Proper Framing in the Battle Against Terrorism

A recent post pointed out some of the apparent hypocrisy in Congressman Pete Hoekstra's statements relating to his political opponents, and fighting terrorism.

Lending more to the inherent idea of that post that Hoeskstra is just extremely partisan, rather than completely amiss on all the issues, Matt Yglesias, an influential commentator, notes that in 2008, apparently:

Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee, in an interview said the phrase ”war on terror” was the “dumbest term…you could use”. The Michigan lawmaker, who criticises the Bush administration for using an overly aggressive tone, says he has urged Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, not to use the expression.

If that is the case, Hoekstra has earned at least a small modicum of credibility on the terrorism issue.  He is right.  It is a counter productive phrase:

One of  the most important things that can be done in this effort to stem and eradicate sovereignless terrorism, is to make sure that those who engage in it are correctly painted as the lowly, common, psychotic criminals that they are, rather than as combatants in some sort of "war" or bigger effort, and not give recruiters and others ammunition for them to think that they are the "warrior combatants" that they like to think of themselves as.

Additionally, it is similarly imperative to classify, recognize, and most importantly of all, categorize this as an effort against radical terrorism, which happens to emanate from a radical, extremist, fringe of Islam, rather than even incidentally some sort of implicit condemnation of Islam itself.   Though subtle, the term "war" even though it is teamed, in the phrase, with the word "terrorism" might again play into this broader concept, particularly if pains are not taken to correctly categorize this as just noted, rather potentially impugning or becoming suspicious of the broader religion itself.

Yglesias, on the other hand, doesn't see it:

Ever since the Bush administration first unveiled the term, my feeling has been that this is an overdebated issue and it doesn’t matter all that much one way or another.

Needless to say, we disagree.

But Yglesias goes on to note, however: "That said, 'war on terror' does seem to me to have a variety of bad implications, including the fact that it’s hard to see how you’re ever going to be able to say you’ve 'won' something like a 'war on terror.'”

But the idea that you "can't win"-- unless one is tying it to this inane idea that we are "at war" and so be acceptable as an excuse for the Constitution of the United States to now be weakened, when this "war" has no definable end and may well exist in perpetuity -- would not be the bad implication that strategically leaps to mind, as noted just above.

The NY Times Publishes One of the Worst Pieces Ever

We are going to paraphrase yesterday's editorial in the NY Times.

Remember, we are loosely paraphrasing, while making sure to cover all relevant major points:

UFOs and scary science fiction scenarios have no proof, climate change is the same, the end.

For a contrast with the idiocy of this "editorial" in the Times, see the basic facts, in stark contrast.

Out of the blue, after going on and on about Y2K fears, and the like, at the very end of his piece, the author (who doesn't even deserve to have his name mentioned), brings up climate change for the very first time, and simply decides that it is in the category as these other, largely imagined,or even farcical, fears.

What is even  more important are the author's reason's. What are his reasons?

None. He just decides it. (If one does google this person, you will see that this is not necesarily by purposeful omission. He is a professor of philosophy, in New Zealand.)

As for the NY Times' reasons for publishing this abject piece of manipulative and extraordinarily ignorant piece of crap?

Who knows. Maybe they think it is provocative:  say, along the lines of suggesting that we don't know if the Times publishers are having gay, extramarital sex and cocaine parties with insider coal industry executives (but leaving out that we don't know), just that it "seems to us" they are. The end.

This has been an editorial.

Great Democratic Strategy -- That is Bad Policy, and Will Backfire Politically

Economist Robert Kuttner was on "Bill Moyers Journal" Friday.  He suggested that although the current health care bill was not good, it should be passed because it will make Democrats look bad if it isn't.

This is vintage Democrat strategy: If we pass a bad bill that the right hates (which, in this instance, they actually have good reasons, unlike most of the reasons expressed when the idea was first introduced early last year) and many moderates and several noted Liberals also hate, it will help us!

Kuttner: Well, it's so far from what I think is necessary that I don't think it's a it's a good bill. But I think if it goes down, just because of the optics of the situation and the way the Republicans have framed this as a make-or-break moment for President Obama, it will make it easier for the Republicans to take control of Congress in 2010. It will make Obama even more gun-shy about promoting reform. It will create even more political paralysis. It will embolden the Republicans to block what this president is trying to do, some of which is good, at every turn. So I would hold my nose and vote for it. . . .

Moyers: Aren't you saying that in order to save the Democratic president and the Democratic Party in 2010 and 2012 you have to have a really rotten health insurance bill?

Kuttner: Well, when you come down to one pivotal moment where a bill is before Congress and the administration has staked the entire presidency on this bill and you're a progressive Democrat are you going to vote for it or not? Let me put it this way, if I were literally in the position that Joe Lieberman is in and it was up to me to determine whether this bill live or die, I would hold my nose and vote for it even though I have been a fierce critic of the path this administration has taken. . . .

Not Really. Passing a good bill, and articulating and selling to the country why it is a good bill, will help Democrats.

Recognizing a bad bill, and refraining from passing it simply for the "sake of getting something done" (thereby not also playing into Republicans charges that Democrats believe more bad or questionable government is better than less government), while selling what they are trying to do and why,  will help Democrats.

Passing a bad bill will hurt Democrats.

Just not in "Democrat Strategy World."  Which is kind of like Wayne's World. Only dumber.
____________

In fairness to Kuttner, the above analogy may not apply to him, since what he said was: "Well, it's so far from what I think is necessary that I don't think it's a it's a good bill."  This could be read a lot of ways, but it's possible he still believes the bill is a  net improvement, just minimally relative to what the thinks it could or should do.

We don't. We think it is a bad bill.

And a lot of people agree.

A Study in Contrast -- Chest Thumpers, versus Strategists

Glenn Reynolds, January 1st, 2010:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Heckuva Job. “The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. . . . Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy — jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon — turns laxity into a governing philosophy.”

Glenn Greenwald, December 31st, 2009:

As always, Charles Krauthammer is one of Al Qaeda's greatest allies:

Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians -- and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.

He sounds just like Richard Reid and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Who are Reid and Mohammed? The infamous al-Qaeda "shoe bomber" and "plot mastermind," respectively, who made it eminently clear they view themselves as warriors, not as the common, psychopathic, murderous criminals that they are.  As Greenwald points out,  the worst thing we can do is play into this notion that terrorists are some warriors, engaged in a "war" against us, rather than some fringe extremist murderous terrorists.

Krauthammer doesn't get this, and seems to respond as if this is all a real life video "war" game. And as if the grave threat that we face from terrorism means that somehow calling it something "big" helps us, rather than hurts us. But then again, Krauthammer preaches on Fox, and the Washington Post.

More Fox Balance

Our previous post pointed out that Fox is really an advocacy organization that poses as one that is delivering news, thus making it far more effective, and appealing, than outright advocacy.

As the cleverly named site "Balloon Juice" notes, Fox just decided that Democrats were calling for Janet Napolitano to step down.

We're not convinced Napolitano's initial reaction to the news of the Christmas airline bomber was all too swift., but still, a random state senator somewhere, and the former aide to moderate Republican in name only Joe Lieberman, does not exactly represent Democrats.

Except to "Fox," of course, who started off their article, entitled, "Democrats call for Napolitano to Step Down Following Failed Attack," with the sentence "Democrats have joined the ranks of those calling..."

Yeah, technically true, since former Lieberman aide Dan Gerstein and New Jersey State Senator Richard Codley, are "Democrats."

But blatant spin from an organization that bills itself as a news organization.

But is not:



(Or, regarding Fox, see this video, ignoring the first thirty seconds of similarly counter productive, liberal Keith Olberman spin. (As if what Fox did was "bias," and Olbermann did not just play right into the common, but false, "the media is liberal, Fox balances it out" perception. But then Olbermann sometimes writes on this site.))

This is not to weigh in on the substantive merit of Codley or Gerstein's view. It is to point out that Fox clearly cherry picked two random Democrats out of the top several thousand of the country's leading Democrats, to push their own idea that Napolitano should step down and make it seem like there was a wider bipartisan chorus in support of this than their is.

That's not news. That's a clear agenda. Except, of course, to Glenn Reynolds.

"Brush Back Pitches?? Is This Even Possibly True?

Is Glenn Reynold's correct here when he writes, in the WSJ:

It is, after all, the Obama administration that declared that its critics at Fox News Channel are not real journalists, and that Fox is not a "legitimate news organization." In doing so—as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs admitted with a reference to "brushback pitches" in baseball—the White House's goal was just the same as that of the prosecutors in the president's native city: To chill criticism, and to get journalists to think twice before stepping up to the plate.

Of course Reynold's mischaracterizes what Gibbs was saying.  But Reynold's see's Fox as "Fair and Balanced," so it would easy for him to do that.  


But still, "brushback pitches? (Brushback pitches?!!) What kind of thinking is this by the Obama Administration?


The problem with Fox, it was pointed out here in October, is that:

Fox is...an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.

Therein, it was also suggested that:

In other words, now the case is not about Fox, because what Fox does is pose as political and policy news station when it is actually in large part an ideologically motivated and highly manipulative advocacy station, but the case it about the entire media. This builds solidarity between Fox and the rest of the media, when exactly the opposite is required (let alone the fact that Fox often goes after the rest of the media, which in turn is too scared to make a real story out of Fox's constant distortions). And it also makes it seem now that the issue is not so much how bad Fox is (see above again for what it does), but simply that the "media is bad" and is thus about a thin skinned White House that seems to be attacking media and viewpoints that it does not like. [Update: on the day this suggestion appeared, and subsequently, numerous columns around the blogosphere popped up, bewilderedly asking, in effect "how can the rest of the media possibly get Fox's back on this?"]

This plays directly into Fox's characterization of what the White House is doing. And it bolsters the alarming argument, false as it is, that the White House is trying to have a chilling effect upon independent reporting and disparate viewpoints.

Saying one is serving the equivalent of the "brushback pitch," as if one is only talking to one's base and no one else in America, in effect accomplishes much the same thing. 


It is terrible framing. 


But that is what Democrats do best. (Second best is argue self righteously about how good they are at framing, and how anybody who does not see it the way they see it, or, as they put it, "the truth," is hopeless anyway. Which is why they continue to let well meaning but profoundly biased people like Glenn Reynolds (see here, here, here, here, and here), have a profoundly disproportionate influence on the debate in America today. (For instance, a hundred and thirty one million pages views in one month period alone.)
____________


Getting back to Reynold's op-ed, he is mixing apples and oranges (but one supposes that as a law professor he can't see that either). But while the first part of his article is pretty strong, saying that Fox is not real journalism is not remotely akin to accepting prosecutorial abuse of journalists, as he tries to falsely insinuate.  But given Democrats poor framing of this issue, once again, it is easy to see how Reynold's can see it this way.) 


What the Obama administration means is that an advocacy organization that sets itself up as a news station is far more effective than an outright advocacy organization, because it is designed with the purpose of making people think its purpose is objectively covering the news, when it's purpose is very different. By making people think they are coming to their own conclusions -- by occasionally throwing in a small tidbit of apparent balance by taking or arguing a position or fact contrary to what the station wants to maintiain, all the while reminding viewers how "fair and balanced" Fox is -- Fox has a far more powerful effect (and broader viewership) than outright advocacy ever could. 


Of course, Reynold's can't see this, because as his blog almost constantly illustrates, Fox backs up his vision of the world. 


The news is not supposed to do that. It is supposed to sober you up. Fox is exceptionally good at making you think it is doing that, while doing quite the opposite. 

Good Idea, Except They Probably Wouldn't Bother to Wipe Their Feet

From the popular (and well named!) blog, "boing, boing" comment section, regarding a front door mat available at Target that literally says "Come back with a warrant":

Ooh! I want one! Better yet, I want a doormat that actually has the text of the Fourth Amendment on it. If someone's gonna violate my most basic, Constitutionally-protected civil liberties, I want them to have to literally wipe their feet on the Bill of Rights in order to do it.

Here's a funnier one:

...Cop: Our dog smelled something in your car. Can we search your car? Me: I was standing right here, and I heard the other cop tell you the dog didn't find anything. If the dog had found anything, you wouldn't have to ask me to search my car. That would be the probable cause that you don't have. (I then made the mistake of relenting to their ridiculous search, and they repaid me by removing EVERYTHING INCLUDING THE SEATS from my car and leaving them on the side of the highway at 2am. I was young, and that was the 1st and last time I ever consented to a search. It was also the night I learned to never trust anything that comes out of a cop's mouth.)

As they say on the internet (or as Sunday talk show host John McLaughlin says every time he ends one of his shows), boing boing!

As a segueway into a different John McLaughlin (and slightly more entertaining one):

Rebound? -- Seriously -- REBOUND???!

Anyone not familiar with Jim Mora's greatest PR moment ever (well, greatest for those who like coach press conferences, not so great for Mora), should check it out.

In a piece that goes to great lengths to argue that the economy has not "rebounded," Tom Blumer, on the Instapundit/Pajamas Internet site, says that when he saw the word "rebound" used in the media, he was reminded of the scene from the movie "Breaking Away," where the dad used car salesman says to the son, half increduously, "[you gave them a] refund?  Refund???!!"

Which reminded us of Jim Mora:



As for Blumer -- while the economy has not fully recovered, and (as is almost always the case with macroeconomics, despite the plethora of prognosticators that predict otherwise) we can't be sure when or to what it extent it will fully recover -- one has to wonder just how this exact same set of facts would be spun by Blumer were, say the situation reversed, and had Obama been the President for the past eight years and Bush now in office for the past year. (Or even if just McCain or Huckabee or (frightening as it is), Palin, were president, instead of Obama.)

It probably would read like a completely different reality; with Blumer, instead of cherry picking some reporter who probably did overstate the recovery (despite the fact that was not his point) going half apesh*t about how the media was not talking up how well the economy was doing, how a great catastrophe had been averted, and what a great job the administration had been doing.

Seriously. Who stoops to this actual argument:

You haven’t "rebounded' until you’re back to where you were.

Yeah you have. Just not fully.

Or, instead, next time your teammate takes a shot from the three point line in basketball, and inside the guard, you pull down the "rebound," just remember: It's not a rebound, because the ball did not get back to the three point line.  

Even if one agrees that the word "rebound" (qualified or not, in which case the argument would be that it should have been qualified, which is a whisper compared to the conniption fit that Blumer throws by saying "rebound" like Mora said "playoffs" (or the Breaking Away character's dad said "refund?!!")), is not perfect, Blumer also uses the wrong measure; namely the last quarter of growth, when the issue is whether the economy has rebounded back to some measure of vitality, in which case, an average growth would be more appropriate.

But the first part of that equation is whether the economy has (so far) rebounded out of the enormous hole it was in.  The answer to that, however temporary (or not, you predict), is yes. Just not in Blumer's world, with Obama as president.

What is Different About the Response to the Shoe Bomber versus the Christmas Bomber?

The GOP has been jumping all over Obama for the Christmas airline bombing attempt. So

Q: What is Different About the Response to the shoe bomber versus the Christmas Bomber?

A:  The shoe bomber's attempt was made under the Bush Administration.

TPM notes:

During a telephone interview on MSNBC today Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) failed to reconcile the hypocrisy inherent in Republican criticisms of President Obama's allegedly soft or slow reaction to the attempted attack on flight 253. As MSNBC's Milissa Rehberger pointed out, then-President George W. Bush took six days to issue a response to shoe bomber Richard Reid's failed attack in 2001 -- far longer than President Obama took to address flight 253.


Plus, Reid had a trial in civilian court -- though Republicans have jumped all over the Obama administration for not trying Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in a military tribunal.

After stammering momentarily to Rehberger's question about the apparent double standard, Rep. Conaway offered an answer that didn't address the question:

Well, I didn't come out immediately and criticize the president. He has said let's do this review. There's some other steps he can take. ... Let's look forward to what we ought to be doing, and we can spend all the time we want to looking backwards, whether you want to criticize Bush or whatever. The truth of the matter is, there are active jihadists at work right now trying to come hurt and kill Americans.

Double standards, however, seem to be the standard, these days. 

Scary Parallel Logic

No, it didn't.  Did it?

A popular blog perhaps tried to insinuate that lack of health insurance is worse than terrorism.

We could analyze all of the problems in this comparison for pages.  But, simply put, this is like arguing that murder is no big deal because "people die in hospitals every day." Actually, it's not just "like" arguing that, it kind of is that.

The number one point of course being that medical care may not be needed; we control our own health to a large extent; even with health insurance one can still get bad medical care, or even good medical care may fail; while not nearly as effective we do have emergency rooms (not an endorsement for a health care plan being "emergency rooms" which are overused, often don't prevent what will lead to death where good care might have, and are incredibly inefficient and a last resort, but we do have them); there is no element of a purposeful engagement in the most heinous hijacking of liberty known to man -- the purposeful killing; and one can of course provided circumstances are not too unfavorable, work to get health insurance or save enough to cover at least some medical care.

This is not to say that medical care in this country is not a debacle. It is.  But that is not the point of this post. It is to say that false comparisons, like "the number of people that die from skiing accidents, and the number of people that die from being robbed nyc city streets is the same, so what's the big deal about being robbed!" are really missing the boat.

Still, in fairness to that blog, it is worth pointing out that lack of insurance, at least under our current system, does lead to deaths in some cases, that otherwise could have been prevented.  That's just a reality, and it's not a good one.  But while we think health care, and in particular health care insurance, is ripe for reform in a country where health care costs (both to government and citizens) are spiraling ridiculously out of control while many people's health care is in fact compromised, we don't think any bill is better than no bill.  In fact, we think it is a lot worse.

Republicans Have No Business Pointing Fingers, Do They?

DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen:

In general, we are facing the consequences of the Bush administration's failures to deal with al Qaeda. The Republicans have no business in pointing fingers at the Obama administration on terrorism and national security."


The Obama administration has been much more aggressive about going after al Qaeda than the Bush administration, which turned its focus from al Qaeda to Iraq..."  [The Administration has] been on the offense in places where the Bush administration had taken its eye off the ball.

Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. Seems pretty reasonable though. And the far right sure has politicized this attack attempt, mighty quick.

As Steve Benen of Washington Monthly points out: 

Bush/Cheney released the terrorist plotters into.."art therapy rehabilitation" b) failed.. to keep America and its allies safe from terrorism during the former administration's eight years; c) the same Republican lawmakers whining now also voted against funding for the Transportation Safety Administration, including money for screening operations and explosives detection systems; and d) that Obama has succeeded on counter-terrorism fronts that Bush/Cheney only talked about.

But that's not the real issue here. The real issue is the crass politicization of this issue, with, of course, an assist (as almost always) from the crack expert counter terrorism unit over at the Washington Post.

Battle Against Terrorism, and, Sadly, Politics

Earlier today, Dick Cheney, who never met an opportunity he didn't like, real or imagined, to castigate those who he doesn't agree with politically, said the following:

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war...But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe.

Actually, saying we are at "war" does not change the reality of the situation either.

What it does do, however, is help send a message to our pyschotic al-Qaeda enemies that this is bigger, not smaller. This only increases their importance and effect.

It also, more troublingly, plays into the idea that this is not an all out effort on our part to expunge, exterminate, and wipe out fringe extremist radical Islamic terrorist cells, but that this is somehow part of some broader effort which may well even involve Islam itself -- which is probably just about the worst strategy we could engage in.

One of the many problems, from a political strategic and communication perspective, with Democrats, is that they think that anybody who is, or who they think, is wrong, must have really bad motives, or know they are lying, or just "evil."

Dick Cheney is almost radically right wing and militant.  And Democrats have done a poor job of showing this, and defining Cheney with it, as opposed to simply presuming everyone "knows it." And the media has thus also done a poor job of covering it.  But the fact is, this does not mean that Cheney is "evil" (although if ignorance is evil, Cheney may be sometimes thus), or that he is always, in his mind, lying. 

What it does mean, in this particular instance, is that Cheney is, in the words of Karl Rove (talking about others, of course) "deeply, an profoundly, wrong."  . 

As for politicizing this, Cheney believes he is being fair and objective. Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald had an excellent post on this point recently, with respect to "Reason" magazine. When Obama said that the CBO "reports" instead of the more speculative "projects" -- because it suited Reason's extremely ideological beliefs, Obama was lying according to its Editor in Chief; there was even a picture of Obama with a Pinocchio nose. 

But guess what.  Greenwald looked at numerous Reason articles, and found out that by this "standard," Reason writers lied all the time. That is, whenever it suited their political purposes, the CBO "reported." Reasons writers said the CBO reported all the time, always in articles where the "report" suited their political beliefs.

But when a political Obama, and thus with more need to spin than a magazine named "Reason," did the same exact thing that "Reason" reporters, in "objectively reporting," did, the Editor in Chief called him a liar, and put a picture of him up with a Pinocchio nose.

Cheney is very likely the same way. He is being extrordinarily political, and is so lacking in objectivity, probably does not even realize it. Which is perhaps worse than even being extraordinarily politcal.(Here's another example, showing this is not just restricted to "Reason" magazine, or Dick Cheney.) 

On top of that, in terms of his framing on this effort we need to engage in, after eight years of magnifying the problem, misdirecting resources, and failing to quell al-Qaeda, he is also, deeply, and profoundly wrong.

More Expert Anti-Terrorism Advice: Quick, Who Said This?

(Update below)
What Far Right, Zealous, anti-Obama Ideologue, and on what random blog, wrote the following:

By staying in Hawaii, the president has sent the message that the situation really isn’t all that serious, that things can proceed just fine until he’s back. And isn’t it that kind of reasoning that emboldens our never-vacationing enemies into thinking Christmas Day is the perfect time for them to strike?

That is, that because some random terrorist (who should never have made it into the U.S.) -- who of course claims allegiance to and apparently had some ties to al-Qi'da, tried to blow up an airplane -- our President is sending the wrong message by staying In Hawaii. In other words, let's go nutso whenver al-Qi'da does something, so that they know they can really get us into a tizzy even by failed attempts.  Or, um, perhaps we should send the message that they can't throw us into a tizzy?

That is, so long as Obama is not needed in Washington to help orchestrate any strategies or thwart any attacks -- a pretty big stretch if one was to make it. But that's not what this zealous anti Obama site is saying. This site is just saying that Obama, taking it in stride in a way that has no negative practical or strategic ramifications for us, is "sending them" the wrong message. 

Where did this person writing on this site get their anti terrorist training, anyway?  Because it looks like they could use a refresher course.

So what site was this?  The Washington Post, and Jo-Ann Armao.

Let's check out her reasoning again:

By staying in Hawaii...isn’t it that kind of reasoning that emboldens our never-vacationing enemies into thinking Christmas Day is the perfect time for them to strike?

So what Christmas day would they strike? Christmas day tomorrow?   Wouldn't that be an argument for staying in Washington next Christmas day, next year? (To the extent Obama being in Washington is even relevant.) Maybe our President should never travel oveseas, either?  The argument that by him staying in Hawaii we are not taking terrorism "seriously," as opposed to not sending al-Qi'da the message that they can have even more of an effect on us than they need to, is really pretty weak.

Terrorism is a tough topic.  A lot of people have ideas on it, but few have any idea what they are talking about.  Jo-Ann Armao is one of those people. And not suprisingly, she writes for the Washington Post.

Update: Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald offers a more scathing indictment of Armao's counter terrorism "expertise,"but essentially makes the same points:

Scampering back to Washington -- "hotfooted" or otherwise -- would have been the worst possible thing that Obama could have done. It would have created a climate of frenzy and panic and thus helped to terrorize the country even more -- which, one might want to recall, is the goal, by definition, of Terrorists. The fact that Obama doesn't hysterically run around like some sort of frightened chicken with his head cut off every time Al Qaeda sneezes -- or swagger to the nearest camera to beat his chest and play the role of protective daddy-cowboy -- is one of the things I like best about him. As for Armao's "point" about how Janet Napolitano probably took it easy because the "boss was away" -- and her belief that Terrorists will strike more on holidays if Obama isn't affixed to his chair in the Oval Office, as though he's the Supreme Airport Screener: those are so self-evidently dumb it's hard to believe they found their way even into something written by one of Fred Hiatt's editorial writers.

That last point may seem a little harsh. But seriously, whatever one may think of Napolitano's responses, she ought to be ready to just vomit over the inanity of Armao's suggesting that the head of Homeland Security Secretary "took it easy" because the "boss was away." 
We all make mistakes, and write dumb things. But how did this get past Armao's editors? Oh, right. It was the Washington Post.  Your one stop crack team counter-terrorism unit.

MI Rep. Pete Hoekstra Versus MI. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Terrorism, and Health Care

Who wins this debate?

Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra, on funding for the latest technologies in airport screenings:

Voted Nay.

Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra, after the foiled Christmas day airline bombing attempt by a Nigerian whose famous father warned the U.S. Embassy about a month beforehand, now:

Says the U.S. needs to...put into place the latest technology for dealing with it.

But was this a one time slip up, a quick change of heart, or was the vote against "the latest technology for dealing with it" cast for other reasons, while working otherwise to get it applied? 

Here is Hoekstra versus Hoekstra again, accusing House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi of "outrageous accusations," which he has made himself both before and, most notably, since, accusing the CIA himself of outright lying.

Here is Hoekstra in a Detroit Free Press Op ed on the same issue of more effectively combatting terrorism:

On the one hand, the Obama administration claims it will protect our nation from terrorists, but is pursuing CIA officers who used approved interrogation techniques against al Qaeda terrorists.

But this is false information that Hoesktra is representing to his Michigan constituents, and to the American public:

Despite demands from civil libertarian and human rights organizations for a much broader investigation....Attorney General Eric Holder explicitly did not approve such an investigation and opted instead to appoint a special investigator to look only at CIA interrogations that might have gone beyond the techniques approved by the Office of Legal Counsel under Bush. The Washington Post reported this quite clearly:

...The sources said an inquiry would apply only to activities by interrogators, working in bad faith, that fell outside the “four corners” of the legal memos. Some incidents that might go beyond interrogation techniques that were permitted involve detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are described in the secret 2004 CIA inspector general report, set for release Aug. 31.

We're all in agreement that we need to do a more effective job.

But first we need to have correct information.

Promoting erroneous information just further undermines legitimate debate, discussion, and understanding of the actual issues and choices, and increasingly leads to bad policies and politics.

Here's a classic example of bad policies after months of heated public "debate" where misinformation ran rampant -- much of it, sad to say, promulgated by Hoekstra's political party.

Hoekstra himself proselytized and blatantly attacked on that issue --health care --himself:

Democrats want to take away your freedoms!

We don't like the bill either, among, for other reasons, its seeming intrusiveness, mandates, and big government, overly complicated, paperwork excessive nature while at the same time probably only adding more to the real root of the problem.  But is shouting "Democrats want to take away  your freedoms" helping on the matter?

What Does the TSA Administrator Say About the Christmas Day Airline Bombing Attempt?

A recent post noted how the 23 year old Nigerian who apparently attempted to blow up a commericial airline flight bound for Detroit on Christmas day, should not have been allowed to fly:  Among other things, his father, a prominent Nigerian, warned the U.S. Embassy in November about his son's ties to al-Qaeda.

Instead, luckily, his explosive device apparently did not go off properly or immediately, and his attempt was thrwarted by a passenger.

But what does the TSA Administrator have to say about all of this?

We don't know, because we don't have one. 

Why? Ask South Carolina Senator Jim Demint, who reportedly has been blocking the nominee over concerns about TSA workers joining a union, or some such thing. 

Meanwhile, another site wonders what kind of stink the far right, rightly or wrongly, would be making about this if the situation were reversed:  That is, no TSA Administrator had been in place for several months, because a Democrat had been holding up an otherwise reasonable TSA appointment by a Republican Administration. 

Probably a big stink, even if the Democrat was well intentioned, and even if it had nothing to do with the foiled bomb attempt -- questions we don't purport to answer here. What is noted here is the veritable absence of attention paid to the fact that we don't have a TSA administratrator because Demint has been holding it up for months.

Yeah, the System Worked: "Great"

Although it's not clear what system Janet Napolitano is talking about here when she makes this comment.

Because it's certainly not the system that is designed to keep radical terrorists out of America:

The alleged perpetrator in the recent failed airline bomb attempt had been denied re entry into Britain.

Britain's reason? A pretty good one:  He allegedly claimed his intent to study at a bogus University. 

His own father, a former economics minister of Nigeria, is reported by the UK's Independent to have warned the U.S. that his son was tied to al-Qi'da  almost half a year earlier.  In November, his father went to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria to warn the U.S. about his son and these same ties.

ABC's Jake Tapper also notes that on Dec. 16 he bought a round trip ticket with 3k cash and no address or contact info, and on Dec. 24 boarded a flight from Nigeria to the U.S. with no luggage. 

These latter two things are not that big of a deal; but in combination with his father', an extremely prominent Nigerian, warning of ties to al-Qida, and Britain banning him from entry prior to that for other reasons?

Seems like, in fact, the system didn't work so well.

How to Worsen the Battle Against Terrorism

Q: What is you wanted to make the war on terror worse, and you were famous, what would you say?

A:  Something that would make this effort to combat terrorism more -- to Muslims, at least -- like it was a battle against Muslims.

Why would this be one of the most foolish things we could do? Because it is imperative that the Muslim world understand that this is not against Muslims, that it is not impugning Islam (the world's second most popular religion) but is against radical extremist, terrorism, which is far different from the vast majority of Islam.

This is probably the single most critical thing to accomplish to help mitigate and  lessen this problem long term, rather than infalme and broaden it.  In a word, the most important thing we can do, is further marginalize extremist elements, and have Muslims understand that this is not a battle against them. The worst thing we can do is anything helps to convey the opposite.

So what did talk show host Mike Gallagher do? The opposite, of course:

We should anybody who is a known Muslim and put them in a separate line. Call it the VIP line! Treat them with respect!

Did Gallagher take lessons in how to inflame  and provoke and make insanity directed against innocents and the "west" just ever so slightly less insane (still insane, just effecting their view a slight bit in the opposite way that we need to) to a lot of otherwise reasonable people who feel they are being targeted now?
 
Or is he just a natural. 
 
As practical as this idea might sound to some, if you are a Christian, traveling in either your own country, or abroad, and it turns out that some really radical, fringe, lunatic element of the "Christian Faith" which has nothing to do with you, were to be crazy terrorists, how would you feel then to be singled out in your own special "respect line" which is a double check, for terrorism. (Obviously, not something normally associated with "respect.").You'd feel like you were being singled out (and you would be) and that it was your religion that was being impugned. 
 
That is not good, and undermines what we need to accomplish.
 
It is, thus, is a terrible idea.  
 
Most experts in this field, happen to agree. Gallagher, on the other hand, a "guest" on Fox, is no expert.