Why is the failed terror attempt prompting people to applaud Obama's handling of terrorism?

[howard112211]

As it apparently is in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x95824

The way I understand it, the terror plot was unsuccessful by luck. The systems that
are in place to prevent such things failed at what they are supposed to do.

I'm not in any way saying that this is Obama's fault, or that it is even possible to have
perfect security, but I find it a pretty strange occasion to applaud Obama's handling of terrorism.

[RepublicanElephant]

1. yeah, it is kinda strange after 8 years of bush paranoid hysteria. nt

[timeforpeace]

17. We like it, but it's not going over well with the rest of the country, witness the media reaction.

[elleng]

2. You can read, right?

'No more fear mongering and using every capture and every incident as a way to stir up fear and brag.'

[howard112211]

5. Yeah. But even if he wanted to, there would be nothing to brag about.

Saying nothing is the smartest thing to do. Otherwise people might start asking why the systems failed.

[MH1]

8. Like they asked after 9/11? The way they blamed Bush for it,

to such an extent that no one would vote for him again? Yeah, Obama sure wouldn't want that to happen.

Oh wait ...

[howard112211]

13. Well, the media doesn't exactly have a history of being on Obama's side.

I think the more attention he draws to this incident, the more they will spin it against him, so it is in his own interest to not declare it a national emergency the way Bush would have done.

[HughMoran]

10. I know it huh?

This one isn't even trying to hide their intentions here.

[Double T]

3. This event might easily have gone a different way and NOT PRETTY.

The whole GD super expensive airline security system is an absolute failure. NO ONE should be applauding anything or anyone.

[MH1]

4. Perhaps if you actually read that post

and thought about the point being made ...

Ok so maybe you did and still didn't get it. The point is, the Obama administration is not using these incidents to stoke fear, or continually justify war (his justification of war is another point of argument at DU, but he isn't using every near-miss incident to justify it). He isn't publicly raising the "terror alert level" - remember that color coded system that the republicans played like a fiddle during the 2004 election season?

THAT is what is being applauded, NOT Obama's success at preventing the incidents. (Clinton stopped the millenium plot but Bush let 9/11 happen ... yet some still want to say Clinton was weak and Bush was strong ... evidently, preventing terrorism doesn't get you far in some corners of public opinion ...)

Does that help?

[howard112211]

7. Yes. I guess one can see saying nothing as an improvement over doing the things that Bush did.

I understand that.

[tabatha]

9. Yes, and the way it was handled by Obama

gives less of a reason for the terrorists to celebrate because it did not generate mass hysteria - always a purpose of their attempts.

[MH1]

11. Exactly. Bush's approach gave Al Qaeda far more stature

Obama's is treating it as it should be treated - lone incompetent idiot manages to get through security procedures to make a botched attempt. Analyze and fix the problem with the security procedures. Don't give Al Qaeda any more publicity than you have to.

Another interesting point made on NPR yesterday (early in the reporting) was the fact that this was a LONE ATTEMPT. That speaks to the weakness of Al Qaeda at this time.

[timeforpeace]

22. Sending 30,000 more troops to fight 100 or so remaining al Qaeda doesn't do that?

[HopeOverFear]

14. +10000

[Enrique]

6. if you're going to start a new thread

you should at least have some point to make.

[MH1]

12. Try here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x97309

[Ikonoklast]

15. Welcome to DU.

Don't unpack your bags.

[shadesofgray]

16. It's just a way to distract people from the reality that Obama supports the most egregious abuse of

civil rights contained in the Patriot Act. THAT'S how he truly handles terrorism.

[ipaint]

18. Learned response.

It worked for 7 years for the repubs.

[krawhitham]

19. Because he did not run out and tell us the world was ending as we know it

he did not use the bush scare tactics

[treestar]

20. the reasons given in the post you link are self evident

They don't have to do with effectiveness of the technology, but the political response.

No chest thumping, elevating it in significance.

[dave29]

21. Until I see the NIE document that states "Nigerian boy determined

to set croth on fire over United States" I will not bite that this was a massive systemic failure. There will always be human error introduced in any security system. You cannot eliminate terrorism... your success against it is defined by your response to it.

Was it a failure, yes. But as many have pointed out, the failure has not been used to fan the flames of fear, nor has it been used as a selling point for invading other countries, unless you are Joe Lieberman.

[Hekate]

23. Some very good responses here. All I can say is: enjoy your stay. nt