Obama: Intel failed 'to connect the dots'

There was once a time when, if the nation were under attack, even the strictest of right wing partisan hacks like Republican Jim Demint would put away their petty squabbling and try their best to figure out how to make the United States a safe haven for its citizens.

You see, Demint has been one of the loudest screaming bedwetters on the right ever since that wannabe Al-Qaeda guy lit his underwear on fire in Detroit on X-Mas...while also failing to mention that it is he who is holding up the Homeland Security TSA Leadership nomination of Errol Southers. If Demint has some personal problems with Southers past issues with his ex wife that's fine, just say so. But Nooooo, despite what Demint might be saying now, his hold on the nomination had nothing to do with that, and it had nothing to do with keeping America safe. Nope, Jim Demint is holding up Southers TSA nomination because he see's it as way to union bust, period, end of story. Someone needs to remind Demint that the heroes who ran into the burning Twin Towers to save people on 9/11 were: UNION WORKERS!

While DeMint insists that "America must use every tool at its disposal" to fight terrorism, he clearly doesn't mind if the toolbox is a little light as long as he can bust on the hard working blue collar union workers a little. And though he professes to be "a strong supporter of the men and women" who keep us safe from terrorism, he doesn't seem to include the hard-working TSA (union workers or not) in that equation.

So many Republican hypocrites, so little time.
.
http://blog.buzzflash.com/honors/267
.

The Republican crybabies in this country always overreact and panic after any sort of national emergency. And by doing so they are telling Al Qaeda and every other extremist group on Earth that a significant portion of the American political spectrum (the right) will:

~ Wet their pants as quickly and easily.

~ Will always focus obsessively with defending ourselves from the last attack.

~ Emote such instant panic and terror they can transform a humiliatingly unspinnable tactical failure into something with the national impact of a successful and devastating terrorist attack.

~ Believe that theater and mind games meant to build a false sense of safety and security will 'beat' terrorism. When all it does is make the next attack even more psychologically devistating because people thought they were "safe" now.

If Osama Bin Ladin had the personel, he could paralyze the United States with a random suicide bombing a week. A movie theatre one week. A restaurant in Seattle the next. A public library in Oklahoma the next. It couldn't be stopped. Our free society wouldn't allow the entire nation to be paralyzed to the point where it could be prevented.

It hasn't happened, and that should tell the national right wing bed-wetting brigade that considers themselves 'tough guy terrorist fighters' that they are Al Qaida's best friends.

Al Qaida is being aided by the right, and the terror is being amplified, by their irrationally surrender our freedoms to protect our freedoms mindset.

It's time to re-assess the value of freaking out and unwisely and rashly putting band-aid psychological affirmations of false safety ahead of soberly examining what will, and what will not, work as a defensive strategy.

We live in a free society. You can't be 100% safe from evil people or organizations, even if we surrender everything that makes the US the US in the name of feeling safe.

Hmmm, I guess Obimbo doesn't believe in the phrase: The Buck Stops Here.
It's funny and sad that this narcissistic noodlebrain always blames someone else.

But I thought "the system worked"?

At least, that's what Janet Napolitano, Obumble's Homeland Security chief, said....

It's obviously important for the president to uncover why the intelligence system failed and communicate that to the public, but Obama must also realize that the economy is still the number one issue for nearly every American.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Ok people, it's time for some Republimath! w/your friend Karl Rove!

Because you "Democrat" nimrods are too SLOW to comprende (that's "illegaltalk" for "understand"), let me spell this out in using some plain, real-America, numberifics!

A coordinated, successful attack, with sufficient warning, carried out by 19 terrorists, killing 2,973 people, on the 234th day of an administration... that's completely and totally and absolutely and so gosh-durn't the fault of the previous President... who happened to be a Democrat.

HOWEVER, an unsuccessful attack, attempted by 1 terrorist, killing absolutely no one on the 339th day of an administration... that's completely and totally and absolutely and so gosh-durn't the fault of the current President... who happens to be a Democrat.

SIMILARLY, a complete and total meltdown of the financial system, including a stock market collapse and levels of bankruptcy/foreclosure not seen since the Great Depression on, or around, the 2415th day of an administration... that's completely and totally and absolutely and so gosh-durn't the fault of the previous President (and Congress)... who created Acorn, and just happened to be Democrats.

BUT, 10% unemployment and lackluster job growth on the 215th day of an administration... that's completely and totally and absolutely and so gosh-durn't the fault of the current President (and Congress)... who want to institute socialism (in the form of Acorn) and happen to be Democrats.

NOW, making a statement from your "brush farm" in Texas 144 hours after a dude with bad facial hair is prevented from blowing up an airplane with his shoe?... That's fighting some serious war fightin' on the baddie terrosist right there, Hoss.

AND YET, making a statement from the beach 72 hours after a dude with bad genital burns is prevented from blowing up an airplane... that's "pretending the war on terror doesn't exist".

AND WHILE WE'VE GOT YOU HERE, based on our GOPalculations... the Republicans will retain control of the Senate and the House in 2006... and John McCain will be President in 2008!

Its simple Rove arithmaticology people!

BONUS QUESTION: For 200 style points and a free can of Rush Limbaush Viagra/Oxycontin after dinner cocktail: Name ONE REPUBLICAN FAILURE that happened DURING A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION that REPUBLICANS will take responsibility for. And, no, "WINNING THE COLD WAR TOO WELL" does not count. And for another 50 points, this question was sent in by 2012 Republican Presidential front-runner Sarah Palin - What if the Hokey Pokey isn't really what it's all about? What then?!?!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmmm, I guess Obimbo doesn't believe in the phrase: The Buck Stops Here.It's funny and sad that this narcissistic noodlebrain always blames someone else.
Posted by: John D | January 5, 2010 5:58 PM
_____________________

What did you expect him to do, Lil Johnny? Fly to Amsterdam and personally check everyones bags?

The only narcissistic noodlebrain on here is you, JohnnyBoy

Notice to John D and Bruce A. You add nothing to the conversation, just the usual cheap shots. Any moron knows this discussion is about the failures of the American Intelligence community, and that their track record, going back to the OSS, isn't very good. We missed the impending implosion of Communism Russia, we allowed scores of Marines to be massacred in Beirut (both Reagan) we missed the impending collapse of the Shah in Iran (Carter).
Did Bush step up and claim any culpability for 9/11? Absolutely not. How about the failed prosecution of the Iraq War? That's a negative.
Where was your sniping then?

@ Bruce 6:00 PM

Janet Napolitano was right, Brucie. Our system didn't fail, the Netherlands system failed.

And if you want to start pointing fingers and playing the blame game, that's fine. I'll start with Republican Jim Demint and his fellow Republican whackjobs in the Senate.

Republican Senator and arch obstructionist Jim DeMint has been doing everything he can to facilitate a national security catastrophe on Obama's watch, a catastrophe Republicans could use against Democrats in elections. He has put a hold on the confirmation of Erroll Southers, a widely admired anti-terrorism expert, until he comes out against unionizing TSA employees and he has voted against funding Homeland Security. So far there is no proof he's been working directly with al-Qaeda, although he did work with the fascist military coup in Honduras and has been running his own right-wing foreign policy. He's not the first Republican to try to undermine U.S. national security for partisan gains.

On July 26, 2007, DeMint voted against--(one of only 8 senators, all far right Republicans of course--) to vote against H.R.1, a relatively non-controversial measure that effectively implemented several un-acted-upon recommendations from the 9/11 Commission, the he Improving America's Security Act. Minutes before passage, the Senate voted on DeMint's motion to recommit (kill) the bill, which was rejected 26-67, every Democrat against it, along with 19 Republicans who decided to put America first for a change and ignore DeMint's lunatic ravings. Among the 25 Republicans who joined DeMint in voting to kill the bill that day-- hard core obstructionists like John Barrasso (R-WY), Richard Burr (R-NC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Tom Coburn (R-OK), John Cornyn (R-TX), John "Family Values Liar" Ensign (R-NV), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Miss McConnell (R-KY), Jeff Sessions (KKK-AL), John Thune (R-SD) and David "Diapers" Vitter (R-LA)-- were the nucleus of what turned into a Republican Senate cabal determined to sabotage Obama's presidency in order to score political points, regardless of what harm they would do to the nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/30/eight-gop-senators-oppose_n_407712.html

He makes a better impression when he's mad and wearing a suit and tie, and when there's no golf course in Hawaii to get back to in a hurry, but Americans know he's soft when it comes to defending this country.
The vast majority of political pundits in Washington D.C. and around the world are at awe with his Alice In Wonderland approach to terrorism.
The "to defend and to protect" part must not be in Sol Alinski's, Rules for radicals.

Paulo

***********************************************
The "to defend and to protect" part must not be in Sol Alinski's, Rules for radicals.
Posted by: Paulo | January 5, 2010 7:13 PM
________________________

"Defend and Protect"?

Is that what you Republican whiners were doing during the days leading up to 9/11/01? I don't think so.....

Put your diaper back on, Pablo. The adults are in charge now.

The Bush White House had (at least ) 28 Advanced Intelligence Warnings Prior to 9/11
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI402A.html

Ya know, it's hilarious the way the Republicans are crying about so-called 'national security failures' under Obama's watch when it is them who are holding up Obama's TSA/Homeland Security nominee's. I'd be laughing too.....if the lives of millions of Americans weren't on the line just so the Republican obstructionists can play petty political games.

Jim Demint and his fellow Republican Party of Obstructionists and Liars are just sticking to the original Republican plan that they had for the TSA under Bush. They intended it to be used to enrich the right wing cronies that they gave the cost plus contracts too, not the average Joe working stiffs who actually punch a time clock there.

Since Demint is so against collective bargaining for benefits, and seeing how the business he sits on the board of (the US Government) is running at a loss. It's only fair that we do away with his benefits along with those of his fellow Republican obstructionist employees on the Hill and let them individually bargain to get them back. If you're a good senator we may give you health care but you will have to pick up part of the premium out of your own pocket. No more automatic raises, in fact we need to cut your pay. But hey it's better then losing your job all together, right? Next time you want to raise money you will have to pay for your postage yourself, we're cutting your postal privileges and by the way, the Hill cafeteria is being closed down tomorrow so bring a bag lunch from now on. The $60 grand you get for travel expenses back to that home red state of yours that you're screwing over is gone too, get a cab.

Why in the world are they concentrating so much on this lapse in connecting the dots with relation to intelligence when the real problem is airport security's inability to detect the explosive device? I highly doubt that the next time something like this happens there will be a concerned father turning his own son in.

Wonder how Obama will rid himself of Janet Napolitano, with out loosing any more creditability and not embarrassing a loyal lockstep Democrat Janet

I feel safer knowing we have a "finger pointer in chief" instead of a President.

The only narcissistic noodlebrain on here is you, JohnnyBoy

Posted by: janet | January 5, 2010 6:29 PM

Not really, I would add Terry and Springfield to that category as well...

Trickled On Drain You John E,

The firefighters and cops than ran into the burning buildings on 9-11 were not heroic becuase they were in a union.

Rover,

9-11 - Blill Clinton could have captured or killed bin Laden eight times while he was president, but he punted.

Housing Crisis - the fault of the previous President (and Congress)... who created Acorn, and just happened to be Democrats. Since ACORN was founded in 1970, I think you must be mistaken since the president was NIxon. I don't think the president nor Congress founded ACORN.

10% Unemployment - Unemployment is a lagging indicator and does lag the growth of the economy. However, when BO first enters office and says we must pass the Stimulus immediately so unemployment does not go past 8%, then I guess when unemployment goes to 10%, his Stimulus needs to be held accountable.

Republican failure - Medicare prescription plan and the overspending of the GOP Congress with Bush failing to veto.

dts,

Unlike BO who blames everything on Bush, I don't recall Bush blaming 9-11 on Clinton or blaming Clinton for the recession he inherited.

Derrick,

If you think holding up the head bureacrat would have made a difference, you need to think again.

Our system did fail somewhere between an embassy in Nigeria and getting the kid's name ona no-fly list.

And for all you loons out there, I would like to know what you would have done in August, 2001 with the same intellgence data that Bush had.

Barack Hussein and Janet Incompetano...a lesson in failure. Bush worked with a less experienced TSA. Barack is always pointing fingers at someone else. Well, he will now be sorry he ticked of the intel community.

And unions would only make TSA even less effective...look at the Post Office, GM, Chrysler, steel industry and the other failed businesses. Adding overpaid, incompetent, lazy workers to TSA will make matters even worse.

Barack, national security is not your strong suit, go back to focusing on destroying the U.S. healthcare system. Or even better, stay away completely and spend on taxes on date nights and hawaiian vacations.

"What did you expect him to do, Lil Johnny? Fly to Amsterdam and personally check everyones bags?"

Well, that would be a good start, Janny. It beats having him spend two weeks on the golf course in hawaii on our dime while the country is falling apart. Of course, that would involve work which barack has never tried in his life.

The typical drivel from Silva's Gang of Demented Lefties:

What did you expect him to do, Lil Johnny? Fly to Amsterdam and personally check everyones bags?

The only narcissistic noodlebrain on here is you, JohnnyBoy

Posted by: janet | January 5, 2010 6:29 PM

Janet, as well as Carl Rover:
First of all, Obama is the leader of this administration, which includes ALL the folks in the federal government. Just like the CEO of a company is ultimately responsible for ALL employees.
Second, after the attempted attack, Obama's own Cabinet pick, Janet Napolitano as well as his own spokesman, Robert Gibbs both said, "the system worked." CLEARLY, is had not!
Third, this administration abolished the war on terror, calls acts of terrorism "man-made events," refuses to use the word terrorist, and Obama at the outset called the guy "the alleged bomber," and an "isolated extremist." This administration clearly does not get it.
Fourth, this administration is more interested in closing Gitmo than it is keeping Americans safe.
Fifth, the hopeful Christmas bomber, is being treated as a criminal and has been lawyered up to where he is not speaking after getting the Miranda Rights he does not need.
Sixth, this administration is looking to give the Christmas bomber plea bargaining opportunities.
Obviously, he cannot check bags or look into people's underwear. But Obama and his administration can set the tone for how to deal with terrorism, from either a point of strength or one of weakness. So far, it is choosing weakness.

And, Mark, I thought we were going to make this forum nicer? Do those rules not apply to the folks on the Left?? Seems like there are lots of attacks in this particular item.

After today, I think that if the President discusses you from the Grand Foyer you can consider yourself as having been "called on the carpet".

Not exactly the Rose Garden or the hearth in the Oval Office, is it?

Really? Obama said he failed to connect the dots? Isn't this what Dick Cheney had been warning about for months.

If that plane had been downed, you can bet Obama would have sealed his "one-termer" status for sure.

Even faster than his pathetic handling of the Nation thus far is taking him.

Barack Obama.... Really. The. Worst. President. Ever.

The man who has confessed to being the man behind 9/11 - surely an act of WAR - is going to get a civilian trial thanks to our enlightened new leadership.

The terrorists who are presently in prison in Guantanamo will soon be residents of Illinois thanks to our enlightened new leadership.

A man whose own FATHER had reported him as very hostile to America boards a plane for Detroit, he pays cash for the ticket, he has no luggage, and if it hadn't been for the courage of some passengers and his own stupidity in failing to put together the bomb he has in his underwear (there's a joke there somewhere donchathink?) he would have delivered us a Christmas present of 300 dead Americans. The director of Homeland Security, Obama appointee Janet Napolitano, says the system "worked like clockwork". (She later took it back)

Question - do you feel safer with our new enlightened leader?

And for all you loons out there, I would like to know what you would have done in August, 2001 with the same intellgence data that Bush had.

Posted by: Terry | January 5, 2010 10:16 PM

I'd sit down with Bush's family friends, the bin Laden's, and I'd say "how about you put some boots on the ground, some ears in the Mosques, and see if you can learn anything about what we're hearing might be an unprecedented attack on the U.S. mainland". What I wouldn't have done is nothing, which is what Bush did.
.
Unlike BO who blames everything on Bush, I don't recall Bush blaming 9-11 on Clinton or blaming Clinton for the recession he inherited.
Posted by: Terry | January 5, 2010 10:16 PM
.
He didn't have to, he had Cheney and Rove to do the blaming. And don't pretend that the economy Bush was handed was even in the same universe as the nuclear meltdown Obama inherited. In fact, the economy was already recovering in 2001 (and continued surpluses projected) when Bush pushed through his ill-advised tax-cuts. Regardless, we've closed the books on the Bush Legacy, and the verdict is in:
.
On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.
.
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/09/closing_the_book_on_the_bush_legacy.php

And, might I add, from the same Atlantic article:
.
The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.

Terry and the tricklers are a one-trick-pony that won't give up their failed economic tonic no matter how spectacularly it fails.

And, might I add, from the same Atlantic article:
.
The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.

Terry and the tricklers are a one-trick-pony that won't give up their failed economic tonic no matter how spectacularly it fails.

Y'all remind me of this article entitled the 9/11 Blame Game, and the premise still holds:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1539771,00.html

Facts are dangerous to "odumbis" like John D. Obama does not work for the CIA and knew nothing about the case before the plane incident. Many CIA people were hired before Obama became president. But don't challenge "Odumbos" like John D. with facts. It just confuses them more.

I find it funny that the Democrats are now crying about the Republicans acting the same way they did when President Bush was in office. Extremely hypocritical, but still funny.

What is disconcerting is that so many bloggers are jumping to defend an administration that Obama himself says simply dropped the ball. As Obama says, the system did not work. We have seen that failures to protect the American people do not carry a political label. Why not just join with the president and call for this administration to do better?

"I will not tolerate finger pointing, by anyone else but myself, because the previous administration and what I inherited and its simply not my fault, unless it is good news. Thank you."

You democrats are amazing. After eight years of lambasting Bush at every turn you are outraged when Obama is called on the carpet. Let's face it, the only 'unacceptable error' is Obama as president.

And for all you loons out there, I would like to know what you would have done in August, 2001 with the same intellgence data that Bush had.

Posted by: Terry | January 5, 2010 10:16 PM

Um a little more than ignore the warnings perhaps? And what about all of those missed opportunities Bush had to capture Bin Laden?? CLinton tried and failed we all know that/ Bush didnt even try he was too busy planning the iraq war. Thats we all know as well. Gallup poll shows that 53% of the American people blame Bush for not finishing wehat Clinton couldnt. Only 36% of the American people blame Clinton. Move on Terry you sound like a broken record.

Paolo contributes nothing in terms of intelligence to any topic of discussion. Name calling is for little kids. Happy you dropped your childish panty waist moniker from the blog.

terry:

(snip)

Housing Crisis - the fault of the previous President (and Congress)... who created Acorn, and just happened to be Democrats.
(end snip)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

you forgot to include the poor minorities who forced the banks to invent and market risky mortgage *products* so that they might take down the economy. To Terry, it's been a cloak and dagger plot, with the powerful bankers and Wall Street as the victims.

Get real. Even Bernancke is starting to come clean:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/la-fi-bernanke4-2010jan04,0,3336565.story

Now if only Bernancke would admit to who make all the money in this *housing meltdown " crisis. Stay tuned.

Naturally, to Terry, it's all ACORN's fault and those unqualified borrowers. lol

terry:

(snip)

Housing Crisis - the fault of the previous President (and Congress)... who created Acorn, and just happened to be Democrats.
(end snip)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

you forgot to include the poor minorities who forced the banks to invent and market risky mortgage *products* so that they might take down the economy. To Terry, it's been a cloak and dagger plot, with the powerful bankers and Wall Street as the victims.

Get real. Even Bernancke is starting to come clean:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/la-fi-bernanke4-2010jan04,0,3336565.story

Now if only Bernancke would admit to who make all the money in this *housing meltdown " crisis. Stay tuned.

Naturally, to Terry, it's all ACORN's fault and those unqualified borrowers. lol

John D.,
Your hero boy George Bush never heard of the phrase 'the buck stops here' either.
Obama admitted failure unlike Bush who ignored all intelligence regarding the 9/11 attacks. His failure resulted in the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history and nearly 3,000 people being burned alive. He and chickenhawk Cheney also failed to capture bin Laden. You want to talk about a noodlebrain, that would be moron Bush.
Teabagger Terri,
Stop you whining and get over your fixation of Bill Clinton. Your postings are amusing, they make no sense.

And for all you loons out there, I would like to know what you would have done in August, 2001 with the same intellgence data that Bush had.

Posted by: Terry | January 5, 2010 10:16 PM

Boy Terry.....thanks for the softball. Here is a good idea. I would have had the pilots lock the cockpit door and armed them. The corridore leading up to the cockpit is very narrow. Like shooting ducks in a barrel. Thank you.....I will be here all week.

Homeland Security TSA Leadership nomination of Errol Southers - Errol BROKE the LAW by using his position to gain information on a private citizen for his own personal gain ... I'm going to guess that there are just as qualified people that NEVER broke the law for the TSA position. I know much like our current AG he is sorry and willnever do it again ... or at least until he is pressured ... why Errol? his career is unimpressive? TSA has its problem his career shows NO histroy of being a problem solver? maybe the administration likes people that will do what they want when they want it ... so much for serving the American people.

Fact: Obama quit his golf game when a friend's son got hurt surfboarding in Hawaii.

When Obama found out about the underwear bomber he didnt cancel his golf game which was more important than a failed terrorist attack on americans.

Obama = FAIL

Let's all just wait a moment before criticizing Napolitano or President Obama. I'm sure the White House will - with its usual degree of class and integrity - find a reason to blame George Bush for this and anything else that might ever go wrong.

Hmmm, I guess Obimbo doesn't believe in the phrase: The Buck Stops Here.It's funny and sad that this narcissistic noodlebrain always blames someone else.
Posted by: John D | January 5, 2010 5:58 PM
_____________________

What did you expect him to do, Lil Johnny? Fly to Amsterdam and personally check everyones bags?

The only narcissistic noodlebrain on here is you, JohnnyBoy
-----------------------------------------

Janet, are you serious? So the #1 in charge doesnt own a certain level of responsibility in any instance?

On a dumbed down version you can understand, Ron Turner the offensive coordinator of the Bears got fired because the offense didnt perform. By you account it shouldnt matter because he wasnt the one throwing the ball or running it?

How about a CEO of a company that has an accounting scandal? He is not the accountant so he bares no responsibility?

Or parents whose kids get in trouble at school? Well the kids did it not the parents, so they bare no responsibility?

I mean this isnt even about politics here, this is about owning up when you are in charge and not blaming anyone and everyone, instead of looking in the mirror.

Uneasy is the head that wears a crown

To hear Obama describe the errros, you'd think it was someone else's administration. As much as he wanted to blame Bush, all he could do was blame the "US Intlligence Community" as if it were not run by his incompetent appointees.

The nation has never been more vulnerable to attacks than it is now. This is a direct reflection of Obama attitude & policies. The Homeland Security Dept is asleep at the wheel. Our borders are wide open for anyone to enter and radical islamist are entering the country everyday.
How can it be possible that this terrorist can get on a flight from Amsterdam to Detriot WITHOUT A PASSPORT???
I can't get on an international flight without a passport and I am an American citizen, but a terrorist from Yemen gets a pass. What is going on? Whoes side is Obama on? Is he going to prosecute the terrorist that took so many lives at Fort Hood? He is going to set free 90 prisonors from Guamtonimo Bay and extend Miranda rights to the others, provide them with attorneys. Hog Wash! This guy is trying his best to sink this great Country, but election time is coming and the people WILL take our Country back!

I mean this isnt even about politics here, this is about owning up when you are in charge and not blaming anyone and everyone, instead of looking in the mirror.

Uneasy is the head that wears a crown

Posted by: Matt | January 6, 2010 10:25 AM

So you admit 911 was Bush's fault right????

Notice that the Swamp attack chimps for the Republicans do not condemn al-Qaeda but they are quick to condemn Obama. Telling. Shows which side they are rooting for.

Scott, take the blinders off.
911 took security to a new level and set the bar for what we need to prepare for. It taught us not to underestimate the enemies will to destroy our way of life.
Obama & Co. need to be proactive on national security, not reactive.

So you admit 911 was Bush's fault right????
Scot S. Blakeley-

You make me laugh at such a ridiculous question. If you read or understood anything I wrote (which is clearly in doubt based on your question) of course it was Bush's fault, it happened on his watch. That is the whole point! I assume by your question you believe that I am some right wing nut, trying to pass blame around to Obama while leaving Bush off the hook, but even the part you cut and paste from my quote, I said this is not about politics! It is about standing up and saying "I am the one in charge here, it happened on my watch, therefore it ultimately is my fault." Clearly by your question (and 2nd grade usage of multiple question marks) you are more worried about sleeping well at night by hearing someone say 9/11 was Bush's fault, than you are in understanding the point that personal responibility in this day and age is dead. Its everyone's fault but their own. Mirrors are clearly at a shortage these days and no where is that more evident than in politics, Republican AND Democrat

Now that Obama informed us that he is mad, what is he doing about it other than stating the obvious? Who is being fired? What changes will we see?
Nothing, just a bunch of hot air. That's all this guy is.. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a Homeland Security Dept?

Posted by: Matt | January 6, 2010 12:14 PM

Comparing apples with oranges as you did like a second grader doesnt work buddy. I'm guessing you're a closeted neocon but hey thats just my opinion.

As long as the Obama administration continues to grant terrorists lawyers and the right to remain silent, the intelligence agencies will never be able to "connect the dots".

sam:
As long as the Obama administration continues to grant terrorists lawyers and the right to remain silent, the intelligence agencies will never be able to "connect the dots".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The useful idiots of failed r-ron policies are showing their level of sheer desperation with postings such as this one.
Disjointed ramblings with a sprinkling of revisionist history thrown in is the best they can do.
You people want to see America topple and our citizens harmed.
Obama handled this matter quickly and efficiently. End of story. Obama needs to get control of the CIA, though.

And the buck stops where?

As long as the Obama administration continues to grant terrorists lawyers and the right to remain silent, the intelligence agencies will never be able to "connect the dots".

Posted by: Sam | January 6, 2010 1:25 PM

Your right, we should get rid of that pesky Constitution.

These two links tell you all you need to know about our President and why the Department of State failed to take the warning about Abdulmutallab seriously.

http://www.newsmax.com/blogs/Koch/id-37?s=al&promo_code=94D0-1

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2010/01/01/war_what_war

As long as the Obama administration continues to grant terrorists lawyers and the right to remain silent, the intelligence agencies will never be able to "connect the dots".

Posted by: Sam | January 6, 2010 1:25 PM

And the underwear terrorist is connected to this how? Oh right, the guys who trained him were released from Gitmo by Bush's people I forgot.

Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | January 6, 2010 12:54 PM

Scot if my entire point was who is in charge is ultimately responsible, how is stating facts like Bush was President during 9/11 and Obama was President during the Christmas bomb attempt comparing apples to oranges?

This is amazing! Look at all this drivel, attacking Republicans?

Are you folks really serious? I mean are the Republicans in charge of the White House? Secret Service? Homeland Security? FBI?

Yet you take every chance and utilize every waking moment at shooting at the party that has no power, no control, not even the opportunity to make any changes.

The lives of the HATERS is getting beyond sickening. The hate you harbor is eating you all up and it's becoming more and more rediculous to see the hateful diatribes towards people who have no power to change the problems.

You wanna bitch about this thing? tell it tot he guy in Power - Obama. Tell it to the political party controlling this nation - The Corrupt Chicago Machine!

In other words, go shove your hate and distaste for all things wrong today on those who fail to change it.

It's been a year now and you still complain about Bush and Republicans as if they can do anything about anything. Well, wake up little crying, angry children and tell it to the Obama White House. They could have changed these policies and procedures but they didn't now did they? NO

It takes a near disaster to get them to look up from their Master Campaign Books.

I am waiting to see who gets fired. If nobody does, then you have problem. I would hope the people
"who could not connect the dots" are not going to get a second chance to make the same mistake. When it comes to people's lives being at stake there should be no second chances. I'll give Obama credit for now addressing the issue. Maybe Gitmo will have to stay open another year. We will see since nobody wants these guys and we just can't send them to Yemen anymore. Maybe Anartica is looking for some new residents.

America's Intel community drops the ball, like they have many times throughout our country's brief history. The president acknowledges that mistakes were made, identifies in general terms where those mistakes were made, vows to tighten up the system and hold those directly responsible accountable. BTW, no one died. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, what I expect a capable leader to do.
So what's the problem people?
.
For comparison's sake, take a look at how Bush responded to the "shoe bomber" vs. how Obama responded to the crotch bomber:
http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/bush-rumsfeld-responses-to-shoe-bomber.html
.
Hmmmmm,
How is it that Springfield (John D.) is always the first to sling insults, first to cry foul, first to throw out the "hate" charge? Do you have a persecution complex, CJ? Some of the most "hateful diatribes" I've ever seen have come from your whiny face. Good gawd, man-up a make a rational argument for a change.

If I recall correctly, partisan politics was set aside during the 9/11 tragedy and Democrats supported the President--a president who, I might add, later went on to grandstand, "Mission Accomplished" when in fact no mission had been accomplished...a president who claimed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which is why Democrats gave him the benefit of the doubt and supported his insistent demand that we invade Iraq. For any Republican to be blaming Obama for this security snafu in the Netherlands is gratuitous and hypocritical.

Oh c'mon. It's not like they looked the other way while the financial industry committed such vast and unscrupulous fraud as to devastate the economies of the free world. Oh, wait a minute. They guys that were asleep on that watch were never called to explain, were they? Odd.

Looks like the 'buck' stops everywhere but the Oval office with this Administration. It is easy to point fingers and place blame, any idiot can do that. We're looking for leadership, not mind games.

Keepthechange,
I've heard rumours that the BVD bomber got aboard the flight without a passport, but have not seen that verified anywhere. That would really surprise me, but in any event, wouldn't that be a lapse by Dutch authorities?
.
Who's side is Obama on? Where do you people come from, are you serious?
.
What is going on? Whoes side is Obama on? Is he going to prosecute the terrorist that took so many lives at Fort Hood?
He was indicted today:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/06/detroit.bomb/index.html
Re: Gitmo:
.
David Cole is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and the author, most recently, of “The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable.”

President Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo and move its remaining detainees to a federal prison in Illinois is a welcome and important step in rejecting the central symbol of the Bush administration’s overt contempt for the rule of law.
Preventive detention may be permitted, but the question remains, how must detainees be treated?

Guantánamo need not have become a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, had the Bush administration not sought to exploit it as a law-free zone where it could hold people without hearings, subject them to torture and other abusive treatment. But thanks to these policies, Guantánamo will forever be “tainted” in the eyes of the world, and every day it remains open we give al Qaeda a propaganda gift. It is high time that it be closed.
But while symbols matter, so does substance. Closing Guantánamo will be dismissed as merely symbolic if it’s not accompanied by substantive reform of our detention policies as well.

The Obama administration has still not made clear the terms under which it intends to hold prisoners there. It need not “try or release” everyone there, as some have argued. The law of war permits military detention of those fighting against us in an ongoing armed conflict, and our involvement in Afghanistan certainly qualifies.

Close

But the definition of who we may detain must be narrowly tied to that ongoing conflict; we must provide fair hearings and afford detainees a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves; the burden of proof for detention should be stringent, and should rise as the detention gets more prolonged; and we must treat the detainees humanely.

The latter condition may be the most difficult politically for the Obama administration to satisfy. The American public is likely to accept the detention of alleged al Qaeda fighters on home soil only under the strictest “super-maximum” security conditions, which in our system amounts in effect to solitary confinement, 23 hours a day in a single cell.

Whether such conditions are humane for convicted killers who have proven themselves unwilling to live in a prison’s general population, they are certainly not humane for persons being detained “preventively,” who have never been convicted of any crime.

Thus, President Obama will be faced with a choice -– to honor our obligations under international law and demonstrate leadership by explaining those obligations to the American people, or to bend to domestic political pressure and violate international law. Only time will tell.

The biggest mistake was the election of a very soft, inexperienced, leftist as president. He's getting his wish in destroying America.

I've been struggling to define what's wrong with America, but it seems Chris Hedges nails it in his new book:
Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/book-excerpt-%E2%80%98empire-of-illusion%E2%80%99-by-chris-hedges/

The axelturfers are out in force. Guys, tell Dave that even the Dems aren't buying the "bush did it" stuff anymore. If the intelligence agencies made mistakes, what about Obama's decision to treat this guy like a civilian purse snatcher? Isn't that about as competent as the performance of our "intelligence" agencies?

To the question, what would have done different in August, 2001 with the smae intellgence data Preisdent Bush had, we got the following responses:

dts,

He would have asked the bin Laden family to put out some feelers. First - the bin Laden family was estranged from Osama. Second, their connections in Saudi mosques probably wouldn't have got a lot of leads about a terror plot being hatched in Afghanistan. Finally, do you not think that the CIA was already pursuing these leads. Good effort though.

Scottie Catcher provides the results of a poll. That's a failing grade.

Swamp Thing provides teh solution of arming the cockpits. Best answer yet. Let's look at a few facts: In 2002 when the House passed the bill to allow guns to be carried in the cockpit by 2% of the pilots - it passed with about 70% of the vote. That makes the odds of getting a plane with an armed pilot at 50 to 1. Also, what do you think this vote would have been prior to 9-11? Also, it took two months between the House bill vote and the Senate bill vote - and that was after 9-11. However, I will say, you did have the best answer.

Still Writing Wrongs,

snip

Again - only hit the post button to share your stupidity.

snip

What does the mortgage crisis have to do with Intel not connecting the dots.

snip

"you forgot to include the poor minorities who forced the banks to invent and market risky mortgage *products* " The poor minorities didn't force the banks to create these loans that have a low inductory rate, or require the verification of the borrower having a job, income, or assets. It was however the folks that think they are doing the best for these people - the democratic congressman and their limo liberal backers that were forcing banks to make these loans if they wanted to go thru the M & A and diversification activity they wanted to do.

After 8+ years, I'd forgotten about that "tell", that curiosity:

Bush had the Bin Laden family flown out of the US even as all other flights were grounded.

Hmmmm........

Maybe reading "My Pet Goat" as the 2nd plane was approaching Tower II was just a front, and W was thinking to himself "so this is the surprise Dick told me to be expection..."

Yes, it's terrible, AWWWful, that pants-on-fire got as far as he did.....

But no buildings collapsed. Nobody died. President called the responsible agencies on the carpet.

But why, o, why did Bush have the Bin Laden family flown out on 9/12?

Explain me that.

Terry,
Bush was too consumed plotting to avenge daddy than to worry about bin Laden and al Qaeda.
.
Paul O’Neill writes that the Bush Administration had the Iraq war plan drawn up and finalized in the first few weeks of the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration has not denied this fact. Rather, the Administration has anecdotally stated that every incoming Administration has a desk full of work to sift through, prioritize, and explore. Apparently, the Bush Administration made its number one priority the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In doing so, Bin Laden and his al Qaeda network were ranked lower in priority. Why? Especially since we now know that Iraq was not an “imminent threat” while Al Qaeda apparently in the midst of planning an attack on 9/11 clearly was an imminent threat.
.
And BTW the 9/11 attacks were conceived in Germany, and 15 of the hijackers were Saudi citizens.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/6267615/Terrorist-cell-found-in-Hamburg-where-911-attacks-conceived.html

Terry:

What kind of mortgage products were created by the dems and ACORN to finance home loans for unqualified poor minorities?

I will be awaiting your reply.

Still Writing Wrongs,

Although not created by the Dems and ACORN, these loans were created to expand mortgages to people that could not previously qualify - this was part of the comprimise needed to get the Dems on borad to sign the Gramm Leach Billey Act.

Look up NINJA mortgages or Liar Loans.

Delts,

I'm sure the Bush administration did have a plan for war aaginst Iraq, as I am sure the Clinton administration did too. Both administrations probably had war plans against a lot of nations. Part of what the Defense department does.

We "now know" that Iraq was not the “imminent threat", but in 2002 & 2003 we did not know that. These prominent leaders prove that point. The last quote is probably the best.

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

We "now know" that Iraq was not the “imminent threat", but in 2002 & 2003 we did not know that. These prominent leaders prove that point. The last quote is probably the best.

"We" refers to all of us who were duped by BushCo. Bush knew Iraq was not an imminent threat, the CIA chief said as much:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/iraq/main601876.shtml
.
Re: CDO's,
Do you ever get tired of propagating the lie that banks were "forced" to create these toxic products?
http://social.stocktock.com/profiles/blogs/synthetic-cdo-time-bomb

Delts,

Comments from George Tenet is the best you can do? George Tenet, who became CIA director in 1997 and is a main culprit of the 9-11 intellgence failure, also provide President Clinton with the intellgence that Iraq had WMDs in Dec, 1998 that led to four days of bombings.

What changed with the intellgence between Dec, 1998 and Mar, 2003? If there were changes in the intellgence bewteen 1998 and 2003, why wasn't George Tenet saying so? Why weren't all those prominent democrats I listed above saying so?

Tenet said Iraq was in violation of the UN resolution - which states "If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security."

Then your link basically proves my point.

From your link "Referring to the key October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, Tenet said intelligence analysts had concluded that in some cases Iraq had illegal weapons, and in others it was trying to build them. He said analysts differed on important aspects of these programs, but that disagreement was reported in the estimate"

Also from the link "Tenet said "the jury was still out" on whether Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle to conduct surveillance or to deliver weapons of mass destruction. On nuclear weapons, Tenet said, "we may have overestimated the progress Saddam was making."

Finally, from the link Tenet says "On chemical weapons, Tenet said Saddam had built dual use capabilities and had "the intent and capacity to quickly convert civilian industry to chemical weapons production."

Go back to UN Resolution 1441 and read what the consequences can be.

As far as the mortgage bubble, I'm not tired of telling the truth. I'm tired of flatliners that can't understand the simple concept of why a bank would make these loans in the first place. The banks were displacing their risk that they didn't want in the first place.

The banks were displacing their risk that they didn't want in the first place.

Posted by: Terry | January 8, 2010 1:39 PM

That's the single stupidest claim you've ever made. As Krugman says in today's column:
.
Why did the bankers take on so much risk? Because it was in their self-interest to do so. By increasing leverage — that is, by making risky investments with borrowed money — banks could increase their short-term profits. And these short-term profits, in turn, were reflected in immense personal bonuses. If the concentration of risk in the banking sector increased the danger of a systemwide financial crisis, well, that wasn’t the bankers’ problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/opinion/08krugman.html
.
Re: Iraq. Congratulations. You're the only person on the planet who still hasn't seen the reams of evidence that BushCo cherry-picked and hid intelligence to promote his war of choice. Also, you apparently don't understand the meaning of "imminent", which is what this discussion was all about.

The leveraging was encouraged by the federal gov't thru Fannie and Freddies. In 2003, the Bush adminstration recognized the risk of this and tried to provide strciter capital reserve requirements on Fannie and Freddie.

This was defeated thru the actions of one Brothel Barney Frank acting on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=2

As for Iraq, what was the imminent threat in 1999 when Clinton bombed Baghdad for four days? Those quotes I provided two days ago, were all those people wrong?

Terry, apologist for the no bank left behind movement:

Despite all the evidence and admissions, factual data included, you still insist that Bush and company acted honorably and the Wall Street big bank cartel were victimized
by ACORN. and unqualified borrowers.
A fool will believe what a fool will believe.
This one is a no brainer; just follow the money.

Still Writing Wrongs,

Who forced the mortgagee to sign the mortgage?

lil ter-ter:
Still Writing Wrongs,

Who forced the mortgagee to sign the mortgage?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I can see that you are getting desperate here. For what ?
I dunno. No prize to be had, except your need to have the last word, as usual.

terry:

this appeared in todays news:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/6962632/America-slides-deeper-into-depression-as-Wall-Street-revels.html

America Slides Deeper Into Depression As Wall Street Revels

and here is a snippette from a paragraph in this article:

"This policy is entirely justified given the scale of the social crisis. But it also masks the continued rot in the housing market, allows lenders to hide losses, and stores up an ever larger overhang of unsold properties. It takes heroic naivety to think the US housing market has turned the corner (apologies to Goldman Sachs, as always). The fuse has yet to detonate on the next mortgage bomb, $134bn (£83bn) of "option ARM" contracts due to reset violently upwards this year and next. "

Did you cath the part about..."
allows lenders to hide losses.."

Still Writing Wrong,

The article states that the banks are "hide losses", but it never states how. If you know how they are "hiding losses", please explain, I'm all ears.

terry:

Still Writing Wrong,

The article states that the banks are "hide losses", but it never states how. If you know how they are "hiding losses", please explain, I'm all ears.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You may be all ears but most definitely not all eyes. I have made previous posts regarding
foreclosed/bank owned properties and how they're considered assets.
If you are serious about educating yourself, go back and re-read my old posts.

You are only interested in arguing and nothing more.

Still Writing Wrongs,

That's not hiding assets. What would you call "foreclosed/bank owned properties"?

If you are serious about educating yourself, reading your posts ain't going to do it. If I want comic relief, I read your posts.

"You are only interested in arguing and nothing more" - And yet you keep coming back.

Terry:

Here's something that should tickle your funnybone:

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/298096

That is funny - still trying to figure out how those foreclosed properties are recorded on a bank's financial statement if they aren't considered assets. Any help you can provide would be appreciated.

lil ter-ter:

So sorry a financial whiz such as yourself cannot seem to figure out how this works.

Here is a hint:
"concealing"
Here is another:
"renaming or redefining"

Not such a new name for an old game.
Better dust off your thinking cap.

Still Writing Wrong,

Here's something that should tickle your funnybone:

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/298096

Pot meet Kettle.

So if these "foreclosed/bank owned properties and how they're considered assets", how are they being hiddened? You keep say the foreclosed propoerties are hidden, but yet you have found them. You must be one heck of a forensic accountant.

Please educate me ol' wise one