The crotch bomber has me thinking

[NJmaverick]

What if Obama had called for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan (right now the Taliban would be taking over and Al Qaeda would have their base back)?


What if Obama hadn't allowed the war on terror to include pursuing Al Qaeda in Yemen?


Could you imagine the field day the GOP, FAUX News and the Right wingers would be having?


The memes would be fast and furious:

"Obama and the Dems surrendered the nation to Al-Qaeda"

"Obama's moves caused the attempted terror attack"

"Obama and the Dems can't keep you safe"

and so on, it would have inflicted a huge blow on the Dems and Obama. One that they potentially couldn't recover from. Instead thanks to keeping Afghanistan from Al Qaeda and by already pursing Al-Qaeda in Yemen the right's memes are going to fall flat. Talk about dodging a bullet.

[lib2DaBone]

1. Who cares what Rush Limbaugh Thinks? Our Country Is In Trouble...

[FrenchieCat]

6. If the country, as a whole, decides this President ain't "keeping us safe".....

than he becomes a lame duck, and the Democratic party can kiss its ass goodbye.
You might not care, cause you're in it to teach everyone a lesson,
but those of us who do care, who have children, and want a better future,
don't feel like going back to Bush like times,
regardless of whether you appreciate the changes Obama has brought thus far or not.

[vaberella]

18. Yup, yup, yup. n/t

[Top Cat]

38. kick

[jberryhill]

2. I could be crazy here...

But I'm thinking Obama's security related decisions are based upon the best information to him about our scurity situation, and not driven by political calculations.

[NJmaverick]

3. I am most certain that is the case. I am simply talking about the poltiical implications

I agree whole heartily that President Obama is doing what needs to be done to protect us, based on the intelligence that is supplied to him.

[Mz Pip]

13. Considering he

didn't call a press conference like Bush always did when anything even remotely similar to this happened I agree. This gives me confidence that he wants to keep politics out of it.

[NJmaverick]

17. This was a smart move. Terrorism is all about reactions

bush's over the top responses only helped the terrorists.

[JoeyT]

39. I'd agree with that.

And I disagree with virtually ALL his foreign policy/security decisions.
I may think he's wrong or his information is suspect, but I don't think he's going to kill a bunch of random people to make conservatives happy.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Crotchbomber.... Johnny Crotchbomber.... just watch and see this

become a new pornstar name in the next few weeks.

[panader0]

9. LOL

[Telly Savalas]

51. My first thought was indie rock band.

[Cha]

5. I don't really care what they say bc

they'll say anything no matter what happens.

The only way for him to deal with it is exactly as he's doing with the information given.

[NJmaverick]

10. I am not suggesting President Obama is politcally calculating.

I just talked about this with my right wing father today. Since I could point to the continued fight in Afghanistan and efforts directed at Yemen (along with the fact that the visa was issued under Bush) he couldn't take the attack as an occasion to bash President Obama (as much as he wanted to).

[Cha]

12. Oh, I know you're not..

It's just that, as you know, Obama's in it for doing what's right and that ends up not coming back to bite you in the ass.

[NJmaverick]

14. Very good point

:hi:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. If we were waging a war to deflect pug criticism then we would be evil

[NJmaverick]

8. It would appear that the latest terror attack would support claims that we are

waging a war of self defense.

[Enrique]

11. maybe Obama considered those things when he decided to escalate

master chessplayer that he is, I'm sure he thought of that angle.

[shadesofgray]

15. Holy f uck. How many MORE wars do you want just to silence Obama's critics?

[NJmaverick]

16. I might ask you how many more terror attacks does Al-Qaeda have to launch

until you admit they are threat we need to respond to?

[shadesofgray]

21. You just went from being afraid of Fox News, to channeling Fox News.

[NJmaverick]

22. LOL! You are seriously messed up if you think terrorism is a FAUX news fantasy

[Arctic Dave]

27. Your arguement doesn't hold water. This guy is a newby, he was radicalized through

our actions . So ask youself, how many more terrorist are we going to create before we realize our actions are our worst enemy.

PS.
Spare me your 911 drivel.

[NJmaverick]

30. Have you spoke to the man, or are you just making things up as you go along?

You don't have a clue what motivated this man, so please don't pretend you do.



PS- How's that for sparing your "911 drivel" (which wasn't drivel the the victims or the survivors or anyone that the events impacted).

[Arctic Dave]

31. I'm going off of News reports from TV like everyone else.

The man is 23 so he was 15 when 911 happened. He must have been born a terrorist.

We murdered a lot of people since 911. I'm sure you wring your hands over their deaths too.

[NJmaverick]

33. The news reports have not given motives, so your claims are a fiction you invented

[Arctic Dave]

54. He must of pulled our name out of a hat, I hear that is how most terrorist pick their targets.

[WinkyDink]

60. One incompetent Nigerian. You'd think this was the Baader-Meinhof Gang, or the Red Brigades.

Good grief. We experienced more airplane terrorism in the past and didn't wage wars over it.

It's like trying to eradicate murder! AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

[Smarmie Doofus]

19. This is EXACTLY the political mentality that drove Johnson into VN.

Understand: 1964 was 10 years removed from McCarthy at his zenith. This is not a long time, in political terms. Both Kennedy and Johnson did not want to be charged by the GOP with losing VN as McCarthy and Co had charged Truman ( successfully)with "losing" China.

Result of said thinking : a fucking humanitarian *catastrophe from 1964 thru '73. Deaths in the *millions*. People here and there still suffering the effects of agent orange, PTSD. Still: in 2009!

My point: let's be REAL careful not to repeat the profound mistakes of the historically-very-recent past. Just because there's a *potential* of GOP exploitation of a complicated foreign policy dilemma it does not follow that the best option is to politically co-opt the warmongers by implementing THEIR policy.

We are *Democrats*. That should *mean* something.

[NJmaverick]

20. Vietnam never attacked the US or killed American civilians

that's a HUGE difference. It's important to remember that when one has the natural tendency to compare Vietnam to the current situation.

[Smarmie Doofus]

25. Ya lost me. Isn't your post about the potential political exploitation....

>>>>>>Could you imagine the field day the GOP, FAUX News and the Right wingers would be having?
The memes would be fast and furious:
"Obama and the Dems surrendered the nation to Al-Qaeda"
"Obama's moves caused the attempted terror attack"
"Obama and the Dems can't keep you safe"

and so on, it would have inflicted a huge blow on the Dems and Obama. One that they potentially couldn't recover from. Instead thanks to keeping Afghanistan from Al Qaeda and by already pursing Al-Qaeda in Yemen the right's memes are going to fall flat. Talk about dodging a bullet.>>>>>>>>>>

... of a complicated foreign policy issue by the GOP and how it's a good political move for Obama to act with aggressive military action to deprive the opposition of a potentially powerful issue?

I'm not saying that VN is militarily analagous to Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq/Iran; I'm saying that your ( and Obama's ) rationale for intervention is analogous to the rationale of the Kennedy/Johnson administration.

You see the difference. Yes?

[NJmaverick]

29. Americans civilians being killed is a whole different issue than appearing tough on communism

One could argue bush was able to keep the White House in 2004 thanks to a scared electorate.

[Smarmie Doofus]

32. You underestimate the Cold War hysteria of the 50's and 60's.

Most people... most DEMs ... who lived thru both would say there is no comparison: Americans were more fearful of a Soviet nuclear attack and/or overthrow by covert operatives ( i.e. spies ) and domestic reds and "fellow travelers"in the 50's/60s than the average US citizen today is fearful of a domestic attack by militant Jihadists.

[NJmaverick]

35. Well to get back to the topic you orginally brought up

I don't think Obama's moves are politically motivated. I think he is doing what he believes is most effective in countering the terrorist threat. My post was simply an observation of the political ramifications of what he did and didn't do, based on this recent attack.

[grahamhgreen]

77. The attacks have been because of our involvement in the ME. Ever since we funded Bin Laden.

[grasswire]

78. well said (eom)

[rockymountaindem]

23. You have GOT to be kidding

The fact that these things are still happening demonstrates that the wars abroad are not the exclusive answer to our problems with terrorism. And again, no matter what happens, the Republicans will criticize Obama regardless. Doing something to preempt their criticism or attempt to pacify them is ridiculously foolish.

And to reiterate: being in Afghanistan didn't prevent this. Anybody can see that.

[NJmaverick]

24. "the wars abroad are not the exclusive answer to our problems with terrorism"

I wouldn't disagree with that, but that doesn't dispute anything I said. We are at war with Al Qaeda and the attack reminds us all that they are still a threat.

As for Afghanistan it would be a very tough sell to try and convince the public we should give the nation back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda

[rockymountaindem]

34. The reason this isn't a big deal is because it was a failed attack

If, God forbid, this whacko had succeeded, all the troops in Afghanistan wouldn't save Obama either from the unpleasant reflection that our efforts there aren't keeping us all that safe, or the withering criticism he would endure from the likes of Hoekstra and King. The only thing that matters is if these attempts materialize into attacks that cause casualties. If they don't they are easy to minimize. If they unfortunately succeed, nothing will stop the backlash in all directions.

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. I'm wondering what to make of the fact that the guy's father warned authorities.

"The father of the suspect recently contacted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria with concerns his son was planning something, a senior U.S. administration official said Saturday.

The father -- identified by a family source as Umaru Abdulmutallab -- contacted the embassy "a few weeks ago" saying his son, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, had "become radicalized," the senior administration official, who is familiar with the case, told CNN.

A family source told CNN that the elder Abdulmutallab -- who recently retired as chairman of First Bank PLC, one of Nigeria's premier banks -- had contacted the embassy in Nigeria's capital, Abuja, and various other security agencies earlier than the timeline provided by the administration official. The family source said Abdulmutallab went to those agencies about three months ago after receiving a text message from his son."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/12/27/airline.attack.security/index.html

[NJmaverick]

28. Looking into the details, I am not sure it is a major issue

<<A family source told CNN that the elder Abdulmutallab -- who recently retired as chairman of First Bank PLC, one of Nigeria's premier banks -- had contacted the embassy in Nigeria's capital, Abuja, and various other security agencies earlier than the timeline provided by the administration official. The family source said Abdulmutallab went to those agencies about three months ago after receiving a text message from his son.
The source, who lives at the family home in Kaduna in northern Nigeria, said the son informed his family in the text message that he was leaving school in Dubai to move to Yemen. He implied that he was leaving "for the course of Islam."
The family member said Abdulmutallab "had no family consent or support," adding he "absconded to Yemen."
Abdulmutallab's information about his son was forwarded to the National Counter-Terrorism Center, and Abdulmutallab was added to a general watch list, a senior administration official said. But the official said "the info on him was not deemed specific enough to pull his visa or put him on a no-fly list."
In addition, the official said there was "no derogatory information that would have prevented him from getting a visa" back in June 2008.>>

The text message hardly seemed damning.

[quakerboy]

36. Your argument has a big hole in it

They will say exactly that anyway. And anyone who would believe one would believe the other, as they are about equally irrelevant to the actual reality.

[NJmaverick]

37. I beg to differ

I just talked about this with my right wing father today. Since I could point to the continued fight in Afghanistan and efforts directed at Yemen (along with the fact that the visa was issued under Bush) he couldn't take the attack as an occasion to bash President Obama (as much as he wanted to).

[quakerboy]

42. Perhaps not while talking to you

but do you think he holds back while talking to his RW friends? Or that Fox and talk radio will not be making the connection for people, no matter that it is spurious? Its been the weekend, and christmas at that, But tomorrow morning everyone heads back to work and the regular routine. Give it 2 weeks and it will be part of the right wing established dogma that Obama brought this attack on with his weakness.

Or to go from a slightly different direction, does he now trust and support Obama, where he wouldn't otherwise?

I am sorry, but facts and logic have never slowed the right wing attacks for more than a few sections of an instant.

[NJmaverick]

45. I have spent a considerable amount of time debating right wingers

having a good position matters. We are in a never ending battle for the hearts and minds of the vast middle.

[quakerboy]

53. I have intimate experience of rw'rs, within my own family, and with friends of friends, etc.

There are 2 types, those who are listening and those who are not.

For those who are not, position does not matter. They may fall back for debate points they lose, but the second the discussion ends, or possibly before, they reset to "I am right, rush is right, Obama is evil" no matter how good the logic or position that they confront.

And for those who are, a genuine discussion would quickly turn up the fact that we create more terrorists via killing and meddling in other countries, and that this incident was a result of Bush's idiocy and nothing to do with Obama. In which case getting out of useless wars is a stronger position than continuing to lose the hearts and minds of the countries we are occupying.

You also make another mis-confabulation, I believe. There is a big difference between right wingers and "the vast middle".

[grasswire]

79. you are wasting your time, then

Time spent debating right wingers is time down the rat hole. An utter exercise in futility.

[niceypoo]

40. Lets bomb countries and kill people because we cower in fear of what Sean Hannity might think

Lets be timid and submissive to the right, lest they yell and scream and get their panties all in a twist.

Stunningly irrational.

[NJmaverick]

43. YEAH! It's not like terrorists are trying to kill us or anything

:eyes:

[niceypoo]

46. Your changing the subject

"Could you imagine the field day the GOP, FAUX News and the Right wingers would be having?"

[NJmaverick]

47. It's all part of the same issue

There are people trying to kill us, that's a fact. If Obama failed to do all he could to protect us, the right would have a field day. That is also a fact.


You can try and mix and match but it would be ill conceived.

[jeanpalmer]

41. Did putting more troops in Afghanistan

stop this guy? No.

Did it give him an incentive, or did bombing Yemen provide an incentive? There are reports circulating this may have been a retaliation for Obama's Yemen bombings. It's obviously a retaliation for something we did.

Or did he just hate our freedoms?

[NJmaverick]

44. Right now Al Qaeda is decentralized and the attacks are small scale

give them back Afghanistan and look out.

[jeanpalmer]

49. They don't need Afghanistan

They can plan this kind of stuff anywhere in the world. And what this incident shows is if they're really intent on doing it, you can't stop them. This guy stopped himself. He was strictly amateur, and yet the FBI, CIA, and all the invasions couldn't stop him. The only reason there aren't more incidents like this is because there aren't that many people who want to do it. After all, to do it you have to be willing to kill yourself.

The way to stop them is to quit inciting them -- quit bombing them, quit invading them, quit occupying them. Learn the lesson that Spain learned.

[NJmaverick]

50. That's not correct. The bigger plans like 911 needs manpower and resources that

are not available to these small decentralized cells. If they were allowed to centralize again with Afghanistan cell at the head, the larger more damaging attacks could be carried out.

[jeanpalmer]

52. Quit invading, bombing, killing and occupyiny them

Everyone knows this is what motivates them. Get out of the ME. Leave them alone. It worked for Spain.

[NJmaverick]

61. the latest "them" was neither invaded nor bombed

[TheKentuckian]

57. 2/3 of the terror training camps where in Pakistan

Afghanistan is not an independent problem. It is all about Pakistan who actually seeded Afghanistan with the Taliban for their own purposes.

I'd also contend that no significant manpower is required for a 9/11 style attack and certainly the resources for such an action didn't come from dirt poor Afghanistan. I think you're falling into a trap of oversimplifying this situation in the same very dangerous and fear driven way that BushCo did. I think it makes folks skin crawl to admit to themselves that such destruction can happen with luck, determination, a handful of people, and a few thousand dollars but that's the case.

Lucky for us our enemies don't appear to be especially serious or there would be backpack bombers streaming in over both porous borders blowing themselves along with our friends and neighbors at the Walmart or a mall on a fairly regular basis.

[NJmaverick]

64. You should be familiar with the resources and planing that went into the 911 attack

it was far in excess of what any invidual terror cell is capable of creating. They needed to recruit skilled people ready to kill themselves. They needed to get them into the country and enrolled in flight school. They needed to plan a coordinated attack. They had to fund all these activities and they needed to keep it secret. It was quite the under taking. It was only by having the safe haven base of Afghanistan that they could successful pull the whole thing off.

[TheKentuckian]

75. The main thrust is the bulk of the training happened in Pakistan

and the majority of the terrorist and probably the money came from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran.

Afghanistan is not heart of this matter, Pakistan is and we aren't deploying there. The safe haven argument is weak there are a substantial number of countries that can fill that role, again including nuclear armed Pakistan who effectively founded the Taliban that allowed the Al Queda takeover.

I'd also advise we are talking about thousands of dollars not millions. I continue to believe that we are either absurdly lucky, the terrorist are utterly inept, or the threat is exaggerated or false.
A determined organization with substantial resources could send unending waves to blow up Walmarts in Peoria and have the country scared 10 different kinds of shitless. Even if we caught most of them a few would inevitably slip through and wreck havoc. There is no shortage of willing suicide bombers nor people with lots of military and guerrilla experience under their belts.

Afghanistan is clearly bullshit because it FAILS to address the fundamental threats which are oil money, the global terrorist aren't even there from ALL accounts, an unstable and nuclear armed Pakistan, and the fact these people can set up shop anywhere in the 3rd world at this point.

Not to mention every day in that theater over there just creates new enemies that just want us the hell out of their country, we call them insurgents now and who honestly can blame them? If some foreign force started bombing my neighborhood and marching around I'd be an insurgent too.

[WinkyDink]

63. (If you believe the Official Story): How tough was 9/11? Board some planes, use crude weapons to

take over, crash planes.

How much "manpower" and how many "resources" were needed? The bombing of PanAm 103 was infinitely more complex.

[NJmaverick]

65. See post 64 above

[dave29]

48. BUT WHEN WILL OBAMA GIVE A PRESSER STANDING ON THE MAN'S BURNED GENITALS

to show we are oh so strong?

That is my question

[lamp_shade]

55. Kick and rec

[spiritual_gunfighter]

56. Sometimes people's lives are more important than politics

obviously not according to you.

[NJmaverick]

58. Oh you want to play that game? You want me to respond that you don't

care about Americans killed by terrorists? You comments are both completely off the wall and in very bad taste.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

59. It is in far worse taste

to think of the war in terms of what is good politically for the President. Nothing in your OP addresses the real cost of war only what is politically expedient for your favorite politician.

"Your comments are both completely off the wall and in very bad taste". Worst case of projection I have seen on DU in some time.

[NJmaverick]

62. You failed to addess the real cost of terrorist attacks

I doubt the President is taking actions based on calculated political gains. However in the real world everything does have political implications. In this case the President is doing all he can to protect the nation. As result the right wingers have no way of effectively exploiting the latest attack

[spiritual_gunfighter]

66. I dont think he is taking action based on political gain

but nonetheless you felt the need to frame it in your OP that way. I stated that sometimes things transcend re-election campaigns. I feel that much of the support of our president by a minority on DU isn't based on policy but on personality and his political affiliation.

Your OP chose to frame the issue of terrorism and the war in Afghanistan as purely a political issue, without addressing the real costs, not only of human lives but the foreign policy implications of the President's decision to escalate.

[NJmaverick]

68. No you are wrong. I didn't suggest that he was doing that. I was pointing out

the political ramifications. Any framing was done based on your own assumptions and were not endorsed by me.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

74. In your OP you created a series of hypotheticals

on what would have happened if Obama had not escalated war with Afghanistan, then marveled at Obama's political awesomeness for doing so. I pointed out that waging war, especially this war shouldn't be about political awesomeness.

You fail to see this as anything else other than a political boon for your favorite politician. I stated that that was a sad thing, then made a comment on a small minority on DU who only see policy through the lens of "is this going to get our guy re-elected".

Reading many of your other posts it is my opinion that you are one of these small minority posters on DU who see policy in this way.

[harun]

67. PUH - THET - TICK reasoning.

If you haven't noticed Al-Qaeda isn't in Afghanistan they are in Yemen.

If we are going to let Fox News dictate what we do and when then we have already lost.

[NJmaverick]

70. Have you noticed the reason why they are not in Afghanistan?

[harun]

71. By that reasoning you are saying we must continue to occupy every

country on Earth, then Al Qaeda won't have a place to go, then they will be done.

Neo-cons love that line of thought.

I've got news for you the United States does not have the capital to accomplish that task. We would go bankrupt before we occupied every country. Not to mention only the poorest, most run down countries wouldn't mount any resistance.

See Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

[NJmaverick]

72. ahhh most nations will not openly host Al Qaeda, the Taliban run

Afghanistan was the exception. Nice try though

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

69. The Crotch Bombers....

would make a GREAT name for a band.

I'm sorry. What was this thread about?

[tomg]

85. Unemployment in Detroit. nt

[bigtree]

73. counterproductive, destabilizing military aggression abroad to mollify demagogues

brilliant :eyes:

[grahamhgreen]

76. Right - he needs to cater to the will of the Republican base, not us, the people who elected him to

represent us.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

80. Sometimes the left have to respect his better judgement, I don't feel he's left us for a second he's

just making shrewder decisions than most folks are used to. The Congress is what it is and he's done the best as is possible for now in those parameters. Incrementalism is how we get there, we push him behind the scenes than out in public and keep the image up publically and just make our case for what we want than taking the Pres. down to do so. If there is any ire though it's just wiser to take it to the phones than the forums. If there is an alternative to his choices make the case take it to the people let them decide too, but the facts are he's progressives one shot we can make it work or blow it. It's more a case of taking our agenda to the people than shredding the President out of power and approval.

[ClassWarrior]

81. IBTL

NGU.

[asdjrocky]

82. Wow. Every time I think you guys can't go lower...

someone comes along to prove me wrong.

[Ter]

83. You mean the peni-bomber?

:)

[pecwae]

84. Yep, thank goodness those

horrible memes were dodged here. Meanwhile, Afghans are dodging real bullets, but so what.