Will Reports Of Terrorism Briefings Ruin Obama’s Media New Year?
President Barack Obama was given a written report entitled “Key Homeland Threats” just three days before Christmas, warning of possible impending terrorist attacks in the United States, according to Newsweek.
As more information is released about what the government knew before the attempted Christmas attack on Flight 253, it’s all very reminiscent of George W. Bush’s infamous pre-9/11 “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US” report and could spell a wave of bad press for Obama as the news cycle kicks back into gear after the holidays.
While Al-Qaeda outfits in Yemen were reportedly absent from the report — giving no indication of what was to come with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempted underwear bomb — there was special attention being paid to the holiday season and attacks on U.S. soil. According to Newsweek:
The senior official said that beginning in early December, based on reports coming in from intelligence agencies, policy-makers had begun tracking a stream of information which alluded to a possible holiday-period plot against the US orchestrated from somewhere in Pakistan. However, the official said, this reporting later turned out to be “garbled” and it was determined that the threat probably was a washout. The official denied that the White House received any report, representing the concensus of US intelligence agencies, warning that a Holiday-period plot originating in Yemen and targeting the US homeland could be in the works.
But more importantly:
…it had become clear to the President and top advisors that before Christmas, the US government was in posession of “bits and pieces” of information, which, if they had been properly knitted together, “could have…allowed us to disrupt the attack or certainly to know much more about the alleged attacker in such a way as to ensure that he was on, as the President suggested in his statement, a no-fly list.”
Government knowledge before an attack, successful or not, will always be a source of speculation and 20/20 hindsight, media coverage of homeland security woes are a fertile source of criticism from opponents and, as we learned from the Bush administration’s handling of those pre-9/11 documents, will be the source of much second-guessing.
As Newsweek writes, “aides are concerned that Obama will somehow be unfairly accused of dropping the ball on the fight against terrorist in Yemen,” despite the fact that “the evidence suggests Obama, as early as last summer, ordered a significant increase in US intelligence activity.” And yet, for much of the media, the mere existence of counter terrorism intel — especially focused on the holiday season — will be enough for strong suggestions of governmental mishandling.
EXCLUSIVE: Obama Got Pre-Christmas Intelligence Briefing About Terror Threats to “Homeland” [Newsweek]
37 comments
roxsteady says: Sorry but, unless there are 3,000 dead bodies lying around somewhere as a result of this, then there is no comparison. THREE THOUSAND DEAD BODIES TO ZERO! Also, what no one seems to be talking about is the fact that whatever the 911 commission instituted, it wasn’t sufficient. Perhaps the next time the politico is taking stenography from Dick Cheney, they could ask him if what they put in place really kept us safe? By the way, the answer is NO!
ImNotBlue says: roxsteady says:
January 2, 2010 at 11:51 am
Roxy… you still don’t get it… and you refuse to acknowledge that you don’t get it.
One more time: The attempted attack was thwarted by LUCK… there is nothing to be happy or proud about, we failed.
Being proud of this, is essentially the same as being proud that you made it home after a night of drunk driving. Yeah, you managed to drink you weight in booze… and yeah, you managed to get the car into the driveway without hitting anyone or anything before you passed out… but NO, you shouldn’t be proud of it, and NO, this doesn’t mean you should do it again.
Get it?
Obama’s gonna have to answer some tough questions on why this happened, and what he’s doing to do to prevent it from happening again. The victims, alive or dead, are irrelevant! The government’s actions lead to their death… it was the terrorist’s bad equipment that saved them! And counting on that happening again is not a policy, nor is a defense for our government being asleep at the wheel.
I realize that it’s just semantics, but in all of the hysteria over the past week, I still fail to understand how this was an “attack”. Who or what was he “attacking”? His fellow passengers, a part of Detroit or the plane?
ImNotBlue says: Magister says:
January 2, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Well, literally he was “attacking” those on the plane, by attempting to blow them up. However, his intentions (ie: his goals and purpose), was to hurt and frighten the United States. You have to realize that the goal is always against the United States as a whole… not necessarily a specific person, policy, or political theory… but the image of the United States. An attack like this is designed to “take the US down a peg,” by showing that just one of “theirs” can harm a bunch of “ours,” meaning perhaps we’re not as powerful as we say we are.
For an example, imagine a criminal who shoots a police officer. His anger may not be directed at that particular officer, or anything that officer is doing specifically… rather it’s what that officer represents. This is the same thing… to make the US look weak, to frighten the citizens, and to cause chaos. And for those goals, as I’ve said, it doesn’t matter that the plane didn’t explode… all of those goals were achieved. Had he been stopped before he got on the plane, and thusly not allowed to accomplish any of those goals, that would have shown the US was strong, organized, and prepared… thereby giving confidence to the citizens. That’s why, even though nobody was killed, the attack was most a success from his standpoint, and a failure from ours.
@ImNotBlue: So, John Dillinger and D.B. Cooper didn’t rob banks or hijack airplanes, they “attacked” the corporate or capitalist system? And when the (clearly disturbed) lady mailed a white powder to a judge last month, along with a note saying “If you people are going to rip people off, it is going to cost you more than you think”, she was “attacking” the entire civil court system?
Not to mention that because several of the participants in last summer’s town hall’s wanted to show that not everyone was on board and that some had qualms against the administration’s direction, they apparently weren’t protesting, but instead were participating in an “attack” on Congress, the federal government, the political system, health care, birth certificates or something?
Some guy did something on a plane. I haven’t been following this case too closely, but unless I’m mistaken, he hadn’t sent a note or arranged for some kind of broadcast, so if he had been successful, we wouldn’t of actually known that it was an act of terrorism until after the investigation, weeks later.
Nachi says: Alcoholic BushDrunk and Gang had eight years to set the stage for increased and inevitable terrorist attacks.
Thank Geesussah we can look back with great pride at “Operation Enduring Freedom,” “Misshun Complushed,” “Thee Surge,” “Nation Building,” etc. Yup.
ImNotBlue says: Magister says:
January 2, 2010 at 3:24 pm
I’m confused by your statements… you seem to be missing the point, either willfully, or actually confused. I suppose I’ll turn it around though, and just ask you what -in your mind- is the definition of terrorism? What has to happen for it to be terrorism, what would you define as a “success” to a terrorist?
Oh, and as I understand it… the guy, now caught, has been spilling his guts to the authorities. And while we don’t know the full story, we do know that he said he was part of AQ… so odds are, if he had blow up the plane, AQ would have proudly taken credit for it. That’s often how these things work.
Nachi says:
January 2, 2010 at 4:23 pm
So your point is that Bush should have fixed it all, and that Obama isn’t responsible in any way because Bush started it. Wow. I wonder how long you’ll blame Bush for the failures of others.
I seem to remember a lot of people saying, “Clinton had nothing to do with 9/11… it was all Bush.” Of course, now that the roles are reversed a bit, the “logic” has changed.
Oh… and one more thing. You sometimes use phonetic spellings… while other times you just use correct or incorrect spelling. I’ll assume the incorrect spelling is just your fault, while the phonetics are an attempt to make some point… although, I’m not sure what point that would be. At least this time, all the words you’ve used have some ties to reality… so it is an improvement.
TfT says: After 9/11, lots of changes were put in place to better protect our nation. Since that time, several terrorist attacks have been uncovered and stopped before they happened. This one was stopped by the good people on board that airline. This kind of breakdown has not happened since 12/01 (Reid). Obama changed policy, he changed attitudes….let’s remember, Overseas Contingency Operations (instead of GWOT), and man caused disasters instead of terrorists. Bush/Cheney set up a successful situation that Obama inherited. For anyone to blame Bush for this is absurd on its face.
It is about time that Obama got some real media attention, hard and honest questions.
But unfortunately, my guess is that the media will indeed continue to cover up for Obama and his administration, so I doubt his “media new year” will be spoiled. With Obama and his media shills, the buck always stops with Bush. For shame.
Ted says: TfT – what exactly was the “successful situation” that Obama inherited from Bush/Cheney? Thanks for the best laugh that I’ve had all day.
@ImNotBlue: I’m not saying that it wasn’t an act of terrorism because we’ve been told by the perpetrator that terrorism was his goal. What I questioned was the word “attacK” because as far as I can see, he may have posed a threat to the plane or his fellow passengers and if he had succeeded, he would’ve have bombed or murdered, but I don’t see how it qualifies as an “attack”.
Otherwise, pretty much everything that ever happens has someone who claims credit and we’ve been led to believe that the authorities occasionally withhold facts, so that they can better determine which group may be telling the truth.
As I see it, unless this fellow videotaped a confession, mailed a letter or something — until investigators had determined that the explosion started in the underwear of someone listed in their database, if he is legitimately part of Al Quada and not just a sympathizer and if they had actually claimed credit, it would’ve still been classified as “suspected terrorism” and that doesn’t seem to be the most effective way to send a message or a very efficient “attack” on the American way of life.
ChrisNH says: OK then! Obama decides to pay lip service to the safety of our nation because reports are ‘garbled.’ But it’s all-hands-on-deck for the passage of a 2,000-page health care bill that isn’t, you know, ‘garbled.’
@ChrisNH: What’s the line from Hank Jr?
You can’t stomp us out and you can’t make us run
Cause we’re them ole boys raised on shotguns
We say grace and we say ma’am
If you ain’t in to that we don’t give a damn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4s0nzsU1Wg
(Ok – so I’m supposed to be working…)
TfT says: Ted: I guess you forgot that no one has gotten though the air space since the 12/01 Richard Reid incident. Yes, Obama inherited a successful terrorist prevention situation from the Bush administration; but hey…in your mind (and that of MSNBC), Bush is the devil, Obama is God, so truth doesn’t matter.
Obama changed the policies, he changed the approach, he is prosecuting CIA agents for keeping us safe. yeah, that’s the ticket to keeping the bad guys off our shorts — prosecute those who protect us and give constitutional rights to the terrorists.
RazorsEdge says: @Magister
In your post to @ChrisNH. The one regarding line from Hank Jr.
‘Who” is the ‘us, we’re, we, you’ in th Hank Jr. line supposed to be/represent from @ChrisNH’s comment? I believe you may be at work, but just i case you see this.
ImNotBlue says: Magister says:
January 2, 2010 at 6:20 pm
“… he may have posed a threat to the plane or his fellow passengers and if he had succeeded, he would’ve have bombed or murdered, but I don’t see how it qualifies as an “attack”. “
Okay, then what would an “attack” on the United States be? Was 9/11 an “attack?” Or was it simply an attack on the people in the planes, and the people working in the WTC? What would is an “attack?”
“…that doesn’t seem to be the most effective way to send a message or a very efficient “attack” on the American way of life.”
Really? If the plane had blown up, and the officials came out to say right afterwards, “We’re not sure why this happened,” you’d have no problem getting on a plane yourself afterwards… not knowing if this was just one part in a wave of attacks, or just a mechanical problem? And once, months later, you found out it was an “attack,” would you be differently concerned?
The “efficiency” or terrorism is not something we can aptly judge… at least not on a “normal scale.” I mean, how “efficient” is it to blow yourself up, as well as everyone else? Equally, the “message” gets lost in the fact that someone blew up a plane… not in whatever lunatic ideas lead the bomber to that point. That’s the irrationality of terrorism.
However, we have to judge the effectiveness of their actions… we have to ask, “What was accomplished.” The answer: they’ve/he’s disrupted air travel over the holiday weekend, frightened people across the world, led to a nasty atmosphere for the government, caused chaos, and tested our ability to defend against another “attack.” Explosion or not, they’ve met their goals… wouldn’t you agree? If not, what goals do you think they’ve got, that they failed up on here… aside from killing a handful of innocent people (and when judging a war against the United Stated, killing a plane full of people in small potatoes compared to the whole population… thusly, not really a big goal)? What would have made this a “success” from their stand-point… from your stand-point?
RazorsEdge says: OK @Magister,
If you have time to address my post to you, fine. If not, I’ll understand.
I’m speculating @Imnotblue posed more questions to you (a flurry, really) that clobbered my post (you may not even see mine) that most likely will get your attention.
@RazorsEdge: I just got back to this forum, but in the song, Bocephus is talking about “Country Boys” and I was specifically trying to expand the whole “can’t stomp us out, can’t make us run thing” to include the nation because I disagree that the “safety of our nation” has been threatened.
@ImNotBlue: I’ll have to get back to you in a few, dinner’s ready.
RazorsEdge says: Ahhh! Interesting @Magister!
There’s some context I needed. There could be some intersting debate about that. Whether the “attack” (I’m on the side it was an attack by definition, regardless if the term used as a verb or noun) itself could threathen the safety of our nation. Bigger context is how the govt reacts to the attack in regards to intelligence and prevention. The “attack’ if multipled or becomes broader and not just on planes in spite of or because the govt can’t react properly would change our nation’s way of life.
Check out websters dictionary and see if that changes your mind on the semantics of “attacked”
ingenieux says: “Well, literally he was “attacking” those on the plane, by attempting to blow them up. However, his intentions (ie: his goals and purpose), was to hurt and frighten the United States. You have to realize that the goal is always against the United States as a whole… not necessarily a specific person, policy, or political theory… but the image of the United States. An attack like this is designed to “take the US down a peg,” by showing that just one of “theirs” can harm a bunch of “ours,” meaning perhaps we’re not as powerful as we say we are.”
ImNotBlue, you just proved al Qaeda successful. This guy was a total failure in his attempt, and yet you advocate that “they” pose a serious threat significant enough to justify, in your mind, increasing our security and re-doing the system. Ignore the fact that the Obama administration has successfully thwarted the would-be attack in Colorado, NYC, or even those 5 American plotters in Pakistan. ONE guy failed to ignite an incredibly flammable mixture, because he was that incapable of doing it right, and you’re ready to chant Obama a total failure in NS? this guy boarded in Nigeria and was routed through Amsterdam. How do you know Amsterdam wasn’t his target? Or the airline? He did not pass through US security. the whole “no fly list” was set up totally incoherently (which was why actual pilots, senators, etc made it on the list), yet it’s this admins fault?
You must be getting paid by the word by Cluster-Fox, because you’re talking points are from O’Reilly/Beck/FauxNews VERBATIM, and you quote everyone else to bulk up your posts. How much is it? $1.00/word? $1.50?
Fidoohki says: Ultimately, unless there is something that should have thrown up a flag, this report is nothing.
@ImNotBlue: Okay – I’m back.
ingenieux has already addressed the idea that you’re not “terrorized”, if you’re not scared. Though, I’ll add something that I said on another blog, when I last waded into the insane reaction to this single event, which dominated the news void: I wasn’t on a plane from Amsterdam, nor was I anywhere near Detroit. My Christmas was fine.
And as I said in possibly the only other time that I addressed this subject on Mediaite (and as I allude to above) — In the early 70s, there was almost a hijacking or an attempted hijacking a week. (Not to mention that planes have always crashed, but that’s another subject)
After posting hijacking-a-week thing, I glanced around for some statistics in case anyone wanted to call me on it.
I couldn’t find a lot in less than three minutes, but in a poorly footnoted Wikipedia entry, an author says that between 1968 and 1977, there were 414 hijackings for an average of 41, a year.
Now, I also referenced this Wiki entry on the other forum and it looks like somebody has cleaned-up the entry over the past few days, but a passing reference is still there that some of these hijackings were part of a 16 year, tit-for-tat between the CIA and Cuba, where we ran a covert op to steal their planes and they retaliated in a bit of psychological warfare, by diverting some of ours.
Nonetheless, if memory serves, the majority of the hijackings, both those involving Cuba/CIA and just random revolutionaries or D.B. Cooper-type guys involved people with weapons or who claimed to have explosives. And though a hijacking-a-week seems like more of a reason to be scared, rather than an uncoordinated event every five years, the rate of air travel increased exponentially throughout the period and that has continued, ever since.
IOW: Were the people in 1980 braver than those today or have we just become more sensitive, as our media and political leaders have learned to play our fears and our society has become so paternalistic, we have become complacent?
ImNotBlue says: RazorsEdge says:
January 2, 2010 at 8:59 pm
“I’m speculating @Imnotblue posed more questions to you (a flurry, really)…”
Hurricane INB, coming soon…
Magister says:
January 2, 2010 at 9:08 pm
“@ImNotBlue: I’ll have to get back to you in a few, dinner’s ready.”
Can I have some? My leftover chicken and pasta was kinda lame.
ingenieux says:
January 2, 2010 at 9:25 pm
“ImNotBlue, you just proved al Qaeda successful.”
Well, they were! At least in this aspect… they have gotten us to change the way we do business, to account and prepare of their irrational actions. On that, sure they’ve succeeded. In their over-arching goal of destroying the United States… no, they still fail.
This guy was a total failure in his attempt, and yet you advocate that “they” pose a serious threat significant enough to justify, in your mind, increasing our security and re-doing the system.
False… on two counts. He was a failure because there was no explosion… he was a success because he did “terrorize” the country. As for re-doing the system… I’m not advocating that. I think getting the current system to work, would be a better place to start!
Ignore the fact that the Obama administration has successfully thwarted the would-be attack in Colorado, NYC, or even those 5 American plotters in Pakistan.
Well, that’s good… although, I seem to remember a lot of “ignoring” when it comes to Bush’s record on breaking up home-grown terror cells… but unlike those folks, I’ll give credit where credit is do. Show me where I’m not!
ONE guy failed to ignite an incredibly flammable mixture, because he was that incapable of doing it right, and you’re ready to chant Obama a total failure in NS?
And where did I say that? Personally, I don’t know who is responsible. It could be, as TfT suggests, Obama’s willingness to investigate the CIA and other groups has hurt the intelligence gathering groups… or it could be that the groups in charge of this stuff were asleep at the wheel. I’m not really sure. The response to the attack, however, is the problem… and for that, I’m disappointed with the Obama administration, his reaction to all of this, and especially Napolitano’s reaction. All of that gives me reason to doubt their ability to defend the country, and to take threats on this nation seriously.
How do you know Amsterdam wasn’t his target?
He said it was the US.
He did not pass through US security.
On all flights coming into the United States, don’t you have to go through US security? I’ve flown to Israel (lovely trip, excited place to visit when things aren’t exploding, highly recommend going with a tour group… much to confusing to do on your own), and before boarding the plane, we were searched by Israeli security… in Newark, NJ. Gotta clear customs and do all that stuff. Passengers flying to America via other countries do go through US security.
the whole “no fly list” was set up totally incoherently (which was why actual pilots, senators, etc made it on the list), yet it’s this admins fault?
Well, there’s enough blame on that level to be passed around. However, Obama has been in office for about a year now… and if there was a problem with the Do Not Fly list, isn’t it now his responsibility to fix it? Isn’t that why he was elected… to fix the problems of the previous administration?
You must be getting paid by the word by Cluster-Fox, because you’re talking points are from O’Reilly/Beck/FauxNews VERBATIM, and you quote everyone else to bulk up your posts.
You are aware that O’Reilly and Beck have been on vacation since before Christmas, right? So I’m not really sure what their opinions are… and neither are you. Is it fun to make stuff up?
Nope, I don’t get paid to write… I just enjoy it. If I got paid… that would be sweeeeeeet!
But I’ll tell you what. If my writing is so bothersome to you… I’ll let you pay me NOT to write. Let’s assume that I’ll write about 10 posts a day. How much is my not posting those 10 posts worth to you? I’ll set up a PayPal account, and you can help keep me quiet… and you can go on spinning that everything is Bush’s fault, nothing is Obama’s responsibility, and things are just great! Sorry to post opinions that don’t expressly agree with you!
PS-
“Cluster-Fox”
That’s great! I wish I could steal stuff from Keith Olbermann, and post it as my own, as I accuse someone of doing the thing I’m actually doing. Hypocrisy much?
PPS-
Just finished writing this, I’ll get to you Mag, in a second…
ImNotBlue says: Magister says:
January 2, 2010 at 11:06 pm
“ingenieux has already addressed the idea that you’re not “terrorized”, if you’re not scared.”
And this wasn’t frightening? People aren’t more afraid to fly now, than they were a few weeks ago? I’d agree with the description, but not that this event doesn’t qualify.
I wasn’t on a plane from Amsterdam, nor was I anywhere near Detroit.
Me either… but I’d be worried to get on a plane tomorrow, wouldn’t you be?
“My Christmas was fine.”
Well that’s good! Get anything nice? I got a Slow Cooker… INB’s soon-to-be-famous chili starts Monday!
IOW: Were the people in 1980 braver than those today…”
An interesting question.
I think the big (and most obvious) difference is that we’re not talking about a hijacking, or diverting a plane to another location… we’re talking about blowing it out of the sky, or even worse, using it as a weapon. I wasn’t around in the 70s, so I’m not sure about the facts… but how many of those people were murdered, versus how many were released after “negotiations?” Also, how many people in total are we talking about? Were they small planes with relatively few passengers, versus the very large planes we’ve got now? I just don’t think we’re apples to apples with this example.
Anyway, I’m not sure what the overall point is. Because we’ve had hijackings and explosions before, it shouldn’t be a big deal now? We shouldn’t take action, even though we have a clear enemy, because we’ve seen similar things to this, and we need to be overwhelmingly consistent? I’m not sure what the relevance is, and what you’re arguing against.
But again, let’s get back to the original questions… Was this terrorism? What did this guy need to do to “succeed,” if he wanted to be a terrorist? And what constitutes an “attack?”
Also, to continue the discussion… what do you think our reaction to this should be?
@ImNotBlue: Our reaction should be to go on with our lives, which is what most of us do.
For example, I believe Rachel was the Mediaiteite on duty for Christmas and it was she who first posted the story in this space. I can’t swear, but it appears that she’s flown across the country since, as has hundreds of thousands of other people.
And about a year before I moved from my previous town, a shootout between gang members allowed bullets to cross a busy city street and enter a popular Chinese restaurant. Of course we made jokes, but I and many others continued to frequent that restaurant. They have a very successful enterprise.
As to whether the castrated virgin, known as the “underwear bomber” has made me scared to fly. The short answer is no. If the French plane that completely disintergrated over the ocean didn’t cause me pause, I don’t know why a failed plot by a random nutjob would be any different.
Otherwise, I don’t know how many people were aboard those 414 planes or how many resulted in injuries, but as the Israelis learned at Entebbe, they weren’t always pretty.
Also, though you didn’t ask me — if you’re “terrorized”, I don’t think it’s really al Qaeda’s fault. Much of the blame should go to the media, the consultants with products to sell and politicians who are under the impression that terrorism works for them, all mixed-up in a big bowl of a news void in a period, when lots of people fly.
Oh, and BTW: I also had leftover chicken.
PS) 9/11 was an “attack”.
It was a planned operation against multiple targets which originated in several cities.
The underwear bomber was just some dude, who lost his way, who will now serve the rest of his life in prison.
ImNotBlue says: Magister says:
January 3, 2010 at 12:32 am
I think we’re going to have to leave it there. I think you make an interesting argument, certainly bring up valid points, but have a different opinion than I. I think people will be more hesitant or scared to fly… however, not enough to prevent travel, only to make it a little bit more stressful. I know if I was heading for a plane anytime soon, I’d do a quick scan of the folks around me… see if there’s anyone abnormally sweating, with a surprisingly big butt (I wouldn’t assume explosive underwear is slimming).
If the standard of “terrorism” is to prevent people from doing something, then yes, this guy did fail. But I think that’s setting the bar a little high. American’s are busy people, often with an “it happened to them, not to me” complex because there are so many of us. So preventing us from doing our work, seeing our family, or hitting the sunny beaches in Maui isn’t going to happen unless there’s something catastrophic. Even after 9/11, travel greatly slowed, but never stopped… and rebounded relatively soon afterwards. So be it terrorism or equipment failure… we’ll keep on keeping on. The only difference being how suspicious we are of the guy sitting next to us.
As for your restaurant example, I think the difference is that this was a singular occurrence… this attack is just one in a string of similar attacks. If the restaurant was frequently the site of gang shootouts, I doubt they’d be able to stay in business very long. One shoot out is unfortunate… three or four, and we see a pattern… much like we now see in the airlines. For one reason or another, they’re still a big target for our enemies.
But as I said, it simply appears that we’ve reach the point where you have your opinion, and I have mine… and we’re not going to get past it. We’ve expressed them pretty well (IMO), made our case, and I don’t think there’s too much more to go into. Good debate… very enjoyable!
RazorsEdge says: Good stuff! No flamethrowing, just bringing some good thought out distinctions and arguments.
@ImNotBlue: Of course, I’ll agree to disagree, but if you’ll give me a few more words…
Last week, Gizmodo posted a very colorful chart using lots of statistics from Nate Silver, which shows that you’re 21 times more likely to be killed by lightning than during an airborne terrorist “attack”.
Other than those on 9/11, we’ve had the Shoe Bomber in 2001 and the underwear guy, eight years later. So, it’s not like it’s a frequent event.
As for your “being aware of your surroundings”… that’s my usual MO.
PS) My wife used to make fun of how I always wanted to sit with my back to the wall in a restaurant. She’s gotten used to it by now, but we used to call it the “Bret Maverick” seat.
TfT says: Magister says: “Other than those on 9/11, we’ve had the Shoe Bomber in 2001 and the underwear guy, eight years later. So, it’s not like it’s a frequent event.” Exactly! The policies put in place in 2001 worked until 12/25/2009, and yet, we have a “blame Bush” mentality in the Obama admin and his adoring press. It’s time to stop that and get realistic about what/why things went wrong in this instance.
PS: “Government knowledge before an attack, successful or not, will always be a source of speculation and 20/20 hindsight, media coverage of homeland security woes are a fertile source of criticism from opponents and, as we learned from the Bush administration’s handling of those pre-9/11 documents, will be the source of much second-guessing.” At some point, the media is going to have to acknowledge the pre-9/11 documentation was a summary from 1999 and was not current info. Bush never stood up and said, I inherited this from Clinton. It is time for both Obama and the media to acknowledge that every President “inherits” the circumstance and pointing fingers at the previous administration is a waste of time and breath.
@TfT: …or why can’t we just accept that every once in a while, there will be some kind of armed incident involving a plane. After all, though the first happened on the ground, if you follow that Wiki link, you’ll see they’ve been happening since 1931 with the most (82) occurring in ‘69.
TfT says: Well Magister,I think INB made a very valid point — essentially that from 1931 to 2000, armed incidents occurred involving planes; however, since 2001, the incidents turned from hijacking a plane to using the plane as a weapon. That’s a pretty big distinction.
@TfT: There’s actually been other incidents or attempts to use a plane as a weapon including (if memory serves), a fellow who hoped to fly his Cessna into Reagan’s White House. I don’t have time to find any or all of the events now, but if you go back to my original question: All the underwear bomber did was pose a threat to his fellow passengers and if you really stretch the meaning beyond recognition, you might be able to say that he “attacked” the plane.
TfT says: Magister:
My memory is faulty on the cessna attack as well — but I thought it was Clinton’s WH (the joke at the time was it was the DCIA, since he didn’t get any face time with Clinton).
I think that AQ has stated they are responsible for the CHristmas attack, and I think AQs intentions are to attack the US in any way shape or form. Had the incident been successful, what would have happened? I don’t know, but I would guess (and its just a wag) that not only would the passengers and crew been killed, but the plane’s path after explosion would have impacted folks on the ground or the airport or wherever the debris landed, especially since the attempt was on approach (I think, I’ll stand corrected on this point if I’m wrong). We’ll never know because of the bravery of passengers, but I think it’s bigger than “just the aircraft”. mho
ImNotBlue says: Magister says:
January 3, 2010 at 1:44 am
You’re forgiven. I did a bad job of ending it and leaving, didn’t I? What can I say, I talk too much.
Last week, Gizmodo posted a very colorful chart…
Well, that is a very colorful chart! It’s also kinda insulting (and some of the graphics don’t make sense… I get the look of the “flip-clock” numbers, but if that’s the intention, shouldn’t each number be on its own graphical flipper… not the whole number? That’s not how flip-digits work… but digress…). But I’ll ignore that for now.
There are a few semi-important questions, of course: Are the total miles relative to planes flying into the United States, originating in the United States, or simply any plane anywhere? Is this for commercial airlines, or does it also include private planes? Is this simply for large jets, or does it include puddle-jumpers as well? When counting people, is that a unique number, or have people been counted multiple times (I hear George Cooney flies a lot).
Now the really obnoxious part of this chart is the “Number of killed passengers” figure. On 9/11, 246 were killed on planes (not including hijackers, according to Wiki). But to ignore the fact that the actions of those hijackers, using the planes as glorified missiles, to kill another 2,730 people… well, that’s insulting.
Stats like this remind me of the old standard that says, “You have a greater chance of being in a car accident, than in a plane accident.” It’s true… however my response to that has always been, “Yeah, but if I fall out of the sky on a plane, I have a heck of a higher chance of getting smooshed to pieces, then if I get into a fender-bender on route 95.” In other words, it’s not exactly an equal comparison.
But what’s really the point? We shouldn’t be worried about this stuff because it’s rare? We freaked out over swine flu and that was/is pretty rare. As of a few days ago, there were 12,970 deaths related to swine flu WORLD WIDE (Wiki). Using the estimate that there are 6,800,000,000 people in the world… that’s something like 0.0000019% of the world’s population… and we’ve spent how much money to prevent this?!
I think that’s the point, or at least, my point. Yes, terrorism directly kills a relatively small number of people… however, it’s a fear based campaign and serves to frighten much more than actually kill. That’s why I call this attack a success… it frightened people, even if I didn’t kill anyone. It’s a problem we can address… something we can do something about (unlike a lightning strike, to reference the chart again), and an act consciously done with the intent of inflicting harm upon others. There’s a big difference between random acts of nature, and the specific acts of others. You wouldn’t shrug your shoulders if a family member was murdered by someone in a gang, saying “Eh… it’s rare that they kill someone,” you’d want some sort of justice. Well, this is the same thing… it may be rare, in a cosmic sense… but that doesn’t mean we should simply ignore it.
Magister says:
January 3, 2010 at 1:46 am
PS) My wife used to make fun of how I always wanted to sit with my back to the wall…
My folks make fun of me for not wanting to sit with my back to the door. But they just call me a lunatic. Wanna trade?
EllenZC34 says: If students are stuck with term paper format writing, thence I will propose to buy an essay uk from some professional essays online service under such circumstances.
- » Jon Stewart's Epic Parody Of Glenn Beck
- » CNN: Protesters Shout Racial And Gay Slurs At Lewis And Frank (Update)
- » Another CNN Anchor Fails At Celebrity Jeopardy
- » David Shuster On Media Bias, Drudge, Andrew Breitbart, And James O'Keefe
- » FAMU Sex Tape Link - Real Or Hoax?
Job hunting?
Use our proprietary jobs tool to access the largest pool of jobs aggregated from around the country.
Kathy Griffin On Gays In The Military, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: It’s A Generational Thing
Kathy Griffin was in D.C. earlier this week for a rally at the capitol to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." While the My Life On The D List celebrity has made gay rights one of her biggest causes, she also took a moment to talk to interviewer Liz Glover about Scientology, Levi Johnston, and flying on Southwest.
Michael Moore Would Have Had Avatar Win Over Hurt Locker
Just because the Academy Awards happened two weeks ago doesn't mean that it's too late for Michael Moore to say his piece. Mainly, that Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker was a piece of crap because it was "lazy" and that James Cameron's Avatar was amazing because of its portrayal of how we "privatized war" and treated the planet.
More Online headlines:
»John Boehner’s Office Selectively Edits Alcee Hasting’s ‘We Make Up The Rules’ Clip »12
»Obama’s Final Push On Health Care To Democratic Caucus On Capitol Hill »16
»“I’m With Coco Artist” Hits Jackpot, Sort Of
»Democrats Announce They Won’t Use “Deem And Pass” »10
»Rahm Emanuel On 60 Minutes: “Fringe Group Has Taken Control” Of GOP »70
-
Coming soon...
© 2010 Mediaite, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives
| Dan Abrams, Founder
| Hosting by Datagram
| 
RSS
