Monday, December 28, 2009


I was stunned to listen to the president finally speak about the attempted Christmas bombing of an airliner bound for the US. Forget for a moment that it took him three days to respond. Thanks, Mr. President, for interrupting your golf game, to speak to the country about the measures you will allegedly take to make us safer. Damn that Bush.

Read the transcipt of his six-minute speech and you will, I'm sure, be reassured that this administration is on top of things in the terrorist world. The DHS is a joke, so she doesn't even rate much of a response to her two-headed statement to the attack. The system worked, oh sorry, no it didn't. What is that? She's a disgrace. One statement from me, Madam Secretary, there are really terrorists out there and they aren't those evil right wing, military veterans. Say it slowly, "Islamic terrorists."

As for the president, out of this rambling, pointless statement or yours, I picked out a phrase that made my hair stand on end. Our president referred to this incident as being perpetrated by an "isolate extremist." Really? ISOLATED EXTREMIST. How about terrorist? How about a terrorist that is part of a concerted effort by a large group of people to kill as many Americans as possible? How about a war?

The most disturbing part of the speech is this:

"That an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist."

I'm all for citizen watch programs, but this is not what any of us had in mind. The government is in criminal mode during a war. This is a war. It is not a ring of burglars or robbers who are trying to steal things from people's houses. This group is trying to steal our way of life. They are trying to flush us down the toilet of history, along with the Nazis, Romans, barbarians, and the USSR.

My biggest gripe with the Obama administration is that they don't get it in the war on terror. Hell, they can't even say it. I hate that they are printing money at a prodigious rate. I hate that they feel they know better than us in so many ways. Bailout GM so they don't go bankrupt. Oops, they went bankrupt. Sorry about those billions of dollars, citizens. Oh well, you'll make more. But really, this is serious business. We have a lot of people who want us dead. I would like the president and his people to take this seriously.

Trying terrorists in American courts and moving terrorists into the midsection of the country doesn't make us feel that you get it, Mr. President.


Z said...

what an excellent post, my friend. VERY well worded. It is frightening to hear Obama struggle so much with THE TRUTH, isn't it. I can only imagine the laughter in terrorist circles/cells. It's horrid.
"isolated extremist"...well, CNN couldn't WAIT to tell Americans that "it has nothing to do with Al Qaeda" within about an hour of starting to cover the story. I kept wondering HOW DO THEY KNOW?
And, of course, today we hear differently.
We'd BETTER WAKE UP or we're in big trouble. And, I WISH they'd stop telling "extremists" what they did wrong every time we do thwart an attack because some experts are saying the terrorists are taking NOTES!!

L&O, thanks SO much for your very kind words re: my singing...and thanks for keeping me in means so much to me.

xxx z

Law and Order Teacher said...

Your singing was great. While I can't carry a tune in a bucket, I love music in a lot of forms. Yours was excellent. I have always wondered how people like Britney Spears get famous when there are so many better singers than her around. Publicity sucks.

This is serious stuff. We either get it or they'll get us. With this administration we're on edge.

Anonymous said...

Obama gets it perfectly. He knows what he's doing. That's the scariest part of all this.

Teresa said...

The Obama administration seems to have a different point of view regarding terrorism and they want to hide the reality of war and terrorism from the American people. Obama seems to want to extend rights to terrorists that they are not required to. One example of that is their decision to try KSM in civilian court. They need to stop playing politics with our lives.

Law and Order Teacher said...

I commented on your site. Thanks for the visit.

Thanks for the visit. I agree that politics rearing its ugly head in pursuing terrorists is a danger to all Americans.

sig94 said...

A big howdy from one retired cop to another. That is what struck me also... an isolated extremist? There are at least three others directly involved in this bombing attempt and only the intervention of God prevented another outrage perpetrated by an organization of Islamic fascists. This idiot in the WH must think we are all stupid.

Leslie Parsley said...

L&OT: "Read the transcipt of his six-minute speech and you will, I'm sure, be reassured that this administration is on top of things in the terrorist world."

I'm just going to say this and then disappear. While Obama may be criticized for being "understated" and slow to react, personally I'd rather someone use slow, considered reasoning as opposed to someone who plays on the fears of the people rather than trying to reassure them.

This is a link to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.

Ducky's here said...

My biggest gripe with the Obama administration is that they don't get it in the war on terror.


"War on terror" is nothing but an ad blitz, an advertising campaign.

Some bobo sets his nuts on fire and we start this panic again.

The issue is that those who are seeking a revitalization and redefinition of the nation through warfare (a la Teddy Roosevelt) need these periodic fiascoes to advance their cause.

Question, since this is a generally serious site:

If this was a trained operative, why did he set the fuse during the descent when a good pilot could quite possibly get the plane in rather than detonating at altitude where it would have been catastrophic?

The "A" team may be out there but as we can determine by the two dozen Obama whacked last week, we have them identified. Can we round up every stray dipstick? No and that's just an unfortunate truth.

Law and Order Teacher said...

We used Glocks although I heard a lot of good things about Sigs. As for Obama we seem to be on the same page. We need to treat this as it is and not as a criminal offense. We both know of the foibles of the criminal system.

Please don't disappear. I like having your input as it keeps me on my toes. I agree that a measured response is preferable to a knee-jerk response, but Obama seems to be making it up as he goes along. I'll read your citation and I appreciate your input and your information. Thanks for the visit.

"Some bobo sets his nuts on fire." The visual is hilarious. I don't happen to believe the war on terror to be an advertising campaign.

As for redefining the country through warfare, I don't think the country is redefining itself, it should be protecting itself. I'll give Obama credit for the whacking of any terrorist.

My problem is with his administration's approach to terrorism against the homeland. He seems to have a distaste for confronting these terrorists on the basis of civil rights and other lawyerly concerns.

Then the PC thing takes over and he and the DHS have an aversion to using the word terrorist. Really, how can you portray anyone who is sophisticated enough to first obtain explosives and secondly smuggle them through security as bumbling. If airport security is this bad we're all in trouble.

As for the timing of his detonation, anytime nearly 300 people are on a plane is a bad time for this to happen. The point of terrorism isn't the body count, it's the terror of the occurrence and the randomness of the act that causes the panic.

Throughout history terrorism was simply the act of randomly killing people that caused the terror. The Nazis would randomly select people in occupied territories to hang in full view of the people. Peter the Great squashed a rebellion in his Imperial Guard by hanging about 200 of the rebels on gallows affixed to rafts and floating them down the Don River passing slowly by each town on the river. It quieted things quickly.

Thanks for your visit. As usual your input is well thought out.

Ducky's here said...

Teacher, we seem to have some points of agreement here and maybe a big disagreement.


1. There is a strictly terrorist element within Islam that is focused on mayhem, fear and disruption.

2. The "Christmas jihadist" represented a serious threat to the public and given what was known of his previous activities interdiction was in order. I.E. Sect. Napolitano, the system failed.

What we probably disagree on is whether his pathology was identical to the hard core element in Yemen. I say it isn't and we should take a look at it.
Recently it comes out that he was expressing a lot of loneliness and depression. No excuse but a symptom that puts him closer to the Columbine and the Virginia Tech shooters than to a Yemeni insurgent. This was a failed suicide.

We are seeing a lot of westernized Muslims who have been willing dupes of radicals. And they are often well to do. Recently in Boston the son of a very respected professor at Mass. College of Pharmacy was picked up for plotting. During his trial he refused to stand for the judge and you could hear his father in the background yelling at him to stand.
A rebellious punk. Much like the recent jihadist turned eunuch (sorry, the image is too funny). Now, what can we do about this situation other than to take these punks very seriously. At the very least this guy should have received a full body search before boarding given what we know.

As for the "war o terror", the Christmas jihadists contacted the same Yemeni imam as did the Ft. Hood killer. Obama used a drone to turn the guy to snot last week.
A danger here is that we turn this into a Hate Obama or It's Still Bushes Mess bout rather than looking at the gestalt complexity of this situation. We know a lot and with sound intelligence we can deal with this.

Law and Order Teacher said...

I appreciate your reply. My experience with suicide by cop, and I have had two such experiences, was that the pathology of the suicide guy may have been self-destructive, but it still, in each case, resulted in a situation that was terroristic to their neighbors.

My point is that terrorism really defies definition other than and act that causes terror in other citizens. I know most social sciences books define terrorism as having political aims, but I have seen the after effects first-hand, and terrorism in the perception of it victims.

If we were talking about guerrilla warfare, I would go with the political aspect. To terrorists the ends simply justify the means. The randomness of the acts causes the terror.

Your reply is well thought out and interesting to contemplate.

Law and Order Teacher said...

I forgot to address the political aspect. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that the "blame Bush" "hate Obama" aspect must go away. It serves no purpose other than to furnish cover to the current administration for any mistakes that are made. The flaws in the system must be addressed.

Teresa said...

I agree with the stop blaming Bush and hating Obama for particular acts happening, but I also think that we must identify the problem and if that lies with how one responds and their mentality towards terrorism, then criticism is due.

News reports have disclosed that the attempted bomber did have terrorist ties to Yemen and even one terrorist group has claimed responsibility for the attempted attack.

The guy may have been lonely and depressed but that makes him even more susceptible to being influenced by terrorism, or terrorists. There are two reasons why this plot failed: because he was inexperienced and because the detonation device was faulty and failed to ignite properly.

If this had worked there would have been many innocent lives killed because IMHO would be called an act of terrorism.

The system failed and needs to be revamped in a big way because if that doesn't happen a terrorist attack may just go right for the terrorists, unlike this time in Detroit.

Law and Order Teacher said...

Thanks for the visit. I agree that there needs to be a real look at the protocol as it relates to the response to terrorism. It all boils down to whether the administration will view this in a criminal mindset or a war setting. That's the rub and that makes all the difference.