Analysis: Many Question 'System Worked' Comment (Janet Napolitano)

[WriteDown]

Source: NYT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration claim that ''the system worked'' after a failed aircraft bombing wasn't quite as jolting as President George W. Bush's ''Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job'' when New Orleans was sinking under deadly Hurricane Katrina. But both raised disturbing questions about presidential response in a time of crisis.

Bush's praise for his beleaguered FEMA director, Michael Brown, came while starving storm evacuees remained trapped in the Louisiana Superdome and victims' bodies bloated in the flooded streets. It became a clarion call for all that his administration did wrong during the 2005 calamity -- and grew into a symbol for all that people disliked about Bush.

Obama is dealing with a crisis of an entirely different sort, Friday's attempt by a 23-year-old Nigerian to blow up a Detroit-bound flight from Amsterdam.

But though it ended with only a fire that was quickly put out, no lives lost and the man in custody, it has raised alarm about the government's performance.

-- How did airport security, improved at much cost after the 2001 terrorist attacks, miss the explosives concealed on the bomber's body?

-- How did the terrorist watchlist system allow Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to both keep his American tourist visa and avoid extra flight screening despite his father telling authorities his concerns about the younger man's radicalization?

-- Why didn't Abdulmutallab's lack of luggage, and cash purchase for an international flight, raise suspicions?

-- Why was the plot thwarted only by an apparent explosive malfunction and fellow passengers' aggressive action?...

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/29/us/politics/AP-US-Obamas-Test-Analysis.html

---

Apparently the "system" involves putting brave Dutchmen on random flights. Brilliant.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. I thought her comment was in regards to how the issue was handled after the fact?

Your article require subscription and log in.


On Edit: Yes, this is what she actually said:

"Once this incident occurred, everything went according to clockwork, not only sharing throughout the air industry, but also sharing with state and local law enforcement. Products were going out on Christmas Day, they went out yesterday, and also to the industry to make sure that the traveling public remains safe. I would leave you with that message. The traveling public is safe. We have instituted some additional screening and security measures, in light of this incident, but, again, everyone reacted as they should. The system, once the incident occurred, the system worked. "

Which isn't the most brilliant thing to say, but it certainly isn't saying what you are implying.

[dencol]

5. After the fact, the processes worked.

Which is no surprise given the professionals in aviation. But with the pay, training, and manpower reductions at airlines, don't always expect things to go so well. I have witnessed the system fall apart for much less.

[WriteDown]

7. Could be.

I don't think the concern is on "after" these incidents occur though. The "after" could have been really bad.

[jpak]

9. Repeating FAUX Noise's out-of-context bullshit is really bad

just sayin'

[WriteDown]

11. Being a fanatic is worse...

You're probably the type who sits quietly with no blanket or bathroom breaks on the last hour of the flight.

[jpak]

14. Yup!

:rofl:

[No Elephants]

56. If by "fanatic," you mean someone who sees only one side of things, you describe yourself.

The fact that the one side you see is different from the one side you think jpak sees doesn't make it any more objective.

It's simiply different sets of memes.

[WriteDown]

57. See any of bertman's comments or post 43 and 53 for clarification. nt

[No Elephants]

68. Neither post 43 nor 53 links to a transcript. No sale.

On edit: But my post about your seeing only one side of things was a general comment, having nothing to do with what Napolitano may have said or meant or not said.

[WriteDown]

69. Sorry if the video is not good enough for you...

I will work on writing up a transcript for you :). Don't think you're on enough threads to know me.

[No Elephants]

71. Videos can be edited and can themselves take things out of context.

And please see Reply # 70.

And I've seen more than enough of your posts since I joined the board to have your number. So have a lot of other posters. Your one sidedness just ain't that subtle.

[WriteDown]

88. Please point out the timestamp of the cut..

or see post 80. nt

[No Elephants]

92. Again, please see post 70.

As far as the time stamp, don't be ridiculous. For one thing, I never said that there was in fact an edit in that particular video. I said that videos can be edited and taken out of context. (The quote from the transcript post 80 is patently out of context, but it doesn't say that the system worked before the incident anyway. Again, see Reply # 70.)

[No Elephants]

94. Oh, and please see Reply # 78 as to Gibbs.

[conservdem]

80. Transcripts

CROWLEY: So, just to finish up on the question-- I do want to talk to you about security measures -- but do you think -- has there been any evidence of the Al Qaida ties that this suspect has been claiming?

NAPOLITANO: Right now, that is part of the criminal justice investigation that is ongoing, and I think it would be inappropriate to speculate as to whether or not he has such ties.

What we are focused on is making sure that the air environment remains safe, that people are confident when they travel. And one thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action. Within literally an hour to 90 minutes of the incident occurring, all 128 flights in the air had been notified to take some special measures in light of what had occurred on the Northwest Airlines flight. We instituted new measures on the ground and at screening areas, both here in the United States and in Europe, where this flight originated.

from: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003273705


For Gibbs:

DICKERSON: Does he think this was a tiny little rip in the system or does this show there’s a big hole here that needs to be fixed?

GIBBS: Well, again, look, we’re going to go through the capabilities for detecting. And we’re going to look through the watch-listing procedures again, some of which are older, and evaluate whether or not they’re up to date for the types of threats and security concerns that we have.

I do think, though, that, in many ways, this system has worked. We just have to continue to keep refining it and stay ahead of what terrorists are trying to do.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=1&docID=news-000003273709

[No Elephants]

93. Please see Reply # 70.

[No Elephants]

95. Oh, and I already replied to you about Gibbs' comment in Post 78.

Bottom line: Neither Naplitano nor Gibbs said anything about the system working before the point where the detonation failed. To the contrary, both said the procedures relevant to the perp boarding the plane with explosives--the watch list and detection--were being reviewed.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

15. Not could be, it *was*. You were pulling a quote out of context.

I agree that people aren't concerned about the after. But that *is* what she was referring to. Her comment wasn't wrong so much as it was superfluous.

[WriteDown]

18. See post 17...

You're referring to the 2nd time she said it worked. The first time, she made no distinction.

[NWHarkness]

16. It was

She distinctly referred to how the situation was handled after the incident occurred. Claims that she said otherwise are right wing bullshit.

[WriteDown]

17. That was after the first instance..

She merely said "the system worked" at first. Same as Gibbs.

'The system worked,'' Napolitano declared on CNN during questioning about the lapses that let Abdulmutallab and his devices onto the plane. Gibbs used nearly the same language on CBS, saying that ''in many ways, this system has worked,'' without elaborating.

[jpak]

19. Bullshit - and ignore what your president just said

that's right - President Barack HUSSEIN Obama

your president

:D

[WriteDown]

20. Wonder if the POTUS believes the 9/11 hijackers crossed the..

Canadian border. I doubt it.

[jpak]

21. Where did that nonsense come from?

FAUX and Friends?

:shrug:

[WriteDown]

22. CTV:

"Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there."

When asked if she was referring to the 9-11 terrorists, Napolitano added: "Not just those but others as well."

Canada is a hotbed of terrorism that must be addressed.

[jpak]

23. Wow - more right wing talking points

keep digging that hole!

[Psephos]

43. Not a talking point. She said it, youtube has it...or don't you trust your lyin' ears?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTqim4Se70k

She's in waaaaay over her head. It's seriously hard to imagine a worse pick for the head of national security. She's turned into a textbook example of Poe's Law.

[No Elephants]

63. I trust my eyes and my ears. I just don't trust

the way that the RW interprets what Democrats say. Please see Reply 59 (among many other posts).

[Spazito]

24. LOL, you really had to reach for that one!

I believe this "quote" has nothing to do with the current issue, this is OLD news, actually from March/April of 09. Nice try, though. Keep workin' it, workin' it real hard and maybe, just maybe someone might buy what you are selling.





Oh, and btw, here is what Napolitano said after her April misstep:

"She also said she was taken aback by continuing criticism from Canadians after an embarrassing "misstatement," when she suggested some of the Sept. 11 terrorists entered the U.S. from Canada.

"In the United States, I've misspoken from time to time. I've been in elected office -- you immediately correct it, you apologize and move on," she said.

"What I regret is that Canada can't seem to get beyond one misstatement from what I'm trying to suggest. And what I am suggesting is that we share security concerns, just as we share trade concerns, and share all kinds of concerns. It behooves us both -- both nations -- to work together. We will, in the end, be stronger together.""

Link:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090527/napolitano_911_090527?s_name=&no_ads=

And this:

The U.S. Homeland Security chief has clarified earlier remarks that suggested the 9-11 terrorists entered the U.S. through Canada.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano made the comments during a media interview earlier this week, much to the chagrin of Canadians on both sides of the border.

In a release Tuesday night following the interview, she called Canada a "close ally and an important partner" and said she was simply misunderstood.

"I know that the September 11th hijackers did not come through Canada to the United States," she said in the statement.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/storyv2/CTVNews/20090421/USA_Border_090421?s_name=&no_ads=

[jpak]

25. beat me to it

:toast:

[Spazito]

27. LOL, the poster made it just too damn easy....

but, then again, he/she has a history of attempting to sell garbage as gold.

:toast:

[WriteDown]

28. The issue is Napolitano and her need for "retractions"

Although I am glad she addressed our Great Enemy to the North.

[Spazito]

29. Nice try, no sale though...

If your point had been to point out her 'retractions' then you would have INCLUDED the retraction in your post, you did not. I had to post it along with pointing out how OLD your "news" was.

Keep tryin' though, it is quite amusing.

[WriteDown]

31. Maybe you are comfortable with these misstatements...

but I'm not sure why.

Heck of a job Spazito.

[Spazito]

32. LOL yet again, very poor comeback....

you disappoint me. "Heck of a job Spazito" is the best you have? Figures.

:rofl:

[WriteDown]

33. Not a come back...

I was just talking about what a great job you are doing. You aren't by chance Dutch are you?

[Spazito]

34. Still less than what I hoped for...

but if it helps keep your, to say the least, misleading OP up the page, I'm game. The thread has clearly shown how misleading your OP is so keeping it in the 'spotlight' as it were is fine with me.

As to the "Dutch" red herring, not biting, sorry, lol.

[WriteDown]

35. Yeah...

It's tough reading quotes.

[Spazito]

36. Yeah, your quotes, given how misleading they were, were tough....

OMG, we agree on something! Who knew!

[WriteDown]

37. Not one thing taken out of context...

In the morning she simply said "the system works." Then its obvious that someone got a hold of her perhaps even the POTUS himself and talked some sense into her. She then went out and expanded on her statement. Finally, she retracted the whole thing.

[Spazito]

40. Well, at least we are back to the subject at hand...

If your intent, as you have professed, was to point out Ms. Napolitano's "need for retractions" why did you not INCLUDE the "retraction" (as you define it) in your OP? Your OP was intentionally put forth with only an article with a quote cited by CNN which, if one watches this CNN coverage on YouTube clearly states her comments were referencing AFTER the event so, to repeat, your article ergo your OP was deliberately using a quote OUT of CONTEXT. Thanks for the return to the subject, it allowed me to do further research to, yet again, find concrete evidence of the misleading information in your OP!

YouTube link, take note of what is said BY CNN at 0:50 to 0:57:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r97fCN0gOHQ

[WriteDown]

45. I think bertman said it much better than I could have ever....

in his posts below.

[No Elephants]

74. Bertman probably did say it much better than you ever could have, but

that doesn't mean what he said was anything but his own perception.

The fact that two people say similar things doesn't automatically make both of them correct. It's equally possible that they are both wrong.

[No Elephants]

67. In what morning did dshe say that? And when did she retract what she said--namely, that

once the incident occurred, everyone did what they should have done?

[No Elephants]

66. Spazito's post was right on point. Try refuting it instead of settling for only

ad hominem remarks.

You are the one who seems at home with misstatements--and other deceptions.

[No Elephants]

64. That was not your original issue, but this is not the first time I've seen you try to move the goal

post after someone proved you wrong on the original point that you were trying to make.

[No Elephants]

59. Jeez, you don't care how misleading your posts are, as long as they reflect badly on Democrats.

"While she knows no 9/11 terrorists entered the U.S. through Canada, she said, "there are other instances … when suspected terrorists have attempted to enter our country from Canada to the United States.

"Some of these are well known to the public, such as the millennium bomber, while others are not due to security reasons."

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/21/napolitano-border-canada021.html

When she said "not just those," she meant she was not referring only to the 911 terrorists. And, as far as the point she was making about the Canadian border, it matters little whether it was the 911 terrorists who crossed it, or the so-called millenium terrorist, or terrorists of whom we are not aware.

[WriteDown]

60. Another CYA comment made well AFTER the INITIAL statement.

See post 43 and 53.

[No Elephants]

96. Sorry. Nothing in either post contradicts my statements or supports your claims.

[WriteDown]

106. Just the videos and transcripts...

but those can be cut or altered.

[No Elephants]

55. Link? I doubt this very much. I heard her comments Sunday on two different

talking heads shows (This Week and Meet the Press). Both times she prefaced her statement with "after" the incident occurred or some such language. Both times, she used almost exactly the same words. Then, I saw her defend the comment a few days later, saying "the system worked" was taken out of context. Again, she used just about the same words.

I think it was a statement prepared by the WH that she repeated almost verbatim.

Edited to add these quotes and links:


"NAPOLITANO: Well, I think, first of all, we are investigating, as always, going backwards to see what happened and when, who knew what and when. But here -- I think it's important for the public to know, there are different types of databases.

And there were simply, throughout the law enforcement community, never information that would put this individual on a no-fly list or a selectee list. So that's number one.

Number two, I think the important thing to recognize here is that once this incident occurred, everything happened that should have. The passengers reacted correctly, the crew reacted correctly, within an hour to 90 minutes, all 128 flights in the air had been notified. And those flights already had taken mitigation measures on the off-chance that there was somebody else also flying with some sort of destructive intent.

So the system has worked really very, very smoothly over the course of the past several days."

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-napolitano-gibbs-mcconnell/story?id=9428037


"So the minute he began setting himself on fire, which is what it, it looked like, the passengers acted quickly. And indeed, that's part of what I keep saying, is security is everybody's responsibility. The passengers and the flight crew deserve our praise, and the system went into full alert mode leaning forward, literally, within, within a, within minutes, an hour of the incident occurring in the air." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34591423/ns/meet_the_press/

(the questions from the two shows were, of course, not identical. However, if you read the full transcript, you see that she said very similar things on both shows.)

[WriteDown]

58. See post 43 for link. nt

[No Elephants]

61. I'll look, but, if it is not a link to a transcript, it will prove nothing.

[WriteDown]

62. I would never do that to you...

:P

[No Elephants]

75. At the very minimum, those claims have not been supported on this thread.

[bertman]

39. No, SemiCharmedQuark, THIS is what she actually said in the initial interview on CNN with

Candy Crowley. In answer to Crowley's question Secretary Napolitano said “Right now that is part of the criminal justice investigation that is ongoing. . .

. . . What we’re focused on is making sure that the in-air environment remains safe, that people are confident when they travel. AND ONE THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT THE SYSTEM WORKED. (my emphasis). Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action. Within literally an hour to ninety minutes of the incident occurring all 128 flights in the air had been notified to take some special measures. . .”

I transcribed that directly from the video.

So, she said the system worked, THEN she went on to qualify that it worked AFTER the incident took place. Bureaucratic Cabinet Secretary WEASEL WORDS.

[snagglepuss]

41. Its the bureaucratic weasel words that bother me as well. CYA in full swing.

Reality be damned.

[dixiegrrrrl]

44. And Obama said:

"a systemic failure has occurred" that led a "catastrophic breach of security" .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4202992

mixed messages?

[bertman]

48. I don't think so, dixiegrrrrl. I think President Obama saw that her initial comments (which

I think were ill-considered) were not fooling anyone and that he had better step up and "tell it like it is". Good for him.

That said, it's now becoming more and more apparent that there's more to this "terror attempt" than meets the eye. Just one more excuse to implement the next phase of the "security state".

[No Elephants]

70. In fairness, when she said that the passengers and crew took appropriate

action and the news was spread quickly, isn't it self-evident that she means after the guy tried to detonate? The seccurity failure on the part of the government was letting this guy on the plane with explosives--maybe letting him on the plane, period. It's clear from what she said that she was not trying to excuse that failure in any way (though she was trying to gloss over it).

I almost always agree with you, but think you are trying to make a distinction without a difference here.

IMO, what she said was a lame PR attempt that probably was agreed upon in advance at the WH. However, she was not saying that the entire system worked from start to finish. That is clear from what you posted.

[conservdem]

77. I agree that she and Gibbs were trying to gloss over it.

But they both should know better, and it undermines their credibility. They are making it worse to suggest she was taken out of context. IMO the mistake was hers and the WH's.

They look like armatures.

She seems to be to be unqualified for job.

[No Elephants]

82. The issue of this thread is what she actually said. And that is all I have debated thus far.

As far as her being unqualified for her job, you cite no reasons. IMO, her statements are attributable to the WH, from Gibbs right up to Rahm and/or Obama. On a matter of failure to stop a terrorist about whom the US had been specifically warned, I would be amazed if they let Napolitano or anyone else "wing it."

I expect that she will step down, though, even though I very much doubt that the statements she and Gibbs made originated with her.

[conservdem]

84. If she does step down do you think we can do better in terms of

a more qualified person to head up Homeland Security. Wouldn't someone with experience and expertise in this filed be the better choice?

[No Elephants]

97. I always thought that Napolitano should have remained Governor, for a number of reasons.

However, I do think Napolitano was more qualified to head Homeland Secucrity (or anything) than was "Brownie" or Kerik. For one thing, she is a lot smarter than Brownie and not a thug or a criminal like Kerik.

You show me someone who has a high level of success in thwarting most terrorist acts and I'll show you someone who can earn at least $300 million a year consulting. And I mean "earn," not bs consulting, like Guiliani.

[conservdem]

104. Agreed regarding Brownie and Kerik.

Appointment of Brownie was a disgrace.

I hope and believe that someone already working for the gov would be well qualified. A dedicated career FBI or CIA agent or the like.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

50. What question was she answering with the quoted text? Was she asked about procedures AFTER ....

an attempted suicide bombing? If not, she was obfuscating the obvious fact that this was a very scary near-miss on her watch...

[No Elephants]

72. Two different issues:

Did she say that nothing had gone wrong before the guy attempted the detonation? No.

Was she trying to gloss over the failures before the incident occurred and stress only the bright side? You bet.

[AngryAmish]

2. Janet Napolitano is the best we have to offer

[WriteDown]

10. We need a Sicilian. nt

[No Elephants]

76. Another post from you containing a negative stereotype about Italians.

[WriteDown]

79. Che?

I AM half-sicilian!

[No Elephants]

83. Che? What does your genetic makeup have to do with whether you post

a negative stereotype about Italians? What does your post mean?

What's your point? That someone who is half Sicilian is incapable of postinga negative stereotype about Italians? Fail. I've heard plenty of people mouthing negative stereotypes of groups to which they belong.

[WriteDown]

87. Please point out the negative stereotype...

Wanting one of my own in the spot is not being negative. This is especially funny considering I usually rail against the usual anti-Italian stereotypes such as The Sopranos.

[No Elephants]

99. Are you trying to tell me that you posted "We NEED a Sicilian" simply bc

you would PREFER to have one of "your own" heading Homeland Security?

Come on, now. I've seen you be evasive; I've seen you be deceptive, but I've not yet seen you lie outright. So, seriously, is that what you are really trying to tell me your original post meant?

Are you really claiming that "WE" "NEED" a Sicilian really meant only "I" "WANT" one of my own to head Homeland Security--and would you have said the same thing if you were half French instead of half Sicilian? Or are you trying to get away with implying that, without saying it directly, in so many words.

And why your Sicilian half, rather than your NA side?


(As an aside, I've seen you mention your NA side scores of times, but this is the first time I've seen you mention your Sicilian half. Just a coincidence that the Sicilian side happens to leap to your mind when Security is the issue?)

BTW, answer carefully, bc thinking that one of "your own" could do a better job than one of any other nationality is pretty sucky, too. I think it's called bigotry.

BTW, what nationality do you think Janet Napolitano might be?

[WriteDown]

103. Yes, nt

[timeforpeace]

3. Maybe. It wasn't clear, plus most are not looking at "after the fact" with this.

[Hello_Kitty]

4. Torch the Witch!

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

26. LMAO

[jpak]

6. She retracted that statement and you know it

and when she made that remark she was talking about the passengers and crew on board that plane

and you know it

and Obama just took responsibility for this incident and said the system didn't work

and you know it

what horseshit

:thumbsdown:

[WriteDown]

8. I hear George W. Bush retracted "You're doin' a heck of a job Brownie" too.

Its an embarrassment that she even had to retract it.

[jpak]

12. Again - nice try

Is that all you have?

:rofl:

[WriteDown]

13. I bow to your extremely sound and well thought out argument.

:rofl:

You're doin' a heck of a job jpak.

[No Elephants]

73. Link to the retraction, please?

I know Brownie eventually left the Adminstration to spend more time with Andrew Card's children (as Colbert might say), but that is not the same as Bush's actually retracting the statement.

[WriteDown]

90. It's a video...

but you can't trust it because I'm sure it's been cut. :)

[No Elephants]

100. Nah. It's not a video. It's pure bs you made up.

[WriteDown]

107. Nope, its been altered though. I'll try to send you the timestamps of the cuts.

A better question would be would it have mattered if he clarified his statement or made a retraction? Probably not and rightly so.

[DURHAM D]

30. Correct. I saw her first comment live.

And I thought - Oh No...

And immediately thought - you will need to rephrase as soon as possible.

So, she had to make another round of appearances.

Done.

Mis-statement has now been taken care of.

[conservdem]

53. Her remark indicates she viewed the passengers as part of the

system that "worked."

Her remark seems like it was a talking point as it was similar to a remark by Gibbs:

DICKERSON: Does he think this was a tiny little rip in the system or does this show there’s a big hole here that needs to be fixed?

GIBBS: Well, again, look, we’re going to go through the capabilities for detecting. And we’re going to look through the watch-listing procedures again, some of which are older, and evaluate whether or not they’re up to date for the types of threats and security concerns that we have.

I do think, though, that, in many ways, this system has worked. We just have to continue to keep refining it and stay ahead of what terrorists are trying to do.




I do not buy her claim that her comment was taken out of context.

[No Elephants]

78. You cannot argue validly about exactly what Napolitano said or did not say

by quoting Gibbs.

At that, all Gibbs said was that they were going to look at the system, citing specifically the things they did do wrong--the errors that culminated with his being let on the plane (the watch listing procedures) and with explosives (capabilities for detecting). But, in many ways, the system worked (which implies that, in other ways, the system failed).

A press secretary tries to put things in the best light and chooses his words carefully to that end. That is his purpose and function. But I don't see a lie or massive error in the statement you quoted.


But again, what Gibbs said is what Gibbs said. It proves nothing about what Napolitano said or did not say.

Were they both trying to emphasize the positive and gloss quickly and cleverly over the negative? Yes, I think so. But I've yet to see anyone prove more than that.

On edit. I do agree, though, that her remarks indicate that the reaction of the passengers and the flight crew are part of the system.

[WriteDown]

108. All we have is the videos and transcripts for that. nt

[24601]

54. I heard the President ask for a report - when did he admit that it

was his responsibility - I'm not criticizing/challenging, i just didn't see/read/hear it ?

It's an interesting question -

Constitutionally, I'd hypothesize that a new President is responsible at noon on Jan 20th.

But in reality, "We the People" give a President a grace period or honeymoon where reasonable folk judge what happened was the previous guy - so where is that point?

One measure could be the 1st 100 days - but that's pretty short.

At least we know from experience on DU that's it's before September 11th as most DUers blame Bush, not Clinton.

And it's intuitive that it's sometime before Christmas if the President is issuing himself, not the previous admin, a 2009 report card.

And since the repugs lost control of Congress in the 2006 elections, an opposition Congress can't be blamed.

He can't even blame DeMint since he passed up opportunities to make a recess appointment for a political TSA Chief - but TSA, currently led by a career senior executive service employee, was not the problem here. At this point, the "failure" appears to be either the State Department (led by political Appointee), the CIA (led by a Political Appointee)or the NCTC (ODNI led by a Political Appointee). All three are President Obama's appointees (despite my good advice to put a career intelligence officer running CIA - but to be fair, he never asked me - I just presumed he read everything on DU and would see my advice)

In the utopia run by 24601, political appointees would go no lower that Undersecretaries - Assistant Secretaries and below would all be career employees who have extensive experience in the various fields.

Now I know that it's no longer acceptable to refer to a Global War on Terror. Constitutionally anyway we haven't had a war since Congress ended WWII in April 1952, over 10 years after Pearl Harbor. What we have today is a state of military action different than war - call it AUMF for Authorized Use of Military Force based on the IEF and OIF congressional votes. With the precedent of WWII being one world war with two major theaters, we would now have World AUMF I with three theaters: Afghanistan on the rise, Iraq winding down, and the USA the great unknown.

When the German saba tours landed on the US, they were tried by the military and, except for the one who called the FBI, executed by hanging. What is failed poopy-pants bomber - a common criminal or a terrorist at war with the USA? Even though we limit our definition to AUMF, Al Qaeda isn't shy about characterizing themselves as as way with the USA. Why is poopy-pants different than one of the German saba tours? Why does he civilian prosecution and a fancy lawyer instead if the tribunal that was good enough for the Germans? I'm at a loss to explain and am kinda pissed that this illegal combatant, who was attempting a war crime/AUMF crime, wasn't scarfed up by DoD and legally/humanely interrogated for valuable intelligence rather than assisting him to "lawyer-up" in prep for only a civilian trial.

President Obama says our fight with Al Qaeda is a war of necessity - so why aren't usual and customary wartime/AUMFtime procedures in effect? I haven't seen an acceptable answer.

[bertman]

38. Typical Cabinet Secretary trying to "put the best face on things" while solidly planting her

foot in her mouth. Happens all the time. It's called trying to minimize the damage, but it often comes back to haunt the minimizer.

Won't it be a bright day when a Cabinet Secretary comes out and says "There was a serious breakdown somewhere on the front end, but once the incident occurred our systems worked well."

Oh wait. It'll never happen because it requires that a person whose career is devoted to covering her/his ass will have to tell the raw truth for once.

[snagglepuss]

42. Spot on. nt

[No Elephants]

101. Yes, politicians trying to avoid making themselves and/or their boss look bad often make things

worse, even if they don't outright lie.



When will they ever learn?

When will they ever learn?

[Xenotime]

46. The system did work. People are still alive..

Which is better than Bush's record.

[hugo_from_TN]

47. So the system counts on a faulty detonator and a dutch tourist to tackle the bomber?

That's a heck of a system there, Janet.

[Xenotime]

49. The system is the communication path that took place after...

the authorities were alerted. Which is different than other "systems" people think about.

[No Elephants]

86. No, that is not what the system is.

In Napolitano's statement--maybe even in her mind--the passengers and the flight crew are PART of the system, as is the communication about the incident. That is the part that she specified, not because it is all that "the system" consists of, but because it is the ONLY part of the system that worked.

The part of the system that failed was the part that allowed this guy about whom we had specifically been warned board a plane with explosives in his drawers and a detonator in his rectum. That was the part that had been within her direct control, unlike the actions of the passengers and flight crew. And it was the part she tried to gloss over with the words "After the incident occurred," the system worked.

the fact that she tried to gloss over that part, however, does not mean that the part that failed is not part of "the system." It is very much part of it. In fact, it is the most important part, unless our homeland security depends on terrorists goofing up. Passengers are hardly a "system" and, if the detonator had worked, both the passengers and flight crew would have died.

[tomhayes]

51. From TN

That explains your post.

Wait, did I take something out of context from your statement and twist it??

From TN?? hahaha

[No Elephants]

85. People are still alive because the detonation failed, not because the system worked.

[WriteDown]

89. Thank you..

We agree.

[No Elephants]

102. On that point, maybe. But we do not agree on what Napolitano said or much of anything else.

Not surprising that we agree on that point. I've never seen you pass up an opportunity to attack the Obamadmin or use an opportunity to praise it. I do both. Guess I'm not "fanatic" in either direction.

[WriteDown]

105. You need to read more threads. nt

[TexasObserver]

52. It's a ridiculous mischaracterization about what she said.

Her comment has been taken out of context for the express purpose of creating this meme.

[high density]

65. AP is now taking their leads from Fox and Friends I see

How in the f--k is "the government" supposed to know people are buying plane tickets for cash and not checking luggage? Are we going to have a people-without-luggage clearing house where these alerts get generated in some big brother monitoring center for instantaneous review? So next time the terrorists check an empty box, use a credit card, and get right past that issue. Wow, that was easy.

Not to mention that "the (US) government" has little to do with the security going on in Schiphol Airport.

[No Elephants]

91. AP News has a Fournier problem, but

"How in the f--k is "the government" supposed to know people are buying plane tickets for cash and not checking luggage? Are we going to have a people-without-luggage clearing house where these alerts get generated in some big brother monitoring center for instantaneous review? So next time the terrorists check an empty box, use a credit card, and get right past that issue. Wow, that was easy."

a) Those were not the only issues in this case. The guy's own father reported him, by name, to our embassy. Without knowing that apparently, the CIA had noticed enough about him to be keeping an eye on "the Nigerian guy," as the CIA referred to him. The guy had done enough to land on the UK's "no fly" list. Yet, he was not even on our list of people who warranted additional scrutiny in an airport.

As to your suggestion about a central clearinghouse for folks buying a one-way ticket, paid for in cash, and flying with no luggage (especially internationally)--aka the 911 terrorist M.O., why the hell not?

Terrorism is an international problem. What is wrong with international sharing of information that is public? It was not as though this clown was trying to hide any of that, so your reference to Big Brother, where people had to submit to be watched everywhere, including in their own homes, is not at all on point. No one had to invade anyone's privacy to get that info.

[jpak]

81. Not this shit again - why do people so easliy fall for blatant RW propaganda?

Fuck the GOP and FAUX NEWS

[Kingofalldems]

98. Upset about Rush?

He'll be alright.