Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Parties ramp up rhetoric on terror

On the final day of 2009, Democrats and Republicans are ramping up their increasingly heated rhetoric over who is to blame for the attempted bombing of a plane bound for Detroit last week.

Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan, in a statement issued this morning, derided the "crass political opportunism" being practiced by Republicans, adding: "Let's be clear -- we will not be lectured to by Republicans who are more interested in scoring cheap political points and cashing in on an attempted terrorist attack than in protecting America."

Ken Spain, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, asserted that "this administration along with the Democrat-led Congress has been derelict in its duty when it comes to seriously confronting the terrorist threat."

As we wrote yesterday, the politics of terror are unpredictable -- with neither party carrying the inherent advantage that Republicans boasted on the issue earlier in the decade.

At the same time, terrorism is an issue with real power in the political arena as fear is among the strongest motivators for voters.

Add those two elements together and what we are witnessing is a political fist fight on a tightrope suspended 20 feet above the ground.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 31, 2009; 11:15 AM ET
Categories:  White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Democratic commission recommends elimination of superdelegates
Next: A critical month for House Democrats

Comments

The man-made disasterists feel much better, their feelings are less hurt, and they have more self-esteem because Barrack Obama has apologized and has a cool Middle Eastern middle name. They no longer feel the need to create man-made disasters.

Posted by: leapin | January 4, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Again, judging the quality of his expressed argument. No name calling, no reference to irrelevant personal aspects of the arguer.

Note the following argument of two sentences. The first sentence is not ad hominem. The second is.

"Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

An argument is ad hominem when it attempts to counter an argument by reference to an irrelevant personal fact about the opponent. Disagreeing with someone, or deriding their argument for poor quality, is not in itself an ad hominem attack.

So calling your arguments wrong, poorly constructed, misleading, and absurd, is not an ad hominem attack, jaked.

Posted by: nodebris | January 4, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"mike46, my 3-year old mutt could type a better post if I put a dog cookie on my keyboard."

Posted by: nodebris | January 3, 2010 12:25 AM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/the-politics-of-the-detroit-at.html

Posted by: JakeD | January 4, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I commented on the quality of your thought. That's not ad hominem. Calling someone a pederast or libtard is ad hominem. Calling your expressed thoughts insubstantial and pathetic is not.

Posted by: nodebris | January 4, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

So much for no ad hominem "personal attacks" anymore. For those who want to actually discuss the topic without questioning the motives of those posting:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/obama-plots-national-security.html

Posted by: JakeD | January 4, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Sorry 37, but your position is the disgraceful one here. If the government did not have proper evidence against these people then they should not have been picked up in the first place. In your view, the government can do what ever it wishes in the name of security. That is not what the constitution permits. That may be a trivial thing to you, but it matters to most.

Posted by: trep1 | January 4, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Politico has an interesting take on Obama's Yemen soft-on-terrorism stance.


It quotes the New York Times from 1/1 :

"A senior administration official said Thursday that Mr. Obama’s interagency team had already decided quietly several weeks ago that the security situation in Yemen was too volatile to transfer any more detainees beyond six who were sent home in December. The government concluded it had to release those six because it was about to lose habeas corpus hearings in court that would order them freed.

As for the rest, 'we all agreed we couldn’t send people back because of the security situation,' said the official, who like others requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. "


-------------------------------


OK THIS PROVES THE POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING THAT OBAMA IS RELEASING TERRORISTS INSTEAD OF LOSING IN COURT.


Also, Obama knows that these terrorist POSE A POTENTIAL THREAT, however he is willing to release them anyway.


NOW we are getting a dance from the administration whether they were going to release more to Yemen or not - even though it has been reported for weeks in the Washington Post that Obama was planning on releasing more.

IT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT OBAMA IS RELEASING TERRORISTS BECAUSE HE FEARS HE MIGHT LOSE MOTIONS IN TRIALS HE HAS SET UP.

AND HE IS GIVING THE TERRORISTS LAWYERS INSTEAD OF INTERROGATING THEM.

OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN IMMEDIATELY - THIS IS NO WAY TO RUN THE SECURITY OF A SUPERPOWER.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 4, 2010 6:39 AM | Report abuse

A war is not about gathering evidence - it is about ending the security threat to the country.


Our soldiers, who have volunteered to risk their lives, should not be burdened with gathering evidence in the field.


AND our soldiers should not be concerned about the "rules of evidence" while they are being shot at on the side of some mountain somewhere.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 4, 2010 6:35 AM | Report abuse

The bottom line is this: the Detroit bomber received a lawyer - direct from Obama - and paid for with YOUR tax dollars.

Alright.

However, instead of interrogating the Detroit bomber, and gaining any intelligence - AND POTENTIALLY SAVING LIVES - the lawyer probably told the Detroit bomber to "remain silent."

In the security area, in which lives are at risk, this policy is INSANE.

Obama should resign - he is clearly NOT up for the job and his priorities are completely lost.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 4, 2010 6:21 AM | Report abuse

I think that when a topic has been up for 4 days you should expect some topic drift and hi-jacking.

And I don't think a n y o n e watched "MTP." But you can keep asking.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 4, 2010 5:57 AM | Report abuse

Hey topic cop, your post about Brooks and the teabaggers isn't remotely on topic either so quit acting so self-righteous.

Back on topic:

fear! terror! hate!

Back off topic:

I hope the cops find the effigy-lynchers and treat them as terrorists

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 3, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

What does that have to do with the thread topic? Did you watch MTP this morning where they actually discussed the thread topic?

Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Someone "else" please dignify one of Jake's open-ended question with a response before he bursts a blood vessel.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 3, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: shrink2 | January 3, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

If anyone else wants to discuss Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's failed suicide bombing, and Obama's DoJ (lack of) response thereto, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Yeah if some guy blows himself up the justice dept. should offer no deals. His remaining scraps of flesh and bone should go to prison with no hope of parole.

You're the gift that keeps on giving, Jake.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 3, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

David Brooks made a good point about "passionate outsiders" being the TEA Party people positioned to take advantage of the real disgust of government to play a much larger role.

==

Now there's a good laugh.  The teabaggers are going to "play a role?"  Doing what?  To influence government in any meaningful way they would need to be able to organize effectively toward constructive goals.  In case you were reading too fast, that's four disqualifications right there (organize, effective, constructive, goals).  Your vaunted red-faced heat-packing slogan-screaming hate-junkies are so without clue that they don't even have any idea where their own self-interest lies.  The very acronym betrays their stupidity .. Obama has lowered their taxes yet they scream about them being too high.  And, yeah, Quitter Palin is going to lead them, she of the great executive talent.

Yeah, they're disgusted, they're angry, they're mad as hell, but they will never be able to achieve anything more constructive than spell "Obama" with a sickle for the O.  Dream on.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 3, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

For instance, Obama terrorism czar John Brennan claims that the intelligence community is working 24/7 since the Christmas Day attempt, yet he thinks extracting information down the road via a "plea agreement" is appropriate. This is exactly why the "right to remain silent" is not working re: suicide bombers.

Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

Don't sweat it. Point out everywhere that Obama is failing in the war against terrorism and leave the other side to ad hominem attacks.

Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Hey 37th if you feel persecuted when people disagree with you then you're too insecure and thin-skinned for this blog. Man up or move on but nobodybia interested in those crybaby posts.

You already get exempt from the same protocols you whine about by virtue of hauling GOP water. Demanding to be coddled into unanimity is a bit much.

Grow up.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 3, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

Here is a list of the "ad hominem" attacks on other posters:

margaretmeyers 1/2 at 2:24 pm


broadwayjoe 1/2 at 3:31 pm

Terrorfied 1/2 at 2:11 pm and 3:08 pm

SeattleTop 1/2 at 4:32 pm, 9:53 pm and many more

drindl 1/2 at 4:59 pm

nodebris 1/3 at 12:21 am


ALL the above posters should be BANNED.


They are doing nothing but creating a negative atmosphere


- many of their posts are completely void of any substance


Many times if there is any substance, it is only intended to mock and harass other posters.


Things have been a bit more civilized since I posted this earlier in the morning.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 3, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Did ANYONE watch "Meet the Press" on the thread topic?

Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

David Brooks made a good point about "passionate outsiders" being the TEA Party people positioned to take advantage of the real disgust of government to play a much larger role.

Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Bush was not motivated to prevent 9/11. No attack meant no public support for wars of choice, meaning no war presidency and no flightsuit opportunities. No Iraq invasion, fewer chances for tough talkin' an' treasury raidin'.

And no "carpet of bombs" for the Taliban for refusin' to play ball on the Caspian pipeline.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 3, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Yeah so far they've all been young Muslim men. So if we focus our attentions on that demographic we gain some security. Maybe two full days before the word gets back that young Muslim men are being pulled aside

Back at AQ HQ:

"sir they're pulling young Muslm men for inspections"

which reply?

1) "oh noes we're washed up, I guess it's back to the carpet business"

2) "next time send a woman or older man"

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 3, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Newsweek is actually reporting that there WAS a Presidential Briefing about the crotchbomber. Too bad that Mohammed Atta's father didn't walk into a U.S. Embassy and rat his son out or maybe Bush would have prevented 9/11 too. If anyone else wants to debate whether the Army recruiting and Fort Hood shooting were "acts of terrorism" as well, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

John Brennan claims the intelligence community is working 24/7 since the Christmas Day attempt, yet he thinks extracting information via a "plea agreement" is appropriate?! David Gregory made a great case for keeping GTMO open. Chertoff and Hayden defended GWB and urged not to close GTMO. Here come body scanners and bomb sniffing machines. Good points about "behavior" being the profiling focus (they just happen to be all Muslim males between age 20-32). Hayden refused to say that Obama is "adequately prosecuting this war against al-Qaeda and terrorism" and pointed out that the OLC bashing CIA with calls for a special prosecutor "has harmed our overall effort."

Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

I am not a racist, and I would be posting the same exact words if McCain had won and was messing up this badly.

Posted by: JakeD

==

David Duke says "I'm not a racist" too.  You're both lying.  Come on, Jake, this denial is fruitless given how many racist posts you've done here.

Your second claim is even more dubious, given the contortions you go through ("none since 2001") to give Bush a pass for 9/11.  He ignored an explicit warning.  There was no PDB about the crotchbomber.

Obama has kept us safe four months longer than Bush.  Now go have a good cry.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 3, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

There is no evidence that Obama has 'messed up' anything. Quite the contrary. The Republicans, when in power, were quite adept at that. And still are:

'Despite the attempted Christmas day airplane bombing, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has continued to hold up the confirmation of President Obama’s nominee for the head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which handles airport security. Former FBI agent Erroll Southers was nominated for the position in September and has been approved by two Senate committees, but DeMint continues to obstruct the nomination because he wants Southers “to clarify his stand on unionizing the TSA.” Today, on CNN’s State of the Union, DeMint said that confirming Southers would “bring the security concerns of TSA under the authority of union bosses.” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) responded, “with all due respect, this is nuts”:

With all due respect, this is nuts, holding him up over whether or not somebody’s going to be able to bargain for a better benefit.…This man will get confirmed and he’ll get confirmed by a wide margin. And playing games with the process, all it’s doing is hurting the traveling public because the most important frontline agency to protect Americans right now on flights is being held up over political stuff.

As Michael Whitney pointed out at Work In Progress, “is there any evidence that allowing TSA employees to bargain for better wages and workplace conditions would have caught or stopped Abdulmutallab? No. Would AFGE, the union that would represent the 50,000 TSA employees, ever consider vetoing or delaying security measures at airports? No. Does any of that stop DeMint from being a blowhard and saying this anyway? No.”

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Whoops, sorry, I was not responding to anyone. I was not accusing you of anything.

All I meant to say was this, scanning the news and its analysis lately, the right is crossing the line on hate speech, numerous occasions, too numerous to count, it is pushing the line on what is acceptable to say in public, so to speak. The right is becoming public with their racism in the way the entertainment industry is pushing the FCC on obscenity, that is all.

But I am not afraid because "white people" will never control this country as a voting bloc, nor as a result of violence. I am no more afraid of jihadi underwear or rectum bombers than I am of angry white people with their guns and ammo stockpiles and their nostalgic delusions. It is not about this person or that post. The future of politics has moved on.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 3, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic:

Did anyone else watch MTP re: "new fears about terrorism"?

Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

I am not a racist, and I would be posting the same exact words if McCain had won and was messing up this badly.

Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

I guess I don't travel abroad enough to appreciate the benefits of having terrorism here too

==

is this a typo from hell or is this what you actually intended to write?

Word of advice, Jake, don't travel outside the continental USA. Maybe a pilgrimage to Wasilla but don't ever go anywhere else because you might run into some people with black hair and you'd have a coronary.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 3, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"She was never a racist but worked amongst racists," Francis Beckett said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8425252.stm

I'm glad this won't happen here.
We won't allow it. One thing the Tea Bagging Right does not understand is how fully integrated are the armed forces, including the police forces. Go ahead with your pathetic little home-grown terror posses. Shoot some innocent people and then yourselves. See what happens next, watch from Hell.

You can despise people who have little or no Anglo-American ancestry all you want. You will never be in charge again without their consent.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 3, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

BTW: I won't be posting here when the terrorists are "sucessful" (assuming I even survive the attack). I will be protesting in the streets for Obama's impeachment and taking protection into my own hands right along with everyone else hoarding ammo and refusing to rally around him this time

==

this is so funny.

Jake the rugged self-reliant urban pioneer with a Glock in each hand rootin' tootin' an' shootin'. In a powered military exoskeleton?

What pompous self-important twaddle.

You face more danger in your bathtub or in a thunderstorm than you do from acts of terror. And if one happened you'd be blogging away how much you hate Obama because that's the sum total of your pointless trolling life.

Next time you come up with yet another pretext to express hatred of your president why don't you just spit out the window instead of clogging this blog with it. You are of no concern to anyone with a life.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 3, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Ken Spain, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, asserted that "this administration along with the Democrat-led Congress has been derelict in its duty when it comes to seriously confronting the terrorist threat."

When these idiots can't even speak correctly about the "Democratic Party", what more is there say about them?

Posted by: girard73 | January 3, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Jake, Undie Bomber is bad -- but as people have said, he is certainly on a level with Shoe Bomber (ca. Bush administration): they were similarly poorly trained; chosen for passive, solitary missions because they were only good as fodder; equipped with poorly designed devices they could not get to work properly. Undie Bomber WAS able to wait until he was over US air space.

I do hope that the Obama Administration does hasten the effort to better integrate security departments with diplomatic departments with the AL watch list. Bush had his whack at this and brought us to this point after 7 years. Obama has had 11 months, and I think he will take us further.

You should read the Post's Editorial today. They make all the same points today that I made last night. I'm feeling a bit chuffed.


Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 3, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Fox should stop bending over backwards to allow the leftist idiots spread the lies and propaganda. None of the others even bother hosting any reasonable conservatives If olberman or madcow or tingly leg ever had to make sense their heads would explode.

Posted by: snowbama | January 3, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, Rove is not an American citiz4en. Why has he not produced his long form birth certificate?

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"The people who are orchestrating the distressing "war on terrorism" are sinister enough. "

indeed.

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Another day, another liberal hatchet job on unelected officials. Beats trying to defend the empty promises of the party of "I don't know".

At some point Barry will stumble into his first success and the leg tingling press will announce that the messiah has arisen from the dead.

Posted by: snowbama | January 3, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

LOL (I'm shocked you didn't bring up his divorce too, but Rove was ADOPTED):

From there, you can look up the information that this person is providing. This does ring true.

Also, Rove is his adopted name. His father abandoned his mother and she remarried a man named Rove.

http://www.freepress.org/departments.php/display/10/200...

Letters to the Editor/
Free Press Forum

re:Siege Heil: The Bush-Rove-Schwarzenegger Nazi Nexus
by Peter Tanzer
October 12, 2003

Dear Sirs:

The article mentioning the Nazi family connections of Karl Rove is journalistic sham, and you ought to be ashamed of publishing a piece in which you rely on such sources as Al Martin, who, if it is a real person, has no idea what he is talking about. First, he wrote that Karl Heinz Roverer was the Gauleiter of Mecklenburg, which is not so. The Gauleiter of Mecklenburg was SS Obergruppenfuhrer Friedrich Hildebrandt, who was sentenced to hang by the United States War Crimes court at Dachau in 1947, according to the History of the United Naitons War Crimes Commision and the Development of the Laws of War, London, HMSO, 1948, pp.521-524 (Many other sources confirm this). So Al Martin changed it (also incorrectly) to Gauleiter of Oldenburg. In fact, there was a Karl Roever von Oldenburg (and not Karl Heinz Roeverer as you report, perhaps to link him to the Roeverer's who help contruct the instruments of death at Birkenau?) who was Gauleiter of Wesen-Ems, and not of Oldenburg, which didn't have a Gauleiter. He had nothing to do with Birkenau and was not a war -criminal. In fact, he was likely assassinated by the Nazi's themselves because of his unwanted efforts to make peace with the British. I have no idea whether the Karl Rove we all know bears any relation to this Roever, and apparently neither do the authors of the flimsy piece you published.

I would like to make a general point concerning this type of publishing behavior. The people who are orchestrating the distressing "war on terrorism" are sinister enough. Journalists who, in attempting to expose them, have so little regard for truth that they prefer to repeat obviously suspicious "information" in the hopes of scoring an easy hit (this matter was easily checked as part of public record, and relying, in such cases, on internet crackpots is no substitute for that checking) cannot be anything but counter-productive.

Thank you for your time

Peter Tanzer
Formerly Professor of Philosophy, Long Island University

Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

"On Fox News Saturday, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) was allowed to have the final word on health care in a debate with Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) -- but he never got to deliver it.

After Franks argued that the health care bill was creating a "socialist government-run system," Sestak was given twenty seconds to respond -- only to have the screen go black in the middle of his first sentence. The satellite feed cut out before the Democratic congressman could actually make his case."

What will it take to finally make people stop referring to Fox as a legitimate 'news station'?

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

The parallels were always, intentional, joe. Rove was a serious students of WW2 and Goebbels especially, and he is a master of propaganda. His grandfather was also a Nazi:

Rove's grandfather was Karl Heinz Roverer, the Gauleiter of Oldenburg. Roverer was Reich-Statthalter---Nazi State Party Chairman---for his region. He was also a partner and senior engineer in the Roverer Sud-Deutche Ingenieurburo A. G. engineering firm, which built the Birkenau death camp.

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Make that EX PARTE Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). I confused that decision with In re Debs ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse


"BTW: I won't be posting here when the terrorists are "sucessful" (assuming I even survive the attack). I will be protesting in the streets for Obama's impeachment"

Funny, I don't ever recall you protesting for Bush's impeachment after 9/11. Did I miss that?

LOL, as usual.

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

BTW: I won't be posting here when the terrorists are "sucessful" (assuming I even survive the attack). I will be protesting in the streets for Obama's impeachment and taking protection into my own hands right along with everyone else hoarding ammo and refusing to rally around him this time. The difference between 9/11 and then will be that GWB (whatever his mistakes, just like any other wartime President, Lincoln with Fort Sumter or FDR with Pearl Harbor) at least realized we were at war, unlike some here or in the Oval Office now. I had hoped that the whole "Manchurian Candidate" possibility wasn't true, but it sure is looking like Obama is doing everything he can to let the Muslims win. If FDR had done the same for Nazis (cf. In re Quirin) or Japs (cf. internment camps), then he would have been impeached as well.

Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama has had a year to prove that his "nice guy" approach to foreign policy would work.

Democrats for years were saying that Bush's approach was creating more terrorists - and if only we elected a minority President, the world would instantly be a better place and wars would end.

Well, Al Queda's answer to that: a bomb on a plane in Detroit.


The Gitmo policy is a disaster, the trials are a disaster.


Obama has already admitted that they released TERRORISTS because they were afraid they were going to LOSE A TRIAL. Obama's foreign policy has been proven to be a disaster.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 3, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

We'll have to agree to disgree about "There wasn't a single act of terrorism on U.S. soil since 2001 until when Obama took over" being a good thing for eight years. I guess I don't travel abroad enough to appreciate the benefits of having terrorism here too. Thanks for the discussion.

Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

d, the many parallels to "1939" are frightening. Others draw parallels to 1960s era South Africa.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 3, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

trep1

A war is not about gathering evidence - it is about ending the security threat to the country.


Our soldiers, who have volunteered to risk their lives, should not be burdened with gathering evidence in the field.


AND our soldiers should not be concerned about the "rules of evidence" while they are being shot at on the side of some mountain somewhere.


Your position is completely out of touch with the threats and a disgrace to this country.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 3, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

MM, well said!

37th, do you know what habeus corpus is? Another way of looking at this is that the previous administration was detaining people without adequate evidence. Oh my goodness, the Obama administration is actually making an attempt to adhere to the rule of law, surely we are all doomed!

I am sick of the conservative double standard on national security. If a Republican suggests something, it is because they understand the issues. If a Democrat makes the same recommendation, then they are craven cowards and coddling the terrorists. Closing GITMO is a prime example. Candidate McCain recommended that it be shut down. I do not recall hearing a conservative outcry over that. But when President Obama makes the same recommendation, then it is a sure sign of the collapse of national security. If you want to argue about national security, at least try to be consistent.

Posted by: trep1 | January 3, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

yeah, Joe.

The 'War on Terror' coinage is a good example of the infantilization of American language during the Bush Years. 'Bad guys' is another one -- sounds like a 3 year old. And "Homeland' sounds a whole lot like 'Fatherland' -- doesn't it?
It's a pity that journalists enabled Bush as much as they did, but the whole MSM fell into line, and still does anytime there's a threat to hype.

You'd think they have enough professional pride at least to 'War on Terrorism' which even though logically is bereft of meaning, at least it's grammatically correct.

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Politico has an interesting take on Obama's Yemen soft-on-terrorism stance.


It quotes the New York Times from 1/1 :

"A senior administration official said Thursday that Mr. Obama’s interagency team had already decided quietly several weeks ago that the security situation in Yemen was too volatile to transfer any more detainees beyond six who were sent home in December. The government concluded it had to release those six because it was about to lose habeas corpus hearings in court that would order them freed.

As for the rest, 'we all agreed we couldn’t send people back because of the security situation,' said the official, who like others requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. "

-------------------------------


OK THIS PROVES THE POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING THAT OBAMA IS RELEASING TERRORISTS INSTEAD OF LOSING IN COURT.


Also, Obama knows that these terrorist POSE A POTENTIAL THREAT, however he is willing to release them anyway.


NOW we are getting a dance from the administration whether they were going to release more to Yemen or not - even though it has been reported for weeks in the Washington Post that Obama was planning on releasing more.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 3, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Co-sign, MM.

Anyone who travels outside the country, or regularly interacts with folks from other countries, knows much of this "terrorism" arises from almost world-wide opposition to America's corporate and military policies. Fighting a "War on Terror" is as futile as a "War on Badness."
The danger, which is probably already here, is that we go to a full police state in reaction to the fearmongering. I know folks who would rather take the diesel-gas smelling Greyhound bus rather than deal with airport "security measures."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 3, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

fleur del sel gris.
Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 2, 2010 8:50 PM

Someone got "Salt of the Month Club" from the Onion!


Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 3, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

You forgot to recommend "banning" the following people who also abhor racism and hate...and don't mind saying so:

President Barack H. Obama
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (a previous video victim of this blog)
Mayor Adrian Fenty
Morris Dees
Members of the Anti Defamation League
Arianna Huffington
Dr. Rachel Maddow
Frank Rich
Nelson Mandela
Bob Herbert
Members of the NAACP
Members of La Raza
First Lady Michelle LaVaughan Obama
Pulitzer Prize winner Eugene Robinson
Markos (Daily Kos) Moulitsas
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Washington Post editor Milton Coleman
Daniel "Dan" Froomkin
Janeane Garofalo
Senator Alan Stuart "Al" Franken

I am very proud to be on your list, Mr. 37.

Thank you.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 3, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

It wasn't "broke" in the first place.
Posted by: JakeD | January 2, 2010 8:33 PM

Jake, I think Obama is acknowledging the obvious, and I 'm not surprised that you are not. We cannot fight the "War on Terrorism" the way we did under the Bush administration indefinitely. It was costly in lives, it was a crushing expense, it cost us esteem and respect with our allies and foes (which are important) and we could not continue in that mode.

That's my entire argument for the adjustment in course Obama has made. You have spent a lot of time here blowing hard about how McCain would have bomb bomb bombed, and how Muslims should have to travel on different flights (how about different waiting rooms and drinking fountains, too? You wonder why Top calls you a racist?) and how Obama isn't pResidential enough for you and how much safer we would be with Quitter Palin in charge. These fantasy projections and moronic strategies cannot be taken seriously.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 3, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

Here is a list of the "ad hominem" attacks on other posters:

margaretmeyers 1/2 at 2:24 pm

broadwayjoe 1/2 at 3:31 pm


Terrorfied 1/2 at 2:11 pm and 3:08 pm


SeattleTop 1/2 at 4:32 pm, 9:53 pm and many more


drindl 1/2 at 4:59 pm


nodebris 1/3 at 12:21 am

ALL the above posters should be BANNED.


They are doing nothing but creating a negative atmosphere


- many of their posts are completely void of any substance


Many times if there is any substance, it is only intended to mock and harass other posters.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 3, 2010 6:20 AM | Report abuse

JRM2

Yes, you are correct that did happen.


At the time, those people were deeemed the least dangerous of the bunch.


There are estimates that up to a third of those released returned to jihad - so the policy of release is wrong.


The question is: Should we release more?


From the track record, NO MORE SHOULD BE RELEASED. However, Obama is going full steam ahead, and he released 12 terrorists from Gitmo about two weeks ago - 6 of those went to Gitmo.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 3, 2010 3:38 AM | Report abuse

"They think if a terrorist is released on a technicality that's not "losing" since it's better (for them at least) that 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent be punished.

Posted by: JakeD | January 2, 2010 7:58 AM |"
---
First explain to me why Cheney and Bush let over 500 of them go free from GITMO, two of which helped plan the crotchbomber attack.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 3, 2010 3:07 AM | Report abuse

Wow, I'd hate to see how you some of you would have reacted if there actually had been a successful terrorist attack, say like, a few guys with box cutters take over some airliners and slam them into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 3, 2010 2:52 AM | Report abuse

@nodebris: the case with Germany is more perplexing, easily the most civilized nation on earth at that time.  Nobody who didn't know the German psyche really well would have expected the barbarism of those years.  The people of Goethe and Schiller.  But there was always this martial undercurrent .. as someone wrote long ago, "play a band and they march."  The Treaty of Vesailles had humiliated the nation, the Depression had savaged it, and along comes this nasty little man talking Morning In Ame.. er, about German pride and restoring old glory.  And strength.
 
NOT so hard to understand in the USA.  We've always had this lurking Heart of Darkness, a vicious undertow of anti-intellectualism and bigotry.  It pokes up every few generations.  It gets smacked down.  It never goes away.  The Scopes trial brought it out in the open and smacked it down hard.  It made another stab with the Red Scares, then again with Goldwater, a little stronger every time, then some solid footing with Reagan and, with Bush the Lesser, the jackpot. 
 
A wasted decade, a belligerent national posture, the aggressive abandonment of moral pretensions and contempt for human rights .. and then it got smacked down again.
 
But the ugliess has taken too firm a hold now.  It has in Sarah Palin a champion, epitomizing in her all its most ugly characteristics like apocalyptic Christianity and contempt for education and reason.  And with Obama's election the country has seen a truly ugly return of racism, loudly embraced not only through proxies like the birther crap but directly and proudly.  Like KKK parents taking the kids to watch the lynching. 
 
I don't think we'll see that ugly Heart of Darkness get pushed out of sight again. 

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 3, 2010 1:20 AM | Report abuse

margretmyers, yeah, it was well known but not acknowledged until allied soldiers ran into it personally. WWII is a huge moral lesson that has yet to find its proper Thucydides.

Ditto the Bush years.

Posted by: nodebris | January 3, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse

It's just sad watching 37th&O attempt to formulate thoughts. Throw in snow globe and jaked and it's like Ionesco.

Posted by: nodebris | January 3, 2010 12:21 AM | Report abuse

I am trying to imagine being on the inside of the Republican Dream Time.

Was it the motivational speaker on infomercial? Then they went to the sports venues. Seats on the floor were expensive; buy nose bleed seats and you can still see the bleached teeth, extraordinary hair, the theater of greed on the Jumbotron.

No wonder they tie tea bags onto their bills. Implacably angry for a reason, they were promised the world, if only they believed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/business/economy/03coral.html?8dpc


Posted by: shrink2 | January 2, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

@BB: sympathize. I'm a one-foreign-language-at-a-time guy m'self. The new one pushes out the old. My conversational Cantonese is all gone, and a few days ago I was talking with a coworker in German and kept coming up with words in Vietnamese.

My ex was Chinese, fluent in six tongues, and regarded this as unremarkable.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 2, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

I posted more than "the only major changes in Obama's war" you noted. Let me know if you want to discuss.

Posted by: JakeD | January 2, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

I meant to look it up as my passable Spanish messes up my nonexistent French. Yes, it should have been de rather than del. Of course, in Spanish it would be la flor de la sal, so you wouldn't use del anyway. But I digress...

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 2, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

One doubts whether the Post management buys into this bizarre pro-Troll "policy" but they probably never read this blog, which, BTW, is not a personal Facebook page, but an internet platform sponsored by our national political newspaper of record, a publicly traded corporation.

Posted by: broadwayjoe

==

This is getting into dead horse territory since it's clear that it's not going to end.  CC isn't going to wake up one morning and have a pang of honesty or conscience about giving free rein to the trolls, nor about the now-dramatic double standard when it come to "civility" and banning.

But it could not be any more blatant, not with "the ped" references every day, now, could it.  So I've been wondering why.

Point one I've already made; CC is a Republican and anyone still in that party has to be at least unruffled by bigotry since the party is rotten with it.  Calling a gay man a child molester is probably not something he personally objects to.

But suppose CC did apply the rules fairly, what would we have?  A blog without a single regular conservative. 

We have five of them now; three are cretinous trolls, the other two are nuts.  Jake and 37th are really really dumb, snow is just bent and no smarter, and then there are the Democrap Socialist and the NeoCom Statist guys.  Since they only attack Obama and Democrats they might slip by .. but they would be the only two regular right-wingers here.

And I doubt it's different on other blogs.  Right-wing means nutty and/or troll, full stop. 

Yeah there are occasional exceptions .. hard to tell about USMC_Mike since all he did was a few statements of self-definition and the rest was people fawning over him.  More common are the drive-bys like ironworks and the Drudge trolls who pop in for a day screaming Obama is a Socialist with tons of all-caps and exclamation points.

That there are no quality right-wing posters is not incidental.  It dovetails with what I and others have been saying about who remains in the GOP.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 2, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

BB, I think you meant to say, taken with a few grains of 'fleur de sel'--'flower of the salt', referring to the complex unrefined grey sea salt, oui?

Posted by: drindl | January 2, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Contrary to lies by Dick Cheney and JakeD, Obama has referred to our dalliance with AQ as a war many times, starting before his nomination last year.  Jake's petulant whine about Obama having the temerity to vacation and *gasp* play golf contains vefy little factual truth, and what it does is deplorable.
 
Yeah, after Bush ignored the briefing that spelled out the plot and just let it happen, we were not attacked again (unless you count the anthrax letters, which Jake of course doesn't, as they were mailed to Democrats).  But to give Bush a pass for letting 3000 get killed, and for his paralysis while planes zeroed in on targets, at the same time as excoriating Obama for not getting hysterical, is way beyond ironic or hypocritical, it's just plain sick.
 
Obama is wrong; we are not "at war."  Promoting some self-castrating loser into a warrior isn't even hyperbole.
 
We do have troops in two countries as a result of Bush's vanity invasions but they're just trying to remarginalize an insurgency.   
 
Four months and counting during which Obama has done a better job than Bush at keepin' us safe. 

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 2, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Whoops, that should have been attempts to have another poster banned should be taken with a few grains of fleur del sel gris.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 2, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Exactly how is the Undiebomber different from the Shoe Bomber? Both were at attempt to take down a plane inbound from Europe. Both involved PETN. Both took place after 9/11. In that case, Bush didn't make public remarks for a number of days. One cannot become indignant about one and not the other without being open to charges of blatant hypocrisy.

Frankly, I always thought attempts to pin the blame on Bush for 9/11 were off target. Blaming Obama for this is similarly misguided. Hopefully, there are a few adults in both parties who recognize this for what it is. A systemic failure that needs to be corrected.

The back and forth on the blog has been interesting, though I haven't much to add to it. Other than any poster's demands to have another should be taken with a few grains of fleur del sel gris. Happy New Year to all, especially CC.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 2, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

And JakeD "seems to think" that posting the same crappy lies over and over that somehow readers will forget Republican incompetence and see Obama's lack if wide-eyed hysteria as some sort of deficit.

Just borrowed hate radio BS. from the GOP falsehood machine.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 2, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

It wasn't "broke" in the first place. There wasn't a single act of terrorism on U.S. soil since 2001 until when Obama took over. I know he's just pretending to be "at war" now. Actions speak louder than words (especially when Obama goes GOLFING right after addressing the issue but cuts the game short and races back to his vacation home when a friend's child slips and hurts himself). He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war.

Posted by: JakeD | January 2, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

As far as I can tell, the only major changes in Obama's war on terrorism from Bush's program have been

1 build-up of forces in Afghanistan
2 growing emphasis on strategic attacks along the Af-Pakistan border
3 greater reliance on building stable diplomatic relations with the governments of countries that have terrorist cells operating in their borders
4 willingness to reposition limited military assets from Eastern Europe to the Middle East

There are probably others. This brief list seems to be working. Even after just 10 months in office: other countries have joined us on the Afghanistan project; the Yemen government did not kick about recent strategic attacks there; monthly death tolls for US soldiers *and* native population in Iraq and Iran are way down; AQ has to send poorly trained, sedated terrorists on solitary missions with poorly designed devices that fail.

I feel certain that Obama will continue to make thoughtful choices for our country after listening to the best advice available. With the best effort and a little time Obama may be able to fix almost ALL the stuff Bush and Cheney broke.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 2, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline:

As always, a pleasure to read your posts. And thanks for the book recommendation.

One of the "Dogfights" programs on the History Channel was dedicated to the Flying Tigers and their tactics in confronting the more nimble Nates. The Zeros would have been even more of a problem for the P-40s.

Posted by: mnteng | January 2, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Appreciated this Joe! So apropos, every single day. Just read this thread, and yesterdays, and the day before that:

"Update: A Study on Motivation and Societal Impact of the Extremist-Obsessive Blog Poster
Subject: “37th” (shortname for subject using approximately 20 different variations of a userID containing the root phrase “37thandO”)

Subject’s postings (through Jan 2, 4:56pET) to the string “Best House Campaigns of 2008” were previously collected and classified in four defined categories. This entry appends subject’s additional posting.

As of Jan 3 10:17aET, 37th owned 14 (+3) of 64 (+6) total entries, raising the subject’s percentage of total postings to this string from 19% to 22%.

Number and percentage of on-topic postings: 0 and 0%

1) Simplistic insult of individuals and groups: 22 (+2)
2) Paranoiac accusations: 6 (+1)
3) Rote repetition of fantasy scenarios 19 (+4)
4) Projection (accusing others of behavior exhibited by the subject) 9 (+2)

Subject has initiated posting to two additional strings. Data currently being collected and analyzed. When sufficient data has been collected results will be posted to those strings.

Posted by: malis | January 3, 2009 2:30 PM"

Posted by: drindl | January 2, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"Snow says Obama and the bomber are twins, Jake does thousands of birther posts before finally getting a mild rebuke, snow calls other posters child molesters... not a peep. But call a racist a racist and you're totally beyond the pale.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 2, 2010 3:56 PM"
________

One doubts whether the Post management buys into this bizarre pro-Troll "policy" but they probably never read this blog, which, BTW, is not a personal Facebook page, but an internet platform sponsored by our national political newspaper of record, a publicly traded corporation.

Later.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 2, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Hey 37th. Why don't you fetch a fresh piece of paper and write down all the posters you wHy banned.

When you're done, roll it into a thin tube.

Now get a 3 oz. bottle of Vaseline suitable for airline carryon.

Figure out the rest.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 2, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Whoa, so Cheney lied? Stop the presses! Issue an Extra! READ ALL ABOUT IT.

Tomorrow's Fix will probably be about Democrats scram ling to do damage control from Dick's damning charges. Hey, how're Tpaw and Barbie faring?

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 2, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Chris

The "ad hominem" attacks keep on coming - I have to wonder if broadwayjoe and the others are somehow working together in some concerted efforts.


They are not addressing the topic - they are just addressing other posters.


This was going on last year too -


margaretmeyers's posting at 2:24 has to be "ad hominem" and therefore margaretmeyers should be banned.


Same for the ridicule-filled postings of broadwayjoe - some of his postings don't even pretend to address the topic - he is just attempting to mock other posters and call them names


broadwayjoe should be banned.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 2, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

"...someone for whom racism and lying are, at worst, not deal-breakers."

This is the part I can't figure out.

The so-called moderate Republican (cue the unctuous recitation of the Republican DreamTime, when individual freedom and fiscal responsibility...all those lies about the Party's actual politics in the last many decades) is under attack from all sides.

The moderate Republican suffers withering fire from the RNC and still believes. But s/he still denies. The Party has become not just a safe place for bigots, but a place where bigotry thrives, in some Republican circles, it is celebrated. If that isn't a deal breaker, why not?


Posted by: shrink2 | January 2, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

. . NEWS FLASH


Dan Pfeiffer issues press release to assure country that "We are at War"


Just so that the rest of the country is sure we are "at war" the White House issued a release outlining how many times Obama actually said the word "war" in the past year.


Pfeiffer started off the press release by stating clearly "OH yea" We are at war.

What a complete laugh. The White House has to tell the country that THEY know we could be attacked at anytime.


Thank you.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 2, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza could not bother with the relentless racism, the gay bashing, the celebrations of hate. He only comes after the rightists when they endlessly raise topics (well Sarah Palin says their concern is genuine after all) too laughable even for the WaPo editors, like the birther's Obama creation myth - it too stupid for clicks. Racism, it is good for clicks I suppose.

==

CC is a Republican. Anyone still in the party after the last two presidentials is either a racist and liar or someone for whom racism and lying are, at worst, not deal-breakers.

Snow says Obama and the bomber are twins, Jake does thousands of birther posts before finally getting a mild rebuke, snow calls other posters child molesters... not a peep. But call a racist a racist and you're totally beyond the pale.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 2, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

The arrival of the ped completes the spiral down.

Posted by: snowbama | January 2, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza's a putz. He boots the people that debate the issues and let's the idiots roam free.

==

warning: be careful not to write anything to one of the trolls that "borders" on what they do here all day every day.

Could not possibly be more blatant.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 2, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

But I'm just DYING to hear about how much he's been devestated by his 2009 taxes(he's such a patriot that I'm assuming he's filed already) and why maybe we should have heavily armed military units in our streets (I'm not saying for hispanics, but, you know... ILLEGALS *wink wink*). Isn't this article about ramping up political rhetoric? Come on, let's RAMP. IT. UP!

Posted by: Terrorfied | January 2, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

37, give it up. "Malis" called you out on this wingnut stuff last January. Remember?
_______

"Update: A Study on Motivation and Societal Impact of the Extremist-Obsessive Blog Poster
Subject: “37th” (shortname for subject using approximately 20 different variations of a userID containing the root phrase “37thandO”)

Subject’s postings (through Jan 2, 4:56pET) to the string “Best House Campaigns of 2008” were previously collected and classified in four defined categories. This entry appends subject’s additional posting.

As of Jan 3 10:17aET, 37th owned 14 (+3) of 64 (+6) total entries, raising the subject’s percentage of total postings to this string from 19% to 22%.

Number and percentage of on-topic postings: 0 and 0%

1) Simplistic insult of individuals and groups: 22 (+2)
2) Paranoiac accusations: 6 (+1)
3) Rote repetition of fantasy scenarios 19 (+4)
4) Projection (accusing others of behavior exhibited by the subject) 9 (+2)

Subject has initiated posting to two additional strings. Data currently being collected and analyzed. When sufficient data has been collected results will be posted to those strings.

Posted by: malis | January 3, 2009 2:30 PM"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 2, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

37thandO spends all day here repeating "Put up your dukes" and then runs to Chris when he thinks someone takes him up on it.

No attacks from me: I praised my fellow posters on the Left and then I called out the Party of Troll. Nothing personal.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 2, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

What the heck 37th!? Are you saying I need to mock you MORE to elicit a response? C'mon buddy, I can spout these clever gems all day, and I still got a couple hours to kill. Don't let my time not be a waste! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL!

Posted by: Terrorfied | January 2, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Well I miss you jasperanselm and a lot of people like you. But getting this raw product, this right wing mind at work can be fascinating from time to time.

It has been for me since Ronald Reagan actually got elected, revised the history of Vietnam and then got himself into the American hagiography. I realize the genius of (the much maligned) Hanna Arendt. The collective disaster of bigots and their enablers is ready, it is all around us.

Cillizza could not bother with the relentless racism, the gay bashing, the celebrations of hate. He only comes after the rightists when they endlessly raise topics (well Sarah Palin says their concern is genuine after all) too laughable even for the WaPo editors, like the birther's Obama creation myth - it to stupid for clicks. Racism, it is good for clicks I suppose.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 2, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Chris


margaretmeyers's posting at 2:24 has to be "ad hominem" and therefore margaretmeyers should be banned.


Same for the ridicule-filled postings of broadwayjoe - some of his postings don't even pretend to address the topic - he is just attempting to mock other posters and call them names


broadwayjoe should be banned.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 2, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

MM, per usual, I co-sign. Shout out to "Top" for fighting the Troll Trinity at 2:00am. Waaaay beyond the call of duty, mi amigo.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 2, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe snow-clue is still posting here; he's a complete fool.

Cillizza's a putz. He boots the people that debate the issues and let's the idiots roam free.

I'm glad I don't visit the blog much anymore since the discourse is so corrupted by the trolls. I'm just waiting for the Post to give Cillizza the same treatment they gave to Froomkin. Adios, CC!

Posted by: jasperanselm | January 2, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Rather simple explanation shrink.

At the beginning of the decade, the repubs were in charge. As prosperity, low taxes, housing increases, vanishing inflation, disssppearing unemployment and other effects of repub governing, the voters decided that more and more free handouts were in order. The squishy bush allowed the spending to rise and eventually voters chose the real spenders and hand out kings. Of course when liberal policy began to take hold, with the peloony congress, the fall was inevitable.

Now the libs have overplayed their hand and spent enough for the next 20 years in a year. The resulting economic, legislative and military ineptitude had it's predictable consequences.

Posted by: snowbama | January 2, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse
-------------------------------------

Oh my god, are you like a political science professor at Harvard?? If not, WHY?? I know it's just simple oversight, but you forgot to mention the 10 percentage point increase in America's net Awesomeness that occurred during the Bush admin.

You know what I think is different about America post-Obama? It sucks now. It's like everywhere I go now people are asking me for tax money to spend on welfare queens. And where are the civilian patrol units? I see brown people everywhere, but not a single helmeted man with an AK protecting me from them!(Probably illegals)

Obama is just SO WEAK on defense, and people like you and me are paying the price for it every day of our lives on a personal level. This is just like when America was taken over by the Iranians during the Carter administration.

Posted by: Terrorfied | January 2, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Only eighteen more days until gitmo closes.

Only negative three days until Iran gives in.

Perhaps after the hawaiin vacation.

Posted by: snowbama | January 2, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

37thandO cannot identify the many happy Lefties on this blog? We can't be here all day like the Three Trolls Under the Bridge because we have happy productive lives to lead, but we're here regularly enough. We are easy to identify by our winning arguments and our winning elections.

The Trolls meanwhile spend all day here, even their vacation days and weekends. They cannot maintain relationships because they are

A. Too full of Right Wing Fairy Tales to take in information
B. Very busy calling other posters and the pResident names (this takes ALL their brain cells) and
C. Too busy cutting and pasting and posting, repeat.

Happy New Year, Lefties. KMA, Trolls!

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 2, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe
Let's hear from you - who is "we"
It's about time you stop your ridicule of other posters - by whatever.
If you have an opinion, state it, and leave other posters alone.
PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION WHO IS "WE" - AND ARE YOU WORKING WITH OTHERS TO HARASS OTHER POSTERS ???
Posted by: 37thand0street | January 2, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

Do you also think the U.S. has a third-world economy?

Posted by: JakeD | January 2, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

---------------------------------------

I am We, and We are He, and We work at cross purposes, but We are united in the belief that your posts are wholly and entirely harassable. We believe that you shouldn't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk, and if you can't take the heat you should get out of the kitchen or at least show some sort of citation to back up your wild accusations. And JakeD, for the last time, we have many! America Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Midway Islands, Puerto Rio, U.S. Virgin Islands, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central America, Isreal, Canada, etc. (Kidding about those last 5! They would be just the same without our meddling, I know; we NEVER mandate policy for other countries because we would never stand for it ourselves).

Posted by: Terrorfied | January 2, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

"don't hold your breath, joe, it was probably the Crazy Glen Show."

Posted by: drindl | January 2, 2010 1:20 PM
______

I won't, D. Where's "Malis" (37's nemesis)when you need him? :-)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 2, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

don't hold your breath, joe, it was probably the Crazy Glen Show.

Thanks for the informative post, ceffyline!

Posted by: drindl | January 2, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


Let's hear from you - who is "we"


It's about time you stop your ridicule of other posters - by whatever.


If you have an opinion, state it, and leave other posters alone.


PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION WHO IS "WE" - AND ARE YOU WORKING WITH OTHERS TO HARASS OTHER POSTERS ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 2, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

It took Barry a week to figure out this was al queda. Maybe he should turn on Fox news. The rest of us knew it right away.

Posted by: snowbama | January 2, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Mr. 37, not picking a food fight, but do you care to share with the community any links to the source(s) for your "intelligence" regarding the recent plane tragedy that seems aimed at casting our 44th President in a negative light?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 2, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I only read 5 - 6 regular posters here. @mark_in_austin: I've seen/read reports that suggest that even if the US were able to scramble all their planes in response to the radar warning, it would have made little impact on the severity of the destruction in Pearl Harbor. The warning wasn't given early enough (radar wasn't that good yet) and the fighter cover from the far superior Zeros would have downed most of our fighters. There would not have been time to move the fleet, and there were apparently several Japanese midget subs in the area. I wish JimDinFl were still around to dispute my assertions. Posted by: mnteng"

The last warning to Pearl that might have had any useful effect was from the SIGINT people in early November predicting an attack on Pearl the last Sunday in November or the First Sunday in December. (Read "The Broken Seal" by Ladislas Farago.) The Fleet had come in and gone Cold Iron, and Oklahoma was particularly vulnerable since her normally sealed voids and spaces were totally open in preparation for an annual inspection scheduled for Monday, 8 Dec.

Nevada got underway because a bored engineering officer had fired up a boiler on a previous shift in preparation for "shifting the load" that is changing which boiler you use to provide heat and power for your ship in port.

Moving the Battleships, by the way, would have accomplished nothing, since their moorings were intended to allow them to be scuttled, if necessary, as for fire fighting, and raised with a minimum of damage. Two of them WERE scuttled to keep them from rolling over, like Oklahoma.

Had the P40's gotten airborne, the Zeros flying cover would have had no problem with them, since under most conditions the Zeros were far superior to the overweight and under powered P40s. The AVG in China was hard pressed to fight Zeros straight up, and developed special tactics to account for what few advantages the P40s did have.

Of the subs that launched, one beached and its crew were captured, several never launched, and one was sunk near the anti sub net in the Channel well before RADAR picked up the incoming fighters. A careful report of the incident went to SOPA to warn the fleet, but was basically ignored. If I am not mistaken, that is the sub that the NOVA program was all about. It never got past the anti sub net. Pearl harbor and the channel are so shallow that it is unlikely that any other sub got into the harbor.

When Kimmel decided that, since he wasn't attacked in November he wouldn't be attacked in December, Pearl's fate was sealed. Short could have been more careful in his preparations, but regardless the U. s. Army Air Corp would have lost as many planes, and quite a few more pilots, had he been able to get them in the air, and the Japanese would not have been particularly damaged.

Posted by: ceflynline | January 2, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

There are witnesses who insist that a second person from the Detroit flight was arrested.


There is also a passenger on the plane who insists that there was a person on the plane filming the incident.


I wonder why we have not heard more about these accounts - if there was another al queda person on the plane, why would they be filming the bombing of a plane?


Is it possible that the video was being transmitted to the ground somehow ???


Is that why they were waiting for the end of the flight ? Why else would they film an incident if the camera was about to be destroyed ???


It seems like we haven't heard the whole story?


Just because Obama initially called this guy an "isolated extremist" that doesn't mean we shouldn't hear the whole story now.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 2, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

" "Still not seeing any leftists defending Obama'a policies" I defend Obama's policies, but I'm a centrist, and am therefore disqualified from your search." Posted by: bsimon1"

I AM PROUDLY a leftist.

The trollelujiah chorus prefers not to read me, so may, maybe, still be able to say that.

Posted by: ceflynline | January 2, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


Let's hear from you - who is "we"

It's about time you stop your ridicule of other posters - by whatever.


If you have an opinion, state it, and leave other posters alone.

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION WHO IS "WE" - AND ARE YOU WORKING WITH OTHERS TO HARASS OTHER POSTERS ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 2, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

Do you also think the U.S. has a third-world economy?

Posted by: JakeD | January 2, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Rather simple explanation shrink.

At the beginning of the decade, the repubs were in charge. As prosperity, low taxes, housing increases, vanishing inflation, disssppearing unemployment and other effects of repub governing, the voters decided that more and more free handouts were in order. The squishy bush allowed the spending to rise and eventually voters chose the real spenders and hand out kings. Of course when liberal policy began to take hold, with the peloony congress, the fall was inevitable.

Now the libs have overplayed their hand and spent enough for the next 20 years in a year. The resulting economic, legislative and military ineptitude had it's predictable consequences.

Posted by: snowbama | January 2, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

Thanks for proving exactly why the LEGAL system cannot deal with terrorists. Since you quoted Blackstone:

Chief Wiggum states, "I'd rather let a thousand guilty men go free than chase after them."

Posted by: JakeD | January 2, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

INCONVENIENT BULLETIN: PASSENGER SAYS GOV'T LIES ABOUT FL. 253 BOTCHED BOMBING

• MI attorney says accomplice helped would-be bomber board flight -- and that a second suspect was taken into custody. Why are Wa-Po, Politico and other mainstream media avoiding this angle?

BOTCHED TERROR BOMBING A 'FALSE FLAG' FLIGHT?...
http://nowpublic.com/world/botched-terror-bombing-false-flag-flight
...perhaps to deflect attention from the need to expose America's horrific shame?

U.S. SILENTLY TORTURES AMERICANS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVES, SATELLITES, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

• Secret Bush legacy multi-agency federal program uses cell tower/GPS satellite microwave/laser electromagnetic radiation attack system to torture, impair, subjugate "targeted" citizens -- and oversees local "community watch" vigilante terrorism and financial sabotage campaigns.

See story at: Poynter.org ("Reporting" section)
OR http://www.nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "U.S. SILENTLY..." / "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 2, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Ask Paul Krugman, shrink. He was predicting the economic meltdown with urgency for two years prior to it happening, but the slaphappy Bush administration and Wall Street were on a drunken spending spree they couldn't stop, and Dick cheney said deficits don't matter -- and nobody on the right uttered a peep as our leaders drove us into a ditch.

Posted by: drindl | January 2, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Don't recall the Democrats trying to score partisan political points following 911.

Posted by: FirstMouse1 | January 2, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Well here goes another screed to the strangers. As the year ended, I talked here of the "lost decade" of the American political economy and how glad I was the Bush Cheney years were over.

A guy calling himself ironwolf (?issues?) took offense, feigning personal injury and he accused me (moi?!)of breaking the blog rules.

Well he better get with the WaPo ombudsperson, because Neil Irwin just made the case in detail.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101196.html?hpid=topnews

I love his last sentence:

"The task ahead for the next generation of economists is to figure out how, in a decade that began with such economic promise, things went so wrong."


Bwwwwaaahahahahahahahahaa. The Bush formula: Just keep borrowing, flipping, driving and shopping and don't worry about it. We can start wars and lower taxes, because the wars will pay their own way. After the Persians welcome us with flowers, Haliburton will rebuild the our I mean their economy and we'll get that light sweet crude, lots of very cheap oil. The "free" market Dick's friends control will fix everything.

Ironwolf better find a better place for that self righteous Republican-with-hurt-feelings act. Hint: Glen Beck uses Vapo-Rub in the eyes to create his tears.

One more time for good measure: The task ahead for the next generation of economists is to figure out how, in a decade that began with such economic promise, things went so wrong.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 2, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


Let's hear from you - who is "we"


And I have no idea what you are talking about -


However, everyone is being asked to avoid attacks on other posters - and to stick to the topic at hand


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 2, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

If someone from the pre-internet days read all of these comments from the beginning, that person might wonder why all these people maintain the time and the interest to waste thousands of keystrokes on anonymous screeds to strangers. Over and over, saying the same thing to the same strangers. It is peculiar.

But there are some entertaining things to read. Things that never would have been published, too raw for printing on paper. Here is an example from elsewhere. I wish this guy was a regular here:

"re chestnuts roasting on final approach
in the bvd's:

I thought that the news-AARs on missed opportunities, seating location, altitude, security penetration opptys etc. was information shared that I'd rather loan wolfs figure out for theyselves.

However, without violating the alleged Xmas suspects HIPPA rights, I'd like some lurid forensic prime-time war-porn discussion on what kind of injuries might have been suffered by an individual whose undergarments led to a cabin fire.

Jihad caveat emptor, oh balsy warrior, and weep for thy virgins. Pity the medics that had to debride your holiday sausage.
We should get our animated licks in while the story is hot."

etc.

It's probably ceflyline's brother.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 2, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Nice try. Don't pull me into your ongoing food fight with others. If you Google any of those monikers cited, e.g., "Dianne 72," you will find countless "unusual posts" by them throughout the blogosphere on multiple blogs.

As for the on-topic substance of my earlier post, I refer you to Blackstone, one of the fathers of modern jurisprudence:

"In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s."

Benjamin Franklin stated the same principle as follows, "It is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation

This is the United States of America.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 2, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

...and good morning to you, 37. Always good to hear from a successor to a Hall of Famer (the original 37). :)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 2, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

A few quick points about the US and the holocaust. The single best book on the topic is still David Wyman's "The Abandonment of the Jews." It deals fairly harshly with the anti-Semitism in the FDR administration and the unwillingness to make saving the Jews a cause for the war. Sadly, one reason was that there was concern that there would not be support in the US for a war on behalf of the Jews in Europe. Also, such a campaign could have been used by the Nazis as part of their world Jewish conspiracy arguments. Such an argument would be a loud of rubbish, but the Nazis were never constrained by the bounds of logic.

While the media certainly could have done more to tell about the plight of the Jews, it was very difficult for people to believe the stories about the Death Camps. European Jews were reluctant to believe many of the rumors, even when confronted with testimony from people who had escaped. The press was also reluctant because of the phony atrocity stories that were circulated in the First World War. This does not excuse anything, but it does put it more in its historical context.

Belated Happy New Year to all.

Posted by: trep1 | January 2, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

broadwayjoe's posting at 9:18 is a perfect example of the horrible atmosphere on this blog - the posting is practically devoid of any substance.

However, broadwayjoe is calling out other posters - and sending out some attacks.


There are still questions about what is in bounds and what is out of bounds - however there seems to be agreement that no one wants sustained attacks at other posters - broadwayjoe is keeping lists of other posters


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 2, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


Who is "we"? Seriously tell us.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 2, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

They think if a terrorist is released on a technicality that's not "losing" since it's better (for them at least) that 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent be punished.

Posted by: JakeD | January 2, 2010 7:58 AM
______________

We hesitate to disagree with Jake in "Jake's Place," but that concept--whether you agree with it or not--is the basis for the U.S. legal system. BTW, good news: your name will be re-considered for induction in the Hall of Fame in 2010. As you know, you had my vote in 2009; alas, it was the only Jake vote. I know the original 37thandO, Dianne72, ekim, and AsperGirl are all rooting for you. Happy New Year.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 2, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

They think if a terrorist is released on a technicality that's not "losing" since it's better (for them at least) that 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent be punished.

Posted by: JakeD | January 2, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Why don't you go to the front page of today's Post and read about the Blackwater trial, and how those charges were dismissed?

Then you get back to us with an apology.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 2, 2010 3:39 AM | Report abuse

Once a potential trial is in the mix, there is the prospect of losing at trial on a technicality.
 
==
 
This is pure malarky.  If you really believe this you should go buy a book on basic civics and law and start reaading.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 2, 2010 2:31 AM | Report abuse

It is obvious the democrats do not want to defend Obama and his policies of weakening our national security stance. Obama is even weakening the criteria for releasing terrorists from Gitmo.


Once a potential trial is in the mix, there is the prospect of losing at trial on a technicality.


So, instead of risking the release of a terrorist after a high-profile trial, Obama apparently has decided to make that factor in deciding whether to release the terrorists WITHOUT TRIAL.


It was this reasoning that caused 12 terrorists to be released just last week - with 6 going back to YEMEN.


What a complete mess. This is extremely serious. This is not about some wacky super-expensive health care bill which can be repealed.


Lives are at stake.


The country deserves better than on-the-job training.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 2, 2010 2:12 AM | Report abuse

If anyone is wondering about the picture of Obama on Drudge -


there is a rumor out there that Obama had jaw reconstruction surgery - which would also involve plastic surgery on his face.


So if Obama is looking old from behind, that could be the reason.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 2, 2010 12:42 AM | Report abuse

What's to defend?  Obama is doing a fine job.  No defense needed, certainly not just because a bunch of crybabies can't get ove losing an election.
 
Bush declared war on terror, on a tactic, and not only achieved next to nothing, he wasted a trillion bucks invading Iraq for reasons we will probably never fully know.  Vast  waste of lives, money, ordnance, and materiel. 
 
Obama isn't declaring war on a tactic, he's going after the men who threaten the USA, and bagging them right and left.
 
Bush's priority was to make sure everyone know what a tough li'l monkey he is.  Obama's is to go after the planners and masterminds of possible attacks.  And you guys have your knickers bunched up the crack because he isn't screaming "fear terror death" every time he speaks.
 
And he must be on the right track because Cheney is sputtering like an air-bound faucet and lying his head off.
 
 

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 1, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

"Still not seeing any leftists defending Obama'a policies"


I defend Obama's policies, but I'm a centrist, and am therefore disqualified from your search.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 1, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers writes
"bsimon1, really a big pat for reminding us we enjoy the MANY benefits of living with and supporting a government that cannot be drowned in a bath tub."

Thanks. I sometimes get a bit peeved at the delusional nutballs that sometimes forget the sometimes government does provide a reasonably valuable service. Sure, its cool to shyte on the government as a monstrously inefficient bureaucracy, which it is, much like any large bureaucracy, of which there is none larger in the world. Is it perfect? Of course not. But these drown-the-government fools have no idea what they're wishing for, other than some romantic vision of defending their homestead from evildoers with a six shooter clutched in either hand.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 1, 2010 11:10 PM | Report abuse

I don't see a great deal of leftists supporting and defending Obama in his downplaying of the war on terror.


Either the leftists are ignoring what Obama is doing, or they are hoping that few notice and the whole issue goes away without hurting their party.

---------


Still not seeing any leftists defending Obama'a policies -


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 1, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Gen. Shinseki: "need more troops"

GOP Base: off with his head!

Fast forward... war not goin' so hot

Bush: "need more troops"

GOP Base: "greatest military mind in world history! Surge surge surge surge surge...."

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 1, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Pre-invasion Iraq: secular dictatorship, no threat to the US, radical Islam violently suppressed by ruthless strongman

Post-invasion: terrorist recruitment and training paradise, client state of Iran, radical Islam burgeoning throughout the region, trillion dollars and 4000+ American troops dead, many times that number maimed

You righties have a pretty sick idea of "victory"

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 1, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Was that the war liberals declared already lost? The one Barry proclaimed that the surge would never work?

Do we need further reminding of the liberal inability to deal with foreign issues?

Now you announce Barry won?

I thought bush did everything.

Posted by: snowbama | January 1, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Hadn't realized that statistic, BB, thanks for posting it in the comments.

Since it implies good works by President Obama there us no chance we'll ever read it above them.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 1, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Seems clear as day who the racist is. The one who talks all day and all night about skin color.

Cilizza. Would it be too much to ban her for a third time?

Nothing productive originates from that source as you already know. I urge you to compare the tone of this blog before she arrived.

Posted by: snowbama | January 1, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Ah but Hawaii is loaded with Asians, so much that Sarah Palin couldn't stand living there, and the fat guy can't be any happier with yellow skin than with black or olive.

No matter, the creep can afford to demand that anyone in his presence has to be a Real American and certainly has done exactly that.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 1, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

With apologies to CC, the...

Most...

Important...

Number...

Of...

The...

Day...

Z E R O

That would be the number of American military casualties in Iraq during the month of December. Now that's change we ALL can believe in.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 1, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | January 1, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Great Ohio drive, but just could not get into the endzone! BTW: Hawaii has a huge African American population of 2.3% with Hispanics and Latinos make up a whopping 8.7%

Posted by: JakeD | January 1, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Happy new year and the peds still here.

Do liberals EVER keep a promise?

Posted by: snowbama | January 1, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Liberals will continue to circle the wagons around the inept one, despite the rising evidence of economic imbecility, foreign policy cluelessness and legislative corruption. It matters not that domestic military bases get shot up, that bombers are on planes, the security at the WH and elsewhere is a sieve, that suicide bombers are now in 6 or 8 countries instead of one. No big deal they are printing money by the wheelbarrow and spending it twice as fast. We will simply rename inflation. Unemployment will be heretofore called deferred saved job.

Posted by: snowbama | January 1, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

I'll refrain from posting my admittedly distasteful hope for the outcome of Limbaugh's hospitalization but I will note my hope that his attendants and nurses and care specialists are all Latino and African-American and I hope they give him an earful.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 1, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Americans were terrorized on September 11, 2001. Afflicted Americans (and this is most of us) have been terrorized by the great recession of 2008-2009. Thoughtful Americans are terrorized by the physical state of our planet, not least the Bush storms as harbinger of worse threats to come for our offspring.

It seems that many Americans are annoyed rather than terrorized by the duplicitous rants of Mr. Cheney and his followers with their preposterous charges.

Posted by: FirstMouse1 | January 1, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

The Oregon Ducks look small (they are) and slow (they are not). The University of Nike's Achilles heel: too much attention/money for not enough achievement.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

"BWJ and shrink, I cannot see how the point was meant to be that the personal lives of celebrities we have not elected to represent us are legit journalism subjects."

I don't know what this means. I was just making a joke about the journalistic merits of Celebritology. I was not here much, I must have missed something earlier in the thread, sorry for wasting your time.

But reading down here, I am shocked to learn the wing nuts have declared another war or perhaps expanded our wars to include Somali pirates. War on drugs, war on this, war on that. Why bother making distinctions?

Shooting criminals in international waters is not an act of war, it is an act of rescuing Americans from ransom captivity by killing the kidnappers.

I didn't say it was a bad idea. I said it was a killing that probably caused Mr. Obama to grow some gray hairs. Continuing with the CIA drone assassinations in the AfPak war is very different from ordering the killing of kidnappers while we pretend to be negotiating with them. I thought it was the right thing to do, but it is not trivial. Obama gets the Peace Prize and he may be as hard nosed with the military as any prior American President. It will be interesting to see how this apparent dissonance develops.


Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Yeah when it comes to economic freedom, why Somalia is leading the pack. The place must be bursting with entrepreneural opportunities an' stuff

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 1, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Hear, hear, margaret. 'Big government' means a safe food, water, and pharmaceutical supply, public health that prevents the epidemics we used to regularly experience, fire and police departments, regulatory offices that at least help prevent powerful corporations from preying on us, and a host of other services that improve our quality of life.

People who like the idea of 'small government' should try living in Somalia, for instance.

Posted by: drindl | January 1, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

seattle top at 4:00, my point was that non-Jews in America needed to see this story covered in the main=stream media. In the past, hard working members of the press have told Americans about things our government was overlooking or suppressing and it made a difference.

bsimon1, really a big pat for reminding us we enjoy the MANY benefits of living with and supporting a government that cannot be drowned in a bath tub.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 1, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Well I don't see a "great deal" of leftists, period.

OTOH I do see a "great deal" of rightists scrambling to defend Bush's stream of failures and mistakes. As if the essence of keppin' 'Merica safe is arrogant chest-pounding and invading irrelevant nations.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 1, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1@4:23

Bravo

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 1, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

I don't see a great deal of leftists supporting and defending Obama in his downplaying of the war on terror.


Either the leftists are ignoring what Obama is doing, or they are hoping that few notice and the whole issue goes away without hurting their party.


The truth is there has been a significant uptick in terrorist attempts in the United States this year - with several plots uncovered - plus the Fort Hood shooting.


Obama's reluctance to call the Fort Hood shooting a terrorist incident influenced by jihad is especially troubling.


It is almost as if Obama truly believes he can make the war go away by changing the DICTION.


Obama even referred to the Detroit bomber as an "isolated extremist"


With Obama it is PRETEND PRETEND PRETEND.

Obama simply is not up for the job of President - he came in with little or no experience and it is showing, badly.


Obama is not up for the challenges of the economy either.

He allowed the stimulus package to go seriously out of control, and the only safeguard which was put in place - the website tracking the jobs - was filled with so many errors that Obama's people said they were not even going to try to fix it.


So much for a safeguard.


The health care bill is a complete mess - at some point the leftists are going to admit that - even to themselves.


The health care bill is not "deficit neutral" - and Obama would be wise, - and actually using his intelligence - if he came up with a health care bill that WAS DEFICIT NEUTRAL and NOT MANIPULATED by the instructions given to the CBO by the democratic leaders.

See the right way to go is actually out there - in the talk.


But Obama is not doing what he says he is.


Yes, that makes him a liar.


But we knew this when he swore he would not use race in his Presidential campaign - and his campaign was caught time after time pushing race, race, race.


That is not being post-racial.


Obama has not been bipartisan or transparent either.


That is basically the problem with Obama.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 1, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"It's called a war."


No, its called anarchy. The quote you cited was about pirates off the coast of Somalia, a place where the government has been drowned in the proverbial bathtub & residents stay alive by yanking themselves up by their bootstraps & AK-47s, hijacking ships for ransom so they can eat.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 1, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Jeezus -- look at this -- 1AM, New Year's Eve. This is a life? I thought Chris was going to get rid of this pornography?

==

whatever could have possibly given you that idea?

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 1, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

(at least you stayed on topic of "ramping up the rhetoric")

Posted by: JakeD | January 1, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

aphilsmith:

You are aware that the GOP won both Virginia and New Jersey governor's races, right?

Posted by: JakeD | January 1, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

extra-judicial killing

________________________________


It's called a war.


I really don't care if the word has been used by the administration, in or out of context.


The point is, Obama has been doing his best to ignore the war, downplay the war, transform the war into a trial, quit the war, pretend that one speech would end the war.


Obama has been tring a great deal - in fact the long-drawn out review of Afghanistan was all about an effort to see if Obama could pretend the Afghan war away as well.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 1, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

@margaretmeyers: American Jews didn't need to read reports in non-mainstream papers... when their letters to their families back in Poland or Lithuania came back undeliverable they knew what was happening.

We can all make intelligent remarks about isolationist sentiment and uncertain intel but the fact us that our government knew and elected to do nothing. And out own right wing was supportive of the Nazis and, yes, of the Holocaust. Now that descendants of the survivors are doing much the same in the West Bank, the right wing of today supports them too.

Posted by: SeattleTop | January 1, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

New evidence of Japanese midget subs in Pearl Harbor.

"Discovery of the submersible may close a chapter on the history of Pearl Harbor. Five mini-subs were to scheduled to take part in the surprise attack, but four of them never reached their target: They either ran aground, were scuttled or destroyed. The fifth submarine was unaccounted for, but the NOVA research team concludes that the vessel managed to penetrate Pearl Harbor and fire its two 800-pound torpedoes, most likely striking the Oklahoma."

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/12/pearl-harbor-mystery-solved-researchers-claim-killer-sub-find/

NOVA show on Jan. 5:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/killersubs/

Posted by: mnteng | January 1, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

The extremists may get the headlines. But at Linked In's new Centrists Group, we believe that building bridges and reaching consensus is not only possible, but essential, in our current political climate.

If you agree, please consider joining us. Provocative and fascinating, but cordial and respectful discussions. No ranters and ravers, script bots, or clandestine political operatives allowed.

Contact me at Linked In for an invitation.

Thank you.

Ellen Brandt, Ph.D.

Posted by: venerability | January 1, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"MSM decides what to report on and what to ignore, "

That's right, margaret, and if you will notice they all choose pretty much the same set of stories to run on any given day, no matter the market, so what we get to know about -- our national narrativ-- is decided by a very small group of executives. It's always eerie to me to flip through the channels and or through media websites -- same stories, mostly through the same lens.

Posted by: drindl | January 1, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Jeezus -- look at this -- 1AM, New Year's Eve. This is a life? I thought Chris was going to get rid of this pornography?

"Another long lonely night for the ped.

Unhappy old year.

And it's now all lurker all night long

yiiiikkkeess.

What a life.

Posted by: snowbama | January 1, 2010 1:00 AM | Report abuse'

Posted by: drindl | January 1, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Voters must take heart and get a reality check. Don't let the darkness return. The GOP is hateful, incompetent and unspeakably corrupt. The Party of Evil and Ignorance almost destroyed the US and must not regain power to finish the job. Shame on Obama and the Dems for not fighting back and squashing this snake in the first few months of '09. Voters must carry the torch and decide the direction our Nation will now take. As a thankfully former Republican, for the sake of America, I pledge NO to turning back the clock. For all thinking citizens, making this year a Perfect '10 should mean NO return for the GOP.

Posted by: aphilsmith | January 1, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"about the midget subs, I know we downed some of them right before the attack and I no longer remember what the story is about them"

They also suffered from poor design & as I recall had trouble finding and/or entering the channel into Pearl. I think one was leaking & was then run aground while operating on the surface; I think another sank without suffering enemy fire. I'm fairly certain none made it into the harbor or fired on US vessels.

The book 'Flyboys' goes into some of the background of the attack, including the design & testing of shallow water torpedoes, Billy Mitchell's influence on US policy towards air power (he argued for air power before Pearl, the attack of which made his point).

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 1, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

@M-I-A: totally cosign. However if they insist on messin' in Tiger's business, why stop there? Start looking at the other celebrities like Rush and Sheen. But you're right. Bottom line: none of this personal junk is our business. We didn't didn't find out what DiMag was doing until decades after he had passed away.
_________

Re the national security topic: check out "The Marine 2" on pay per view. Ted DiBiase, Jr. replaces John ("The Marine") Cena in the title role. One highlight--to get away from the "turrurists" (as Palin might call them), "the Marine" frees himself from handcuffs by pulling his hand through the handcuff. :)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 1, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Off topic:

@CC and Wizards fans--Javaris Crittenton was never in real danger. Gilbert Arenas is only shooting 40% these days.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 1, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

BWJ and shrink, I cannot see how the point was meant to be that the personal lives of celebrities we have not elected to represent us are legit journalism subjects.
I do not think you meant that we should know more about every celebrity's night life.

I will make this comparison, instead, and hope you agree. Rather than focusing on pecadillios of sports figures, why not devote some time to analyzing, or reporting the analysis of experts on, what the Iran greens want from the west? I notice that Kristol headlines that the Admin has failed the Iran green movement but in his column he simply repeats the complaint, without detailing either what we have done, or what they want us to do, or what we could have done, or what we should do.

Essentially, a poster here could have written that column. It is fair to complain, but a serious journalist or columnist would have found a shred of a story to analyze.

Just as it is difficult to wade through daffy posts to find substance, it is hard to find the real news when the parade for the evening is the sex lives of people we actually do not know, and who have no effect on our lives. None, whatsoever.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

I think we got most of the midget subs, but there's some evidence that at least one of them was able to get some torpedoes off during the attack.

I agree about the P-40s. They would have shot down a few bombers/torpedo planes and we might have lost fewer of them. But given that much of the next part of the war was based on naval engagement and island hopping (Midway, Coral Sea, Guadacanal), I'm not sure how much a few more P-40s would have helped. Of course, the Japanese eventually lost a huge chunk of their naval airpower at Midway. Having experienced pilots was more important than having the equipment.

WWII really opened our eyes in terms of the role of airpower in prosecuting the war. A much better way of projecting naval power than by having battleships slug it out.

Posted by: mnteng | January 1, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

@s2: ;-)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 1, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"...killed as a direct result of Obama giving orders to fire on a target."

...and those three Somali pirates too.
That was the first gut check moment for Obama as CIC. Surely the first time in his life he ordered killing, an extra-judicial killing is never trivial.
__________________________________

"Legit journalism may be finished."

So I'm guessing you don't think TMZ or Fox's dedicated Tigers Troubles website is journalism?

(:-}

http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/page/tigers-troubles

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

nodebris@2:39 -- my mother was a school girl outside Pittsburgh during the war. A friend's family got a national Jewish newspaper and her friend showed her articles about the concentration camps and the Jewish Holocaust during the early years of the war. My mother said that at the time she told her friend this couldn't possibly be true because the "real" newspapers weren't reporting anything like this.

MSM decides what to report on and what to ignore, so we get articles about a mistake Southers made over 20 years ago because that is easy to report on and will get attention. The harder work of investigation and reporting has been forgotten. Southers will be great addition to TSA.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 1, 2010 8:59 AM
_________

Co-sign. Funny how the MSM has spent the last month up inside Tiger's bedroom (where it has no business being) but they tell us nothing personal about Lance Armstrong, Phil Mickelson, Tom Brady, Limbaugh, and the like. Legit journalism may be finished.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 1, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

So Ken Spain thinks Democrats have been derelict on duty when it comes to confronting the terrorist threat.

I guess he doesn't know that in Obama's first 8 months of his Presidency that over half of the most dangerous terrorists on the CIA's most-wanted list were killed as a direct result of Obama giving orders to fire on a target.

I guess he forgot that Obama has ordered the deployment of a total of an additional 50k troops to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So exactly what does he think constitutes such a statement?

Posted by: JRM2 | January 1, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

mnteng, about the midget subs, I know we downed some of them right before the attack and I no longer remember what the story is about them because I am confusing my naval history with Wouk's narrative in "War and Remembrance" which is probably accurate - but whoever cites a novel as authority?

At the very least, many fewer planes would have burned on the ground. At best, the P-40s would have acquitted themselves well, as they did until they were replaced by faster lighter planes. The P-40s were heavily armored.

Yes, most of the destruction of the Harbor and the battlefleet would have occurred. Before PH, Mahan's rules were the worldwide standard: the battleship was the flagship. For us, carriers became flagships, by default, after Pearl. One of the anti-FDR conspiracy theories was that the Enterprise and three other carriers were at sea because FDR knew the attack was coming. But on that day, it was still the battleships that were the prized capital ships - aircraft carriers were still a luxury afterthought in naval thinking. That mindset is hard to replicate after the fact!

Yep, I wish JimD were here to clarify, amplify, and correct, if need be.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

Probably, but the Japs would have lost more than 29 planes. Read more here:

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/pearlharbor/totsugeskiseyo.aspx

Posted by: JakeD | January 1, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

mnteng:

Probably, but the Japs would have lost more than 29 planes.

Posted by: JakeD | January 1, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Would any of you pay extra for a seat on my proposed KLM "non-Muslim" flight?

Posted by: JakeD | January 1, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I only read 5 - 6 regular posters here.

@mark_in_austin:
I've seen/read reports that suggest that even if the US were able to scramble all their planes in response to the radar warning, it would have made little impact on the severity of the destruction in Pearl Harbor. The warning wasn't given early enough (radar wasn't that good yet) and the fighter cover from the far superior Zeros would have downed most of our fighters. There would not have been time to move the fleet, and there were apparently several Japanese midget subs in the area.

I wish JimDinFl were still around to dispute my assertions.

Posted by: mnteng | January 1, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/movies/30white.html?8dpc

This is a wonderful, speculative piece on the origins of the Nazis and of evil done to innocents in general. Not just of interest for psychiatrists, it casts the "War on Terror" perhaps in a hopeless light.

Of special relevance is the All Comments (readers reviews) section. So erudite. So valuable. People would be too embarrassed to post the trivial, bilious nonsense, the personal attacks in particular, that make up the great bulk of Fix comments. Or maybe they would if the comments were not actively moderated.

It seems the comments on all unmoderated blogs careen wildly between literally crazy nonsense and vicious hate speech. What to do about it? I guess Run to the NYT when you can't stand it anymore.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

"Why don't you enforce those rules fairly instead of only against a few people?

Just a thought.

I give you my word: do that, and if I merit a ban again I will stay gone. I have never done one post as nasty in personal attack as what snowposts every day

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 9:11 PM"
_________

Top, I think you finally got the "answer" you'd asked for. It appears it was what you thought it was. Given the way the Troll Trinity's offensive carpet-posts are permitted, it seems unlikely your multiple bannings have been about maintaining "civility." Oh well.

Back on topic: Broder has an odd Post op-ed today defending DHS Chief Napolitano. It's odd because it is based more on the fact Broder has broken bread with JNap (i.e., she's officially part of BroderWorld) than a reasoned defense of her statement that "the system worked" or of her overall DHS performance.

From "the Dean":

"I flashed back to the first time I met her. A good friend from the staff of the late U.S. representative Morris K. "Mo" Udall had gone to work for Napolitano. On a reporting trip to Arizona, I called the staffer, and she suggested meeting Napolitano for lunch in Phoenix."

What???? Who cares?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 1, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Obama's first year - record number of unemployment checks cashed. The liberal methods in evidence.

A guy who abused his power for personal reasons, violated privacy and then lied about may be a liberal hero but he is not the best person for this job. Obama picks another radical who suits his leftist paybacks. Hasn't the nappy incompetence shown the danger in the Chicago way.

Posted by: snowbama | January 1, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Liberals are always so foregiving of thier own corruption, ineptitude and immoral lapses. It is characterized by vengence and envy for all others.

Posted by: snowbama | January 1, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

nodebris@2:39 -- my mother was a school girl outside Pittsburgh during the war. A friend's family got a national Jewish newspaper and her friend showed her articles about the concentration camps and the Jewish Holocaust during the early years of the war. My mother said that at the time she told her friend this couldn't possibly be true because the "real" newspapers weren't reporting anything like this.

MSM decides what to report on and what to ignore, so we get articles about a mistake Southers made over 20 years ago because that is easy to report on and will get attention. The harder work of investigation and reporting has been forgotten. Southers will be great addition to TSA.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 1, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Despite the range of postings here, this thread really should be an EVALUATION OF "OBAMA'S WAY" of dealing with terrorism.


Contrary to what many democrats may want to believe, many Americans never really considered this policy in voting for President last year.


So to attempt to make the case that Obama has a mandate to significantly change security policies is just simply WRONG.

Last year America voted for Bipartisanship, transparency - and to make a racial statement that somehow we all want to put racism behind us and have racial harmony.


To read more into last year's election is WRONG, - and as Obama has sought to read more into it, he has been met with a great deal of anger.


Whether Obama is actually sticking to those campaign promises which elected him is an entirely different question.


That is why I believe not many Americans were aware that Obama wanted to have trials for the Gitmo terrorists - that Obama would start to release terrorists BEFORE TRIAL if the evidence might be deemed to potentially embarrass the government at trial.


That is why Obama may believe he has some mandate for a massive government health care plan, but he really doesn't.


Obama probably has a mandate to regulate the health insurance companies, to clean up the mess and to curb the worst abuses.


But to create a massive program which will certainly lead to massive tax increases, there is no mandate for that.


Remember, Obama promised no tax increases for those making under $250 K - well Obama is violating that promise if he opens up a massive deficit in a new health care program and the taxes have to come later.

Somehow or another, the left wing of the democratic party believes they finally have the votes for a far-left wing agenda - but they really do not have the entire democratic party behind those ideas.


So they are fooling themselves.


And they certainly don't have the support of the American people behind them.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 1, 2010 6:41 AM | Report abuse

There are certainly some lapses revealed by this attempted terrorism that need to be addressed. And I know the guy had a lot of ammo in his shorts. I know this is serious.

But excuse me if I have trouble getting worked up by the fiendish threat caused by a guy who puts a blanket over his head and tries to light his underwear on fire on a crowded airplane.

Seems to me we shouldn't be ripping each other apart so much as mocking the living daylights out of AQ over how pathetic it has become, that this is the best they can offer after well neigh ten years. What's this poor emasculated loser going to do with those 72 black-eyed virgins? Kinda takes the romance out of the whole jihad thing if we stick his poor un-manned ass in a crummy cell in Detroit, doesn't it?

Posted by: nodebris | January 1, 2010 3:03 AM | Report abuse

"it was my impression that no one knew about the concentration camps until after they were found in the invasion of German occupied territories."

Unfortunately, that's not true. It would be accurate to say that few people realized the full horror of them until they personally confronted them.

Posted by: nodebris | January 1, 2010 2:39 AM | Report abuse

Mayor Bloomberg just told Ryan Seacrest there's "no chance" that he will run against Obama in 2012. What about Biden?

Posted by: JakeD | January 1, 2010 2:33 AM | Report abuse

"Unintentionally Hilarious Post of the Day."

Second.

He does it all the time really. Let jaked be jaked, no one discredits him better.

Posted by: nodebris | January 1, 2010 2:22 AM | Report abuse

You were right about him not leaving. Time to just ignore his antics.

Posted by: JakeD | January 1, 2010 2:21 AM | Report abuse

"JakeD -- PLEASE let's leave the Obama/birth certificate debate out of ALL posts. It's demonstrably false and by continuing to try to re-litigate it, you undermine your other arguments."

Cheers to you, Chris. Now please note that this is only the most egregious of the red herrings that constitute his sole contribution to your comments section.

Posted by: nodebris | January 1, 2010 2:15 AM | Report abuse

Jake. I do believe you are her only friend. She seems sweet on you. Maybe a red hot poker party. Is that a good thing?

Posted by: snowbama | January 1, 2010 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Another long lonely night for the ped.

Unhappy old year.

And it's now all lurker all night long

yiiiikkkeess.

What a life.

Posted by: snowbama | January 1, 2010 1:00 AM | Report abuse

Should be 1940, not 1930.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2010 12:40 AM | Report abuse

According to Churchill, after the Brits used shallow water torpedoes successfully at Taranto in Italy in 1930, he had Brit Intelligence tell J. Edgar Hoover, the appropriate counterpart, that Pearl was not invulnerable to torpedo planes because it was a shallow water port.
According to JEH, he relayed that info to ONI. According to ONI, the warning was shelved because Taranto was 30' deeper than Pearl, even though they were both considered shallow water ports, so ONI thought Pearl remained invulnerable to torpedo planes. Torpedoes dropped from planes went deep before activating; at least American torpedoes did. So ONI thought torpedoes would just bottom at Pearl.

When I was in high school I had a history teacher who flew in WW2 and had seen both Pearl and Taranto from the air. Thought they were strikingly similar. He said that the Brits had intelligence that the Japanese had scouted Taranto with Italian assistance after the successful Brit raid and that bit of information was known to our ONI, too. I have never read any verification for that story, but I think it appears in a novel I read in the 70s - which may only say it was a common rumor.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 1, 2010 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Am I the only one not drinking?

Reading the Coulter column that Jake posted is a fascinating study.    She's very manipulative but she has a very small palette of tricks to bring to bear, and recognizing them immunizes.

The big one: redirection.  Start reading the part about new flight regulations; the searches, the mini-bottles.  "Indignities."  Who of us hasn't chaffed at the silliness and arbitrariness of these rules?  So at this point the reader is engaged and the writing is resonating..  Segue while that lasts to the attack: terrorists are easy to identify.  They all have the same skin color, eye color, hair color.  So if we had any sense we would single out those people.

(Uh er um Ann, that's true of pretty much every person in the world outside of North America and northern Europe has the same eye skin and hair color as all those Mohammeds.  Travel once in a while why don't you).

See, establish some agreement and thereby trust with the reader and then before it fades shoehorn in some less palatable argument.
Anyway she loses it after that and starts to rant about political correctness, but hey, remember what audience this is written for.  PC is of course just dog-whistle for the society-wide deprecation of racism that started in earnest with the CRA and LBJ.  In 1960 you could call a coworker by the N word and not only would you have no consequence, you could still be regarded as a gentleman.  That this is no longer true can only be attributed to liberal tyranny, the suppression of "common sense" by insidious and agendæd liberals .. damn 'em ... y'wonder why Palin talks about "common sense" all the time?  Hear that whistle?  Real Americans, don'tcha know.

I mean, yeah, of course, there is a simple sense to her argument.  And if concentrating intently on a certain demographic had a real chance of doing any good then it should be examined.  But of course it doesn't, and that's not even the point, it's instantly circumventable (use women, use older men, send retarded people with implanted aneroids); the point is to express hatred of Muslims, to inspect and probe millions of travelers and remind them that someone else who practices their religion did something really wrong and stupid.  Her tone is histrionic, you can see the tendons straining in her neck, the barely-restrained mockery on the edge of spilling over into a screaming fit.

How utterly repellent.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Jake "neglected" to post the source of his latest screech.  I'm SURE he didn't intend to pass it off as his own writing, right, Jake?

Ann Coulter, no less.  Some people have no shame at all.

http://www.anncoulter.com/

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 10:52 PM | Report abuse

If this incident leads to shutting down that godawful stream of movies for eight year olds then some good will have come of it.

I wish I could erase the memories of some of the films I've seen, unsolicited and vehemently unwanted, on airplanes. Let people read books, otherwise they can fidget.

Even better if the passengers are forced to stay quiet.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 10:37 PM | Report abuse

He has a Muslim name so pull him aside and examine his genitals and anus with rubber gloves.

Simply nauseating. You belong in another century, Jake. One with three-digit years.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 10:29 PM | Report abuse

George Will is a conservative's idea of a real intellectual. He believes a lot of complete garbage ("markets!"), he wears a suit, and hr talks baseball. And they think everyone who despises him dies so because they're confounded by his cunning reasoning.

Read one of his columns with an eye to the development of his point. You won't find it, but you'll get a headache trying.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 10:24 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

I submit that Ann Coulter is the Queen of Snark ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Just can't quit with the racism, can you, Jake.

Let me make a parallel.  Support among Muslims for terrorist versions of Islam is weaker than support among American Christians for bombing abortion clinics (look it up).  I happen to be writing to someone who refused to condemn the shooting of Dr. Tiller so this is an apt comparison.  Anyway, using your twisted and unschooled reasoning, American Christians need to be strip-searched before entering any country where abortion is legal.

And all anyone has to do to get around a ham-handed proposition like yours is to use people not known to be Muslims.  Every Muslim nation has large percentages of Christian, so this is an easy block to get around, even easier than an IP block.  Find someone born Christian who converted.  So you would subject millions of perfectly innocent Muslim travelers to unsolicited indignities, a people who are especially concerned about modesty.
Other than that, great idea.  Not.

Cue some idiotic ACLU screech.  That always works its way in somehow.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic:

In response to a Nigerian Muslim trying to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day, the government will now prohibit international travelers from going to the bathroom in the last hour before the plane lands.

Terrorists who plan to bomb planes during the first seven hours of the eight-hour flight, however, should face no difficulties, provided they wait until after the complimentary beverage service has been concluded.

How do they know Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab didn't wait until the end of the flight to try to detonate explosives because he heard the stewardess announce that the food service was over and seats would have to be placed in their upright position? I can't finish my snack? This plane is going down!

Also prohibited in the last hour of international flights will be: blankets, pillows, computers and in-flight entertainment. Another triumph in Janet Napolitano's "Let's stay one step behind the terrorists" policy!

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 10:07 PM | Report abuse

(cont.)

For the past eight years, approximately 2 million Americans a day have been subjected to humiliating searches at airport security checkpoints, forced to remove their shoes and jackets, to open their computers, and to remove all liquids from their carry-on bags, except minuscule amounts in marked 3-ounce containers placed in Ziploc plastic bags -- folding sandwich bags are verboten -- among other indignities.

This, allegedly, was the price we had to pay for safe airplanes. The one security precaution the government refused to consider was to require extra screening for passengers who looked like the last three-dozen terrorists to attack airplanes.

Since Muslims took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, every attack on a commercial airliner has been committed by foreign-born Muslim men with the same hair color, eye color and skin color. Half of them have been named Mohammed.

An alien from the planet "Not Politically Correct" would have surveyed the situation after 9/11 and said: "You are at war with an enemy without uniforms, without morals, without a country and without a leader -- but the one advantage you have is they all look alike. ... What? ... What did I say?"

The only advantage we have in a war with stateless terrorists was ruled out of order ab initio by political correctness.

And so, despite 5 trillion Americans opening laptops, surrendering lip gloss and drinking breast milk in airports day after day for the past eight years, the government still couldn't stop a Nigerian Muslim from nearly blowing up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day.

The "warning signs" exhibited by this particular passenger included the following:

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He's Nigerian.

He's a Muslim.

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He boarded a plane in Lagos, Nigeria.

He paid nearly $3,000 in cash for his ticket.

He had no luggage.

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 10:04 PM | Report abuse

The Hoyas just won - so that is good.


This blog is completely out of control.


Reflective of the political system ? Yes - both parties are no good.


The money in politics is horrible - the officials in Washington are completely out of touch with the people. This situation creates almost two political systems - one for raising the money - the other for spending it on tv commercials to get the votes.

Where are the people in that equation? The activists are there, but an activist has only limited potential influence compared to a money-person.


The highest good in our system today is not good government - it is raising money.


I'm not sure where the solution is

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 31, 2009 10:03 PM | Report abuse

(cont.)

Two months ago, his father warned the U.S. that he was a radical Muslim and possibly dangerous.

If our security procedures can't stop this guy, can't we just dispense with those procedures altogether? What's the point exactly?

(To be fair, the father's warning might have been taken more seriously if he had not simultaneously asked for the U.S. Embassy's Social Security number and bank routing number in order to convey a $28 million inheritance that was trapped in a Nigerian bank account.)

The warning from Abdulmutallab's father put his son on some list, but not the "no fly" list. Apparently, it's tougher to get on the "no fly" list than it was to get into Studio 54 in the '70s. Currently, the only people on the "no fly" list" are the Blind Sheik and Sean Penn.

The government is like the drunk looking for his keys under a lamppost. Someone stops to help, and asks, "Is this where you lost them?" No, the drunk answers, but the light's better here.

The government refuses to perform the only possibly effective security check -- search Muslims -- so instead it harasses infinitely compliant Americans. Will that help avert a terrorist attack? No, but the Americans don't complain.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 10:00 PM | Report abuse

"Maureen Dowd is the Queen of Snark, nothing more, nothing less. I read her as often as I read George Will. But she thinks she is funny, even Will does not have that affectation."


Will's affliction is that he thinks he's learned.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 31, 2009 9:58 PM | Report abuse

One more thing Chris.. to say I dislike this blog is absurd. I would walk over a mile of broken glass to read a ceflynline post.

And the second time you pulled that switch it was not for breaking any rules, it was for stating truth about racism in your party that you didn't dig reading.

How many have implored you to ban the trolls, filling up the blog with repeated posts? Why are they allowed to go endless vicious attacks without consequence?

I expect you'll ignore this as you always do.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 9:37 PM | Report abuse

ATTN: Roslyn Mazer, Inspector General, Office of the Director of National Intelligence:

The posting captioned "Clarification" below @ 9:01 p.m. from "scrivener" was subject to malicious tampering, apparently by rogue surveillance operatives at the MAGLOCLE/RissNet fusion center in Newtown, PA. The message was corrupted and was transmitted to this blog page without the the writer ever hitting the "submit" button.

This fusion center facility apparently is intercepting in real time the internet telecommunications of unconstitutionally and unjustly "targeted" Americans, using so-called "spoofed" web sites that facilitate censorship and malicious harassment via telecommunications.

These apparent unconstitutional color of law violations have gone unpunished for nearly six years, in the present case -- despite repeated effort to call this matter to the attention of the Department of Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction over the fusion centers.

Fusion center operatives and their managements apparently believe they are above the rule of law and the chain of command.

I believe this matter calls for an official investigation and appropriate remedial action. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 31, 2009 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Clarification: scrivener post, Clarification: scrivener post, below, refers to the TSA's New Year's Eve withdrawal of subpoenas diretced at bloggers who reprinted TSA screening procedures that had become widely available despite their supposedly privileged status., refers to the TSA's New Year's Eve withdrawal of subpoenas diretced at bloggers who reprinted TSA screening procedures that had become widely available despite their supposedly privileged status.

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 31, 2009 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Why don't you enforce those rules fairly instead of only against a few people?

Just a thought.

I give you my word: do that, and if I merit a ban again I will stay gone. I have never done one post as nasty in personal attack as what snowposts every day

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 9:11 PM | Report abuse

The subpoenas were a gross over-reaction and the Reporter's Committee is understandably aggrieved -- but THESE are the stories that mainstream media should be going after:

BULLETIN: PASSENGER SAYS GOV'T LIES ABOUT FL. 253 BOTCHED BOMBING

• MI attorney says accomplice helped would-be bomber board flight -- and that a second suspect was taken into custody.

For link, see: BOTCHED TERROR BOMBING A 'FALSE FLAG' FLIGHT?...
http://nowpublic.com/world/botched-terror-bombing-false-flag-flight
...perhaps to deflect attention from the need to expose America's horrific shame?

U.S. SILENTLY TORTURES AMERICANS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVES, SATELLITES, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

• Secret Bush legacy multi-agency federal program uses cell tower/GPS satellite microwave/laser electromagnetic radiation attack system to torture, impair, subjugate "targeted" citizens -- and oversees local "community watch" vigilante terrorism and financial sabotage campaigns.

See story at: Poynter.org ("Reporting" section)
OR http://www.nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "U.S. SILENTLY..." / "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 31, 2009 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Seattle Top,

If you dislike the blog so much and repeatedly break its simple rules, why do you keep using a changing IP address to re-emerge when we ban one of your monikers?

Why not just a) go somewhere else or b) play by the rules?

Just a thought.

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | December 31, 2009 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Yes I know what you said. But I was hoping you were just talking about the Germans.

I don't mean to be critical. Do you have cites? I have concentrated my reading on WW II people in other places. Are you saying the Nazis had popular support in this country? I know they had supporters, so did Stalin. Chris Hitchins supported Pol Pot for a time, when it mattered.

Americans supported Nazis in real numbers? There must be evidence.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 31, 2009 8:54 PM | Report abuse

@shrink2: I was talking about support for the Nazis rat cheer in the USA. It was not marginal. And, once revealed, support forvthe Holocaust as well. The far right didn't just suddenly turn twisted and sick when McCain chose Palin.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 8:45 PM | Report abuse

the comments are better reading
then the blog.
keep up the entertainment, fellas'

concentration camps?
pearl harbor?

keep it coming.

Posted by: simonsays1 | December 31, 2009 8:36 PM | Report abuse

the comments are better reading
then the blog.
keep up the entertainment, fellas'

concentration camps?
pearl harbor?

keep it coming.

Posted by: simonsays1 | December 31, 2009 8:36 PM | Report abuse

"History has glossed over the widespread public support for the Nazis in its zeal to play up the human rights and freedom meme."

Yessirree, historians have documented the widespread support for the Nazis in Germany. Nazis did not impose themselves on the German voters (thought they certainly killed, intimidated and otherwise silenced their political rivals) nor was their program falsely sold. They did not bait and switch.

The allies knew all about the death camps.
Excellent books have been written in this regard, the availability of Soviet documents after "the wall came down" closed the case.


Posted by: shrink2 | December 31, 2009 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Oh, ok. Thanks.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 31, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

@mark: thanks for the fine historical detail of that morning. Wasn't radar still pretty new at that time?

@DDAWD: I think the only thing we didn't know about the camps prior to occupation was the medical experimentation, the ugliness of RaBenwiBsenschaft. The camps were known about here from the beginning of their construction.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Well, I don't know enough to argue, Seattle, but I'm not sure how people could find out about what was going on. Not exactly open societies here and we didn't have the recon we have now.

There was a great Stephen Colbert interview with the Switzerland ambassador to the US. This was after their ban on minarets. Colbert basically asked the guy how Switzerland could be neutral on Hitler, yet have a stance on minarets. The guy's angry silence was just great.


Actually, it was John Oliver from the Daily Show, not Colbert.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/04/john-oliver-confronts-swi_n_380305.html

Posted by: DDAWD | December 31, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

More about the camps. Two of the best books I read on them.

One was by an Army doctor at Auschtitz/Birkenau, not an historical account so much as a personal one. Nursing people who had been starved under 100 lbs. back to health. He talked about getting them fresh supplies of cigarettes as urgently as food and fresh water. He wrote, "I know I've been speaking German too much when I the verb at the end of the sentence begin to put."

The other—and you really MUST track this down if you have a single drop of Jewish blood—was a book of photographs discovered by a young woman named Lilly Mayer. She was convalescing in the quarters of the arrested camp Kommandant and found a scrapbook in his nightstand, recognized in it people from her own town. The photos are gripping. Only one man appears twice, a tall heavy-set (upon his arrival, not later) man who was probably a doctor. As the photos go on the people get thinner, finally skeletal. Faces you can look into, real people, not just "six million."

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 7:46 PM | Report abuse

@ĐĐAWĐ: pretty hard to overlook entire populations rounded up into boxcars and hauled away into the netherworld. Maybe swing shift workers in Woolworth's didn't know about the camps but the US government surely did. And it fell below our moral radar.

History has glossed over the widespread public support for the Nazis in its zeal to play up the human rights and freedom meme.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Bad guys knew if you messed with bush, you would pay.

==

Yeah, after the example he set by promptly bagging Osama bin Laden the terrorists all went into other lines of work, cowed into submission.

Oh, wait, he let ObL get away and invested all our energies into invading an occupying a country that had nothing to do with the attacks.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Chris Fox, there are seven or eight official inquiries into Pearl Harbor over fifty years. They do show that FDR was pushing Japan for a casus belli. They show that we should have been more alert at Pearl. They do not show that a Japanese attack on Pearl was anticipated, but they show it probably should have been.

On the morning of 12-7-41, The Opana Point radar station, operated by two enlisted men plotted the approaching force, and their relief team plotted them returning to the carriers. They called in the reading to the information center. The call was received by Pvt. Joseph McDonald. McDonald found Lt Kermit Tyler and said that a large number of planes were coming in from the north and he never received a call like this before. Tyler told McDonald that it's nothing. McDonald called back the radar station and was told that the radar return was the largest that the station had ever seen. McDonald insisted that Tyler speak directly to radar. Radar station was told "Well don't worry about it." McDonald asked Tyler if he should call back the plotters and warn Wheeler Field. Tyler indicated that it was not necessary. The initial radar returns were thought, by Tyler)to be a flight of American bombers expected from the mainland. The American bombers showed up during the attack.
We had enough radar warning to get all our planes in the air and we S-N-A-F-Ued.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 31, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Not that I really know anything about this topic, but it was my impression that no one knew about the concentration camps until after they were found in the invasion of German occupied territories.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 31, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse

"My "Fix" tee arrived today."

Was it signed?
I am envious, but I'd be more envious if a single soul in the Hood River Metro Region had a clue what it was. Still, Congratulations Mark and all the best for you and your loved ones in the new year.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 31, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a student if WWII history aside from the concentration camps, which i've read a lot about, but what I have read places more blame on Admiral Kimmel than on FDR.

What is far more morally damning is America turning a blind eye to the camps and the Holicaust, bigotry-driven indifference, and the soldiers who stole and kept their bayonets to "finish the job" on Jews back in the states.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe, I am aware of the history. But I agree, let's hope the new year brings a new to an otherwise excellent blog.

Posted by: jrosco3 | December 31, 2009 5:16 PM
________

Co-sign. :)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

My "Fix" tee arrived today.

Happy New Year!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 31, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I would enjoy that discussion immensely, Jake, though I doubt you could hold up your end without going off on distracting tangents.

One correction: I didn't say Bush "ignored" the PDB, I said he ignored it.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

ChrisFox8/GoldandTanzanite/Seattle Top has disappeared.


From your fingers to Gods ear. Let us hope the new year finds this misogynist loser wandering off to fouler pastures.

I think just about everyone here now realizes the source of the nasty behavior. It is quite obvious every night, every five minutes. What does that say about a person? What sort of psych trauma from your dad being ashamed encorages you to trade barbs with people who don't like you, just for fun every minute of every night.

Posted by: snowbama | December 31, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

I read them enough to be somewhat suspicious of "omaars blade" who has emerged as a very frequent poster just as ChrisFox8/GoldandTanzanite/Seattle Top has disappeared.

==

Get a grip, Chris.  You must have access to IPs.  I'm sure your IT staff has been whittled down to one Jolt-guzzling middle-aged guy with a neck-beard who's probably getting real tired of your banning requests (I work with people like this, since I write the stuff they operate), but he should be able to tell you that the omar guy is posting from Duluth or BFE or somewhere.

Anyway, as I segue from one moniker to another, I make no effort to disguise my identity, and I will **never** under **any circumstances** do the dopey inappropriate capitalization that he does.  I'm the stickler for lexical conventions, remember?  You can put that in the bank.

Oh, here's some fun for all:

http://www.proxy4free.com/page1.html

Note that it's "page 1 of 12" and this is just ONE list.

Nothing to say on the double standard?  Of course not.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

If anyone else wants to discuss GWB "ignoring" evidence about 9/11 (or FDR doing the same re: 12/7), please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

The lethal penetration of a CIA base by an officer of the Afghan army (so says the Taliban, according to the BBC) is terrible news. If we have to surge for political reasons, then lets do it quick and get out.

Americans are still stuck in the Vietnam War (v. China and Russia) rationalizations. They think we have to fight the enemy there or we will have to fight them here. Well now, sure those commie Asians we lost to are invading, look at the maker's mark on everything you own. Look at Vancouver BC!

Osama bin Laden understands Republican think. He wants to draw Americans into Islamic places where his people (who, he asserts, do not care whether they die) can get them. Republicans like to think we are winning wars if the body count is stacked by orders of magnitude in "our favor." They still think the surge worked. The body count is the body count, it only favors death.

Boots on the ground was a mistake. We need to get China, Russia and India onto stamping out the Islamic terror threat.
Beslan was a horrible catastrophe. China's Northwest is a tinderbox. If they don't invade terror breeding zones, why do we?


Posted by: shrink2 | December 31, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Say what you want about GWB, but there was not a single terrorist attack on (or over) U.S. soil since 2001 up until Obama took over.

==

This would have a lot more punch if you could say "there was not a single terrorist attack on US soil while Bush was in office."
But you can't say that, because IIRC there was a real big one in September of 2001, three planes flown into buildings.  Need a link?

And ... this is where is gets a little awkward .. Bush had an explicit detailed warning in the form of a Presidential Daily Briefing which outlined the entire plot save the identities of the buildings, which anyone with enough neurons for a synapse could have figured out.  Bush decided (after all that's what he did, you know, decide) that it wasn't important, that his hobbyhorse of the day, reviving Reagan's Star Wars fantasy, was more urgent.  So he ignored the PDB.

And you give him a pass?  After 3000 people died?  Hmmm, now why would you do that?

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe, I am aware of the history. But I agree, let's hope the new year brings a new to an otherwise excellent blog.

Posted by: jrosco3 | December 31, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

I read them enough to be somewhat suspicious of "omaars blade" who has emerged as a very frequent poster just as ChrisFox8/GoldandTanzanite/Seattle Top has disappeared.

I find it VERY odd that people who deride me and the blog work time after time to circumvent my attempts to ban them to come back and post.

//////////////////

The lurker is called out again. So unaware, so lonely. Time to inflate a friend again.

Posted by: snowbama | December 31, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

That is not simply stating a personal opinion. I'm surprised you're defending this garbage instead of standing up for Chris' efforts to improve the civility of the blog.

Posted by: jrosco3 | December 31, 2009 4:50 PM
_______

There's a long history here that you don't know about. As the ad used to say, if you don't know, you'd better ask somebody.

Top's words may have been harsh but it's not entirely clear, at least with respect to the extreme double standard issue, he was totally blowing smoke. Who knows? Let it go and return to topic.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Jake D. asks:

"What do {I} think would have been done differently if Senate confirmation had been given the day the good Professor had been nominated?"

In terms of the National Counter-terrorism Center in Virginia getting its act together (assembling the flood of information generated by an alphabet-soup of agencies into a coherent picture), probably nothing. T.S.A.'s brief is different, smaller, and T.S.A. itself has no presence overseas that I'm aware-of (passenger screening at Schiphol Airport being Holland's problem).

Still, there's the substance of the problem, the substance being that the Republican Party talks-the-talk (shrilly) but doesn't walk-the-walk.

One crucial problem in the counter-terrorism struggle is getting the most qualified people into positions where they might make a difference -- what happened to FBI Agent John O'Neil being an egregious example and a cautionary tale:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/


(for those of you who have forgotten this story or never heard about it). Here, as in Agent O'Neil's case, the opposition party chooses to obstruct, delay, and withhold cooperation wherever possible while ignoring the potential consequences, proclaiming itself Holier-than-any-Democrat, and viewing the terrorist threat (a certainly real one) through the parochial (that word again: it means "very limited or narrow in scope") prism of how best to use it (especially any failures) to advance its fortunes in the next elections.

We don't need this and, more importantly, we can't afford it -- especially the cynical play to the Republican base, and the resultant polarization within the American body-politic itself. One strategic aim of the Qaedists is precisely for the Republican Party to behave this way (for the crassest domestic political considerations). It plays into their hands, vindicates their tactics, and is part-&-parcel to their offensive strategy against us.

Does that make a difference?

How could it not?

Posted by: hogsmile | December 31, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Jake, FDR was dealing with a real war: Recognized nation states banned together for world domination and we declared war against them. This "War on Terror" is no more a war than a "war on evil" or "war on bad guys." In large measure, unlike WW II, it is "preemptive" and elective. The better approach for BHO would have been to get out of all these hot spots but for reasons yet to be disclosed, BHO has elected to escalate. Go figure.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

BULLETIN: PASSENGER SAYS GOV'T LIES ABOUT FL. 253 BOTCHED BOMBING

• MI attorney says accomplice helped would-be bomber board flight -- and that a second suspect was taken into custody.

For link, see: BOTCHED TERROR BOMBING A 'FALSE FLAG' FLIGHT?...
http://nowpublic.com/world/botched-terror-bombing-false-flag-flight
...perhaps to deflect attention from the need to expose America's horrific shame?

U.S. SILENTLY TORTURES AMERICANS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVES, SATELLITES, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

• Secret Bush legacy multi-agency federal program uses cell tower/GPS satellite microwave/laser electromagnetic radiation attack system to torture, impair, subjugate "targeted" citizens -- and oversees local "community watch" vigilante terrorism and financial sabotage campaigns.

See story at: Poynter.org ("Reporting" section)
OR http://www.nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "U.S. SILENTLY..." / "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 31, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse


Fear-Hate Monger Campaign 2010-2012

The Republican "State of Desperation"

The "Any Political Opening Will Do Tour"
____

Republican Hate Mongers in 2010-2012 Mode

Republicans Praying on their Knees for a Successful Terrorist Attack.

Republicans On their Knees Praying for the Economy To get Worse, and Not Get Better.

Republicans on their Knees Praying that the Unemployment Rates Grow Even Higher.

Republicans on their Knees wanting something Bad to happen to the President of the USA.

Republicans on their Knees Praying for No Health Care Reform.

Republicans on their Knees Praying for the Absolute Worse for America, Under the Obama Presidency, Placing their Political Titles Over America and the American Population.

Bad Kharma, Bad Kharma Bad Kharma

Posted by: omaarsblade | December 31, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

If Hitler had been captured he would have fallen under military tribunal law, and probably have been compelled to testify. Not that anyone could have forced him to, but who cares?

Funny how "conservatives" are so opposed to the rule of law, small wonder they operate best in mobs with guns at their hips and signs screaming adolescent fury.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe, the following language posted by SeattleTop is not protected by the First Amendment -- it's a libelous, vicious attack:

"Now, OK, we know CC is a Republican, there is no doubt of that, not with all the resurgence and TPaw and Palin and Bad News for Democrats spew. But he's also from Texas, and while this isn't an absolute, there's a good chance that in private her refers to gays as qu33rs, Latinos as sp|cs, and Obama by the N word. My guess is that calling a gay man a pedophile is something he's personally cool with."

That is not simply stating a personal opinion. I'm surprised you're defending this garbage instead of standing up for Chris' efforts to improve the civility of the blog.

Posted by: jrosco3 | December 31, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Good luck with the restraining order, jroscoe, no apology forthcoming. CC has given a pass to way way too many attacks on me.

Identify someone who posts undisguised racist filth all day as a racist, get banned for personal attacks.

Call a man who screws men in their 30s and 40s a cold molester, party on.

I say it's personal.

Last word on the subject, for now. Back to the topic, republicans trying to claim advantage.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

oooopsy, first draft posted too, my edits exposed! sorry about that.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 31, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic:

I don't think that the Republicans are over-reaching in this regard. Imagine if FDR / Truman had "prosecuted" WWII like Obama / Napolitano are? The Republicans back then would have been right to ask questions. For instance: Did HITLER have the "right to remain silent" had he been captured?

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

CC on his Facebook thingy over there on the right...

"Question for the ladies: is Wii fit a legit workout tool for Mrs. Fix or no? Weighing [sic] purchase."

Hmmm. No snark allowed. But since you post your Facebook here and the question is oddly posed, I'll say this. Chris, fitness is a way of life. Anything is a legit workout tool for people who are fit and nothing works for people who don't live the fit life. This is fact, not opinion.

Meanwhile, Obama had an amazing first year batting cleanup. Mistakes were made, whirrled peas did not happen and a lot of his friends are jerks. But how lucky we are not to have McCain Palin or even The Clintons fooling around with the Presidency.

Overall this year was a fine end to the worst decade for America in my own and many other American's lifetimes. The Republican blame game effort is all about sweeping our lost decade under the rug.

Republicans, you Bush Cheney voters, you don't realize how dangerous you are. But of course you think the same thing about everyone who does not think like you...so we'll meet at the polls.

Enough of that. Next year has already begun for most of the people on the world. Play as hard as you work people, that is my wish for your Happy New Year!



CC on his Facebook thingy over there on the right...

"Question for the ladies: is Wii fit a legit workout tool for Mrs. Fix or no? Weighing [sic] purchase."

Uh oh.
That is all I will say about that.

Meanwhile, Obama had an amazing first year batting cleanup. Mistakes were made, whirrled peas did not happen and a lot of his friends are jerks. But how lucky we are not to have McCain Palin or even The Clintons fooling around with the Presidency?

Maureen Dowd is the Queen of Snark, nothing more, nothing less. I read her as often as I read George Will. But she thinks she is funny, even Will does not have that affectation.

Overall this year was a fine end to the worst decade for America in my lifetime.
Republicans, you Bush Cheney voters, you don't know how dangerous you are.

But enough of that. Next year has begun for most of the people in the world already. Play as hard as you work people, that is my wish for your Happy New Year!

Posted by: shrink2 | December 31, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Joe -- MoDo blows with the wind. I remember when she was praising Rummy and Cheney to the skies and talking about how 'macho' they were. You can't use her as an indicator of anything that counts.

Posted by: drindl | December 31, 2009 4:05 PM
________
Good point, d. Now if Judith Warner turns on BHO, I think we can agree that things are really over for him.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Ban Zouk.

He's clearly the problem.

Posted by: snowbama | December 31, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

jrosco3:

Par for the course, unfortunately -- I'm not a Republican or racist either -- I guess it was just a matter of time before he defamed our gracious host too.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

jrosco3: Good grief. Top's is entitled to his personal opinion no matter how brutally it may have been expressed. Every American is.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

leapin:

Don't forget GMAC as well. I returned a brand-new Corvette last month just to prove that the government cannot efficiently run private industry.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Chức mùng năm mới to you too broadwayjoe, and to everyone else too, except the trolls, may they continue to awaken from the nightmare of a black president into the reality thereof, sweating and hyperventilating.
Posted by: SeattleTop
-----------------------------------------
Correction. The nightmare of a bi-racial president.

Posted by: leapin | December 31, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse


Republicans always go too far. Always.
Like the Clinton impeachment thing, putting aside all the nation's business
Posted by: SeattleTop
-------------------------------------------
Except neocom statists are going farther like TAKING OVER all the nation’s business..literally..GM, Fannie, Then there was the midnight ride of Scary Reid. The repubs are rank amateurs by comparison.

Posted by: leapin | December 31, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Chức mùng năm mới to you too broadwayjoe, and to everyone else too, except the trolls, may they continue to awaken from the nightmare of a black president into the reality thereof, sweating and hyperventilating.

Here's to another seven years of rolling back Republican failures, and may it accelerate. Special callout to the troops suffering privations and danger for no clear reason, may they all come home soon and intact.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Wow, that post at 3:47 by SeattleTop is completely uncalled for. Posting such vicious, libelous attacks against the host of this blog after being banned repeatedly is sick. A King County superior court judge would likely enter a restraining order against you to prevent any further posting on this blog.

Posted by: jrosco3 | December 31, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

hogsmile:

What do you thnk would have been done differently if Senate confirmation had been given the day the good Professor had been nominated?

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

SeattleTop:

No big surprise, just as snowbama predicted would happen.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

As long as I've been following politics, one thing has remained constant.  Fortunes shift; both parties continue to lurch further and further right, one is in and one is out, yes, but one thing never changes: Republicans always go too far.  Always.
Like the Clinton impeachment thing, putting aside all the nation's business to tie up Congress for months over a lousy BJ.  And they went too far in their zeal, allowing Clinton to leave office with higher approval than W ever saw save in the rally-round-the-flag few weeks after 9/11.

After Dole lost in '96 the post-mortem was "we weren't extreme enough."  And so it goes.

Again now, after a solid year of over-the-top attacks on Obama, one shameless lie after another, one racist proxy after another, applying standards of performance that Bush never met .. they're making hay over this terrorist incident and trying to make him look bad.  It's a little too much.
Actually, it's way too much.

They've crossed that line again, given new credence to the party-of-no thing, and are looking more and more like belligerent crybabies who can't handle an election loss like men.  And they're standing in the way of keeping us safe, which someone has to be noting.

And oh, the suggestion that Palin's with-book has anything to do with anything but her self-fascination is a belly-laugh.  Four hundred pages and only 13 about anything to do with policy, all the rest payback to people who called her on her stupidity and ignorance.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Joe -- MoDo blows with the wind. I remember when she was praising Rummy and Cheney to the skies and talking about how 'macho' they were. You can't use her as an indicator of anything that counts.

Posted by: drindl | December 31, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Since he ain't never seen a million dollars, that don't exist either.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, leap.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"Oh, and Jake? I think I'll stick around just to watch you get your knickers in a twist / undies in a bundle / tie yourself into knots over it. Getting a new IP is the work of under a minute, a new email and registration even less.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 3:47 PM"
___________

That's grrreaaaaaaat news, Top. Happy New Year! ...and you, too, Jake.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

leapin posted: "If you think that the final day of 2009 "ramp[ed] up" the rhetoric, you ain't seen nothing yet. Sarah Palin's book has now printed 2.8 million copies. Bill Clinton comes in second with just over 2.25 million."
__________
I go to Barnes and Noble every week, and, since the Palin book came out, I have not seen one person pick up, much less buy, a copy of "Going Rogue." I am convinced corporate bulk purchases must have something to do with the sales numbers, IMO. BTW, I purchased Kramer's Pulitzer Prize winning bio of Joe DiMaggio. Turns out Joe D's off-the-field exploits made Tiger look like a monk.
Posted by: broadwayjoe
-----------------------------------------
I didn’t remark on Palin but since you used my moniker it can’t be denied that she draws crowds. As far a B&N is concerned your singular experience at one may not reflect the total experience of what is happening in total of all the book stores in the U.S.

Posted by: leapin | December 31, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Whar's brutal is the banality, vanity and shallowness of Maureen Dowd at her worst.

Posted by: drindl | December 31, 2009 3:31 PM
________

I disagree, D. MoDo is not as extreme a BHO supporter as her colleague Judith Warner is (well, no one is), but MoDo is totally pro-BHO. If BHO is losing MoDo, that IS a problem. I agree with her. Maybe Michelle LaVaughan O can do an "Adrienne" and tell BHO just "to win." His rope-a-dope approach is not working.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Top, I think you've asked this question about the double standard many times (about 12 by my count) and never gotten an answer. I believe the continued silence, sadly, speaks for itself. Not allegin', just sayin'.

==

I'm not alleging, I'm stating flat out.

The double standard is palpably real.  If one of us called one of the right wing trolls a pedophile we'd be banned within a day.  But look what people do get banned for.  In my case:

(1) referring to repeatedly posted racist sentiments as racism
(2) referring to teabaggers holding Obama-as-gorilla signs as racists

In both cases I got banned for accurately identifying some Republicans as racists, based on their own utterances.  For stating the obvious, in other words.  Meanwhile the trolls make unfounded criminal insinuations every day and get at most a wrist slap, one moniker of many deleted and the others left alone.

Now, OK, we know CC is a Republican, there is no doubt of that, not with all the resurgence and TPaw and Palin and Bad News for Democrats spew.  But he's also from Texas, and while this isn't an absolute, there's a good chance that in private her refers to gays as qu33rs, Latinos as sp|cs, and Obama by the N word.  My guess is that calling a gay man a pedophile is something he's personally cool with.

Anyway, the fact that the rules here are applied only in the most haphazard and arbitrary manner could not possibly be more blatant.  Which makes them hard to take seriously.
Oh, and Jake?  I think I'll stick around just to watch you get your knickers in a twist / undies in a bundle / tie yourself into knots over it.  Getting a new IP is the work of under a minute, a new email and registration even less.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

publius14 writes
"My point on the analysts is that all of this is beyond a single human's attention span.

I also want to sound positive about the fact that some analysts, at least, are now capable of running those queries. Years ago, that was not the case"

I suspect the volume of data is such that a human or team of humans can't process it quickly enough to identify the relevant bits & piece them together before there's an attack. Its a software/algorithm problem more than an analyst problem.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 31, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"drindl:

A: What's "changed" is that GWB was not pretending to be at war with al Qaeda."

I believe JD dropped an important word:

B: What's "changed" is that GWB was not EVEN pretending to be at war with al Qaeda.

Based on the Public Record statement B seems more accurate. For the life of me I can't recall any action by either of the Chickenhawks in chief that remotely resembled actually attacking AQ. Tora Bora was ass close as they got, and that had all of the intensity of a cop telling bystanders to move along.

Posted by: ceflynline | December 31, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

leapin posted: "If you think that the final day of 2009 "ramp[ed] up" the rhetoric, you ain't seen nothing yet. Sarah Palin's book has now printed 2.8 million copies. Bill Clinton comes in second with just over 2.25 million."
__________

I go to Barnes and Noble every week, and, since the Palin book came out, I have not seen one person pick up, much less buy, a copy of "Going Rogue." I am convinced corporate bulk purchases must have something to do with the sales numbers, IMO. BTW, I purchased Kramer's Pulitzer Prize winning bio of Joe DiMaggio. Turns out Joe D's off-the-field exploits made Tiger look like a monk.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

I think the year-long mantra of "Bush destroyed the Constitution" is now almost over, and we will begin again worrying about our collective safety rather than scoring partisan points by citing supposed excesses in our anti-terrorism efforts. With the delay in closing Gitmo, Obama's quiet copying of Bush security protocols (such as wiretaps, intercepts, tribunals, and the popular outcry against the upcoming show trial of KSM in New York, a public consensus is growing that radical Muslims like Hasan and Mutallab will continue to attempt to kill Americans. Citizens increasingly understand that the last eight years of relative safety following 9/11 were due only to heightened security at home and proactive use of force abroad, that we should cease trying to appease radical Islam by dreaming up new euphemisms ("overseas contingency operations," "man-made disasters," etc.), and that it is time to stop the apologies and grudgingly accept that thousands of radical Islamic fundamentalists worldwide want to kill Americans and dozens of governments, at least on the sly, hope that they do. Such venom has nothing to do with past American behavior or George Bush's strut, nor can it be ameliorated on the cheap by Barack Obama's Nobel Prize, middle name, or reset-button diplomacy.

Posted by: leapin | December 31, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Whar's brutal is the banality, vanity and shallowness of Maureen Dowd at her worst.

Posted by: drindl | December 31, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Republican Sen. DeMint (the same one who crowed "If we're able to stop Obama on this {healthcare reform}, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.") is preventing confirmation hearings on Erroll Southers, President Obama's nominee to head the problem-plagued T.S.A. Southers' biography is interesting. Currently, he is a U.S.C. professor at their SPPD (School of Policy, Planning, and Development) who specializes in counter-terrorism policy. Earlier in his career, however, he was an FBI agent with extensive dealings with other security agencies U.S.C. profiled him online at:

http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/profiles/southers.html

for anyone who is interested.

Professor Southers' expertise, background and life-experience hardly marks him as a namby-pamby card-carrying ACLU liberal puff dragon, so one might assume that Sen. DeMint (given his complains about the President's supposed inexperience and naivete in that policy area) would beat a path to his door; pull out the stops to expedite Professor Southers' nomination to increase the T.S.A.'s feeble effectiveness. But no, no -- 1,000 times no. Sen. DeMint has blocked any hearings -- religiously, for almost a year (and still is, last time I looked).

Why?

For decidedly parochial reasons Sen. DeMint seems determined to defeat the President at every turn, any-which-way he can, without regard to propriety or the cost to The Nation -- an historic problem with South Carolinian politicians at least since the 1820's.

Is Sen. DeMint's block of the Southers' nomination (on the flimsiest of pretexts) inspired by his desire to inflict another "Waterloo" on the President? One might think so, since he recently joined the Republican chorus excoriating the President while keeping his hold in place.

How sad it is to be compelled (again) to witness how far today's Republican Party has fallen? Instead of working with Democrats to strenghten the anti-terrorism system, they race to denounce the President for incompetence, ineptitude, and being "soft on terrorism" when it is they, themselves, who are incompetent, inept, and soft on it.

Their unspoken determination seems to be to cripple the Federal Government's capacity to defeat a terrorist attack. Their unspoken hope seems to be to profit from it politically in the next series of elections.

However, in Sen. DeMint's case, his unspoken determination might be baser still: a poorly masked personal hatred of the President fueled in no small part by racism (being a man of the South, DeMint reacts to the President in a traditional way) and an vague emotional disloyalty to the concept of a Federal Union itself, to a legally unified nation-state governed from the center that can and will ride roughshod over the parochial interests and prejudices of entire regions, sections and individual States whenever necessary.

Posted by: hogsmile | December 31, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Well I am interested to see what action the administration takes in follow up to this near terrorist catastrophe. While the two parties battle it out over fault in the headlines, I truly hope that behind the scenes the re-assessment of our government's policies and procedures on preventing terrorist attacks is robust and supported in a bipartisan way -- I have to believe that is the case, not only in response to any particular attempt, but always. Do you agree, Fixastas? Or do you believe that the parties cannot even work together on developing and implementing the best policies to protect our citizens?

There will always be major disagreements such as whether to invade Iraq, or whether to continue the war in Afghanistan. But when it comes to day to day prevention of terrorist attacks, isn't the problem deeper than the fundamental failure by the CIA to share critical information?

Happy New Year, Chris, and to everyone on The Fix. Let's toast to blogging in 2010 that is engaging yet civil. Anyone care to raise their glass?

Posted by: jrosco3 | December 31, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

The politics of anti-terrorism in this administration will begin to change, given that there was no repeat of 9/11 between 2001 and 2009 — and that thereafter, signs began to emerge that radical Muslims were reenergized and eager to trump their feat of eight years ago. In such a climate, one must worry more about the passengers on Flight 253 and less about whether self-confessed mass murderer and beheader KSM is given a public venue to explain his hatred of the United States, and is granted rights usually not accorded to such out-of-uniform and self-proclaimed terrorist enemies. So a little more "Beware of radical Muslim terrorists who want to murder us" and a little less chest-thumping about dropping the supposedly passé "War on Terror."

Posted by: leapin | December 31, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Hey CC. Thanks for putting the kibosh on the birther stuff,for what, the fourth time? Think he'll listen? I don't.

As for your civilty admonotions, they are hard to take seriously when you so very conspicuously exempt the right wing trolls from the rules. I get called a pedophile every day and the people doing it are still here. Any explanation for this? It's pretty damned blatant.

Why don't you pay attention a little more?

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 2:09 PM
_______

Top, I think you've asked this question about the double standard many times (about 12 by my count) and never gotten an answer. I believe the continued silence, sadly, speaks for itself. Not allegin', just sayin'. That said, I totally agree with the congrats to CC on ending the racial proxy/birther junk posts.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

If you think that the final day of 2009 "ramp[ed] up" the rhetoric, you ain't seen nothing yet. Sarah Palin's book has now printed 2.8 million copies. Bill Clinton comes in second with just over 2.25 million. From the WaPo book review:

"I'll go out on a limb and predict that if you like Palin, you'll like "Going Rogue" -- and if you don't like Palin, well, I hear the new Stephen King is pretty good. What's unusual is that "Going Rogue" has ignited such a media firestorm. After all, politicians write books like this all the time. Nobody pays any attention. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bill Frist, John Ashcroft, Mike Huckabee, Joe Biden, Henry Waxman -- and many, many more -- have all put pen to paper (often with help from collaborators) in order to record the authorized accounts of their political and personal lives. But they don't often go on "Oprah." For the typical pol, a book serves as the news peg for a media tour. He gets to go on "The Daily Show," comment on public affairs and remind his constituents and campaign donors that his opinions matter. Then the book disappears. The pol returns to other business. Palin is different. Her book has become the occasion to re-litigate the 2008 presidential campaign. All the raw cultural battles over abortion, feminism and populism that erupted when she strode into the limelight have sprung up again. All the stand-up comics who had a blast last year reducing this conservative reformer to a cartoon are ridiculing her once more. The press and established powers in Washington consistently hold Palin to a higher standard. The AP assigned a team of 11 reporters to "fact-check" Palin's book. I don't remember Harry Reid's "The Good Fight" getting that treatment, but then, hardly anybody remembers "The Good Fight." Among the AP's discoveries was the fact that -- I am not making this up -- Palin is ambitious. One critic described Palin as being "ungrateful" to the McCain campaign. Why? Because in her book Palin returns fire on the anonymous campaign strategists who called her a "diva" and "whackjob" to eager reporters. What was she supposed to do? Play the role of the orphan Oliver Twist and ask, "Please, sir, I want some more"? Through no fault of her own, Sarah Palin has become a sort of political lens, refracting the different ways conservatives and liberals see the world. To her supporters, she is, as she puts it, a "common-sense conservative" who isn't afraid to make moral judgments. To her detractors, she's a moronic zealot who has no place in American public life. The two interpretations are concrete. "Going Rogue" won't do much to change any minds. But for what it reveals about our current political culture, Hans Robert Jauss would say it can't be beat."

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

TheBabeNemo:

Ask Leon Panetta about his conflicts with DoJ. CIA "can't" share info, or they will get prosecuted.

"Those who fell yesterday were far from home and close to the enemy, doing the hard work that must be done to protect our country from terrorism," Director Panetta said in a message to employees. "We owe them our deepest gratitude, and we pledge to them and their families that we will never cease fighting for the cause to which they dedicated their lives — a safer America."

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

The White House should ignore the Republicans and especially Cheney. For some reason they appear to enjoy going after them. I really don't remember the Bush Administration going after Al Gore despite the type of rhetoric he used for 8 years.

Posted by: snannerb | December 31, 2009 11:32 AM
__________

I used to agree with that view--that BHO should fly above the fray no matter what.

The problem with that these days is BHO is facing an unprecedented organized opposition (Hillary called it a vast right wing conspiracy) that has no qualms about lying about his record.

On a 24/7 basis, Fox and other media, including Drudge and blogs that "emulate" him, unfairly attack the President (often on racial terms--something "GoldandTanzanite" would often point out in this space...to his detriment it seems).

Goebbels taught the world the "BIG Lie" works if it's not aggressively challenged. My personal view is "Let Bartlet be Bartlet" is the better approach and BHO should walk through each of campaign promises (Gitmo, global warning, retrun to due process), forcing up or down votes on every one. Triangulation is bogus.

AND BHO should call out these folks. Bill Clinton would have leveraged--and thus shut up--every one of these bigoted loud mouths before he sat down for dinner--most are extremely "leveragable" (see, e.g., Limbaugh). It's odd the media can go on and on about Tiger Woods, who owes nobody anything, yet won't reveal well known facts about the hate- and war-mongering public officials and media figures on publicly licensed stations that would raise legitimate questions about their credibility, character, and personal agenda.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

So have fun guys, enjoy being on contact with unemployed racists, I'll be surfing somewhere the moderators don't play favorites."

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 28, 2009 8:22 PM

THERE IS A GOD!!!

Posted by: JakeD
----------------------------------------
This development is a very positive situation for 2010. The "racist" garbage is very stale and devalues the true meaning of racist which is not defined as disagreeing with someone with different skin pigment.

Posted by: leapin | December 31, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:
I was possibly too brief in not explaining how hard this all is, but I doubt anyone ran the queries you listed. I would bet the answers would have been enlightening.

My point on the analysts is that all of this is beyond a single human's attention span.

I also want to sound positive about the fact that some analysts, at least, are now capable of running those queries. Years ago, that was not the case

Posted by: Publius14 | December 31, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Publius14 - I think you oversimplify the case for the intelligence community dropping the ball with Abdulmutallab. Sure, its easy to make the case if your intelligence consists only of the facts you cite (potential attack by a Nigerian in Yemen + Abdulmutallab's father flagging him as an extremist who might be in Yemen). But how big was the haystack in which those needles were hidden? For instance, how many other Nigerians were in Yemen? How many other Nigerians were flagged as potential terrorists? How credible were these leads thought to be? The challenge for the intelligence community isn't limited to finding the bad guys before they act, but to do so they also have to avoid generating false leads. It seems to me that designing a system to accurately identify bad actors before they act without also misidentifying non-bad actors is an extremely difficult challenge. Having said that, from the info I've seen, it certainly looks like the system should have found the bombs on this guy before he boarded a plane, based on the one-way ticket purchased with cash on short notice, etc.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 31, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hey CC here's an idea for you: never mind personal attacks. Simpler: no posts allowed where the topic is other posters. Response to their posts, yes, them ad the topic, no.

Of course you would have to apply it equally, which seems to be a real challenge.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Jakey:
1) Prosecuting CIA created dis-incentive to protect America;
We have not prosecuted the CIA. State your case reference. How was dis-incentive to protect America created? Since 9-11? Or prior? Or of course, by Obama, whom you hate and spew it constantly on this board.

2) Closing GTMO eliminated our best tool for interrogating KNOWN terrorists and learning about future plans;
Why did closing GITMO elimiate our best tool for interrogating (cough, cough-torture) known terrorists? What is/was the best tool for interrogating known terrorists at GITMO, BTW?

3) Bringing the mastermind of 9/11 to NYC, giving him a lawyer and trial in civilian court;
Who was that? The blind guy responsible for 1993 bombing? He's not Osama bin laden. The criminals of 9-11 have never seen a court room. I wouldn't mind if they did. Anyway you get him, you get him.

4) Not making a statement for 4 days, GOLFING right after addressing the issue but cutting the game short and racing back to his vacation home when a friend's child slips and hurts himself.
And that's wrong? You sound like you are rambling. One of the only arguments left to try and blame the President for waiting 4 days. But CNN just released it. He was talking to Holland. You remember Holland in all of this, don't ya?

Seriously, if Obama would have taken out Iran's nuke facilities before now, I practically guarantee you that bomber would not have been on that plane Christmas Day.
Okay, but he best talk to Russia first too.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 31, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

I never said that all Muslims are Sunni nor that all problems are nails.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Recommend getting the Muslim world in our corner instead of continuing to outrage them fir sport.

Cue the appeasement screech...

Posted by: SeattleTop
-------------------------------------------


For the last eight years, many have patiently tried to suggest that the answer to "Why do they hate us?" does not entail poverty, Western imperialism or colonialism, support for Israel, past provocations, etc. Rather, radical Islam encourages in an Hasan or Mutallab age-old passions like pride, envy, and a sense of inferiority — all accelerated by instantaneous communications and abetted by continual Western apologetics that on a global level blame Westerners for self-induced misery in many Islamic countries. "They did it" is far easier than looking inward to address tribalism, gender apartheid, statism, autocracy, religious intolerance, and fundamentalism, which in perfect-storm fashion ensure an impoverished — and resentful and angry — radical Islamic community while the rest of the world moves merrily on.

Posted by: leapin | December 31, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm familiar with Gellman's work.

I have little interest in autobiographies or memoirs, as the authors are almost universally incapable of rising above their own self-interest. I have no interest in reading Cheney's memoirs, just as I have no interest in reading Bill Clinton's.

Posted by: Gallenod | December 31, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

How would "taking out" Iran's nuclear processing facilities achieve anything other than quadrupeling the price of oil?

Has intimidation achieved anything since we entered this idiotic "war on terror?". On the contrary.

What adolescent garbage.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

The press pounded Bush for months about something he had far less control over. Will Barry pay the price for his folly or will he blame someone else as usual?

Posted by: snowbama
-----------------------------------------
Incompetano will take the fall!

Posted by: leapin | December 31, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Terrorists on planes can be hindered by technology by absolutely prevented? Never. The next step is explosive prostheses or explosives in thigh bones. We can't Xray people into leukemia to take a flight. Recommend getting the Muslim world in our corner instead of continuing to outrage them fir sport.

Cue the appeasement screech...

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

JakeD writes:
"Seriously, if Obama would have taken out Iran's nuke facilities before now, I practically guarantee you that bomber would not have been on that plane Christmas Day."

... showing his ignorance of the conflict between Shia and Sunni and their respective terrorist organizations.

Not all Muslims are Sunni like al Qaeda, just like not all problems are nails.

Posted by: mnteng | December 31, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Jake: Point taken. What I should have said was that Cheney managed the selection process that eventually resulted in Bush selecting him as his running mate.

However, it is likely that Cheney stage-managed the selection process in much the same way he stage-managed the first few years of the Bush administration. Yes, he suggested other candidates to Bush, but each likely had some flaw or shortcoming in comparison to Cheney (or was someone Bush didn't like personally). Cheney, much like a stage magician forcing a card, pretty much ensured that Bush would decide on him.

In 2000, Bush was quite content to let his father's retainers carry him to victory and handle the heavy lifting of politics and governing on his behalf. I believe he left office a much less naive man.

Posted by: Gallenod | December 31, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Back to Gallenod:

Not even Bart Gellman -- who claims in his book that Cheney is all-sorts of evil and that there were no in-person interviews until AFTER Bush had selected Cheney -- has made the kind of wild accusation you made.

GELLMAN: "Well, there have been a lot of jokes over the years about Cheney selecting himself. I wouldn’t say exactly that. Bush selected him, but Cheney did maneuver the process ..."

Read the whole book:

http://www.amazon.com/Angler-Cheney-Presidency-Barton-Gellman/dp/0143116169/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262287024&sr=1-1

Then read Cheney's reply when he publishes his memoir ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Blog clog.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

"The year is about up and I won't be here in 2010, not under any moniker.

Reading posts by mentally ill people leaves me exhausted and sickened; in my real life I would never associate with such bent, twisted people, and I've endured too much of them here.

So have fun guys, enjoy being on contact with unemployed racists, I'll be surfing somewhere the moderators don't play favorites."

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 28, 2009 8:22 PM

THERE IS A GOD!!!

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Hey CC. Thanks for putting the kibosh on the birther stuff,for what, the fourth time? Think he'll listen? I don't.

As for your civilty admonotions, they are hard to take seriously when you so very conspicuously exempt the right wing trolls from the rules. I get called a pedophile every day and the people doing it are still here. Any explanation for this? It's pretty damned blatant.

Why don't you pay attention a little more?

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Chris Cillizza (on facebook at 1346): I am a day late to this (I know) but MoDo's column on Obama and terror is BRUTAL. http://tinyurl.com/yfsyj73

BTW: if you haven't read it yet, MoDo's column on Obama and terror is BRUTAL. http://tinyurl.com/yfsyj73
Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 1:53 PM

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 31, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

The more the details become public, the more it seems that Abdulmutallab could have and should have been intercepted before he boarded Flight 253 in Amsterdam. There were at least four layers of defense that did not work together properly, however: 1) terrorist traffic intercepts that linked a Nigerian with Yemen, 2) human intelligence provided by a distraught father that also linked a Nigerian to Yemen, 3) danger signals from his flight check-in with payment in cash without significant luggage, and 4) non-use of existing screening equipment that would probably have detected the explosive.

The last one stems from Al-Qaida consciously exploiting the known sensitivity in the West in favor of the privacy of private parts, but that is merely the final failure in this chain. The others could have and should have been uncovered by linking information held in separate places together. Maybe there is a machine being built at Carnegie Mellon that would have done the linkage automatically, but I suspect it won't be built for a while yet, and it certainly has not been built, tested, and issued to analysts to use. At least there are searchable data stores where such a machine could actually have worked, unlike in 2001 when the data itself was stuffed into impenetrable silos.

So the defect in linking the other three pieces goes back to the analysts and their culture of omniscience (as in, "I know more than you, but here's a tidbit to prove I'm a team player and to prove I know more than you"). The analysts are talking more than in 2001, but they are still not sharing their assumptions, like the one that everyone would know Abdulmutallab had a valid visa, and certainly not their methods and reasoning.

At least there are signs that the security infrastructure and even the analysts' culture are improving, albeit too slowly. The distressing thing to me in how this is playing out is the devolution of the political culture. True patriots, presumably including politicians, should be working out how to resource the under-resourced security infrastructure, and how to prove to people who think they know better already that they really don't. They should not be wasting their time or ours casting aspersions on the character of people who didn't personally make those mistakes.

Posted by: Publius14 | December 31, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

It's a measure of how disconnected and compartmentalized out discourse had become that anyone listens to Cheney at all. This is ca sick man who's been wrong about absolutely everything and now tries to pretend his failures were successes. The guy belongs in s war crimes tribunal in another country.

Probably thinks if ge keeps tossing up distractions he'll die in bed instead.

We're not "at war.". We're occupying two countries for very dubious reasons.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 31, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Fear-Hate Monger Campaign 2010-2012

The Republican "State of Desperation"

The "Any Political Opening Will Do Tour"
____

Republican Hate Mongers in 2010-2012 Mode

Republicans Praying on their Knees for a Successful Terrorist Attack.

Republicans On their Knees Praying for the Economy To get Worse, and Not Get Better.

Republicans on their Knees Praying that the Unemployment Rates Grow Even Higher.

Republicans on their Knees wanting something Bad to happen to the President of the USA.

Republicans on their Knees Praying for No Health Care Reform.

Republicans on their Knees Praying for the Absolute Worse for America, Under the Obama Presidency, Placing their Political Titles Over America and the American Population.

Bad Kharma, Bad Kharma Bad Kharma

Posted by: omaarsblade | December 31, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

B2O2:

Have you read MoDo's column (and, if so, is she a right-winger too)?

http://tinyurl.com/yfsyj73

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"Simplifying" is good, but "OVER-simplifying" to the point of affirmatively mis-stating the truth, not so much. Cheney vetted at least 11 potential candidates for VP, with several of those making the final cut. At that point, THE DECIDER (whether drindl wants to acknowledge reality or not) saw that each of the potential VPs lacked what Cheney did not: the ability to assume office and protect America at all costs.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

CBS NEWS Implicates The CIA: Yemini-based Al Qaeda group has claimed responsibility for the attack, praising Abudulmutallab's attempt to blow up Flight 253 with about 3 ounces of the powerful explosive PETN stashed inside a pair of specially-made underwear, reports CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian.

For many the global security breach represents the kind of system failure detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report.

"We're sharing information better than we did prior to 9/11, but this incident surely illustrates we've got a long ways to go," Hamilton said.

NOTE: IN A STATEMENT,THE CIA DID NOT DISPUTE CBS NEW'S REPORT.

"We learned of him in November, when his father came to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria and sought help in finding him. We did not have his name before then," said Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman. "Also in November, we worked with the embassy to ensure he was in the government's terrorist database - including mention of his possible extremist connections in Yemen.

We also forwarded key biographical information about him to the National Counterterrorism Center. This agency, like others in our government, is reviewing all data to which it had access - not just what we ourselves may have collected

Posted by: omaarsblade | December 31, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

You MAY be a foaming-at-the-mouth wingnut, if you believe...

When Bush took SIX days to (barely) address the shoe bomber incident, and then had Richard Reid tried in a federal court like a (gasp!) criminal, that was perfectly okay. And he was not at fault for the event happening.

But when Obama took TWO days to address (in more detail than Bush did) the Amsterdam flight incident, and then planned to have the Nigerian tried in federal court, it is clear evidence that:

- Obama does not understand that we are at war (PLEASE try to ignore the 30,000 troop increase in Afghanistan or the attacks on Yemen *before* the crotch bomber incident, as those do not fit the meme)...

- Obama is at fault for the incident itself, even though the system that failed is exactly the system the Bush Administration had put into place

- Obama doesn't care about your family. Even though Bush stayed on vacation as well, in an almost (eeriely) identical incident.

Posted by: B2O2 | December 31, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

BTW: if you haven't read it yet, MoDo's column on Obama and terror is BRUTAL. http://tinyurl.com/yfsyj73

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Attention Gallenod -- no simplifying things, hear?

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 31, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

37th and O -- absolutely like Mr. Potter. remember how afraid you are for Jimmy Stewart in their scenes together? I love a good actor, and Lionel Barrymore was working on all burners there.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 31, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

TheBabeNemo:

1) Prosecuting CIA created dis-incentive to protect America;

2) Closing GTMO eliminated our best tool for interrogating KNOWN terrorists and learning about future plans;

3) Bringing the mastermind of 9/11 to NYC, giving him a lawyer and trial in civilian court;

4) Not making a statement for 4 days, GOLFING right after addressing the issue but cutting the game short and racing back to his vacation home when a friend's child slips and hurts himself.

Seriously, if Obama would have taken out Iran's nuke facilities before now, I practically guarantee you that bomber would not have been on that plane Christmas Day.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"During that process, it became evident that Cheney was the best man for the job. Bush, however, was The Decider."

Unintentionally Hilarious Post of the Day.

Posted by: drindl | December 31, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Gallenod:

You are over-simplifying things; Cheney presented several well-qualified persons to Bush (and he was not one of those persons). During that process, it became evident that Cheney was the best man for the job. Bush, however, was The Decider.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse


just what can be blamed on President Obama anyways? that he didn't order the 2 internal reviews before Xmas?

That he's not doing enough to protect the USA? Well, we just found out that all the Bush policies in place (in this instance) failed....... (TSA, watchlists, CIA).

President's on clean up again--this time the airline safety policies of the Bush administration---in place at the time of this---that failed.
Banks and Wall Street debacle inherited.
Now airline safety mess up inherited.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 31, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

You mean political hay like DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen and Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) made yesterday?

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/12/dems_blame_bush.php

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Opa: Bush didn't pick Cheney as his VP. The guy running his VP selection committee picked Cheney as his VP.

Then again, if you remember, Cheney was the guy running the selection process that selected himself as the VP candidate. I'm thinking Bush may have started having second thoughts about that whole thing sometime around 2006.

However, Bush does deserve credit for staying out of the whole mess at this point.

While both parties tend to have a certain level of situational hypocrasy in their chemistry, I don't think the Republicans are doing themselves any favors by attacking Obama over this. It may play well with their base, but it likely just makes them look either hyper-partisan or desperate (or both) to the middle 10% of the electorate that actually decides elections.

Posted by: Gallenod | December 31, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Opa,

You know, that's one thing I've noticed. Bush has not been bashing Obama, at least not that I've heard and I think it's commendable. As the Guardian put it,

"Republicans broke with the tradition of publicly backing a president during a national security crisis when they accused Barack Obama of endangering Americans and being soft on terror over al-Qaida's attempt to bomb a transatlantic flight.'

They are going beyond the pale here --stepping way over the line, in a way that has not been done in the past. Bush, with his father an ex-president, as well, must surely realize this.

I have a feeling that most people-- except the shrinking, extremely partisan and crazed base, will recoil from this naked, crass and opportunistic attempt to make political hay out of a near tragedy.

Posted by: drindl | December 31, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Gallenod,

Thanks for the thoughts. Because I am on something of a break, I am able to spend a bit more time reading the comments section -- and reacting to them -- than I normally am.

And, I know banning is of limited use but I figure we have to try. I feel like I owe it to people like you, Mark in Austin and others who don't regularly comment but do read to try to offer them a forum to express their views in a somewhat civil way.

I know we will never accomplish this fully but I feel like it's still a worthy goal.

Have a great new year's eve.

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | December 31, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

You all have to give Cheney credit for one thing - instead of showing up at Obama's swearing-in dressed as Darth Vader as everyone expected, Cheney pulled up a perfect Mr. Potter.


Surprised the whole country.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 31, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Opa2, what an outside-the-box thought.

Here's my outside the box thought: isn't a single, under-trained, angst-ridden bourgeois terrorist (with a lower case t, for sure) on sedatives with a not-quite-explosive device packed in his underpants kind of a sign that the AQ Yemini branch is on the ropes?

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 31, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Has anybody Googled Sibel Edmonds to read about her case?
The failure of the FBI, CIA and other agencies to swap and coordinate information about the Nigerian undie bomber is very similar to their failure to swap and coordinate the information available before 911 that should have made a simpler job of anticipating the attacks. If you don't know about this, get thee to reading, and it is not winger or lefty mythology - and that's why she is gagged by US courts. It will really inform you and make you wonder more deeply about who runs our government, whether GOP or Democrat.

Posted by: enough3 | December 31, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

There are a couple of issues that have surfaced and possibly some confusion.

First, interrogation >< torture. I have argued that there are grounds for interrogating the Undiebomber, mainly that he has information about AQA. I do not argue in favor of torture as I largely share bsimon's opinion and that of the professionals--it doesn't work. For interrogation of the Undiebomber* to work, it will require time. That's why I think that enemy combatant status be considered.

Second, detainment and prosecution are not mutually exclusive. There is plenty of information available for a successsful prosecution. His actions and statements, observations of eye witnesses, and physical evidence are adequate for prosecution. Parallel tracks are find. Gather evidence for prosecution independently of interrogating him. Some Gitmo detainees have been prosecuted. Providing that there are solid walls to preent information from interrogation making its way to prosecutors, I don't see how enemy combatant status affects a prosecution other than delay.

As an aside, there is no monolithic AQ organization or central command. I've heard the franchise metaphor and think it fits. So, there is AQI (Iraq), AQA (Yemen), AQS (Somalia) etc. Many independent organizations linked by ideology. AQA has emerged as one that is conducting transnational attacks. We now know that there was an attempted bombing in November that was thwarted. The more information we have the better.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 31, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Same old saber rattling Cheney. At least George Bush has the common decency to keep his mouth shut.I wonder sometimes if Bush had picked a more intelligent and less belligerent VP if things would have been different in the past eight years.

Posted by: Opa2 | December 31, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Chris You're a Good Man.


I'm up to here with these Birth Certificate Nuts.

Their beyond sound reasoning.

Hopeless Group.

Desperate, Just any angle to get rid of the President of the USA.

Very Sad Indeed

Thanks for being a Man of Honor & Integrity.

Refreshing to read in a Mad, Mad World

Posted by: omaarsblade | December 31, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Briefly off-topic, but in response to Chris Cilizza:

Chris: This is a political blog. I'd be surprised if the comments section didn't go "wildly out of control" quite regularly given the current level of polarization in our political climate.

It's also a public forum. Yes, you can ban posters, but until you can ban them at a machine IP-address level they'll find their way back in. Even banning e-mail addresses in account creation is only a minor annoyance given the ease with which people can create new, free e-mail accounts.

I have an interest in about half a dozen blogs on the WP site, but this is the only one I read every day. I'm here because the main posts are informative and to read those commenters who have useful thinigs to say. I can filter out the trolls on my own, though it would be helpful if the WP Webmaster could install an "ignore this poster function" so we could just tune out the trolls. That would be far more effective than trying to ban them.

Okay, back to the ugly scrum that is political discourse. :)

Posted by: Gallenod | December 31, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I want to thank you for the carefully balanced and fair way you handled this subject, with one relevant quote from each side -- and the link to the Guardian piece, which as always, does a very good job of reporting what politicians say, but then scrupulously debunking them when they are lying.

Posted by: drindl | December 31, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Dan4,

I am trying to get a bit more involved because the comments section has gone wildly out of control and I want it to become a place where people can pursue thoughtful dialogue with one another.

I read them enough to be somewhat suspicious of "omaars blade" who has emerged as a very frequent poster just as ChrisFox8/GoldandTanzanite/Seattle Top has disappeared.

I find it VERY odd that people who deride me and the blog work time after time to circumvent my attempts to ban them to come back and post.

Anyway, thanks Dan for reading.

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | December 31, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Jake D: On his Knees Hoping ANother Terrorist Attack on President Obama's Watch !!!
______________

Jake D: Responds To Obama's Poll Numbers Inclining Opposed to Declining.


omaarsblade:

Jake D: "Once Americans get back to the daily grind after the holidays (especially once they start going through airports again), that will change [Polls].

Anticipation: "If Another Bomber Tries, it's Over for Obama"

___________

Just Wishing, Hoping & Praying with Great Anticipation of a Terrorsit Attempt to Bomb America, For Political Gain.

Jake D. Knows an Independent Party Candidate Will Never become President.

Jake D. Wants a Republican as President.

What a Low Life !!

My Case & Point Made

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 12:07 PM

Posted by: omaarsblade | December 31, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

i see chris from my porch ((smiles))
and he does not look like a moose to me.

Before Congressman of all kinds everywhere start yelling and screaming about Obama's fault with this and that, they best look to their own states and ask questions like:
"what ever happened to First Responders funding in my state" or "where's our emergency plan" - do we even have one?" "If the plane was descending into another city (in my state)-what would have happened?"


Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 31, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Cillizza: I don't think I've ever seen a WashPo reporter or blogger posting to his/her own comments. I didn't know you guys ever even looked at the comments. How often do you read the comments on The Fix? Every day? Sometimes? Do they ever affect what you write? What about your colleagues at the Post; do they ever read the comments on their articles?

Posted by: Dan4 | December 31, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cilliza:

I'm not arguing about that on this thread; I am explicitly CONCEDING that point for the sake of arguing the instant topic. That's what "assuming arguendo" means.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

CBS News: The CIA was keeping tabs on a man they called “The Nigerian" who was meeting with “terrorist elements" in August, months before his father contacted the U.S. embassy, concerned his son was getting mixed up with Islamic radicals, CBS News reports.

“The Nigerian" was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man who attempted to blow up Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day, but the connection was not made among U.S. intelligence authorities until Abdulmutallab’s post-flight arrest at Detroit's airport.

The CIA did not dispute the CBS News report. President Obama criticized on Tuesday the "Systemic Failure" of the Nation's Security Apparatus.

Posted by: omaarsblade | December 31, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Just days before the Inauguration, Rush Limbaugh Declared, “I Hope [Obama] Fails." He's Continued to Say, "I Hope All His Policies Fail",

Some Conservatives have been hesitant to Embrace Limbaugh's Views.

Pat Robertson said, “That was a Terrible thing to say, If he Fails, The Entire Country Fails"

(R-SC)Gov. Mark Sanford “Anybody who wants him to Fail is an Idiot,"

Responding to Sanford, Limbaugh Reiterated his Position Yesterday, saying, the... “The He!! If We Don’t want Obama to Fail" ...

The only Reason Limbaugh wants President Obama to FAIL, is that His Fat Carcass will Not get Access back into the White House, until President Obama is out of the White House. He had Unlimited Access to the WH under Bush-Cheney, he Constantly Bragged to his Audience, about all the Swank WH Affairs, he Enjoyed following the WH Events he Attended, Celebarting the Bush-Cheney Office and having Unlimited Access to George W. Bush.

He's Out in a Democratic WH Presidency and he can't Stand it, He can't stand being on the outside, looking in, all he's left with is Raging & Waging War On Everything Obama.

Limbuagh is Obssessed with getting back in the White House.

Posted by: omaarsblade | December 31, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

GOP Jumps The Gun On Obama, Closed Eyes on Bush-Cheney...

The bellowing by Republicans over the Obama administration's supposedly lackadaisical response to the attempted bombing of an airliner over Detroit seems as much about political posturing as legitimate national security concerns.

How else to explain the GOP's relatively quiet reaction eight years ago to President George W. Bush's detached response after a similarly-botched terrorist attack?

Big Note: On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid -- known more infamously as the shoe bomber -- failed in his attempt to blow up a Miami-bound jet using explosives hidden in his shoe. Coming less than four months after September 11, there already were deep concerns about a potential attack during the upcoming holiday break. Nevertheless, President Bush did not directly address the foiled plot for six days, according to an extensive review of newspaper records from that time period. And when he did, it was only in passing.

Posted by: omaarsblade | December 31, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Gallenod that this war is no WWII (those enemies didn't have nukes ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

A few notes:

1. JakeD -- Since it's my blog, I make the rules. And, if you want to argue about the President's birth certificate, you can do it somewhere else. Period.

2. There is some stuff that borders on ad hominem attacks on JakeD...let's stick to talking about the two parties and the issues and leave the personal nastiness out of it.

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | December 31, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

omaarsblade:

What a terrible accusation -- I am not "praying for a successful terrorist attack" -- and I've been a registered member of the American INDEPENDENT Party since 1967, what about you?

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

The "undiebomber," while working for a terrorist organization, commited a criminal act. I have no problem with treating him like a criminal and prosecuting him in Federal court like any other criminal for several reasons.

1. Even if he's "lawyered up" and remains silent, he doesn't have a hope in Hell of escaping conviction.

2. It's highly unlikely he any actionalble intelligence about any other potential terrorist attacks. The AQ group he was allegedly working for is not the main AQ organization and this guy was a patsy they sent out to test the system. They don't tell these guys anything other than where to go and what to do.

3. Terrorists want special status. They want to be martyrs, either by dying for the cause or holding their own under torture to show their bravery and dedication to the cause. I say treat them like the common criminals they are and perp-march them through the American justice system right next to rest of the alleged scum and take the glamour out of the process.

This isn't WWII -- we're not fighting another nation-state with whom we may want diplomatic relations some day after the war is over. AQ is a non-governmental criminal organization who doesn't want to normalize relations. They just want to watch the world burn.

It's likely, by the way, that the main AQ organization is highly annoyed with the Yemenis for sponsoring this, as it likely jumped the gun on a larger, coordinated multiple attack using the same technique. If this had been a mainline AQ operation, there would have been a dozen or more of these guys flying simultaneously and they'd have been much better trained and likely more deadly.

So, in one sense, we should probalby thank the Yemeni group for both exposing the method and botching it by sending someone who couldn't execute it successfully. Now we know what to look for and (bonus) no one had to die for the knowledge.

Terrorists happen. I'd like less political posturing and more action. What matters is getting the Intel community to stop the continuous visual inspections of their own transverse colons and share and act on information better. And maybe all those Congresscritters who voted against full-body scanners in airports will vote for them this time.

And one more thing...

Have a Safe and Happy New Year!

Posted by: Gallenod | December 31, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Jake D: You Voted George W. Bush back into Office for 2 Terms after these Incidents Following 911
_____________

Under George W. Bush...

1. 911 Attacks Killing 3,000 Americans

2. The Anthrax Attacks on U.S. Congress Sept. 20. 2001

3. Richard Reid The "Shoe Bomber" December 22 2001

All Under a Republican President and Majority Ruling Republican Senate-Congress, from 2001-2006.

Republican Talking Points: "Bush Kept us Safe" "No Attacks After 911"

Borderline Bull-Spit !!
_____________

Posted by: omaarsblade | December 31, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Question: When will the Republican Party, The Tea Party, Fox News and The National Hate Mongering Groups, Ever going to Stop Praying for a Successful Terrorist Attack on President Obama's Watch ?

Answer: NEVER !!

The Republican Party are just Praying Fervently for a Terrorist Attack, just to get Anyone in the Oval Office Other than President Obama, Very Evil, Very Sad, Very Desperate & Very Distasteful. This is How EVIL these People are, The Man's been President for 11 Months and these A!! Holes want the WORSE THING to HAPPEN, To AMERICANS for POLITICAL GAINS in 2010 & Especially 2012

These Low life's are this Desperate, that they Desire, Want & Crave a major terrorist Attack on America, for Political Gains [Very Sad] Indeed.

When You Think of the GOP Think of the Mentality of Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Ted Kaczynski & Randy Weaver.
_________________

Warped & Twisted Logic

Note: The Republicans Only Love the Dreaded, Intrusive Government, when a Republican President is in the Oval Office..

[[Warped-Twisted & Pitiful ]]

Posted by: omaarsblade | December 31, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Jake D & The GOP Mentality: Republican Hate Mongers in 2010-2012 Mode
____________

Republicans Praying on their Knees for a Successful Terrorist Attack.

Republicans On their Knees Praying for the Economy To get Worse, and Not Get Better.

Republicans on their Knees Praying that the Unemployment Rates Grow Even Higher.

Republicans on their Knees wanting something Bad to happen to the President of the USA.

Republicans on their Knees Praying for No Health Care Reform.

Republicans on their Knees Praying for the Absolute Worse for America, Under the Obama Presidency, Placing their Political Titles Over America and the American Population.

Bad Kharma, Bad Kharma Bad Kharma

Posted by: omaarsblade | December 31, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

enough3

I made my case that intelligence demands make trials completely unworkable. The Courts are thus rendered into a state of disfunction - because of the demands of intelligence, the Courts are unable to operate in a way that also protects the public from future attacks.


I was not talking about torture.


All the people who were quick to condemn the approach of the Bush administration - now they are confronted with the same questions under Obama - do we protect our sources and seek out additional intelligence?


We have an ONGOING INTELLIGENCE SITUATION.


In this environment, open trials are going to be counter-productive.


Obama is now confronted with the same issues that Bush was: how do we protect our sources and make SURE that we know about the next threat to the fullest extent possible ???


I really do not believe Obama ever "got it."


NOW, I was going to say Obama is in the oval office - Obama is on a golf course or on the beach in Hawaii.


But when Obama does get back to the Oval Office he can decide - WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT - PRESENTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL FOR THIS GUY OR FINDING OUT ABOUT THE NEXT POTENTIAL ATTACK ???

We can lock this guy up at Gitmo tomorrow and move onto prevention.

It is sad that the Obama administration doesn't have this stuff down yet -

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 31, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

now jake, you know the CIA and FBI, for generations passed, have just loved to make the sitting President shake in his boots. They are the government. They take no orders.
Very republican.

Any President trying to knock on the door of the CIA or FBI (for info. or investigation), is unheard of. And vice versa. Ask Woosley, under Clinton.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 31, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse


so it's
1. CIA-with emphasis on international
2. TSA
3. Watchlists

Holland will use the total recall machines on all US flights. That's a big step since a week ago, they weren't.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 31, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Careful, Blarg and drindl, with the ad hominem personal attacks ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Exactly, blarg -- useless.

Posted by: drindl | December 31, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Chris_Cillizza:

RE-litigate?! It hasn't even been litigated ONCE, on the merits; regardless, all I said is "assuming arguendo" (look it up : )

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

jakey:
CIA hasn't been progressive since the passage of the Homeland Security Act under Bush-that created Homeland Security.
Heck, CIA and FBI haven't talked to each other since JFK. That's how many years has this CIA/FBI behavior been prevalent.

hilter would have the right to remain silent if he was captured. the logistics of the capture would be important.

abdulmutallab was read his miranda rights as soon as he was apprehended and arrested for attempting to blow up an airplane.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 31, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

The FBI Minneapolis FBI agent I mentioned is real.
And so is Sibel Edmonds - just Google her name and enjoy the read. It's really scary what she has to say about stuff she translated and has been under a gag for 8 years. Take your right wing paranoia and this will really get you guys going...

Posted by: enough3 | December 31, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Blarg:

I didn't say that. Since you aren't going to actually answer any of the questions I've asked you, there's nothing you could say to get me down today -- I'm celebrating a HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

"The year is about up and I won't be here in 2010, not under any moniker.

Reading posts by mentally ill people leaves me exhausted and sickened; in my real life I would never associate with such bent, twisted people, and I've endured too much of them here.

So have fun guys, enjoy being on contact with unemployed racists, I'll be surfing somewhere the moderators don't play favorites."

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 28, 2009 8:22 PM

THERE IS A GOD!!!

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Folks,

A remarkably restrained debate in the comments section for what, I know, is a very touchy topic. Thanks for that.

A sidenote: JakeD -- PLEASE let's leave the Obama/birth certificate debate out of ALL posts. It's demonstrably false and by continuing to try to re-litigate it, you undermine your other arguments.

Best,
Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | December 31, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Let's review what we've learned today about the mind of JakeD:

1. Sending troops to fight against Islamic extremists is paying "lip service" to the war on terror.
2. If any prisoner is given any civil rights, the war on terror is immediately lost.
3. If the president doesn't spend all his time yelling about how we're fighting a war on terror and the terrorists need to beware, our country is less safe.
4. There's absolutely no point in attempting to discuss anything with JakeD. Of course, we knew that already.

Posted by: Blarg | December 31, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

37th handle:
The undie guy started talking immediately )like on the plane the second they put out the fire) and apparently will continue to do so. Besides, the various intel services (US, German, French, Saudi, Yemeni, etc.) all together probably have a much better idea of what AQ is up to than this newbie pathetic psychologically weak kid from a privileged home.

What's to gain from torturing him, other than some stiffening of the male organs momentarily by the S&M types who enjoy seeing others suffer, and then getting told a bunch of invented information. Don't you guys ever read or inform yourselves? Torture doesn't work, period. All the experts agree.

Bush/Cheney were tough and where'd that get us? Nowhere but worse off. Obama is no more responsible for undie bomber than Bush was for shoe bomber. Everybody is doing what they can, but the intel types just won't share their information. Like the Minneapolis FBI agent that tried to get upward types interested in what she was finding before 911, but unsuccessfully, and now they have her silenced because it's too embarrassing. Get your self informed and deprogrammed. Truth is tougher than propaganda, and it ain't partisan.

Posted by: enough3 | December 31, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

omaarsblade:

Once Americans get back to the daily grind after the holidays (especially once they start going through airports again), that will change. If another bomber tries, it's over for Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Polls Show No Political Backlash Against Obama After Flight 253 -- Even A Possible Improvement


Have the Republican political attacks on President Obama over the Flight 253 attempted bombing been working? So far the answer is no, from the polls that have come out since then -- if anything, Obama's approval rating may have gone up slightly.

In the Gallup daily tracking poll released on December 24, before the attack, Obama's approval rating was 51%, with 42% disapproval. In the daily Rasmussen daily tracking poll, conducted during that same baseline period of December 21-23, Obama was at 44%-56% (Rasmussen consistently has Obama's approval lower, and disapproval higher, than other outlets).

In the polls released yesterday, which were both conducted entirely after the attempted bombing, Gallup has Obama at 53%-41%, and Rasmussen has him at 47%-52%. Today's Rasmussen poll is 46%-53%. Although the two polls are in different positions, the movement is roughly the same, with a very slight increase in Obama's approval compared to the week before.

While this movement is obviously too small to suggest there's been a definite improvement for Obama, and there certainly hasn't been any sort of rally-around-the-flag effect, we can definitely rule out any sort of political backlash that Republicans have been trying to create.

Posted by: omaarsblade | December 31, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Imagine if FDR / Truman had "prosecuted" WWII like Obama / Napolitano are? Did HITLER have the "right to remain silent" had he been captured?

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

jameschirico:

Assuming arguendo that Obama is legally CIC, he has done all of those things (setting aside the delays, the fact that even more troops were requested, and the artificial timeline for withdrawal) as mere lip service. Obama wants to read the bomber his rights -- starting with "you have the right to remain silent." Is that FIGHTING THE WAR to you?

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

TheBabeNemo:

And why do YOU think the CIA has been less aggressive since, oh, say January 20, 2009?

Blarg:

Obama wants to read the bomber his rights - starting with "you have the right to remain silent." Is that FIGHTING THE WAR to you?

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

if they are looking to "blame", as they always are...
it's the CIA. All evidence is pointing to the fact that the first ball was dropped when the memo from the US Embassy (based on father's warning) sat on a desk for 5 weeks---in a CIA office on the mainland.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 31, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

drindl:

What's "changed" is that GWB was not pretending to be at war with al Qaeda.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, I was confusing my Islamic extremists: Ramzi bin al Shibh, not Abdul Raheem, was sent to GTMO ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"During a telephone interview on MSNBC today Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) failed to reconcile the hypocrisy inherent in Republican criticisms of President Obama's allegedly soft or slow reaction to the attempted attack on flight 253. As MSNBC's Milissa Rehberger pointed out, then-President George W. Bush took six days to issue a response to shoe bomber Richard Reid's failed attack in 2001 -- far longer than President Obama took to address flight 253.

Plus, Reid had a trial in civilian court -- though Republicans have jumped all over the Obama administration for not trying Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in a military tribunal."

So what's changed?

Posted by: drindl | December 31, 2009 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər, ˈte-rər\
Function: noun
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear

For the wing-nuts on here I'll put it together for you, terrorism is the use of intense fear as a means of coersion. In other words, republicans attempt to instill fear in the voting public for their own good is terrorism by its very definition. Republicans have been doing it since 2001 and hopefully the voting public will not let republican terrorism influence their decisions.

Posted by: zackool | December 31, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

To all the posters here:

We have a pretty clear question before us here which has emerged:


Do you want to find out as much we can from the Detroit bomber - do you want to interrogate him -


Do you want to find out everything he knows about the terror cells in YEMEN which may be plotting more terrorist attacks against the US ???

Are there really hundreds of terrorists training in YEMEN ready to come here ???


OR DO YOU WANT TO LAWYER THIS GUY UP ???


What is more important - preparing everything for trial, making sure he understands that he has the "right to remain silent "

If we have someone on the ground in YEMEN who is giving us information, do we want to use any of that information at a trial for this guy ?


OR do we want to reserve that information, because it might help us to prevent future terrorist attacks ???

OK - ANOTHER QUESTION


What if we arrest three other terrorists AND the only evidence we have to convict them is from the person we have in YEMEN, who we are relying on for information about the next set of attacks?


Should we give up that one guy we have in YEMEN, just to convict those three guys?

Or should we hold back that information, so we learn more about the next attack, but we end up with a completely unworkable case at trial ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 31, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

jameschirico:

You are aware that GWB sent the Shoebomber to GTMO, right?

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

jameschirico is a poster who is paying attention. Much better than uninformed Right Wing Fairy Tales like:

This terrorist attempt would not have happened if America had elected McCain instead.

If McCain had bomb, bomb, bombed Iran on his first day in office, I can practically guarantee you this terrorist would not have been on that plane Christmas Day.

"this administration along with the Democrat-led Congress has been derelict in its duty when it comes to seriously confronting the terrorist threat."

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 31, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1


To answer your question, Obama wants to read the bomber his rights - starting with "you have the right to remain silent."


I wonder if Obama has already arranged for the Detroit bomber to have a lawyer, paid for by the US government, who is going to tell the terrorist to "remain silent."


The whole process of the trial starts with reading his rights.


So how can we interrogate this guy? It just becomes so unworkable.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 31, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe: Can Obama call out his critics like Rep. Luis Gutierrez who threatens to hold out his entire caucus if the health care reform bill does not include coverage for individuals in the United States illegally?

The President has a ton of accounts payable that I'm not so certain he can make good on the payments. He's mortgaged an awful lot of political capital to get where he is. He started strong with approval near 80. That's an awesome figure that put him in a strong position to drive the type of change he campaigned so successfully on. But to get to the White House he had to buy and sell favors just like every candidate in our history.

Cheney could make a strong argument against the policies of the Obama Administration. The President himself chose to revise his own statement from the 29th with a much more forceful and strong statement on the 30th. He clearly got it that Napolitano had created a rather large hole in the White House security image with a flap like "the system worked" and then having to backtrack for three days on what she really meant.

The White House should ignore the Republicans and especially Cheney. For some reason they appear to enjoy going after them. I really don't remember the Bush Administration going after Al Gore despite the type of rhetoric he used for 8 years.

Posted by: snannerb | December 31, 2009 11:32 AM | Report abuse

FarlingtonBlade writes
"Does this person have useful information about the AQA cells in Yemen? Yes. Is it possible to learn any of this information? Well... you'll never know unless you ask.

I don't think that the U.S. gains much by chucking this guy into a cell and throwing away the key."


I don't see how putting him on trial eliminates the possibility of interrogating him.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 31, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

The complaining around here about banning Gold and Tanzanite is a little curious.


I suspect that several of these posters on here have actually been working together - and somehow you have disrupted their strategy.


In fact, it appears to me that there is a concerted attempt to intimidate other posters - to harass other posters in an attempt to silence them.


The behavior is extremely suspicious - and it is very similar to what we saw last year during the campaign.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 31, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

jameschirico, you forget that Obama did those things while not talking tough. He's continued fighting the war on terror without constantly talking about it. That's not good enough for JakeD, who'd prefer a president that shouts "Bring it on!" without accomplishing anything.

Posted by: Blarg | December 31, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Get well soon Rush.

Posted by: snowbama | December 31, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Fairlington:

You said you wanted torture and now you are stuck with it - you have switched to the dark side with Darth Cheney - and you are not allowed to go back.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 31, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Say what you want about GWB, but there was not a single terrorist attack on (or over) U.S. soil since 2001 up until Obama took over.
Palin-Rumsfeld 2012
Posted by: JakeD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama has no 9/11, no London, Madrid, Bali, etc. and the same Reid type failed bomber as Dubya. When he allowed the investment banks to manipulate the price of oil to $140 the $600 rebate that would have kept the economy squeaking along was doubly eaten by energy prices bursting the housing/leverage bubble backed by useless no reserves AIG insurance.

Posted by: jameschirico | December 31, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


You are contradicting yourself - first you claim that no one should be able to blame Obama for a lunatic, and yet in the same paragraph you claim that it is perfectly reasonable to blame Bush for that same lunatic.


You really can not have it both ways.


The main problem is that Obama has been campaigning and now governing on what is essentially irrational national security policies, and now reality is setting in.


In addition, the "blame Bush" crowd, which has been irrational and unreasonable from the start, now has to take a taste of their own medicine.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 31, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I was a bit too glib. I am not advocating torture. The U.S. has obtained actionable intelligence through detention and interrogation at Gitmo and elsewhere. Does this person have useful information about the AQA cells in Yemen? Yes. Is it possible to learn any of this information? Well... you'll never know unless you ask.

I don't think that the U.S. gains much by chucking this guy into a cell and throwing away the key.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 31, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Obama up in polls:

"In the polls released yesterday, which were both conducted entirely after the attempted bombing, Gallup has Obama at 53%-41%"

Posted by: drindl | December 31, 2009 10:58 AM
________

That's good news. I think BHO has been about the same--between about 53 (what he got in November 08) and 56 -- for months. Pretty darn good given the negative agenda driven Rasmussen-type polls and the relentless sky-is-falling narratives from this space and Drudge/BroderWorld.

I do share MoDo's concern about BHO's reluctance to hit back on any front. In his health care speech to Congress, BHO said he would start calling his enemies out but, as Fix coworker Courtland Milloy commented awhile back, he never did. Good grief, even Jackie Robinson swung back in his later years.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2009 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Actions so far this year by the current CIC. Initially ordered 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan, a request going back to 2007. Increased drone attacks, not only in the Af-Pak theater but Somalia, Kenya and Yemen. Funded immediately 70 million to fight Al Qaeda in Yemen. Took McChrystal's 3 year build up and ten year country building to a 6 month move up in deployment of 30,000 men, with a tentative drawdown date of July 2011. He gave 150 million for IDPs caused by the Pakistan Swat Valley and S. Waziristan sweeps enabling their operation. He traded a useless against the bear missile defense for new air delivery corridors to Afghanistan and U.N. sanctions on N. Korea and Iran. He cut the Taliban logistical center in Nawzad Valley with operation Cobra's Anger. When the general in charge of Hellmand says he expects to have the provence under control by next November, I believe him. Obama also has told Pakistan take care of the Quetta Shura or our drones will. That is a threat that may be too far with ISI cracking down on our personell in Pakistan. That Jake D about summarizes it.

Posted by: jameschirico | December 31, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Blade it makes no sense. It is wrong to hold anyone indefinately so SOME will see a courtroom. Some will get a fair trial and then be executed.

Posted by: snowbama | December 31, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Farlington Blade writes
"I don't think that the Nigerian government is going to complain too much. Why not squeeze the Charmin?"


Because it doesn't work.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 31, 2009 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Says a lot about the state of USA and it's culture that this has now become a battle of party rhetoric's.. and the citizens are so stupid as to support such things.

THE ISSUE is the safety of the nation, NOT the safety of one's chosen party... and for sure, as those with IQ above 10 know..the party's and partisan fools that support such, are bigger threat to USA then any terrorists. and the bad guys know it. How disgusting, this "R/D's fault"... we truly fiddle while USA burns, a bunch of partisan terrorists... how sad we have become, how rabidly mad we act.. no wonder USA's sunset is visible.. Lil Abner was right about whom the real enemy is... Rather obvious most posters live in NE Power Triangle area... as only out for self and party.. not the nation..

Posted by: amused6 | December 31, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Great clip, d.

Gene's entire piece was terrific, but obviously his reality-based message is not what this space wants to hear. That BHO is to blame for some lunatic with a device in his undies is beyond ridiculous. It was the rottwelier's militaristic policies (that had nothing to do with U.S. interests or national security) that created the fertile environment for these nuts to flourish around the world. These guys did not come from the womb hating America.

BTW, will the Post give Jake, melt, and 37 health benefits? Just wonderin'.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2009 11:01 AM | Report abuse

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/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | December 31, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Could 2010 be the year of the moonbat free Fix? It is simply too delicious to contemplate. Imagine the possibilites.

Of course liberals would have to do what they say. We have been fooled before.

Posted by: snowbama | December 31, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Many of the posts here reinforce my militant moderate position: I hope both parties destroy each other by continuing to completely alienate the center.

I just hope they don't take us down with them.

Posted by: seahawkdad | December 31, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

When the change is made to try all the terrorists at trial, there is an immediate tension created between the intelligence-gathering demands and the "rules of evidence" at trial.

===

Except that the change hasn't been made to try all terrorists at trial. Obama specifically stated that there are those who will be held indefinitely without trial. The remainder of your critique is therefore based on faulty premises.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 31, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Cheney is a failed, frustrated despot and his five Viet Nam era draft deferments -"I had more important things to do" - show he is a coward, subversive and no account in building our democracy. Much more dangerous than Al Qaeda because he was working and subverting America from the inside, and was able to do severe damage to our social contract, laws, democratic process, and faith in the good faith of leaders duly elected: he has eternally harmed the US.

Are we safer after 8 years of Cheney/Bush? Not much, and much more hated and much poorer in so many ways. Contrary to what Dick alleges, the shoebomber happened under Bush/Cheney - so much for truth or accuracy.
The real tragedy is that the GOP has become a party with only one goal - to regain and hold power - and has become a venal, stupid, untrustworthy and vicious machine to attack all who prevent its return to power by any means. It has abandoned the inevitable prospect of sometimes being out of power due to democratic elections, and even fails to accept the legitimacy of elections where it doesn't win, thereby undermining all trust in government by Republicans. It sure sounds like they have been carefully studying the Bolsheviks and and National Socialists' playbooks for nefariously getting, holding and abusing power.

As an independent of many decades, I also want to say that the Democrats have been mugwumps and wusses for not standing up vigorously to these new GOP criminals tactics. Eric Massa (D-NY) yesterday gave the best Democratic reply to the GOP I have ever seen.

Posted by: enough3 | December 31, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Obama up in polls:

"In the polls released yesterday, which were both conducted entirely after the attempted bombing, Gallup has Obama at 53%-41%"

Posted by: drindl | December 31, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse

I am going to try this again because I really do not believe the posters here get it:


When the change is made to try all the terrorists at trial, there is an immediate tension created between the intelligence-gathering demands and the "rules of evidence" at trial.


The people gathering the intelligence DO NOT want their information revealed at trial - it will reveal their sources and methods - it may betray people who have been giving us information.


Revealing information at trial may have a chilling effect on future operations because sources may be concerned that information revealed at a potential future trial could be traced back to them.


So the certain result is the desire to "hold back" evidence at trial - situations are created in which we know the terrorists are guilty, but the government does not want to reveal the information at trial.


You have a sort of "just enough" game which must be played.


It gets more complicated than that.


Our sources - the people feeding us information in the field and in foreign countries - may have a different idea on what they want revealed at trial - for fear that the terrorist networks could trace back to them who was feeding us information.

The result is a chilling effect on our ability to get new information.

HOW CAN ANY OF THIS BE GOOD FOR OUR COUNTRY ???

Let's go one step further - the Obama administration is now reviewing the available evidence we have against the terrorists held at Gitmo.

Under the same standards, if it is deemed that we do not want to give up certain sources, it may be decided to RELEASE the terrorist, instead of going forward with a weaker set of evidence.


Obama is running right up against a wall of evidence which no one wants to reveal in open court -


AND at the same time, Obama wants to avoid the embarrassment of losing a terrorism trial in which the government "held back" evidence - or had a Court throw out the weakened case on other, unanticipated, grounds.

OH, but the above quotes are coming from the Obama people - questioning the motives of others.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 31, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Blarg:

Are you still around? Was yours simply a drive-by post?

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

It seems the "open minded" liberals on this blog can't tolerate any other views outside the chanting and fawning mutual admiration echo chamber.

When forcibly confronted with fact, they run away. Why do liberals always run away? Barry is essentially running from our enemies.

The alleged criminals deserve every benefit of the doubt. Dead Americans will ensue. Who will Barry blame next time?

Posted by: snowbama | December 31, 2009 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Joe, had to quote this part of it -- other Post writers ought to take Robinson's advice instead of simply quoting The Rottwieler's lies:

"It's pathetic to break a New Year's resolution before we even get to New Year's Day, but here I go. I had promised myself that I would do a better job of ignoring Dick Cheney's corrosive and nonsensical outbursts -- that I would treat them, more or less, like the pearls of wisdom one hears from homeless people sitting in bus shelters.

But he is a former vice president, which gives him a big stage for his histrionic Rottweiler-in-Winter act. It is never a good idea to let widely disseminated lies and distortions go unchallenged. And the shrill screed that Cheney unloosed Wednesday is so full of outright mendacity that, well, my resolution will have to wait."

And I also agree with you that now this blog has become the home of the homeless, it's not worth bothering with.

Posted by: drindl | December 31, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Say what you want about GWB, but there was not a single terrorist attack on (or over) U.S. soil since 2001 up until Obama took over.

Palin-Rumsfeld 2012

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse
HA HA HA
Thanks for sending out 2009 in a blaze of nonsesical humor.

no attacks SINCE 2001...other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

Palin as POTUS, at what point in her term would she resign in order to be a more effective leader?

Thanks and Happy Holidays

Posted by: dont_remember | December 31, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

There is one very effective argument for the Republicans. Namely, that the Undiebomber should be declared an enemy combatant. He has actionable intelligence regarding a new Al Qaeda threat.

Agreed-no information obtained by interrogation of the Undiebomber could be used in a court trial. Do we need any? He tried to set of a B O M B mid-flight. He has professed to being a member of AQA. This guy is never going to be released.

I'm not arguing for water boarding here. Rather, that he doesn't have the constitutional rights accorded, say, to the Fort Hood shooter (sorry, alleged shooter). He's not an American citizen. He was not on U.S. territory when he was detained or when he attempted to set off a bomb. Until you check through Immigration, you are on foreign soil.

I don't think that the Nigerian government is going to complain too much. Why not squeeze the Charmin?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 31, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

snowbama:

If McCain had bomb, bomb, bombed Iran on his first day in office, I can practically guarantee you this terrorist would not have been on that plane Christmas Day. I think that there should be Muslim and non-Muslim flights.

shrink2 (if you get back in time to see this):

Is ANY of what I've posted new enough to merit your interest?

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

OK guys - let's start with this: INSTEAD OF GATHERING INTELLIGENCE ON TERRORISM,

Obama has the bright idea that the first thing we should say to enemy combatants is "You have the right to remain silent."


EVEN ON THE BATTLEFIELD IN AFGHANISTAN.


THAT IS NOT GATHERING INTELLIGENCE.


Some of these policies do not increase the security of this country.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 31, 2009 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Imagine if FDR / Truman had "prosecuted" WWII like Obama / Napolitano are?

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Jake. Not sure about that. But the response certainly would have been different. Perhaps action in the same year for example. Perhaps mentioning the jihad nature of our enemy. Perhaps sending the guy to be intetogated. Perhaps not hiding the network relation between all these guys - not an isolated extremist. Not everything is working fine. Not give the guy a lawyer. Not pander to the ACLU.

In other words - competence.

Posted by: snowbama | December 31, 2009 10:38 AM | Report abuse

@Jake, melt, and 37: the keys to this blog are under the mat. Hope you enjoy your new home. Happy New Year.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2009 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday, at the official Obama blog, White House Communications Director, Dan Pfeiffer, tried to point out all of the public statements of Obama's that explicitly state we are at war, arguing:

"The difference is this: President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it, and – unlike the last Administration – we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered."

REALLY? Well, Mr. Pfeiffer, actions speak louder than words (especially when Obama goes GOLFING right after addressing the issue but cuts the game short and races back to his vacation home when a friend's child slips and hurts himself). He is trying to pretend that we are NOT at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war.

But we are at war, and when he ACTS like we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Just because it doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be his goal — social transformation — the restructuring of American society.

REALLY???!!

Blarg, are you reading ANY of this?

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Jake,

Chris Fox used to use that same cited/sighted stuff to intimidate you. It's weak, small and off-topic to address spelling and grammar errors rather than arguments.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 31, 2009 10:33 AM | Report abuse

"Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan, in a statement issued this morning, derided the "crass political opportunism" being practiced by Republicans, adding: "Let's be clear -- we will not be lectured to by Republicans who are more interested in scoring cheap political points and cashing in on an attempted terrorist attack than in protecting America.""
__________

This hardly sounds like blaming the other party for the plane tragedy as this space has tried to characterize it. What person (outside of Drudge/BroderWorld) could disagree with a call not to politicize this matter? Sideline cheerleading for some political "fist fight," rather than condemning the politicization, is sad. Let's face it, unless you want to resort to a complete police state (the ultimate neo-con/neo-seg dream), you cannot stop an armed sociopath with an evil agenda.

The Fix's Pulitzer Prize winning Post coworker, Eugene Robinson, seems to have a much more civil, and fact-based, take on all this. Excerpt from Gene's piece today:

"In a statement to Politico, Cheney seemed to be trying to provide talking points for opponents of the Obama administration who -- incredibly -- would exploit the Christmas Day terrorist attack for political gain. Cheney's broadside opens with a big lie, which he then repeats throughout. It is as if he believes that saying something over and over again, in a loud enough voice, magically makes it so.

"As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war," Cheney begins.

Flat-out untrue."

A nice cautionary note that others at the Post might listen to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/30/AR2009123001696.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

@JakeD: Even though this space is, once again, "Jake's Place" -- now that a commenter who objected to the explicit racism of many posts (and bigoted attacks against our President) has been banned by the host -- me thinks Don Diego de la Vega may return one day if things get too ridiculous.


Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2009 10:33 AM | Report abuse

snowbama:

Exactly. This terrorist attempt would not have happened if America had elected McCain instead.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 10:28 AM | Report abuse

drindl:

It's not hypocritical because Bush wasn't pretending to be at war, and I think you (or whomever you cut & pasted from) have forgotten the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center -- Clinton was President then -- and for whatever reason, he refused to take bin Ladin when Somalia offered ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse

The US is projecting weakness in the world with the expected results. Iran is building bombs. Russia is considering new missiles. Korea is testing long range devices. China does as they please. Al queda is ramping up for a new campaign. It seems everyone knows that deadlines and consequences are as fictional as the other campaign promises.

Bad guys knew if you messed with bush, you would pay. Now they look forward to apologies instead.

The notion of signalling in game theory is established in behavior studies. We are signalling weak and indecisive. Message received.

Posted by: snowbama | December 31, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

davidsawh:

I've been a registered member of the American INDEPENDENT Party since 1967. Why do you think we are a "band of freaks"?

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 10:21 AM | Report abuse

'On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid — known more infamously as the shoe bomber — failed in his attempt to blow up a Miami-bound jet using explosives hidden in his shoe. Coming less than four months after September 11, there already were deep concerns about a potential attack during the upcoming holiday break. Nevertheless, President Bush did not directly address the foiled plot for six days. And when he did, it was only in passing.'

"Cheney’s claim that the Obama administration’s response to the attempted airline bombing is “trying to pretend we are not at war” is especially hypocritical because one of the Bush administration’s first public comments on the 2001 attempted shoe bombing specifically called it a “law enforcement” issue. At a press conference five days after the incident, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld brushed off questions about Richard Reid’s failed bombing by saying, “That’s a matter that’s in the hands of the law enforcement people and not the Department of Defense.” “And I don’t have anything I would want to add,” said Rumsfeld."


There have been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil in the modern era, except under Republican President George W Bush, and that says it all.

Posted by: drindl | December 31, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

It's not just the "talk" Blarg but also the "walk". Closing GTMO, prosecuting terrorists in NYC, etc.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

It's fools like that idiot jaked that have ruined the chances of the repukes. It confirms there are no adults in that band of freaks.

Posted by: davidsawh | December 31, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

"Let's be clear -- we will not be lectured to by Republicans who are more interested in scoring cheap political points and cashing in on an attempted terrorist attack than in protecting America."


---------


The wackjob who said this COMPLETELY DISREGARDS the fact that many many people are concerned that Obama is way too soft on terrorism.


There is concern about releasing Gitmo terrorists simply because the available evidence might cause embarrassment to Obama at a trial, if that evidence did not fully live up to the standards of the "rules of evidence" at trial.


There is concern that Obama has not been paying proper attention to the terrorist threats that are still out there.


It is just statements like this that CONVINCE PEOPLE that Obama is simply out of touch on terrorism.

.


Posted by: 37thand0street | December 31, 2009 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Say what you want about GWB, but there was not a single terrorist attack on (or over) U.S. soil since 2001 up until Obama took over.

Palin-Rumsfeld 2012

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse

So this attack was Obama's fault because he doesn't talk about the war correctly? Makes sense to me!

If only Rudy Giuliani was president. Now that guy knew how to talk about a war on terror!

Posted by: Blarg | December 31, 2009 10:12 AM | Report abuse

"I will not be the only American who wants party spokespersons for both parties to stifle themselves, "

Yes, enough already for god's sake. We have been wallowing in this bedwetting frenzy of fear for too long. You are more likely to drown in the bathtub than die in a terrorist attack.

Mommy and Daddy cannot promise you 100% safety. Now please grow up and deal with the fact that it's a dangerous world.

Posted by: drindl | December 31, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Blarg:

There's no specific DHS procedure that I am aware of being changed, but the chilling effect of Obama's war on "the war on terror" (especially discussion about prosecuting those on the front lines trying to prevent future attacks) has made us less safe. As I pointed out, below, no one at the RNC isn't blaming al Qaeda for this specific attempt. But that blame, in fact, COMPELS them to point out that "this administration along with the Democrat-led Congress has been derelict in its duty when it comes to seriously confronting the terrorist threat." If the fire department was pumping gasoline onto a fire at your house rather than water, you wouldn't be that concerned about how the initial fire got started.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Jake. I wouldn't cash that chris fox flees check just yet. The terrible lonliness and utter lack of any other purpose will cause him, like most libs, to ignore the empty promises made.

Eg. See gitmo will be closed. See unemployment will not go above 8. See Iran will not get the bomb. See we will bend cost curve down. See the oceans will stop riding. See the surge didn't work. And so on.

Posted by: snowbama | December 31, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Could someone explain specifically how this is Obama's (or Napolitano's or Pelosi's or whoever's) fault? Name the specific DHS policy that the Democrats CHANGED that allowed this to happen. Remember, if the Democrats didn't change the policy, it's the fault of the previous administration.

By the way, CC, those quotes are not equal. You quote the Republicans saying that the attack was the Democrats' fault, and the Democrats saying that the Republicans are trying to score political points. The R statement is far more incendiary than the D statement. But you pretend that they're equivalent for the sake of an easy "Both parties..." headline.

Posted by: Blarg | December 31, 2009 9:40 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

You mean "cited"? How about you make the same New Year's resolution as Chris Fox did?

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

"Parties ramp up rhetoric on terror"

I suppose this is what parties do. Now, if the problems identified by everyone from Ceflyline to the President can be addressed by our elected officials I will overlook what the parties do. If the silos of intelligence agencies remain separated by bureaucratic distance and the other identified problems are not addressed quickly I will not be the only American who wants party spokespersons for both parties to stifle themselves, as Archie Bunker would have said.

Everything that we all wrote about this topic need not be repeated, but on the guess that it will be, I will abandon this ship until late afternoon, when I will wish all HNY.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 31, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

shrink2:

See you later, on topic : )

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Jake, Shrink was sighting a post from a couple of days ago. When I posted it you and snowbama had been posting repetitvely on this topic on other threads. Then an actual Undiebomber thread was started and we all dreaded getting the same posts over again. Your recent absence has been noted :-)

I am enjoying the growing dog pile on Senator Demint. When Southers was nominated 3 months ago we were all very happy about it at TSA. He would give a big boost to our counter-terrorism and intelligence componenets, possibly shifting us away from reaction as our stanadard operation mode. Unionization of TSA employees is not a decision Southers would make, so holding-up his appointment has done nothing to further Demint's stated cause. Of course Demint is very good at calling other people liars, it is now time for him to look in the mirror and say it. Demint's standard operating mode is NOT public interest -- he is dedicated to making foolish trouble.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 31, 2009 9:32 AM | Report abuse

OTOH thank God that today is the last we will hear from Chris Fox / SeattleTop / GoldAndTanzanite, etc. "under any moniker". Perhaps without his continuous ad hominem personal attacks, everyone can finally discuss the politics of the 2010-2012 elections on point and in a civil manner.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Clearly the liberals prefer to sweep this under the rug.

It is obvious now that democrats are incompetent at protecting our nation. Every move has been a failure.

Barry must realize he is in trouble now as he has not read from the TelePrompTer for days. The question is will he correct his errors or double down as he has done with his domestic missteps.

How about someone in charge who has a tiny bit of experience. Nappy is not doing a heckuva job.

The press pounded Bush for months about something he had far less control over. Will Barry pay the price for his folly or will he blame someone else as usual?

Posted by: snowbama | December 31, 2009 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, it was just a joke. I am just bored with this topic. SO instead of being off topic all day I'll leave instead.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 31, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

shrink2:

I hardly posted here Sunday, and not at all Tuesday (I was golfing). Yesterday, I only posted here in the evening. Perhaps you and margaretmeyers are confusing me with someone else.

Back on topic, there's not a single Republican who isn't blaming AL QAEDA for the attempted bombing attack. There's nothing inconsisten with them also pointing out that Obama's actions, rather than his empty words, prove that he is only pretending to be at war. Say what you want about GWB, but there was not a single terrorist attack on (or over) U.S. soil since 2001 up until Obama took over.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh's heart is going to force him to change his life, one way or another.

The Afghan war is tragic. The Khost bomber was an officer in our Afghan army.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 31, 2009 9:13 AM | Report abuse

The democrats are acting like Obama NEVER criticized Bush on the conduct of the war on terror.


"crass political opportunism" IS ALL OBAMA DID IN RUNNING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE

And Obama is still doing it - insisting on closing Gitmo - not because it will increase America's security, but because OBAMA WANTS TO MAKE A POLITICAL POINT.


"Cheap Political Points" is all Obama did for years while talking about Bush.


Give the country a break


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 31, 2009 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Margaret said it best two days ago.

"Can we just imagine in our heads all of Jake and Snowbama's posts from the last 3 days? We don't really have to see them all over again, do we? Really, we don't."

Posted by: shrink2 | December 31, 2009 9:03 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company