Obama takes the heat Bush did not

[IsItJustMe]

Josh Gerstein Josh Gerstein – Tue Dec 29, 10:33 pm EThttp://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091230/pl_politico/31049

Eight years ago, a terrorist bomber’s attempt to blow up a transatlantic airliner was thwarted by a group of passengers, an incident that revealed some gaping holes in airline security just a few months after the attacks of Sept. 11. But it was six days before President George W. Bush, then on vacation, made any public remarks about the so-called shoe bomber, Richard Reid, and there were virtually no complaints from the press or any opposition Democrats that his response was sluggish or inadequate.

That stands in sharp contrast to the withering criticism President Barack Obama has received from Republicans and some in the press for his reaction to Friday’s incident on a Northwest Airlines flight heading for Detroit......
_______________________________________________________________________

There is something seriously wrong with our news media.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Seriously, what's wrong is that we have no news media n/t

[Orsino]

2. Without folding.

Because whate3ver else he is, he's not a spoiled, lying man-child.

[uponit7771]

3. The epitome of white privilege

[HopeOverFear]

4. hello

[timo]

5. i am just saying

not defending ANYBODY, shoe bomber popped up outta nowhere, underwear bomber was on the radar as a nogoodnik, we had info/intel on this douche bag!!!!

[ljm2002]

6. First, the criticisms of Obama are re: his response...

...which took 3 days, as compared to Bush's 6 days.

Second, the fact that the shoe bomber "popped up out of nowhere" could indicate even more serious failures of intelligence, so are hardly exculpatory of the system in place at the time.

Of course, in both cases, we mere citizens must realize that we do not get all of the information. In both cases, chances are there is a lot more known about existing intelligence than we'll ever know. So there may have been some knowledge of the shoe bomber, maybe Bush took 6 days to ensure that no one would come forward with what was actually known about the man. And in the current case, many of us wonder how, with all of the existing information on the crotch bomber, how in the hell was he allowed to board any flight, anywhere? Incompetence, or rogue elements in intelligence and law enforcement? Or bribery of officials?

Anyway the point you make is moot, the question at hand is the difference in treatment of Presidents by the news media and their colleagues across the aisle.