#44 takes the heat that #43 did not

[Undesired Walrus]

Interesting article. It's all too easy to forget about the Briton:

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.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31049.html

 

[KingMerv00]

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.

The bold part explains the lack of criticism. For better or worse, the country was united and attacking the president was taboo.

 

[WildCat]

Did Reid have all the warning signs that the Christmas bomber had?

 

[theprestige]

I think Bush may have gotten a pass in part because his senior officials did a good job of speaking publically on the matter in the first 48 hours.

Of course, if Bush's security czar spent the first 48 hours proclaiming that "the system worked" and that there was no indication of a wider plot, I'm more than happy to agree that there's a double standard here--maybe even (gasp!) hypocrisy.

 

[Whiplash]

I don't see the point to these kinds of hypocrisy attacks anyhow. People on either side who think that it's something that is unique to their opposition are fooling themselves. It cuts both ways, and I doubt very much it ever changes any minds.

Either the current situation and complaints are legitimate, or not. The past has nothing to do with that. It's either correct, or it's not.

ETA: I'm rethinking, and I can see some value to hypocrisy attacks if they actually do help people to think about their positions and try to be consistent.

 

[Puppycow]

It's like republicans have a reputation for being tough on national security, and democrats do not, so republicans are immune from criticism on national security issues and democrats are reticent to go on the offensive over national security. To do so would be to try to out-republican the republicans. The republicans, OTOH, are never hesitant to make national security a political issue.

 

[GreNME]

Did Reid have all the warning signs that the Christmas bomber had?

For at least two of the 9/11 bombers, yes. The CIA had been watching them, in fact. Non-communication between agencies is actually one of the criticisms from the 9/11 Commission Report about how the event managed to happen under the administration's nose.

 

[theprestige]

Seriously, I think that Bush didn't get any criticism because his senior staff handled the matter during the first few days in such a way that it never occurred to anybody that the President needed to personally address the nation about it.

And I think that Obama did get criticism precisely because, during the first 48 hours after the Christmas attack, his senior staff handled the matter in such a way that people couldn't help but think "wait, what? Where's the President?"

It's like when you call a customer service hotline. As long as the rep on the phone is making sense, you're more than happy to talk to them. But the moment they stop being helpful, their supervisor can't get on the line fast enough as far as you're concerned.

That said, I imagine Napolitano would have had to clear a very high bar indeed, to pacify conservative desire to see how Obama personally would handle such an issue.

Which reminds me: For the liberals on this thread, do you happen to recall your reasons for not being all that bothered when Bush waited six days to speak publically about the Shoe Bomber?

 

[Minadin]

I personally didn't have any thought beyond, 'Ha! Dumbass burned his crotch!' or 'I'm glad no one was seriously injured (except maybe the terrorist).' until Napolitano said that everything was working as intended . . .

Since then, the stuff that has come to light about our government's inability to act on leads or share information freely among appropriate agencies is rather disturbing, but I don't think of that as necessarily a Bush-problem or an Obama-problem. It doesn't really belong to either administration, and was present in both. I think it stems from a culture of ineptitude and inefficiency that has become integral to these bureaucratic organizations, where CYA is more important than being effective at your job.

To that end, it become the task of the current guy-in-charge, or whomever he delegates, to attempt to change this sort of thinking, but it's only more his problem than the last guy because the last guy can't do much about it anymore.

 

[INRM]

Everyone was terrified and was united due to the fact that they were so terrified. The government was able to seize upon this, which could best be embodied as "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists". Dissent was perceived by some as being morally equivalent to treason and exposing the country to danger.

Now there were people in the mix who didn't feel this way, but Bush had them so terrified. After awhile a lot of people began to realize Bush was not good for the country and they joined in, but it took awhile for them to get their heads out of their rectums. Now Obama comes in, he doesn't appear to be as firm or as willing to "throw 'em all in GITMO", and the people who didn't feel this way from the beginning, and not to mention the people who once they got their heads out of their rectums and realized that Bush was bad for the country and once Obama got in and they didn't like what Obama was doing either, and they felt they could get vocal and not have something dire happen to them, now became really vocal.

I personally should note that I was critical of Bush during Bush's administration, and I am critical of Obama during Obama's administration. It is nice to have people actually on my side, rather than accusing me of being some kind of a traitor -- When they were talking about depriving detainees to the right of counsel, people accused me of being ridiculously liberal and with my attitude they'd end up on trial, get out on a technicality and do it again (Yet somehow in the past we've managed to deal with terrorists using the ordinary legal system). During the build up to the Iraq war, I was made out to be a traitor when I said I was opposed to it.

INRM

 

[Phrost]

It seems obvious that people who want increased security, or at least a continued level of vigilance, would increase pressure on the Government as 9/11 drifts further from the public consciousness.

That's part of the President's job description, and when it fails he should get flak for it regardless of what your ideology or party affiliation is. It was a sad day when people started being more loyal to a party than to their country.

 

[fuelair]

Seriously, I think that Bush didn't get any criticism because his senior staff handled the matter during the first few days in such a way that it never occurred to anybody that the President needed to personally address the nation about it.

And I think that Obama did get criticism precisely because, during the first 48 hours after the Christmas attack, his senior staff handled the matter in such a way that people couldn't help but think "wait, what? Where's the President?"

It's like when you call a customer service hotline. As long as the rep on the phone is making sense, you're more than happy to talk to them. But the moment they stop being helpful, their supervisor can't get on the line fast enough as far as you're concerned.

That said, I imagine Napolitano would have had to clear a very high bar indeed, to pacify conservative desire to see how Obama personally would handle such an issue.

Which reminds me: For the liberals on this thread, do you happen to recall your reasons for not being all that bothered when Bush waited six days to speak publically about the Shoe Bomber?

I really did not care if it ever spoke - since it would either mouth what it's BBoys told it to or fluster and give a big dimwitted smile and ask how the reporters liked it's golf game.

 

[theprestige]

I really did not care if it ever spoke - since it would either mouth what it's BBoys told it to or fluster and give a big dimwitted smile and ask how the reporters liked it's golf game.

I'm confused. Does this mean you approve of Obama's two-day wait before correcting Napolitano's initial statements? Or do you think he should have stayed on vacation? Or do you think Napolitano did a great job and didn't need correction?

 

[fuelair]

I'm confused. Does this mean you approve of Obama's two-day wait before correcting Napolitano's initial statements? Or do you think he should have stayed on vacation? Or do you think Napolitano did a great job and didn't need correction?

I'm not O'bama but I really am not concerned. He inherited from the bushies a system that was not working well (particularly after some agencies got slammed for not wanting to lie about security stuff his BBoys wanted them to "support". I am not concerned about explanations, just want the problem fixed (like a firm, followed ORDER to all intelligence agencies that there will be heavy top level changes if a bomber/etc. makes it through the system again and any agency had info that pointed that way.

I really do not want explanations - too much info for the bad guys (I would also delay by two plus weeks any new of military activity on our part anywherand, frankly plant disinfo about same. Too much info is very bad).