Exploding underwear .. ? I’m not buying it this is a patsy sent out to fail for false flag purposes keep those security theater $$ flowing , Some where in yemen are two CIA operatives laughing their asses off about this .Maybe even dancing on top of a white van .
For more than two weeks, politicians and media outlets have relentlessly attacked President Obama’s response to the failed underpants bombing, all in attempt to terrify the American public about their own personal security.
Fortunately, their tactics aren’t working. A new CNN poll shows that in the wake of the failed attack, neither the would-be terrorist nor the radical right have managed to scare America. Greg Sargent and Spencer Ackerman have the details, but consider these facts:
65% of Americans have confidence in President Obama’s approach to terrorism, up from 63% this summer.
Just 9% say they are very worried about terrorism, down from 10% this summer.
Americans by a wide margin (57%-39%) approve of President Obama’s handling of the failed attack.
It may be pathetic that like would-be terrorists, conservatives are trying to terrify America to achieve political goals, but the good news is that they are both failing.
Troutma, how much difference is there between ramping up the Afghan war and starting a new one? People like you never were anti-war at all, merely anti-Bush. Typical hypocrisy on the left.
I was anti-Johnson, and anti-war in 1967, in the letters I wrote home while “engaged” in it in Viet Nam. The point then was we were invading on basically the wrong side- for a corrupt Saigon government WE installed. I DO NOT like Marxism, or feudalism, or fascism, but Ho helped us throw the Japanese out of Indochina- Diem/Ky/Thieu did not. Yet as I told my, ultra-right wing, anti-“commie” brother(who never ‘served”) a number of years ago when he told me “You don’t know anything about Communists”- I merely replied, “I killed more of them than you did.” It did shut him up, for a while, but like most idiots, not permanently, his rabid politics kept biting him on the buttocks.
Yep, I’m “anti-stupid-wars” like: ‘Nam, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Afghanistan(other than getting the Al Qaeda camps and leaving) and definitely Iraq. I am NOT a pacifist however. I’ve defended “my country” in combat (which Bush and Cheney- like most of their supporters, DID NOT), and folks here at home since the military in law-enforcement (7 years) and 32 years with agencies defending American’s rights, property, and freedoms.
Sorry, but in a bad mood about those dumb enough to listen to blubber box Limbaugh, buzz head Beck, or crotch-rot Coulter, and believe them. Hypocrisy is indeed the number one observable fact in regard to Bush AND Cheney, and their tribe- so take the charge that we liberals who actually served the country- and are more concerned about it than privateers of “commerce”- and shoveth it.
“…other than getting the Al Qaeda camps and leaving.” Yep, the old light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel line all over again, this time as an alibi for our wonderful, change-you-can believe-in , peace president. What, no alibis for lingering in Iraq?
I was anti-Bush and I didn’t serve for one and a half reasons;
1; I was underage when both wars started (I was born in July 1985)
2; Canada went to Afghanistan, not in Iraq (that’s 1/2, half a reason).
I’m some years older than you but agree with your views on Vietnam. We were trying to prop up a corrupt government that couldn’t stand on its own. We lost thousands of your buddies in that failed attempt. I wasn’t in Vietnam but I tip my hat to those who served, both voluntarily because they thought it was right and those who were drafted and went. Iraq is definitely another place we shouldn’t have gone into. Bad as Saddam was, at least there was some balance between power bases such as Iraq and Iran. Bush and Cheney tried their best to scare us into approval and Mr. C. is still doing it.
I commend you for continuing to serve us in law enforcement and in protecting our freedoms, freedoms which so many people seem willing to give up in the name of “security.” That is how dictatorships can get started. My wife and I probably will not fly again unless absolutely necessary. We recognize the need for security on a plane, but some of the methods and tactics do little to provide that, while treating passengers like crap. I agree with you about blowhards such as Rush Limprag and the like, who seem to constantly be trying to proclaim that the sky is falling. I may catch flak on this site for these statements, but I’ll stand by them and in my supporting much of your thinking.
It will take another few decades before our involvement in Vietnam is correctly assessed.
In the meantime however, we have to suffer the glee of those Americans that caused our first major defeat.
The very people that have on their hands blood of millions of people that were murdered in the immediate aftermath of our abandoning them, not to mention the millions more that were taken into bondage, and millions more that escaped or died trying - the ‘boat people’ …
Corosive frog, a Tadpole, but a good heart and a dog lover. I have two. (Dogs, not tadpoles.) Don’t always agree, but that would make life boring. I didn’t serve either, I was of the Clinton mentality, but I didn’t flee the country. I just wasn’t drafted.
Still have never watched Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, etc. Does that make me a bad conservative?
a) with the expenses Obama’s administration makes for security reasons, at a time when it’s blasted for deficits, it takes security quite seriously in my opinion. Want to bet Obama’s critics will subtract these 740 billions when they rail about the huge deficits the administration racks in 2010? I don’t think people at Fox News, when they talk about Obama’s deficits will make the caveat “Oh, but he did spend more on defense despite the crisis, this is where three quarters of a trillion come from, and we support defense spending. Oh, and by the way, these 250 billions? These are Bush’s tax cuts, which we supported too.” I may be wrong, but somehow I doubt Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Beck saying that.
b) claims that Obama’s somehow soft on security because he doesn’t repeat the mantra “war on terror” are frequent enough on even these boards. I wouldn’t be surprised if you yourself have made them. For all the noise made about treating hijackers/terrorists as “common criminals,” but in much of the 20th century they were treated EXACTLY as such, and there wasn’t all that much of a difference. Do not forget that while public order and internal security are handled by the “mere” judiciary, they ARE vital affairs of the state. I get the notion that you think that unless it’s linked to the military, it doesn’t matter.
Here is a common definition of “enemy combatant” : “Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war.” It doesn’t apply to everyone ever involved with terrorism, obviously.
“Here is a common definition of “enemy combatant” : … .”
Cut and paste, but only that which fits your proclivity.
The fact is that a definition of ‘enemy combatant’ depends upon the type of war, which itself has evolved over the centuries.
During the Napoleonic wars, it was relatively simple to identify an enemy. During the WW II, it was much more complicated.
The war that we are in now, and it is indeed a war, as opposed to ‘overseas contingency’, is even more changing.in that regard.
This guy was a human bomb, sent to us by an international warring organization whose sole purpose is to subdue the West in general, and the US in particular.
It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
And yet, we will treat him as if he just robed a pizza shop..
Loco said ”Still have never watched Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, etc. Does that make me a bad conservative?”
It definitely makes you less ill-informed, conservative or not!
Did anyone catch one of Fox’s blond bimbos (Crowley I think) repeat that there were no domestic terrorist attacks under Bush after 9/11. She said the shoe bomber didn’t count because the passengers stopped it. But the Christmas incident DOES count. Any conservative here want to defend that nonsense?
The shoe bomber was not someone who so clearly telegraphed his dangerous inclinations in advance as did the underwear bomber. There was much less excuse for giving the latter and the Ft. Hood nutcase access to those they intended to make their victims.
Well, of course I will try to prove my point. What do you think, that I’ll try to prove yours? Don’t be lazy, now ;) .
“During the WW II, it was much more complicated.”
Perhaps, though I’m not sure it was so clean-cut during previous wars. Either way, that doesn’t mean that a wider definition is necessarily the correct one. What the Germans did to the “Enemy” in Yugoslavia was considered a war crime. As is what the Japanese did to “bandits” in China - so not treating someone like a “combatant” is little guarantee that they will be any better off..
By the way, I’m not sure what the guy’s exact link to Al-Queda is, we will see about that. I’m sitting on the fence about it - sure, some people calling themselves “Al-Queda in Yemen” assumed responsibility. So what? It costs them about the price of a phone call to do that.
Oh, and as for your “pizza shop” remark, I disagree. Unless, of course, a guy who robs a pizza shop gets the same sentence as a guy who tried to commit mass murder, and I rather doubt that.
007, so whether a guy is an “enemy combatant” or not depends on how skilled they are in concealing their motives? I think the distinction you make is quite arbitrary. It would be like saying that a pickpocket’s sentence should depend on how dextrously they swipe a wallet.
I have not seen the subject program, so I will not comment directly, but there are significant differences between the shoe-bomber and the Christmas attempt:
Reid was a lone terrorist, with virtually no known footprint. It was later learned that he was in trained in Pakistan.
The incident occurred about three months after 9/11, and our defense systems were not yet refined. There was still an impermeable wall between the CIA and FBI, for example. There were no Military Commission system, nor Guantanamo …
Contrast that with the events of recent vintage:
Both major incidents have had a huge footprint, not to mention the systems in place.
Ow, common, you think you can get powder plastic explosive on a street corner? Not to mention a chemical igniter. That was a pretty sophisticated bomb - thank Good the execution was amateurish.
With respect to the pizza thief analogy - you, as so many of your stripe seem to be preoccupied with the conviction and sentencing for the guy.
That is myopic!
We should be wanting to get at th professionals that made the bomb and sent him, for they can recruit thousands more of the like dumbos …
Howie, I keep telling you I don’t watch MSNBC, my cable co. doesn’t provide it. I’ve haven’t heard such utter nonsense from CNN. Don’t take that to mean I think CNN’s perfect. Both (all?) 24 hour cable news channels trivialize the news by presenting few facts and lots of competing partisan talking heads.
There are differences between the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, of course. There are also remarkable similarities. But it defies logic to count one as an attempted terrorist attack and not the other. Blond bimbo defies logic.
Say, can’t Fox find a brunette anchor anywhere in the world?
Hey howie if you want a ripping on MSNBC talking heads here’s a few:
Chris Mathews tends to side with republicans on the wrong issues.
Keith tends to go overboard with his worst persons (taking personal shots at people who talk smack about him)
If Oberman is Budweiser, Meadow is Budlight.
Morning Joe at times is good, sometimes conservative. Eh.
But none of them (well maybe Joe) will not lie to me and tell me that the government is out to kill grandma, we need less rights in order to be safe, and that bail outs are a good thing.
Imajs Premium Member over 14 years ago
Obama promised more transparency. Clearly, the professor has no clue what he is doing.
Dtroutma over 14 years ago
Better than starting two more wars…
meowdam over 14 years ago
Exploding underwear .. ? I’m not buying it this is a patsy sent out to fail for false flag purposes keep those security theater $$ flowing , Some where in yemen are two CIA operatives laughing their asses off about this .Maybe even dancing on top of a white van .
d_legendary1 over 14 years ago
Old.
Doreen Rice Premium Member over 14 years ago
For more than two weeks, politicians and media outlets have relentlessly attacked President Obama’s response to the failed underpants bombing, all in attempt to terrify the American public about their own personal security.
Fortunately, their tactics aren’t working. A new CNN poll shows that in the wake of the failed attack, neither the would-be terrorist nor the radical right have managed to scare America. Greg Sargent and Spencer Ackerman have the details, but consider these facts:
65% of Americans have confidence in President Obama’s approach to terrorism, up from 63% this summer. Just 9% say they are very worried about terrorism, down from 10% this summer. Americans by a wide margin (57%-39%) approve of President Obama’s handling of the failed attack. It may be pathetic that like would-be terrorists, conservatives are trying to terrify America to achieve political goals, but the good news is that they are both failing.
petergrt over 14 years ago
We only have to fear the ‘man made climate change’!!!
agent.007 over 14 years ago
Troutma, how much difference is there between ramping up the Afghan war and starting a new one? People like you never were anti-war at all, merely anti-Bush. Typical hypocrisy on the left.
Dtroutma over 14 years ago
I was anti-Johnson, and anti-war in 1967, in the letters I wrote home while “engaged” in it in Viet Nam. The point then was we were invading on basically the wrong side- for a corrupt Saigon government WE installed. I DO NOT like Marxism, or feudalism, or fascism, but Ho helped us throw the Japanese out of Indochina- Diem/Ky/Thieu did not. Yet as I told my, ultra-right wing, anti-“commie” brother(who never ‘served”) a number of years ago when he told me “You don’t know anything about Communists”- I merely replied, “I killed more of them than you did.” It did shut him up, for a while, but like most idiots, not permanently, his rabid politics kept biting him on the buttocks.
Yep, I’m “anti-stupid-wars” like: ‘Nam, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Afghanistan(other than getting the Al Qaeda camps and leaving) and definitely Iraq. I am NOT a pacifist however. I’ve defended “my country” in combat (which Bush and Cheney- like most of their supporters, DID NOT), and folks here at home since the military in law-enforcement (7 years) and 32 years with agencies defending American’s rights, property, and freedoms.
Sorry, but in a bad mood about those dumb enough to listen to blubber box Limbaugh, buzz head Beck, or crotch-rot Coulter, and believe them. Hypocrisy is indeed the number one observable fact in regard to Bush AND Cheney, and their tribe- so take the charge that we liberals who actually served the country- and are more concerned about it than privateers of “commerce”- and shoveth it.
agent.007 over 14 years ago
“…other than getting the Al Qaeda camps and leaving.” Yep, the old light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel line all over again, this time as an alibi for our wonderful, change-you-can believe-in , peace president. What, no alibis for lingering in Iraq?
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 14 years ago
I was anti-Bush and I didn’t serve for one and a half reasons; 1; I was underage when both wars started (I was born in July 1985) 2; Canada went to Afghanistan, not in Iraq (that’s 1/2, half a reason).
rekam Premium Member over 14 years ago
trout,
I’m some years older than you but agree with your views on Vietnam. We were trying to prop up a corrupt government that couldn’t stand on its own. We lost thousands of your buddies in that failed attempt. I wasn’t in Vietnam but I tip my hat to those who served, both voluntarily because they thought it was right and those who were drafted and went. Iraq is definitely another place we shouldn’t have gone into. Bad as Saddam was, at least there was some balance between power bases such as Iraq and Iran. Bush and Cheney tried their best to scare us into approval and Mr. C. is still doing it.
I commend you for continuing to serve us in law enforcement and in protecting our freedoms, freedoms which so many people seem willing to give up in the name of “security.” That is how dictatorships can get started. My wife and I probably will not fly again unless absolutely necessary. We recognize the need for security on a plane, but some of the methods and tactics do little to provide that, while treating passengers like crap. I agree with you about blowhards such as Rush Limprag and the like, who seem to constantly be trying to proclaim that the sky is falling. I may catch flak on this site for these statements, but I’ll stand by them and in my supporting much of your thinking.
petergrt over 14 years ago
It will take another few decades before our involvement in Vietnam is correctly assessed.
In the meantime however, we have to suffer the glee of those Americans that caused our first major defeat.
The very people that have on their hands blood of millions of people that were murdered in the immediate aftermath of our abandoning them, not to mention the millions more that were taken into bondage, and millions more that escaped or died trying - the ‘boat people’ …
Yes, American left has a lot to glee about.
Loco80 over 14 years ago
Corosive frog, a Tadpole, but a good heart and a dog lover. I have two. (Dogs, not tadpoles.) Don’t always agree, but that would make life boring. I didn’t serve either, I was of the Clinton mentality, but I didn’t flee the country. I just wasn’t drafted. Still have never watched Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, etc. Does that make me a bad conservative?
4uk4ata over 14 years ago
http://tinyurl.com/ycd9zgy
Nothing says “serious” like 740-ish billion USD (708, plus the extra 33).
Nothing says “deficits” like it, too.
Tune in tomorrow, when Obama gets blasted on not saying “war on terror” often enough and being a far-left Muslim communist hippie.
Please supply your own vomit bags.
petergrt over 14 years ago
Piglet, what’s your point?
Military / defense is essentially the only legitimate role and expenditure of the federal government - deficit or not.
His use of the term war, of late, does not change his actions - treating enemy combatants and some CIA agents as common criminals.
4uk4ata over 14 years ago
Peter, I make two points.
a) with the expenses Obama’s administration makes for security reasons, at a time when it’s blasted for deficits, it takes security quite seriously in my opinion. Want to bet Obama’s critics will subtract these 740 billions when they rail about the huge deficits the administration racks in 2010? I don’t think people at Fox News, when they talk about Obama’s deficits will make the caveat “Oh, but he did spend more on defense despite the crisis, this is where three quarters of a trillion come from, and we support defense spending. Oh, and by the way, these 250 billions? These are Bush’s tax cuts, which we supported too.” I may be wrong, but somehow I doubt Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Beck saying that.
b) claims that Obama’s somehow soft on security because he doesn’t repeat the mantra “war on terror” are frequent enough on even these boards. I wouldn’t be surprised if you yourself have made them. For all the noise made about treating hijackers/terrorists as “common criminals,” but in much of the 20th century they were treated EXACTLY as such, and there wasn’t all that much of a difference. Do not forget that while public order and internal security are handled by the “mere” judiciary, they ARE vital affairs of the state. I get the notion that you think that unless it’s linked to the military, it doesn’t matter.
Here is a common definition of “enemy combatant” : “Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war.” It doesn’t apply to everyone ever involved with terrorism, obviously.
Dtroutma over 14 years ago
Peter’s knowledge of Viet Nam can be written on the head of a pin, with a sledge hammer. (or is it just another pinhead?)
petergrt over 14 years ago
“Here is a common definition of “enemy combatant” : … .”
Cut and paste, but only that which fits your proclivity.
The fact is that a definition of ‘enemy combatant’ depends upon the type of war, which itself has evolved over the centuries.
During the Napoleonic wars, it was relatively simple to identify an enemy. During the WW II, it was much more complicated.
The war that we are in now, and it is indeed a war, as opposed to ‘overseas contingency’, is even more changing.in that regard.
This guy was a human bomb, sent to us by an international warring organization whose sole purpose is to subdue the West in general, and the US in particular.
It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
And yet, we will treat him as if he just robed a pizza shop..
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
Loco said ”Still have never watched Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, etc. Does that make me a bad conservative?”
It definitely makes you less ill-informed, conservative or not!
Did anyone catch one of Fox’s blond bimbos (Crowley I think) repeat that there were no domestic terrorist attacks under Bush after 9/11. She said the shoe bomber didn’t count because the passengers stopped it. But the Christmas incident DOES count. Any conservative here want to defend that nonsense?
agent.007 over 14 years ago
The shoe bomber was not someone who so clearly telegraphed his dangerous inclinations in advance as did the underwear bomber. There was much less excuse for giving the latter and the Ft. Hood nutcase access to those they intended to make their victims.
4uk4ata over 14 years ago
Well, of course I will try to prove my point. What do you think, that I’ll try to prove yours? Don’t be lazy, now ;) .
“During the WW II, it was much more complicated.”
Perhaps, though I’m not sure it was so clean-cut during previous wars. Either way, that doesn’t mean that a wider definition is necessarily the correct one. What the Germans did to the “Enemy” in Yugoslavia was considered a war crime. As is what the Japanese did to “bandits” in China - so not treating someone like a “combatant” is little guarantee that they will be any better off..
By the way, I’m not sure what the guy’s exact link to Al-Queda is, we will see about that. I’m sitting on the fence about it - sure, some people calling themselves “Al-Queda in Yemen” assumed responsibility. So what? It costs them about the price of a phone call to do that.
Oh, and as for your “pizza shop” remark, I disagree. Unless, of course, a guy who robs a pizza shop gets the same sentence as a guy who tried to commit mass murder, and I rather doubt that.
007, so whether a guy is an “enemy combatant” or not depends on how skilled they are in concealing their motives? I think the distinction you make is quite arbitrary. It would be like saying that a pickpocket’s sentence should depend on how dextrously they swipe a wallet.
petergrt over 14 years ago
I have not seen the subject program, so I will not comment directly, but there are significant differences between the shoe-bomber and the Christmas attempt:
Reid was a lone terrorist, with virtually no known footprint. It was later learned that he was in trained in Pakistan.
The incident occurred about three months after 9/11, and our defense systems were not yet refined. There was still an impermeable wall between the CIA and FBI, for example. There were no Military Commission system, nor Guantanamo …
Contrast that with the events of recent vintage:
Both major incidents have had a huge footprint, not to mention the systems in place.
petergrt over 14 years ago
Ow, common, you think you can get powder plastic explosive on a street corner? Not to mention a chemical igniter. That was a pretty sophisticated bomb - thank Good the execution was amateurish.
With respect to the pizza thief analogy - you, as so many of your stripe seem to be preoccupied with the conviction and sentencing for the guy.
That is myopic!
We should be wanting to get at th professionals that made the bomb and sent him, for they can recruit thousands more of the like dumbos …
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
Howie, I keep telling you I don’t watch MSNBC, my cable co. doesn’t provide it. I’ve haven’t heard such utter nonsense from CNN. Don’t take that to mean I think CNN’s perfect. Both (all?) 24 hour cable news channels trivialize the news by presenting few facts and lots of competing partisan talking heads.
There are differences between the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, of course. There are also remarkable similarities. But it defies logic to count one as an attempted terrorist attack and not the other. Blond bimbo defies logic.
Say, can’t Fox find a brunette anchor anywhere in the world?
d_legendary1 over 14 years ago
Hey howie if you want a ripping on MSNBC talking heads here’s a few:
Chris Mathews tends to side with republicans on the wrong issues.
Keith tends to go overboard with his worst persons (taking personal shots at people who talk smack about him)
If Oberman is Budweiser, Meadow is Budlight.
Morning Joe at times is good, sometimes conservative. Eh.
But none of them (well maybe Joe) will not lie to me and tell me that the government is out to kill grandma, we need less rights in order to be safe, and that bail outs are a good thing.