12/30/09

What is Different About the Response to the Shoe Bomber versus the Christmas Bomber?

The GOP has been jumping all over Obama for the Christmas airline bombing attempt. So

Q: What is Different About the Response to the shoe bomber versus the Christmas Bomber?

A:  The shoe bomber's attempt was made under the Bush Administration.

TPM notes:
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.

After stammering momentarily to Rehberger's question about the apparent double standard, Rep. Conaway offered an answer that didn't address the question:
Well, I didn't come out immediately and criticize the president. He has said let's do this review. There's some other steps he can take. ... Let's look forward to what we ought to be doing, and we can spend all the time we want to looking backwards, whether you want to criticize Bush or whatever. The truth of the matter is, there are active jihadists at work right now trying to come hurt and kill Americans.
Double standards, however, seem to be the standard, these days. 

Scary Parallel Logic

No, it didn't.  Did it?

A popular blog perhaps tried to insinuate that lack of health insurance is worse than terrorism.

We could analyze all of the problems in this comparison for pages.  But, simply put, this is like arguing that murder is no big deal because "people die in hospitals every day." Actually, it's not just "like" arguing that, it kind of is that.

The number one point of course being that medical care may not be needed; we control our own health to a large extent; even with health insurance one can still get bad medical care, or even good medical care may fail; while not nearly as effective we do have emergency rooms (not an endorsement for a health care plan being "emergency rooms" which are overused, often don't prevent what will lead to death where good care might have, and are incredibly inefficient and a last resort, but we do have them); there is no element of a purposeful engagement in the most heinous hijacking of liberty known to man -- the purposeful killing; and one can of course provided circumstances are not too unfavorable, work to get health insurance or save enough to cover at least some medical care.

This is not to say that medical care in this country is not a debacle. It is.  But that is not the point of this post. It is to say that false comparisons, like "the number of people that die from skiing accidents, and the number of people that die from being robbed nyc city streets is the same, so what's the big deal about being robbed!" are really missing the boat.

Still, in fairness to that blog, it is worth pointing out that lack of insurance, at least under our current system, does lead to deaths in some cases, that otherwise could have been prevented.  That's just a reality, and it's not a good one.  But while we think health care, and in particular health care insurance, is ripe for reform in a country where health care costs (both to government and citizens) are spiraling ridiculously out of control while many people's health care is in fact compromised, we don't think any bill is better than no bill.  In fact, we think it is a lot worse.

Republicans Have No Business Pointing Fingers, Do They?

DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen:
In general, we are facing the consequences of the Bush administration's failures to deal with al Qaeda. The Republicans have no business in pointing fingers at the Obama administration on terrorism and national security."


The Obama administration has been much more aggressive about going after al Qaeda than the Bush administration, which turned its focus from al Qaeda to Iraq..."  [The Administration has] been on the offense in places where the Bush administration had taken its eye off the ball.
Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. Seems pretty reasonable though. And the far right sure has politicized this attack attempt, mighty quick.

As Steve Benen of Washington Monthly points out
Bush/Cheney released the terrorist plotters into.."art therapy rehabilitation" b) failed.. to keep America and its allies safe from terrorism during the former administration's eight years; c) the same Republican lawmakers whining now also voted against funding for the Transportation Safety Administration, including money for screening operations and explosives detection systems; and d) that Obama has succeeded on counter-terrorism fronts that Bush/Cheney only talked about.
But that's not the real issue here. The real issue is the crass politicization of this issue, with, of course, an assist (as almost always) from the crack expert counter terrorism unit over at the Washington Post.

Battle Against Terrorism, and, Sadly, Politics

Earlier today, Dick Cheney, who never met an opportunity he didn't like, real or imagined, to castigate those who he doesn't agree with politically, said the following:
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...But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe.
Actually, saying we are at "war" does not change the reality of the situation either.

What it does do, however, is help send a message to our pyschotic al-Qaeda enemies that this is bigger, not smaller. This only increases their importance and effect.

It also, more troublingly, plays into the idea that this is not an all out effort on our part to expunge, exterminate, and wipe out fringe extremist radical Islamic terrorist cells, but that this is somehow part of some broader effort which may well even involve Islam itself -- which is probably just about the worst strategy we could engage in.

One of the many problems, from a political strategic and communication perspective, with Democrats, is that they think that anybody who is, or who they think, is wrong, must have really bad motives, or know they are lying, or just "evil."

Dick Cheney is almost radically right wing and militant.  And Democrats have done a poor job of showing this, and defining Cheney with it, as opposed to simply presuming everyone "knows it." And the media has thus also done a poor job of covering it.  But the fact is, this does not mean that Cheney is "evil" (although if ignorance is evil, Cheney may be sometimes thus), or that he is always, in his mind, lying. 

What it does mean, in this particular instance, is that Cheney is, in the words of Karl Rove (talking about others, of course) "deeply, an profoundly, wrong."  . 

As for politicizing this, Cheney believes he is being fair and objective. Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald had an excellent post on this point recently, with respect to "Reason" magazine. When Obama said that the CBO "reports" instead of the more speculative "projects" -- because it suited Reason's extremely ideological beliefs, Obama was lying according to its Editor in Chief; there was even a picture of Obama with a Pinocchio nose. 

But guess what.  Greenwald looked at numerous Reason articles, and found out that by this "standard," Reason writers lied all the time. That is, whenever it suited their political purposes, the CBO "reported." Reasons writers said the CBO reported all the time, always in articles where the "report" suited their political beliefs.

But when a political Obama, and thus with more need to spin than a magazine named "Reason," did the same exact thing that "Reason" reporters, in "objectively reporting," did, the Editor in Chief called him a liar, and put a picture of him up with a Pinocchio nose.

Cheney is very likely the same way. He is being extrordinarily political, and is so lacking in objectivity, probably does not even realize it. Which is perhaps worse than even being extraordinarily politcal.(Here's another example, showing this is not just restricted to "Reason" magazine, or Dick Cheney.) 

On top of that, in terms of his framing on this effort we need to engage in, after eight years of magnifying the problem, misdirecting resources, and failing to quell al-Qaeda, he is also, deeply, and profoundly wrong.

More Expert Anti-Terrorism Advice: Quick, Who Said This?

(Update below)
What Far Right, Zealous, anti-Obama Ideologue, and on what random blog, wrote the following:
By staying in Hawaii, the president has sent the message that the situation really isn’t all that serious, that things can proceed just fine until he’s back. And isn’t it that kind of reasoning that emboldens our never-vacationing enemies into thinking Christmas Day is the perfect time for them to strike?
That is, that because some random terrorist (who should never have made it into the U.S.) -- who of course claims allegiance to and apparently had some ties to al-Qi'da, tried to blow up an airplane -- our President is sending the wrong message by staying In Hawaii. In other words, let's go nutso whenver al-Qi'da does something, so that they know they can really get us into a tizzy even by failed attempts.  Or, um, perhaps we should send the message that they can't throw us into a tizzy?

That is, so long as Obama is not needed in Washington to help orchestrate any strategies or thwart any attacks -- a pretty big stretch if one was to make it. But that's not what this zealous anti Obama site is saying. This site is just saying that Obama, taking it in stride in a way that has no negative practical or strategic ramifications for us, is "sending them" the wrong message. 

Where did this person writing on this site get their anti terrorist training, anyway?  Because it looks like they could use a refresher course.

So what site was this?  The Washington Post, and Jo-Ann Armao.

Let's check out her reasoning again:
By staying in Hawaii...isn’t it that kind of reasoning that emboldens our never-vacationing enemies into thinking Christmas Day is the perfect time for them to strike?
So what Christmas day would they strike? Christmas day tomorrow?   Wouldn't that be an argument for staying in Washington next Christmas day, next year? (To the extent Obama being in Washington is even relevant.) Maybe our President should never travel oveseas, either?  The argument that by him staying in Hawaii we are not taking terrorism "seriously," as opposed to not sending al-Qi'da the message that they can have even more of an effect on us than they need to, is really pretty weak.

Terrorism is a tough topic.  A lot of people have ideas on it, but few have any idea what they are talking about.  Jo-Ann Armao is one of those people. And not suprisingly, she writes for the Washington Post.

Update: Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald offers a more scathing indictment of Armao's counter terrorism "expertise,"but essentially makes the same points:
Scampering back to Washington -- "hotfooted" or otherwise -- would have been the worst possible thing that Obama could have done. It would have created a climate of frenzy and panic and thus helped to terrorize the country even more -- which, one might want to recall, is the goal, by definition, of Terrorists. The fact that Obama doesn't hysterically run around like some sort of frightened chicken with his head cut off every time Al Qaeda sneezes -- or swagger to the nearest camera to beat his chest and play the role of protective daddy-cowboy -- is one of the things I like best about him. As for Armao's "point" about how Janet Napolitano probably took it easy because the "boss was away" -- and her belief that Terrorists will strike more on holidays if Obama isn't affixed to his chair in the Oval Office, as though he's the Supreme Airport Screener: those are so self-evidently dumb it's hard to believe they found their way even into something written by one of Fred Hiatt's editorial writers.
That last point may seem a little harsh. But seriously, whatever one may think of Napolitano's responses, she ought to be ready to just vomit over the inanity of Armao's suggesting that the head of Homeland Security Secretary "took it easy" because the "boss was away." 
We all make mistakes, and write dumb things. But how did this get past Armao's editors? Oh, right. It was the Washington Post.  Your one stop crack team counter-terrorism unit.

12/29/09

MI Rep. Pete Hoekstra Versus MI. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Terrorism, and Health Care

Who wins this debate?

Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra, on funding for the latest technologies in airport screenings:

Voted Nay.

Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra, after the foiled Christmas day airline bombing attempt by a Nigerian whose famous father warned the U.S. Embassy about a month beforehand, now:
Says the U.S. needs to...put into place the latest technology for dealing with it.
But was this a one time slip up, a quick change of heart, or was the vote against "the latest technology for dealing with it" cast for other reasons, while working otherwise to get it applied? 

Here is Hoekstra versus Hoekstra again, accusing House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi of "outrageous accusations," which he has made himself both before and, most notably, since, accusing the CIA himself of outright lying.

Here is Hoekstra in a Detroit Free Press Op ed on the same issue of more effectively combatting terrorism:
On the one hand, the Obama administration claims it will protect our nation from terrorists, but is pursuing CIA officers who used approved interrogation techniques against al Qaeda terrorists.
But this is false information that Hoesktra is representing to his Michigan constituents, and to the American public:
Despite demands from civil libertarian and human rights organizations for a much broader investigation....Attorney General Eric Holder explicitly did not approve such an investigation and opted instead to appoint a special investigator to look only at CIA interrogations that might have gone beyond the techniques approved by the Office of Legal Counsel under Bush. The Washington Post reported this quite clearly:
...The sources said an inquiry would apply only to activities by interrogators, working in bad faith, that fell outside the “four corners” of the legal memos. Some incidents that might go beyond interrogation techniques that were permitted involve detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are described in the secret 2004 CIA inspector general report, set for release Aug. 31.
We're all in agreement that we need to do a more effective job.

But first we need to have correct information.

Promoting erroneous information just further undermines legitimate debate, discussion, and understanding of the actual issues and choices, and increasingly leads to bad policies and politics.

Here's a classic example of bad policies after months of heated public "debate" where misinformation ran rampant -- much of it, sad to say, promulgated by Hoekstra's political party.

Hoekstra himself proselytized and blatantly attacked on that issue --health care --himself:
Democrats want to take away your freedoms!
We don't like the bill either, among, for other reasons, its seeming intrusiveness, mandates, and big government, overly complicated, paperwork excessive nature while at the same time probably only adding more to the real root of the problem.  But is shouting "Democrats want to take away  your freedoms" helping on the matter?

What Does the TSA Administrator Say About the Christmas Day Airline Bombing Attempt?

A recent post noted how the 23 year old Nigerian who apparently attempted to blow up a commericial airline flight bound for Detroit on Christmas day, should not have been allowed to fly:  Among other things, his father, a prominent Nigerian, warned the U.S. Embassy in November about his son's ties to al-Qaeda.

Instead, luckily, his explosive device apparently did not go off properly or immediately, and his attempt was thrwarted by a passenger.

But what does the TSA Administrator have to say about all of this?

We don't know, because we don't have one. 

Why? Ask South Carolina Senator Jim Demint, who reportedly has been blocking the nominee over concerns about TSA workers joining a union, or some such thing. 

Meanwhile, another site wonders what kind of stink the far right, rightly or wrongly, would be making about this if the situation were reversed:  That is, no TSA Administrator had been in place for several months, because a Democrat had been holding up an otherwise reasonable TSA appointment by a Republican Administration. 

Probably a big stink, even if the Democrat was well intentioned, and even if it had nothing to do with the foiled bomb attempt -- questions we don't purport to answer here. What is noted here is the veritable absence of attention paid to the fact that we don't have a TSA administratrator because Demint has been holding it up for months.

Yeah, the System Worked: "Great"

Although it's not clear what system Janet Napolitano is talking about here when she makes this comment.

Because it's certainly not the system that is designed to keep radical terrorists out of America:

The alleged perpetrator in the recent failed airline bomb attempt had been denied re entry into Britain.

Britain's reason? A pretty good one:  He allegedly claimed his intent to study at a bogus University. 

His own father, a former economics minister of Nigeria, is reported by the UK's Independent to have warned the U.S. that his son was tied to al-Qi'da  almost half a year earlier.  In November, his father went to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria to warn the U.S. about his son and these same ties.

ABC's Jake Tapper also notes that on Dec. 16 he bought a round trip ticket with 3k cash and no address or contact info, and on Dec. 24 boarded a flight from Nigeria to the U.S. with no luggage. 

These latter two things are not that big of a deal; but in combination with his father', an extremely prominent Nigerian, warning of ties to al-Qida, and Britain banning him from entry prior to that for other reasons?

Seems like, in fact, the system didn't work so well.

12/28/09

How to Worsen the Battle Against Terrorism

Q: What is you wanted to make the war on terror worse, and you were famous, what would you say?

A:  Something that would make this effort to combat terrorism more -- to Muslims, at least -- like it was a battle against Muslims.

Why would this be one of the most foolish things we could do? Because it is imperative that the Muslim world understand that this is not against Muslims, that it is not impugning Islam (the world's second most popular religion) but is against radical extremist, terrorism, which is far different from the vast majority of Islam.

This is probably the single most critical thing to accomplish to help mitigate and  lessen this problem long term, rather than infalme and broaden it.  In a word, the most important thing we can do, is further marginalize extremist elements, and have Muslims understand that this is not a battle against them. The worst thing we can do is anything helps to convey the opposite.

So what did talk show host Mike Gallagher do? The opposite, of course:
We should anybody who is a known Muslim and put them in a separate line. Call it the VIP line! Treat them with respect!
Did Gallagher take lessons in how to inflame  and provoke and make insanity directed against innocents and the "west" just ever so slightly less insane (still insane, just effecting their view a slight bit in the opposite way that we need to) to a lot of otherwise reasonable people who feel they are being targeted now?
 
Or is he just a natural. 
 
As practical as this idea might sound to some, if you are a Christian, traveling in either your own country, or abroad, and it turns out that some really radical, fringe, lunatic element of the "Christian Faith" which has nothing to do with you, were to be crazy terrorists, how would you feel then to be singled out in your own special "respect line" which is a double check, for terrorism. (Obviously, not something normally associated with "respect.").You'd feel like you were being singled out (and you would be) and that it was your religion that was being impugned. 
 
That is not good, and undermines what we need to accomplish.
 
It is, thus, is a terrible idea.  
 
Most experts in this field, happen to agree. Gallagher, on the other hand, a "guest" on Fox, is no expert.

12/20/09

Health Care "Reform:" Kill or Change This Bill

"Health Care": A bill that puts even more rules on people, yet does not address the health insurance cost issue, is like trying to fix a bus by putting on a new tailpipe and hood,and throwing more sand in an already bad working engine.

Shorter version: A health care bill that throws on more rules, and doesn't address health insurance costs, is like trying to fix a broken pipe by requiring even more people to spend money buying the oil that flows through it.

When Howard Dean, M.D., former presidential candidate, former Governor, former head of the DNC, and a huge advocate of health insurance reform, says its a bad bill, it says something.

Perhaps in order to "appease" Republicans, who aren't voting for this bill anyway, all Democrats have managed to do is make some of the non stop criticism that Republicans have been hurling (much like one throws mud at a wall hoping some will stick) valid.

It's a bad bill. It's bad legislation. It's more big government. It's more mandated control. It won't provide the type of health security for everybody that advocates of this desire (whether right or wrong to do this, what else other than "cost" is the point?), and it won't do anything to address the real problem with health care in this country: Spiraling costs, and in particular, health insurance costs.

A bad bill is not better than no bill. Excesive health insurance -- rather than health insurance only for expensive, unexpected health crises -- is the problem, not the solution. This bill does nothing to address that, and only adds to it. In fact, Dean says its a "bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG."

Ditch, or substantively change, this bill. Address the problem. For profit health insurance that everyone, from the government, consumers, to medical personnel, are all being held hostage by. Provide a competitive option, or decrease incentives to have broad based "non essential" for profit health coverage; excessive coverage which is soaking up enormous amounts of government and consumer money, for no return. Yet all this bill would do is add to this it.

That's not reform. That's just more rules.

Perhaps in order to "appease" Republicans, who aren't voting for this bill anyway, all Democrats have managed to do is make some of the non stop criticism that Republicans have been hurling (much like one throws mud at a wall hoping some will stick) valid.

It's a bad bill. It's bad legislation.  It's more big government. It's more mandated control. It won't provide the type of health security for everybody that advocates of this desire (whether right or wrong to do this, what else other than "cost" is the point?), and it won't do anything to address the real problem with health care in this country:  Spiraling costs, and in particular, health insurance costs.

A bad bill is not better than no bill.  Excesive health insurance, rather than health insurance only for expensive, unexpected health crisis', is the problem, not the solution. This bill does nothing to address that, and only adds to it. In fact, Dean says its a "bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG."

Ditch this bill. Start over. Address the problem. For profit health insurance that everyone, from the government, consumers, to medical personnel, are all being held hostage by.  Provide a competitive option, or decrease incentives to have broad based "non essential" for profit health coverage; excessive coverage which is soaking up enormous amounts of government and consumer money, for no return. Yet all this bill would do is add to this it.

That's not reform.  That's just more rules.