The most basic underlying question in the public discussion of Obama’s handling of the Detroit case is whether the president and his administration take the threat of terror seriously. During the campaign, Obama and other Democrats accused the Bush administration of playing to the nation’s fears about terrorism. Obama promised a different, lower-key approach. So after the Ft. Hood incident, he downplayed the by-then obvious possibility that the murders of 13 people were an act of Islamic terrorism, and after the Detroit matter, he said nothing at all and made a point of playing golf after hearing about the botched bombing. Obama’s aides even explained to at least one sympathetic reporter that the decision to play golf was a calculated, tough, and wise response to the incident and that the president was “projecting his calm” on the American people.
Then, when Obama got around to making a public statement about the matter, he called suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab an “isolated extremist” — a statement that later proved to be incorrect. And then the president had to go into damage control mode, trying to undo the impressions left by the Secretary of Homeland Security, who claimed the system “worked” in the Detroit incident, and by unnamed administration officials who argued that the security system had performed properly by not placing Abdulmuttallab’s name on a no-fly list.
So an answer the public’s most basic question — is the president serious about this? — was emerging, and the answer did not look good for the administration. That’s why Obama and his team have been scrambling.
Compare that to the shoe bomber incident. By December 22, 2001, when it happened, George Bush, in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, had:
** gone to war in Afghanistan
** instituted extensive security measures at airports
** created the office that would later become the Department of Homeland Security
** begun aggressive interrogation of terrorist suspects
** begun the “warrantless wiretap” program targeting international communications of suspected terrorists
** declared his intention to take Osama bin Laden “dead or alive”
You may agree or disagree about the wisdom of effectiveness of any of those actions. But did anyone, on December 22, 2001, doubt that George W. Bush was serious about using all the powers of the U.S. government to strike back at the terrorists who hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Did anyone doubt Bush’s resolve?
Today, does anyone have such confidence in Barack Obama? That — and not some “double standard” — is why there are so many questions about the president’s handling of the Detroit incident.
The entire Obama strategy was a gamble on 1) getting new entitlements in place before the middle class figured out how much they would cost, and 2) no terrorist incidents happening on American soil before 2012.
The first one was a reasonable gamble; the second one was foolhardy.
; ?>/images/user.png)
; ?>/images/email.png)
; ?>/images/feed.png)
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
What a shame for the Bed Wetting Republicans (BWRs) that the “terrorist incident” turned out to be such a…flop.
We’ll use you as the poster boy of bed wetting, ponce, because you’re the last real “Republican.” Couldn’t find a bridge that would let you live under it, huh?
Wouldn’t it be funny if the only reason it failed is that real adults make sure terrorists get defective chemicals? Too bad we are unlikely to ever hear the truth.
Let’s hope the “real adults” are concentrating on preventing “real” terrorist attacks and aren’t bothering with sniffing panties.
Obama’s chief difficulty in prosecuting a war against terrorists rests in the fact that he cannot take any effective measures without doing something that Bush did (or was urged to do by the right).