by his own father - can waltz onto a plane (are we going to start taking these people seriously?). DHS had no role whatsoever in assuring that this bomb didn't go off. By her logic if the bomb had gone off, the system would have "worked" since it has done everything right.

Napolitano has a habit of arguing that DHS is a first responder outfit. Its mission is to deal with "man-caused-disasters" after they occur. It appears she really believes it and this is the problem. The people in charge of our government believe Clinton-era counterterrorism was a successful model. They start from the premise that terrorism is a crime problem to be managed, not a war to be won. Overdone "war on drugs" rhetoric aside, we don't try to "win" against (as in "defeat") law-enforcement challenges. We expect them to happen from time to time and to contain, but never completely prevent, the damage.

Here, no thanks to the government, the plane was not destroyed, and we won't get to the bottom of the larger conspiracy (enabling the likes of Napolitano to say there's no indication of a larger plot - much less one launched by an international jihadist enterprise) because the guy got to lawyer up rather than be treated like a combatant and subjected to lengthy interrogation. But the terrorist will be convicted at trial (this "case" tees up like a slam-dunk), so the administration will put it in the books as a success ... just like the Clinton folks did after the '93 WTC bombers and the embassy bombers were convicted. In their minds, litigation success equals national security success.

It is a dangerously absurd viewpoint, but it was clear during the campaign that it was Obama's viewpoint. The American people - only seven years after 9/11 - elected him anyway. As we learn more painfully everyday, elections matter.

Behold, Napolitano in her own words:

Napolitano On Failed Terror Attempt: "The System Worked"

[WuDrWu]

You have great strength and fortitude to have watched this person 3 times. I saw her once and was so outraged by the "the system worked perfectly" response that I could no longer take it and found something better to do which frankly is very frustrating.

I rely on the Sunday morning shows for education and when nonsense like that is spewed and the delivery person isn't laughed off the panel it is beyond annoying.

The thing that REALLY irks me is that we all make mistakes. It's ok to admit that....even as a right thinking American, I would have so much more belief in the people in charge if they just admitted something went wrong and they are going to fix it (as flawed as their reasoning is in the first place).

At first glance, they may be doing this today, but I think it is exactly because people like Maggie have reacted and now they are trying to cover their tracks.

Stop the spin, please.

[Maggie]

I would have so much more belief in the people in charge if they just admitted something went wrong and they are going to fix it (as flawed as their reasoning is in the first place).

The actions the government has taken this year lead me to the conclusion that they don’t think they are making a mistake or have made mistakes. These people simply have a different opinion, a mistaken and dangerous opinion in my judgment, of how to deal with this threat.

They have decided to grant a civilian trial in Manhattan to KSM and the other 9/11 jihadists – which incidentally will be held about a 10 minute walk from where I work. They attempt to explain away the motive of the man behind the Fort Hood shooting. I could go on…

Jihadists don’t view this fight through the same prism. Our government and jihadists are like ships passing in the night. They are like relatives during Christmas dinner that don’t talk to each other but talk at one another. And that is just the way the jihadists want it – I know I would if I were on their side.

[Maggie]

Abdulmutallab: More Like Me In Yemen - Accused Northwest Bomber Says More Bombers On the Way; Al Qaeda Promises to Hit Americans

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, charged with the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253, told FBI agents there were more just like him in Yemen who would strike soon.

And in a tape released four days before the attempted destruction of the Detroit-bound Northwest plane, the leader of al Qaeda in Yemen boasted of what was planned for Americans, saying, "We are carrying a bomb to hit the enemies of God."

Well based on Napolitano’s comments on Sunday (she is backing off those comments -- translation: her hackish talking points were a flop so she's pretending she didn't mean what she said and is blaming others for not understanding her), I suppose she is considering the possibility this man is lying; after all he actually did have his pants on fire.

[BenWSU]

Time for Obama to send more troops to Yemen. Lets see if our new president has the balls to do something about terrorism.

[ISASO]

If Obama would have been President on Dec. 7, 1941 he would have had the CIA and FBI looking for the Japanese pilots so they could be put on trial in Hawaii for polluting the air with the exhaust from their airplanes.

[Maggie]

Time for Obama to send more troops to Yemen. Lets see if our new president has the balls to do something about terrorism.

Not going to happen, even if the situation warrants such action. The administration can’t even bring itself to call this a war and uses the “T” word with great reluctance – unless it is being used to describe American citizens.

You see our President, and his underlings, appear to have a mindset that holds it's a splendid idea to send Gitmo detainees to Yemen (or perhaps Illinois), try al-Qaeda's chief operating officer in a New York City civilian court, and credulously engage - almost to the point of supplication - the world's chief state sponsor of terrorism.

This administration appears to be invincibly callow toward the threat of terrorism.

[1979Shocker]

Better airport scanners delayed by privacy fears

WASHINGTON - High-tech security scanners that might have prevented the Christmas Day attempt to blow up a jetliner have been installed in only a small number of airports around the world, in large part because of privacy concerns over the way the machines see through clothing.

The technology is in place at 19 U.S. airports, while European officials have generally limited it to test runs.

I guess I can see people's concerns, since it's like a strip search.

But the technology has raised significant concerns among privacy watchdogs because it can show the body's contours with embarrassing clarity. Those fears have slowed the introduction of the machines.

'Virtual strip searches'
Jay Stanley, public education director for the American Civil Liberties Union's Technology and Liberty Program, said the machines essentially perform "virtual strip searches that see through your clothing and reveal the size and shape of your body."

I think as long as they only allow men to do the virtual searches against men and women against women, it shouldn't really be that much of a problem. People go to their doctors and reveal just as much.

[Maggie]

I can’t say I am a huge supporter of the whole body scan idea – they are actually kind of creepy. But at the same time, it doesn’t horrify me either.

In the past, we have without fail heard the talking-heads argue about the idea that “we have to trade privacy for security”. Of course the enlightened ACLU screams, "No we don't!" While some security “experts” counter with "Yes we do!” - as if they are opposing cheering sections at some High School basketball game in the 1950s. Others, taking great pains to appear to have come to a thoughtful and considered opinion, actually take some sort of mushy middle ground – “Maybe we do, maybe not”. Expect a deluge of such “analysis” in the coming days. :roll:

For me it has all become terribly tedious, in part, because it tends to gloss over a very basic truth: We already trade privacy, a lot of privacy, for "security". This is not exactly groundbreaking stuff. Complete strangers rifle through your personal property every time you get on a plane. They pat-down your body. Make you take off your shoes and your belt. The body scan would be yet another indignity, but the USS Indignity set sail a long time ago.

Meanwhile, here's an idea I've heard virtually no one discuss: How about talking about trading some additional privacy for some improved efficiency.

The ACLU and others have cleverly framed the trade-offs wrong. Anyone who flies regularly, as I do, knows the hellishness of airline travel is not primarily derived from the outrage of lost privacy; it's derived from the outrage of inefficient, time-consuming, idiocy. I would gladly trade the privacy invasion that would come with those body scanners in exchange for the ability to casually walk into the boarding area.

Am I alone in thinking this way?

As an aside, I took my nephew, age 9, to Barnes & Nobel yesterday evening. When we left and were walking home he suddenly said, “They took my money”. Which initially was alarming until I found out what he was referring to: He was talking about the sales tax. He had a $10 gift card from Christmas, bought a Clone Wars book for $7.99, looked at the receipt, and wondered why he still didn't have a full $2.01 on it.

This is how conservatives are made.

[ISASO]

You didn't tell him that it's considered patriotic by some to pay around 65% in taxes?