Support for the President's Buck-Stop Response to the Would-be Plane Bomber

[bigtree]

from Darrell Dawsey at the Detroit Blog: http://detroit.blogs.time.com/2010/01/07/either-with-us-or-against-us/

I was living in New York City when terrorists brought down the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, and I remember clear as day the way people rallied around President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the attack, setting aside party differences and ideological conflicts in favor of a unified front shown to the world. Of course the goodwill extended to Bush didn't last forever -- but it still was very much real, even if short-lived.

Now, nine years later, back home in Detroit and looking around at the reaction in the aftermath of yet another terror attempt (this one thankfully botched), I can't help but wonder why President Barack Obama can't get even a modicum of this kind of support. Instead, barely two weeks out from the incident, even as we still work to piece together what happened and what went wrong, the President's ideological opponents just won't stop reaching for dull knives in petty attempts to hamstring the man: (http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/nolanfinleyblog/index.php)

Harry Truman made "the buck stops here" the motto of his presidency and set a standard for accepting responsibility for the workings of an administration.

None of that for Obama. He has set himself up as the aggrieved party, as angry and appalled as everyone else that the terrorist was allowed to board the plane.

Umm...no.

Listen, I'm not saying don't criticize the man. I'm not against that at all. But really, do so many of these criticisms from what many regard as respected perches have to be such a reach, so groundless and silly? Do they have to seem so crass and opportunistic? And why is that we never heard these same folks level these same criticisms at Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks or even Richard Reid's failed shoe-bombing? Three thousand Americans died on Bush's watch, and we still haven't caught man behind it all. Even so, Dubya never once "owned" anyone's failures (not even his own) -- and so many of the same people who jump feet first on Obama now never made so much as a peep in '01.

I dunno. Maybe back then it was considered "patriotic" to silently watch that proverbial buck reach the President's desk and whiz on by.


read: http://detroit.blogs.time.com/2010/01/07/either-with-us-or-against-us/#ixzz0c2Hqn0Iu



"I am less interested in passing out blame than I am in learning from and correcting these mistakes to make us safer. For ultimately, the buck stops with me. As President, I have a solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people. And when the system fails, it is my responsibility." -President Obama Jan. 7, Remarks by the President on Strengthening Intelligence and Aviation Security

[joecool65]

1. Three mistakes

Did Bush ever state three mistakes he made as President when he was once asked that by a reporter?

Every President should be able to state his greatest accomplishment and his worst mistake.

For example, Clinton once admitted his worst domestic mistake was Waco and his worst foreign policy mistake was Rwanda.

Will we ever get that from W.?

[jaxx]

2. They've got selective amnesia.

Never mind the you're with us or against us veiled threats or the idea that it was the dems who were big enough to support the USA and the president at that time. Now we have the nopers who couldn't say anything nice about Obama if their lives depended on it. People we're seeing what anti-American really means....pub party over country.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. The media decides how they are going to spin it

they spin it for an GOP advantage

[monmouth]

4. I mostly blame the media for the reaction. Anything Obama is

treated with a negative spin. As with many here I'm sad and embarrassed to say.

[Cicada]

5. 8 million commercial flights, zero terrorist deaths

The record since Sept 11 2001 could hardly be worse - 8 million commercial flights without a single terrorist caused killing. Obviously someone in our system has failed and needs to be fired.

[Winterblues]

6. There were eight million flights before 9-11 without any terrorist attack as well, it only takes one

If there is a chance an attack can take place and officials could prevent it but for reasons we yet don't know didn't, then I think some reprimands might be in order.

[bigtree]

7. I can easily imagine a case

. . . where a conspirator or perpetrator of such an act would be advantaged by such a lopping off of intelligence officials involved in defending against such attacks. Are you certain that the officials in question who may be responsible for the breach aren't, anyway, still effective and necessary in their intelligence positions? I don't know that there is a ready resource of folks willing and able to fill those roles.

[FrenchieCat]

8. There were no terrorist caused killings on a commercial flight on Christmas Eve....

not anymore than with the Shoe Bomber, who boarded a flight after 9/11.

Richard Colvin Reid, commonly known as the shoe bomber, is a self-admitted member of Al Qaeda who was convicted by a U.S. federal court of attempting to destroy a commercial aircraft in-flight by detonating explosives hidden in his shoes. His motive was terrorism. He is currently serving a life sentence without parole in a super maximum security prison in the United States. His crime led to the new requirement of U.S. airline passengers having to remove their shoes for inspection before boarding.

He boarded American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami, on December 22, 2001, wearing his special shoes packed with plastic explosives in the hollowed-out bottoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)

[Subdivisions]

9. 8 years on and we're still blaming terrorist attacks on mistakes...mistakes

we've apparently still haven't learned to correct. The same mistakes that were blamed for 9/11 - our intel failed and our agencies did not work together.

The President's words are not much different than were bush's following 9/11.

[bigtree]

10. I think that vigilance is the most important component of the effort

. . . and that pursuit is always going to be subject to error, subversion, and adaptation by would-be attackers. The difference in this administration is that, at least initially, their main focus is on fixing whatever lapse or hole in the security exists, rather than relying on ass-covering deflections to suffice as we saw during the Bush terms.

[bigtree]

11. .