so, the terrorists win...

[martha]

But you'd give up flying with no fuss if you were told it was necessary to save the planet?

Please quote me where I said that.

.

 

[INDY500]

War? What War?
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 01, 2010

WASHINGTON -- Janet Napolitano -- former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security -- will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The system worked." The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.

Heck of a job, Brownie.

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters." Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over -- that is, if it ever existed.

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare."

And produces linguistic -- and logical -- oddities that littered Obama's public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Ford Hood shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions" -- code for daring to associate Nidal Hasan's mass murder with his Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the bomber acted alone.

More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."

Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians -- and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point -- surprise! -- he stops talking.

This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will not rest until we find all who were involved." Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.

This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator -- no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.

The president said that this incident highlights "the nature of those who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as "extremist(s)."

A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.

Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy -- jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

Again Krauthammer nails it.

 

[maycocksean]

Again Krauthammer nails it.

**sigh**

I've long had a great distaste for Krauthammer's extremely hawkish approach to well. . .everything. I have no respect for people who make their case by demonizing their ideolgoical opponent.

I can't argue with his critiquing Janet Napolitiano's statement about "the system worked." That was utter nonsense, unless the system includes the passengers and crew that subdued him. The system utterly failed and if I criticize anything about the Obama administration's handling of this, its the sense I get that they wanted to deny that this was the case. This, if anything, is the reason for the "downplaying" of this incident. They wanted us to believe that the security failure wasn't really "that big a deal." I don't buy that for a mintue.

What I disagree with Krauthammer, Cheney et al is trying to frame this as "if Obama doesn't adopt our neocon ideology and language then he's not taking the threat seriously." As I've said before, opting not to embrace "war on terrorism" is in my opinion, a legitimate way to approach the jihadist threat.

This quote from Krauthammer's article is a good example of what I'm talking about:

"But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as "extremist(s)."

This is a disagreement over language! "Extremists" is not an acceptable term for Krauthammer because if you've read enough of his other writing, Krauthammer tends to feel that Islam itself is dangerous whereas Obama, when he uses the term "extremists", wants to reinforce the idea that jihadists do not represent mainstream Islam. I read Krauthammer's statement above, and I'm like: "Well, what is the nature of Abdulmutallab and his terrorist ilk if not extremist?" Perhaps Krauthammer would respond with: "Their nature is the true face of Islam."

INDY, I invite you to make an argument for why wars on ideology such as the "war on terrorism" or the "war 0n poverty" are workable.

 

[BonosSaint]

**sigh**

I've long had a great distaste for Krauthammer's extremely hawkish approach to well. . .everything. I have no respect for people who make their case by demonizing their ideolgoical opponent.......


INDY, I invite you to make an argument for why wars on ideology such as the "war on terrorism" or the "war 0n poverty" are workable.

I think those two approaches (demonizing an opponent and framing something in an abstract so that it is difficult to disagree with the concepts and almost impossible to sort out the details but as Sean so aptly implied the devil is in the details) work hand in hand in disingenuousness. Whoever controls the language frames the perception.

 

[BVS]

Again Krauthammer nails it.

What a joke...

You've done a bang up job avoiding the real quesions and issues pointed out to you though, is that the point of wars on idealologies?

 

[deep]

If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator -- no judge, no jury, no qualms.

Trumpeting this shows how the enemy has won by making us equal to or less than what we claim they are.

They are not winning. we are losing.

 

[phillyfan26]

That's the problem with your stats.

Does Coulter realize that if they did extra security searches on muslim looking people, this guy wouldn't have counted because he's black?

Ann Coulter is not good at anything aside from getting attention (and money).

 

[Bluer White]

**sigh**

I've long had a great distaste for Krauthammer's extremely hawkish approach to well. . .everything. I have no respect for people who make their case by demonizing their ideological opponent.

Krauthammer makes his points in a different way than the Becks and Limbaughs of the world. Most of the time I think Krauthammer does the opposite of demonizing and that's part of why he's generally respected as a conservative thinker.

 

[deep]

Kraut a little better educated and better spoken than the Becks or Limbaughs
plus I think he gets a little more cred for being a quadriplegic

lately, I have been finding him predictable and schrill.

 

[Bluer White]

Does Coulter realize that if they did extra security searches on muslim looking people, this guy wouldn't have counted because he's black?

Airport security should also be able to take into account a passenger's given name and country of origin. You can call it profiling or targeted screening or whatever you like. I call it common sense.

 

[BVS]

Airport security should also be able to take into account a passenger's given name and country of origin. You can call it profiling or targeted screening or whatever you like. I call it common sense.

So xenophobia = common sense?

Wow...

 

[deep]

They could always go back to altitude-detonated bombs in checked luggage or an "isolated extremist" on the ground with a shoulder-fired rocket launcher.

But those can get explained away.

like TWA Flight 800.

 

[BoMac]

One of the problems I have with racial profiling is what happens when terrorists begin to recruit people outside of those being profiled?

 

[deep]

We should include all of "their" facebook friends, too.

 

[phillyfan26]

Airport security should also be able to take into account a passenger's given name and country of origin. You can call it profiling or targeted screening or whatever you like. I call it common sense.

It's called racism. My Malaysian friend shouldn't have to be threatened with deportation because of his name. He's in America to study business. He is not a threat. Yet he gets treated like one just because he has a foreign name. That's not common sense at all.

All this attack has shown me is that at their very most successful, terrorists aren't doing damage on planes. He lit his pants on fire. Passengers stepped up and stopped him. End of story. We don't need to do more, because what we're doing is clearly working.

 

[phillyfan26]

 

[digitize]

The War on Terror is an annoying justification of the Treaty of Sèvres and, in this case, the European colonization of Africa... let's address the real problems of the regions producing radicalism instead of upholding western social darwinism with xenophobia, hyper-nationalism, and racism.

 

[deep]

a profile

 

[INDY500]

January 02, 2010, 7:00 a.m.

The Joke’s on Us

By Mark Steyn

On Christmas Day, a gentleman from Nigeria succeeded (effortlessly) in boarding a flight to Detroit with a bomb in his underwear. Pretty funny, huh?

But the Pantybomber wasn’t the big joke. The real laugh was the United States government. The global hyperpower spent the next week making itself a laughingstock to the entire planet. First, the bureaucrats at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) swung into action with a whole new range of restrictions.

Against radical Yemen-trained Muslims wearing weaponized briefs? Of course not. That would be too obvious. So instead they imposed a slew of constraints against you. At Heathrow last week, they were permitting only one item of carry-on on U.S. flights. In Toronto, no large purses.

Um, the Pantybomber didn’t have a purse. He brought the bomb on board under his private parts, and his private parts weren’t part of his carry-on (although, if reports of injuries sustained in his failed mission are correct, they may well have been part of his carry-off). But no matter. If in doubt, blame the victim. The TSA announced that for the last hour of the flight no passenger can use the toilets or have anything on his lap — not a laptop, not a blanket, not a stewardess, not even a paperback book. I can’t wait for the first lawsuit after an infidel flight attendant confiscates a litigious imam’s Koran as they’re coming into LAX.

You’re still free to read a paperback if you’re flying from Paris to Sydney, or Stockholm to Beijing, or Kuala Lumpur to Heathrow. But not to LAX or JFK. The TSA were responding as bonehead bureaucracies do: Don’t just stand there, do something. And every time the TSA does something, you’ll have to stand there, longer and longer, suffering ever more pointless indignities. Last week, guest-hosting The Rush Limbaugh Show, I took a call from a lady who said that, if it helps keep her safe, she’s happy to get to the airport “four, five, whatever hours” before the flight. Try to put a figure on “whatever” and you’ll get a sense of where America’s transportation system is headed. Ten years ago, you got to the airport 45 minutes, an hour before the flight. Now, thanks to the ever more demanding choreographers of the homeland-security kabuki, it’s two, three, four, whatever. Look at O’Hare and imagine the size of airport we’ll need. And by then the Pantybomber won’t even need to get on the plane; he can kill more people blowing up the check-in line.

And remember, this was a bombing mission that “failed.” With failures like this, who needs victories?

Joke, joke, joke. The only good news was that the derision was so universal that the TSA promptly reined in some of their wackier impositions a couple of days later. But by then Janet Incompetano, the homeland-security secretary, had gone on TV and declared to the world that there was nothing to worry about: “The system worked.”

Indeed, it worked “smoothly.” The al-Qaeda trainee on a terrorist watch list, a man banned from the United Kingdom and reported to the CIA by his own father, got on board the plane, assembled the bomb, and attempted to detonate it. But don’t worry ’bout a thing; the system worked.

Twenty-four hours later, Secretary Incompetano was back on TV to protest that her words had been taken “out of context.” No doubt, the al-Qaeda-trained CIA-reported cash-paying crotch-stuffed watch-list member’s smooth progress through check-in was also taken “out of context.”


But by then the president of the United States had also taken to the airwaves. For three days, he had remained silent — which I believe is a world record for the 44th president. Since Jan. 20, 2009, it’s been difficult to switch on the TV and not find him yakking — accepting an award in Oslo for not being George W. Bush, doing Special Olympics gags with Jay Leno, apologizing for America to some dictator or other . . . But across the electric wires an eerie still had descended. And when the president finally spoke, even making allowances for his usual detached cool, he sounded less like a commander-in-chief addressing the nation after an attempted attack than an assistant DA at a Cook County press conference announcing a drug bust: “Here’s what we know so far. . . . As the plane made its final approach to Detroit Metropolitan Airport, a passenger allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device. . . . The suspect was immediately subdued. . . . The suspect is now in custody and has been charged.” Etc, etc, piling up one desiccated legalism on another: “Allegedly . . . ” “suspect . . . ” “charged . . . ” The president can’t tell an allegedly alleged suspect (which is what he is in Obama fantasy-land) from an enemy combatant (which is what he is in cold hard reality). But worse than the complacent cop-show jargonizing was a phrase it’s hard to read as anything other than a deliberate attempt to mislead the public: The president referred to the Knickerbomber as an “isolated extremist.” By this time, it was already clear that young Umar had been radicalized by jihadist networks in London and fast-tracked to training in Yemen by terror operatives who understood the potentially high value of a Westernized Muslim with excellent English from a respectable family. Yet President Obama tried to pass him off as some sort of lone misfit who wakes up one morning and goes bananas. Could happen to anyone.

But, if it takes the White House three days to react to an attack on the United States, their rapid-response unit can fire back in nothing flat when Dick Cheney speaks. “It is telling,” huffed the president’s communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, “that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the administration than condemning the attackers.”

“Condemning the attackers”? What happened to all the allegedly alleged stuff? Shouldn’t that be “condemning the alleged isolated attacker”? The communications director seems to be wandering a bit off-message here, whatever the message is: The system worked, so we’re inconveniencing you even more. The system failed, but the alleged suspect is an isolated extremist, so why won’t that cowardly squish Cheney have the guts to condemn the attacker and his vast network of associates?

The real message was conveyed by Fouad Ajami, discussing the new administration’s foreign policy in the Wall Street Journal: “No despot fears Mr. Obama, and no blogger in Cairo or Damascus or Tehran, no demonstrator in those cruel Iranian streets, expects Mr. Obama to ride to the rescue.” True. Another Iranian deadline passed on New Year’s Eve, but the United States will set a new one for Groundhog Day or whenever.

And, just as the thug states understand they now have the run of the planet, so do the terror cells. A thwarted terror attack at Christmas is bad enough. Spending the following week making yourself a global joke is worse. Every A-list despot and dimestore jihadist got that message loud and clear — and so did American allies already feeling semi-abandoned by this most parochial of presidents. Expect a bumpy twelve months ahead. Happy New Year.

Again Mark Steyn nails it.

 

[BVS]

Again Mark Steyn nails it.

What does he nail? It's just more blame Obama bullshit and using catch phrases that you like, there is no substance there.

Your answer is to profile, you've been shown that profiling doesn't work yet you haven't tried to answer those points, all you do is keep posting other people's opinions and say they "nailed it".

 

[Vincent Vega]

Conservatives love to nail.

 

[phillyfan26]

Again Mark Steyn nails it.

Again INDY pulls a Diamond and posts articles with no thought that are written by people who are out of their mind.

 

[anitram]

Conservatives love to nail.

Well when you think that you're the hammer, everything looks like a nail, as the saying goes.

 

[INDY500]

HONOLULU - President Barack Obama laid blame Saturday on an Al Qaeda affiliate for a Christmas Day terrorist attack that has prompted a top-to-bottom review of how the nation's intelligence agencies failed to prevent the botched bombing aboard a Detroit-bound airliner.

In his most direct public language to date, the president described the path through Yemen of 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian accused of trying to destroy Northwest Flight 253. The president also emphasized that the United States would continue its partnerships with friendly countries -- citing Yemen, in particular -- to fight terrorists and extremist groups around the globe.

Obama's homeland security team has been piecing together just how Abdulmutallab was able to board the plane. Officials have described flaws in the system and by those executing the strategy and have delivered a preliminary assessment.

A senior administration official had said the United States was increasingly confident there was a link between Abdulmutallab and an Al Qaeda affiliate, but Obama's statement is the strongest connection between the two.

"We're learning more about the suspect," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that the White House released on Saturday as the president vacationed in Hawaii.

"We know that he traveled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies. It appears that he joined an affiliate of Al Qaeda, and that this group -- Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula -- trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America," the president said.

Officials have said Abdulmutallab's father warned the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria that his son had drifted into extremism in the Al Qaeda hotbed of Yemen. Abdulmutallab's threat was only partially digested by the U.S. security apparatus and not linked with a visa history showing the young man could fly to the United States.

Obama has ordered a thorough look at the shortcomings that permitted the plot, which failed not because of U.S. actions but because the would-be attacker was unable to ignite an explosive device.

Intelligence officials prepared for what was shaping up to be uncomfortable hearings before Congress about miscommunication among anti-terror agencies and sweeping changes expected under Obama's watch. The president has been vocal in his criticism of the agencies and against extremists who would harm the United States.

"This is not the first time this group has targeted us," Obama said. "In recent years, they have bombed Yemeni government facilities and Western hotels, restaurants and embassies, including our embassy in 2008, killing one American."

"So, as president, I've made it a priority to strengthen our partnership with the Yemeni government -- training and equipping their security forces, sharing intelligence and working with them to strike Al Qaeda terrorists," he said.

The United States provided Yemen $67 million in training and support under the Pentagon's counterterrorism program last year. Only Pakistan got more, with some $112 million.

Obama said the money had been well spent: "Training camps have been struck, leaders eliminated, plots disrupted. And all those involved in the attempted act of terrorism on Christmas must know -- you too will be held to account."

At the same time, administration officials warned this week that Obama also would hold accountable his own government. To that end, Obama has summoned homeland security officials from across the government to meet with him in the White House Situation Room on Tuesday.

Obama was expected to run the meeting and press his team on how they missed what appears to be clear connections.

Well, one week and several "I don't need this shit" milquetoast statements later, President Obama finally nails it.

 

[phillyfan26]

I really hope he doesn't overreact just because some people out there are losing their minds over this.

 

[INDY500]

I really hope he doesn't overreact just because some people out there are losing their minds over this.

"Losing their minds over this" being Left-speak for connecting the dots and acting accordingly.

 

[maycocksean]

Krauthammer makes his points in a different way than the Becks and Limbaughs of the world. Most of the time I think Krauthammer does the opposite of demonizing and that's part of why he's generally respected as a conservative thinker.

While I agree with you that this may be true in general, I find Krauthamer to be less reasonable when he is discussing terrorism or anything related to it. The article INDY posted certainly didn't earn my respect.

That said, I kinda wish he were posting in this forum. He'd probably at least address my arguments rather than just posting multiple articles that "nail it". . .I'd really like to get into an honest back-and-forth on this issue, but so far none of our posters on the right seem willing to take the bait.

 

[maycocksean]

One of the problems I have with racial profiling is what happens when terrorists begin to recruit people outside of those being profiled?

Exactly. John Lindh would sail right through. He's white, he doesn't have a Muslim name--not a threat right? Profiling isn't the answer, BUT, there needs to be some kind of targeted screening. Again that this guy got on the plane to begin with is unacceptable.

We don't need to do more, because what we're doing is clearly working.

I disagree. Unless you want to argue that passenger response is part of our plan to combat terrorism, I don't think what we're doing is working. I don't think further restrictions are the answer. This needs to be stopped before they get on the plane, not after.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

When Democrats/others questioned Bush's actions they were "undermining national security" and unpatriotic, etc. When Cheney does this (constantly) to Obama, somehow he isn't doing that. I'm so sick of Cheney, he should STFU. Where was all the crying about privacy with the Patriot Act and wiretapping and all that, Ann?

I don't care about full body scanners. I'm a modest person and I'm not crazy about the idea-but if that's what has to be done. I'd rather live and be naked on some scanner than be blown to bits by a terrorist. Maybe they'd find a way around it somehow but for now it's something. When they start putting the images on the internet with my name attached then I'd have a problem with it.

And the terrorists are always one step ahead-they are intentionally recruiting people who don't fit profiles. Including women and maybe even kids. Yes that guy never should have gotten on that plane. Starting with that problem before it occurs is absolutely necessary before scanners and other measures. Forgetting nationality-when someone looks to be "poor" like he allegedly did and pays cash for a one way ticket, has no luggage and maybe no passport..well DING DING DING. Maybe there is a fear of being accused of things because of someone's name and nationality.

 

[martha]

Flying this week was very easy, except for the talkative guy on one flight today, and the somewhat stinky guy on the second flight.

The TSA checking was the same as it ever was. Professional, good-natured TSA people, and cooperative, tired passengers. I was more worried about ice on the wings than some dumbshit with exploding underwear.