+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 89

Thread: Democrats' worst nightmare: Terrorism on their watch

  1. #1
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Arlington, Virginia
    Posts
    10,132
    Country: United States

    Democrats' worst nightmare: Terrorism on their watch

    Thoughts on Obama's response to the attempt terrorist attack?
    Democrats' worst nightmare: Terrorism on their watch

    From the time he launched his campaign for president three years ago, Barack Obama had to consider how he would react to the first serious act of terrorism during the campaign, or if he won, on his watch. His fellow Democrats had been thinking about the moment even longer - since the September day in 2001 when attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon defined George W. Bush’s presidency and gave Republicans a decisive advantage on a defining political issue.

    And yet the White House’s response to last week’s attempt to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit could rank as one of the low points of the new president’s first year. Over the course of five days, Obama’s Obama’ reaction ranged from low-keyed to reassuring to, finally, a vow to find out what went wrong. The episode was a baffling, unforced error in presidential symbolism, hardly a small part of the presidency, and the moment at which yet another of the old political maxims that Obama had sought to transcend – the Democrats’ vulnerability on national security – reasserted itself.

    “The presidency is sometimes about symbolism and not just substance,” said Bob Shrum, who help craft Senator John Kerry’s response to the late-October message from Osama bin Laden that was a pivotal point in the 2004 campaign – and learned a painful lesson in the uneven political playing field on the question of terrorism, at least at that time.

    “Kerry reacted perfectly, but it probably cost us the election,” said Shrum, who said he thought Obama had effectively changed course after his aides’ overconfident appearance on the Sunday shows following the attempted attack.

    Obama’s campaign was intensely familiar with the danger a potential terror incident posed to any Democratic candidate, and all the more to one who lacked Kerry’s military service and foreign policy experience. They did everything they could to compensate with a high-profile Senate focus on nuclear disarmament and a set of graybeard validators to vouch for Obama’s readiness to lead.

    A terror attack during the 2008 campaign, allies and former aides said, would have drawn a response similar to the posture he eventually took toward the financial crisis, one drawn from “Obama’s DNA,” in the words of an ally: To put politics aside, stand with the sitting president and to, ultimately, appear presidential.

    The attack never came. Terrorism virtually disappeared as an issue, despite the best efforts of Obama’s opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain, who had a distinct advantage over Obama on the issue because of his military experience. And Obama aced the politics of the campaign’s sole public crisis – the financial meltdown of September 2008 – projecting concern and solidarity, acting – as his advisers were at pains to point out – like a president should.

    As president, Obama has been criticized by the left for adapting many Bush administration policies – on Iraq, Afghanistan, surveillance and secret detention. But when finally forced to confront national security situations directly, from a restive Iran to a near-miss attack, Obama’s characteristic caution has appeared tentative, and the vacuum he left was filled by a political food fight between Congressional Republicans and Democrats and, ultimately, his staff.

    His staff’s first statement, released after Obama, vacationing in Hawaii, was informed of the news three hours after the suspect was taken into custody, was merely that the president was “closely monitoring” the situation and stressed that his schedule would not change.

    The next day his aides informed reporters that he was continuing to receive updates from his top national security advisers and began to set the stage for press secretary Robert Gibbs to announce on the Sunday morning talk shows that Obama had ordered reviews of the terrorist watch-list system and airport security procedures.

    But on Sunday Gibbs and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also sought to reassure the traveling public that – despite questions about how the suspect had boarded the plane – the system of responding to a possible attack had “worked” after the fact. It was an understandable tone of reassurance for a country on the move because of the holidays. “Imagine if the president had freaked out,” the White House ally said, suggesting a dramatic Obama reaction could have provoked chaos in the air travel system.

    But that was the moment when some Democrats began to grow concerned about the White House’s strategy.

    The muted response, allies said, was aimed at denying al Qaeda a propaganda victory, and at demonstrating how little the terrorists can now disrupt Americans’ lives. “The president and his team have done a good job at handling the situation given the competing interests at play. He’s been forceful without the bellicose chest bumping of the last administration,” said Jim Manley, the chief spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “One thing he’s got going for him is Republicans have no credibility on this issue when their sending out former Vice President Cheney you know they’ve hit the bottom of the barrel.”

    Still, the response failed to reckon with the intense public interest in a story of repeated government failures and a near-fatal attack. Not to mention that Americans and flight crews were on edge – as evidenced in the detainment of a man who was in an airplane bathroom for too long and who authorities released once they learned he was just a businessman who’d gotten ill. The White House, already feeling heat for its Christmas Day response, had a spokesman quickly issue a statement when the man was taken into custody.

    In Obama’s effective absence, Republicans began sharply attacking the administration, producing a partisan stand-off critics say could have been avoided.

    “They should have approached it as a national security emergency requiring a bipartisan response, not a political response,” said Doug Schoen, a pollster who worked for President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. “He absolutely should have interrupted his vacation and absolutely should have gone back to Washington, and convened a high-level, bipartisan meeting."
    Read more: Democrats' worst nightmare: Terrorism on their watch - Ben Smith and Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    3,735
    I think we all know by now that the republicans are not interested in any bipartisan anything at this point so to criticize Obamma for not racing back to basically appease the republicans is ludicrous. No one was really hurt in the attack and there were no more attacks pending. The threat was long gone before obamma could have done anything. Obamma coming back at that point would then be sean by his opponents as a grandstanding P.R. stunt anyway. Now if a world trade center was hit by a jet and was engulfed in flames, and other jets were hijacked, well, that would be a whole other story. Time to drop the days plans and do something asap.

  3. #3
    Dirty Kiwi Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Posts
    15,723
    Country: New Zealand
    He didn't do anything wrong, Napolitano did with her 'everything worked' spiel. After that the administration was always on a hiding to nothing.

  4. #4
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 08
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    4,948
    Country: United States
    The republican response was despicable. Can you imagine the outrage if the Democrats had come out with the same kind of rhetoric after Richard Reid?
    ight years ago, a terrorist bomber's attempt to blow up a trans-Atlantic airliner was thwarted by passengers and revealed gaping holes in airline security only months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

    But President George W. Bush, then on vacation, made no public remarks for six days about the so-called shoe bomber, Richard Reid, and there were virtually no complaints from the media or Democrats that Bush's response was sluggish or inadequate.

    That stands in sharp contrast to the Republicans' withering criticism of President Obama — and some in the media — for his reaction to the Christmas Day incident on a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight.

    Obama commented publicly on Monday and ordered a full investigation of the incident.

    Democrats are making the disparity a centerpiece of their efforts to counter GOP attacks on the White House. "This hypocrisy demonstrates Republicans are playing politics with issues of national security and terrorism," Democratic National Committee (DNC) spokesman Hari Sevugan said. "That they would use this incident as an opportunity to fan partisan flames ... tells you all you need to know about how far the Republican Party has fallen and how out of step with the American people they have become."

    The Democrats' counterattack is aimed largely at two Republican congressmen who have been particularly critical of Obama: Reps. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., and Peter King, R-N.Y. Sevugan also criticized Hoekstra for sending out a fundraising e-mail that invoked the Christmas Day bombing attempt. "Raising money off it is beyond the pale," Sevugan said.

    Neither congressman concedes applying a double standard to Obama, but the similarities between the 2001 and 2009 bombing attempts are striking.

    This year's attack came on Christmas. The 2001 attempt took place Dec. 22. Obama was on vacation in Hawaii when the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, allegedly used plastic explosives in his bid to blow up the Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight. Bush was at Camp David when Reid used similar explosives to try to blow up a Paris-to-Miami flight, which diverted to Boston.

    Like the Obama White House, the Bush White House said the president had been briefed and was following the incident closely. While the Obama White House issued a background statement calling the incident an "attempted terrorist attack" on the same day it took place, early official statements from Bush aides did not make the same explicit statement.

    Bush did not address reporters about the Reid episode until Dec. 28, after he had traveled from Camp David to his ranch in Texas.

    Democrats do not appear to have criticized Bush. Many were wary of publicly clashing with the commander in chief, who had lofty approval ratings after what appeared to be a successful military campaign in Afghanistan. The media also seemed to have little interest in pressing Bush about the bombing, or the fact that the incident had revealed a previously unknown vulnerability in airplane security — that shoes could be used to hide chemicals or explosive devices.

    An Agence France-Presse story Dec. 27 was one of the few to call attention to the silence from Bush and other top officials.



    During a 25-minute meeting with Bush the next day, reporters asked more than 15 questions, including queries about his New Year's Eve plans and a tree he'd planted. He never was asked about Reid, but mentioned the attempt in passing.

    "The shoe bomber was a case in point, where the country has been on alert," Bush said. "A stewardess on an American Airlines flight — or a flight attendant on an American Airlines flight — was vigilant, saw something amiss and responded. It's an indication that the culture of America has shifted to one of alertness. And I'm grateful for the flight attendant's response, as I'm sure the passengers on that airplane. But we've got to be aware that there are still enemies to the country. And our government is responding accordingly."

    Cable-TV regulars

    While many congressional Republicans and their supporters have criticized Obama, Hoekstra and King have been the most ubiquitous, becoming cable-TV regulars, providing details about the case at a time the administration was still tight-lipped.

    In an appearance Monday on WCBS-TV in New York, King said, "I'm disappointed it's taken the president 72 hours to even address this issue. Basically nobody, the president, the vice president, the attorney general, nobody except [Homeland Security] Secretary [Janet] Napolitano has come out. And she said yesterday everything worked well. What I hope the president would do is treat this in a bipartisan way, acknowledge that mistakes were made and promise we'll do all we can to make sure it doesn't happen again."

    Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, took a similar tack on Fox News, arguing that the slowness of Obama's reaction showed terrorism wasn't high on his agenda. "Why this is not a priority?" Hoekstra asked. "It should be his No. 1 priority."

    Asked Tuesday about how Obama's response differed from Bush's, King said his "recollection" was that senior Bush administration officials such as Attorney General John Ashcroft did speak out about Reid's case soon after his arrest. Politico could not locate any public comment from Ashcroft before Reid was indicted in January.

    "My point was there was no word coming from anyone except a press handout," King told Politico on Tuesday. "It didn't have to be the president. I'd have been fine if it were [Attorney General] Eric Holder or for that matter Napolitano. ... There should be a face for the administration. For the first 48 hours, nobody said a word."

    Asked about a double standard for Bush's actions in 2001, Hoekstra spokesman John Truscott said Tuesday the congressman really was objecting more to the administration's clampdown on briefings to Congress than about Obama's public silence.

    Truscott also dismissed Sevugan's criticism of his boss' terrorism-related fundraising appeal as part of an effort by Democrats to undercut his 2010 gubernatorial bid in Michigan.

    While the White House has ramped up Obama's public profile on the bombing, officials insist he was neither reluctant nor slow to react.

    "The president has been very engaged on this, has been leading our response effort, asking agencies to take a variety of steps including all the steps he outlined," National Security Council chief of staff Denis McDonough said Monday.

    An Obama White House spokesman declined to comment Tuesday on the parallels.

    Issue sidestepped

    While King and Hoekstra have criticized Obama repeatedly for his response, former Bush aides and advisers have sidestepped the issue or endorsed Obama's approach.

    On CNN's "Larry King Live" on Monday night, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, a White House adviser at the time of Reid's attempted bombing, brushed aside a question about whether Obama should have waited three days to speak out. "I'm going to leave that to the White House," Ridge said. "I think he had Secretary Napolitano out there speaking."

    And former Bush pollster Matthew Dowd was asked last weekend if Obama was correct when, like Bush, he held off speaking at the outset. "Yes," Dowd said on ABC's "This Week." "Part of the problem here is that all the facts that you think are true at the beginning turn out not to be true as the days go on."
    Nation & World | Obama criticized on airline incident when Bush wasn't | Seattle Times Newspaper The republican response was partisan bs

  5. #5
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    12,615
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
    The republican response was partisan bs
    Welcome to American politics. What ISN'T partisan politics these days??

  6. #6
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    9,269
    Country: United States
    I seem to remember numerous dems beating the war drums vs Saddam, then Bush actually did and all those dems turned into doves.

  7. #7
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    3,735
    It must be fun being the president knowing that ANYTHING you say or do is going to piss off nearly half of the country.

  8. #8
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    02 Mar 08
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    1,542
    Country: Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    It must be fun being the president knowing that ANYTHING you say or do is going to piss off nearly half of the country.
    Oh come one now, it's great, the rest of us get to laugh ourselves in the ground about the other half running around like headless chooks. It's like Abbott & Costello from our perspective.
    Ego Numquam

  9. #9
    Regular Countezero's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Dec 09
    Posts
    99
    Country: United States
    Napolitano is a joke, and has always been as much, but the desperate attempts to crucify Obama for what -- as someone already suggested -- is essentially a repeat of the Reid attempt during the Bush years are just that: Desperate. It's almost as if the Republicans are itching for us to get hit again so their electoral chances can rebound. Frankly, it's disgusting.

  10. #10
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 08
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    4,948
    Country: United States
    Thinking about it more Politico is disgusting as well. How about " Americans worst nightmare"? They held true to their name and viewed it through the narrow beltway prism of partisan politics.

  11. #11
    Regular Countezero's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Dec 09
    Posts
    99
    Country: United States
    That's a good point.

    I enjoy Politico, but it is beltway people who are too into beltway-thinking. The fact someone -- or something -- always wins or loses in any given political situation has been an ugly facet of American journalism for about 20 years. It needs to change, but I don't think it will.

    Back on topic, I knew that if the US got hit during the Obama administration, the Elephants would leap to use it to their advantage and call his party soft on defense (some board members have already done this as well). Reducing everything to such partisanship loses scope of the real issue -- terrorism -- and distracts us all from the rightful targets of our anger -- terrorists.

  12. #12
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,322
    Country: United States
    Can't they just blame Bush again?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  13. #13
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Can't they just blame Bush again?
    Sure. His actions/inactions will have repercussions for years to come, the same as any other president. The trick is to nail down the percentages of blame , and I do not even think Houdini's ghost could do that.

  14. #14
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,322
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    Sure. His actions/inactions will have repercussions for years to come, the same as any other president. The trick is to nail down the percentages of blame , and I do not even think Houdini's ghost could do that.
    If that were true, then Bush should blame Clinton for Barry's blames...
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  15. #15
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    If that were true, then Bush should blame Clinton for Barry's blames...
    Yes he can, at least to a degree. Rush sure did and still does.
    I know people who can't say FDR with out having to spit as all the nations ills stem from him and him alone.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Bush Remaking Supreme Court
    By Bulgaroctonus in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 19 Jan 06,, 23:36
  2. Democrats Fear GOP Push on Flag-Burning
    By Bill in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01 Aug 05,, 02:16
  3. Last chance for the Democrats?
    By Gio in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 03 Nov 04,, 21:20
  4. Texas Republicans Vote to Fine Fugitive Democrats
    By Stinger in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 19 Aug 03,, 12:49

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts