Well, CNN is blanketed with coverage of the Amsterdam-Detroit attempt to blow up a plane. I have a few quick thoughts from what I know right now.

1. The guy was on a terrorism watch list but not a no-fly list. WTF?

2. I expect that this will ironically make traveling even more of a nightmare. After all, our current super-strict terrorism-porn protection methods (e.g., only allowing tiny liquids, requiring us to take off our shoes) didn’t prevent this guy from getting what he needed on the plane.

3. Someone please forward me the first rightwinger who takes this opportunity to call Obama a terrorism-loving appeaser who hates his country and will ultimately rain hellfire down upon. My money is on Savage or Limbaugh. Funny how the country pulled together and backed Bush in the wake of 9/11 while the first successful terrorist attack during Obama’s term will absolutely and inevitably be met with scorn, blame, derision and – yes – probably calls for impeachment.

Update: The rightwing whinging begins. It’s ALWAYS a good day to blame Obama for [X]!

Update 2: More shameless politicization:
Update 3: Two guesses as to why wingnuts are insisting on calling this a “terrorist attack” rather than an “attempted terrorist attack”…

Patrick Ruffini aside, most of the wingnut attacks on Obama over yesterday’s attempted terrorist action center on word choice. RedState:
Even the White House is calling this an attempted terror attack.
Pete Hoekstra (via ThinkProgress):
Administration says attempted terrorist attack. No. It was a terrorist attack! Just not as successful as they (AQ) planned.
If you guessed “Because they want to start in on ‘See! Obama had a terrorist attack on his watch’!!“, you are correct.

Although, by that logic, the failed shoe bomber was a terrorist attack on Bush’s watch so…

  1. schu says:

    Like gun control, what we need is more organization and intelligent application of existing laws. If you check the security companies that have the contracts for the air travel you will find a host of congressmen and former congressmen. These laws and regulations where not made to make you safe but rather to make these individuals money. If safety was a key item we would have armed sky marshals.

  2. @iquanyin says:

    yes, but the bigger point imho is there's simply no way to ever, ever, on *anyone's* watch, at *any* cost to our freedoms and general quality of life, ever make things totally safe, or even much safer.

    the best bet: making the world and its people better off, happier, and more creative, is not the goal of any government i've seen, tho of course they all say it is.

    • schu says:

      Even if it was possible to absolutely guarantee our safety, would we want to live that way? Even if the terrorist do manage to make another airline strike air travel is still safer than auto travel. And from all that I have ever seen governments goal is control, not the betterment of the individual.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Authors