Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Healthcare vs

Healthcare vs
Torture

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

THE UNDERPANTS BOMBER, THE GOP, HYPOCRISY, AND MORE HYPOCRISY

 


UPDATE BELOW:


OH THE HUMANITY!


 By the way, Rep. Peter King, MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan and other conservatives had no problems with Richard Reid, the terrorist shoe bomber, being tried in federal court, but are having political pandering hissy fits over the underpants bomber being tried in federal court.


My friends, this is all about POLITICS and making POLITICAL POINTS.  The conservatives are monumental hypocrites, squawking and bellowing about trying the underpants bomber in federal court when they REMAINED SILENT OR ACCEPTED THE EXACT SAME POLICY for the shoe bomber, who is now in a maximum security federal prison in Colorado.


The Right is crazy.  That is the only explanation for their complete and hypocritical reversal on this issue from when they accepted it when Mr. Bush tried the shoe bomber in federal court.  They. Are. Crazy.


 And to all the Spittle Fleckers who came to my blog criticizing Mr. Obama for waiting a few days before discussing the incident, may I remind them all--hypocrites all--that not a partisan peep was heard from any of them when Bush waited SIX days to say ANYTHING about Richard Reid.


Bush Waited Six Days To Discuss Shoe Bomber With No GOP Complaints

The bellowing by Republicans over the Obama administration's supposedly lackadaisical response to the attempted bombing of an airliner over Detroit seems as much about political posturing as legitimate national security concerns.

How else to explain the GOP's relatively quiet reaction eight years ago to President George W. Bush's detached response after a similarly-botched terrorist attack?

On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid -- known more infamously as the shoe bomber -- failed in his attempt to blow up a Miami-bound jet using explosives hidden in his shoe. Coming less than four months after September 11, there already were deep concerns about a potential attack during the upcoming holiday break. Nevertheless, President Bush did not directly address the foiled plot for six days, according to an extensive review of newspaper records from that time period. And when he did, it was only in passing.

The day of the attempted attack, for example, the Associated Press reported that "White House officials" were monitoring the situation throughout the afternoon and that "President Bush received two briefings" on the matter while at Camp David for the holidays. Spokesman Scott McClellan, meanwhile, told reporters that administration officials were consulting with acting Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift -- the plane Reid boarded made an emergency landing at Boston's Logan International Airport.

"The White House has been monitoring the situation since early on today," McClellan said, according to a Washington Post article published on December 23. The lead statement came from Swift, who lauded the "heroic acts" of "the flight attendants and passengers who helped subdue the suspect."

h/t Democratic Underground

UPDATE ON MORE GOP HYPOCRISY:

Some of the same Republican lawmakers currently criticizing the President for softness on terrorism voted back in July 2007 against legislation that, among other reforms, provided $250 million for airport screening and explosive detection equipment.

The Improving America's Security Act of 2007 was a relatively non-controversial measure that effectively implemented several un-acted-upon recommendations from the 9/11 Commission. Eighty-five Senators voted in favor of the bill's passage. Seven missed the vote (several of whom were on the campaign trail, including Barack Obama, John McCain and Chris Dodd).

Eight Republican Senators, however, voted against passage, including Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), James Inhofe (R-Okl.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ari.).

More here at this link.

18 comments:

dmarks said...

Peter King has no credibility when it comes to terrorism. I recall him going on TV interview shows to speak in support of terrorists. Even as recently as 2008, he still has the problem: he made efforts to try to get a terrorist set free.

As for Buchanan, a passionate defender of Adolf Hitler and Hitler's mass-mudering minions, there is sometimes a dividing line between him and actual conservatives. I sure wish that line was a lot thicker.

On the other side, Homeland Security is grossly incompetent if they can't bother to check passengers against the no-fly list (a simple thing to do) and blow it off when a terrorist like this is reported. Sure, this is a continuation of Bush policy, but it has been a long continuation under Obama, and something should be done immediately. No blame game: the time for Homeland Security to actually start doing its job is right now.

Shaw Kenawe said...

You're right dmarks. There should be no blame game.

dmarks said...

It reminds me of 2001. Lax security, blunders, lax oversight and all from Clinton, continuing into Bush administration.

But at least this time, the attack was botched/thwarted. And if there are dozens more out there planning to do the same thing, there's a chance to nip it in the bud.

Dave Miller said...

Shaw, I am sure it will take about half a day for the trolls to show up and ask why you keep blaming Bush for stuff.

It will be almost impossible for the reactionaries to understand that this is not a post about placing blame, rather, it is about pointing out the doublesidedness we live with in politics.

Good to see you back Shaw.

Have a great New Year's!

upstatescrealtor said...

No longer can this POTUS, in the White House, blame George W. Bush for anything.

Mr. President this lady believes you to be racially bias against Whites. Your Socialist agenda is failing; you are a failure; as is the American Congress.

You shall not be elected in 2012, and I an the rest of the fine and good people of this nation will undue the evils liberals have done since 11/04/08 begining with the ouster of many or all weakkneed Socialists now in public office. Bush was taking heat from the dems within one month of 9/11 for anything that he was doing or trying to do, but at least he was trying to do something unlike the 'one', who has determined there are no terrorists, no war on terrorism, and anything that occurs that is untoward is the result of man-made disasters.Obama deserves the heat. He wants to treat terrorist's as 'criminals', while Bush was always leaning forward, on the offensive, against the enemies of America.

Obama wants to 'talk' with our enemies, where Bush threatened them and made it known no deal would be possible.

No one ever accused Bush of being weak.

For Anyone to say that Peter King has no credibility when it comes to terrorism, is pure insanity.

May GOD Bless Peter King, he is one of the very few that calls it as it is.

rockync said...

The silly little trolls who are infesting this blog probably aren't old enough or smart enough to even understand the history of this country.
In fact, the last THREE presidents have had to deal with terror attacks; 1993 saw the botched bombing of the World Trade Center's North Tower as well as the arrest of the jihadists planning a bombing of the Lincoln Tunnel under the Clinton Administration. 2001 was, of course, the sucessful destruction by plane of the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center under the Bush Administration as well as the infamous shoe bomber. And now we have the failed attempt of the underpants bomber.
It is probably fair to say that each of these presidents had some aforeknowledge of the potential for terroists attacks in this country.
But, since we are a FREE country, we take a certain amount of risk in that our borders are open and peoples' right to privacy is protected.
This country can take certain measures but unless we are willing to give up more freedoms and become a closed dictatoral society there is no way to ensure further protections.
Regardless of my political leanings or my personal feelings about any of these presidents, in each case I believe each of them behaved responsibly and admirably in the face of such a dire threat.
I hope as each incident occurs, we learn something and are able to enact policies that will help thwart the next attempt.
BTW - trolls need not respond since I will be ignoring anyone who doesn't stay on topic and challenge my statements with facts and citations.

dmarks said...

Trollwatch Update: The above comment was either plagiarized from this post (scroll down to the comment from "ra") or it is part of an attempt to spam identical comments to several blogs and forums.

dmarks said...

(I am referring to the upstate crealtor comment, not Rocky!)

dmarks said...

Rocky said: "This country can take certain measures but unless we are willing to give up more freedoms and become a closed dictatoral society there is no way to ensure further protections."

I do disagree with this. There are ways this recent attack could have been prevented without the problems you mentioned. For example, actually checking the don't-fly list, and listening when a father points out that his son is a terrorist.

dmarks said...

To Upstate, who said "For Anyone to say that Peter King has no credibility when it comes to terrorism, is pure insanity."

I suggest you do some research. The IRA is a terrorist group that Peter King has passionately defended and supported for decades. The IRA targetted many thousands of civilians in countless terror bombings, killing a total of 644 civilians. Due to the differences with the UK's much smaller population, that is equivlant to the deaths in the US on 9/11.

The IRA also has/had strong ties to Islamic terror groups too.

There, try to make your claim now.

rockync said...

dmarks - I agree there were mistakes made which is why I also wrote in that comment,"I hope as each incident occurs, we learn something and are able to enact policies that will help thwart the next attempt."
I believe there was some evidence brought out after each of the incidents I cited that indicated there had been forewarnings that somehow fell through the cracks.
The best thing this administration can do now is get some competnet people together to study how information was gathered and shared or not and recommend changes that would make for a more efficient homeland security.
Certainly more can be done, but we will always bear a certain amount of risk regardless if we wish to remain a free society.

Shaw Kenawe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
upstatescrealtor said...

Your right dmark. yes I am a troll and a very dumb one. I have a very sad life which consists of sitting in my mothers basement, eating bags of cheetos and trolling liberal blog sites making and ass of myself. And I'm very good at being a jerk, as you can see.

I'm a conservative as you can see by my incisive wit and thorogh knowledge of politics.

Also I loves all Bushes. And Sarah Palin who will be the next president and leader of the freeworld.

I dream of her every night after I paint hitler mustaches on my Obambis poster that hangs over my bed's headborad. in the basement. of my mommy's home.

Dave Miller said...

I think this episode, the shoe bomber incident, and the 9/11 attacks show a government that cannot quickly synthesize actionable intelligence.

In all instances, as Rocky pointed out, there were tell tale signs.

Any reasonable person should be able to understand that these realities respect no political party, or President.

BTW upstatesrealator, no one here blamed Bush for anything. It was merely pointed out that in similar circumstances, President Obama acted exactly as did then President Bush.

A statement of fact, is not blame.

Jim said...

You got to wonder what kind of a man would put a bomb next to his testicles. I mean, really. Just goes to show what type of person we are combating. How in the world do you profile a fella like that?

Dave Miller said...

Thank you Jim, I am still laughing on that one...

TRUTH 101 said...

Show porn in airports. When the guy with a bomb wrapped around his dinger blows up we'll know we have him.


I know this is serious but c'mon folks. Jim's right. How can you not giggle at the thought of a dick bomb. The guy needed some Viagra cause his dick bomb didn't go (get) off.

dmarks said...

You'll know it is the Cialis bomber when he requests to be seated in a window-side bathtub.