President Obama should take personal responsibility for failure to detect the threat of the Christmas underwear bomber.
The first refuge of weak leaders is blaming mistakes on subordinates. It's unacceptable in the military, in corporate hierarchies, and in other settings where the responsibilities and authorities of leadership are understood and practiced. Harry Truman enshrined the concept with the famous maxim, "The buck stops here." The principle is that a leader is responsible for everything his or her organization does or fails to do. When a U.S. Navy ship runs aground, the captain of the ship isn't going to point to a junior officer who was serving as OOD (officer of the deck) and say, "It's not my fault; it's his fault!"…
Article comments
76 - Silas Kain
After watching the President this afternoon and observing the press conference under way with Secretary Napolitano, I have one question for Barack Obama -- Mr. President, isn't good intelligence based on common sense? It seems to me the major ingredient lacking in our Federal Government is just that -- common sense.
77 - Glenn Contrarian
Here's what the GOP suggests Obama do to fight terrorism, according to GOP Rep. Peter King:
"Name one other specific recommendation that the president could implement right now to fix this," ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Rep. Peter King earlier this week.
"I think one main thing would be to -- just himself -- to use the word terrorism more often," GOP Rep. Peter King responded.
YEAH! SAY 'terrorism'! THAT's how you fight terrorists!
78 - Cannonshop
Roger, Methods and Targets define the difference between an insurgent and a Terrorist.
An Insurgent targets military targets, Terrorists focus on killing civilians deliberately as a means of "advertising" their cause. When a Taliban bombs a FOB, it's insurgency-i.e. it's more or less a military action. When an Al-Quaeda operative sets off a nailbomb in a grade-school, that's Terrorism.
79 - roger nowosielski
Thanks for the enlightening definition, which is totally beside the point raised.
In case you haven't noticed, the post wasn't about definitions but mindsets such as yours. And you've only confirmed my point that I have pegged most of you correctly.
80 - roger nowosielski
By way of clarification, Cannon, you're not the lonely ranger. Yours is a point of view that is shared by liberals and conservatives alike, no matter how good their intentions.
You're all so keen on defending the integrity of United States. It doesn't occur to any of you that perhaps there isn't much left to defend, that the first step just might be to reconstitute our integrity in order for us to be able to respond in a logical and responsible manner.
But no! You're not prepared to ask what's wrong with the world because you've already got your ready-made answer: it's never America, and so it must be "them." Your mind is closed to entertaining other possibilities. Talking about open minds.
81 - Tom Carter
Roger, the U.S., like Israel, is at war against an enemy that has sworn to destroy us, and they're trying hard to do it. Under those circumstances, the time for navel-gazing and philosophizing is over. While the threat Israel faces is far more deadly, neither of our countries has a rational choice other than to fight back.
82 - Jeannie Danna
The author wrote- President Obama needs to adjust his attitude and begin behaving like a wartime leader. He's responsible for the security of the United States, and everything else must come second.
The war mongers are running amok and have to keep us afraid.
You know, I could believe that all our military force around the world was for the greater good of humanity if we looked at our own nation with such a dire need to show compassion for the citizens right to live in a democracy...The truth unfortunately is evident in the last sentence of this article...everything else comes second.
Things like National health Care, clean energy, a much needed and long deserved raising of the minimum wage to a living wage, and a funded school system with an eye on future skills in a green environment
Are we the police of the world?
No, we are the war profiteers of the world!
President Obama was handed this rats nest and you all know it...
83 - Jeannie Danna
To President Obama! Not one of you could do better...except of course for Roger..:)
84 - Tom Carter
Jeannie, your military forces around the world are not there "for the greater good of humanity." They're there to defend you and your country. Your fellow citizens (I assume you're an American) who died on 9/11 and in other terrorist attacks no longer need health care, clean energy, a living wage, and an education. To the extent they need a green environment, it only serves to make their graves more attractive.
Yes, Jeannie, everything else must come second.
85 - Jeannie Danna
Mr. Carter,
i am veteran of the USAF, i served in California and Germany in the early eighties and although it was considered peace time i was witness to the bombing of USAFE Headquarters at Ramstein....please don't try to educate me as to what terrorism is....
The glaring bald faced lie here is that Cheney and Bush did more to fuel the fires against us than any sitting administration and you know it..why don't they stand up and take full responsibility?
86 - Jeannie Danna
If you have another response I'll answer you when i return..gotta get up and move..:)
87 - roger nowosielski
#81,
I wouldn't expect any other response from a true believer in the integrity and righteousness of USA. You're throwing the words like "enemy" with such abandon, don't even bother to consider that we are the ones who have got a lot of self-searching to do, that any further discussion with the likes of you is futile.
And thanks, by the way, for a lesson in civics.
Carry on!
88 - roger nowosielski
#83,
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jeannie, but let me assure you: I would go further than Mr. Obama, much further to bring us to the brink of the new world and break away from the business as usual in both Washington and on Wall Street. And no, I wouldn't be shooting for another term because "the damage" I would do my best to bring about would speak for itself. America would no longer be the same.
If you think tea-parties and townhall meetings over healthcare were events to reckon with, think twice. They would be more on the order of polite social gatherings compared to the storming of the Bastille.
89 - Jeannie Danna
Roger I wrote a response but it disappeared..
This was one of my concerns last winter. Is my right to free speech being censored?
I haven't attacked anyone here.
The other day you were all discussing identity politics and i was reminded of the fact that the GOP thought they could just PLUG A WOMAN in there and we would blindly vote her in..It didn't even matter who apparently! :)
What an insult to all of us, men and women alike!
I saw a video once on MSNBC ...It showed MS.P on stage with an exorcist driving away any witches that might spoil and foil the campaign..I swear I saw it,but when I looked through all the archives it was gone..wonder
Is that the person we want as President? Really?
90 - roger nowosielski
I would have loved to see that video.
91 - Jeannie Danna
Help me find it
92 - roger nowosielski
Here it is: Sarah Palin and the exorcist.
93 - Jeannie Danna
Yes Roger, that's it!!
The whole country should see that.
94 - roger nowosielski
That's the great white hope - for the teabaggers to reclaim their country.
95 - Tom Carter
Jeannie, thanks for your service. And I'm sure you know that nothing I say is intended to reflect badly on you personally. I simply disagree with some of your views.
Your assertion (#85) that "Cheney and Bush did more to fuel the fires against us" than any other administration doesn't make sense. I don't defend the Bush Administration on many issues, but consider that he (and Cheney) had been in office about eight months when the worst attack in our history happened. At that point they'd done nothing that could be said to have precipitated that attack or any other. In fact, the bulk of the planning and preparation for that attack was done during the Clinton Administration, and attacks by these kinds of terrorists have been going on for many years over several presidential administrations.
We all need to get over Bush and get on with life.
96 - roger nowosielski
What difference does it make, for Christ's sake, during which administration the planning and preparation took place? It's all the same as far as America's foreign policy is concerned. The latter may have been more subtle, the former less so. But it's only a matter of style, not of substance.
The more you open your mouth, Mr. Carter, the more evident it becomes that STM was right: you do have an agenda, although you're quite clever in disguising it by speaking with a silver tongue.
97 - Deano
Jeannie,
I doubt you are being censored, given the fairly wide variety of comments on the site. Generally if you transgress the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, you will be warned/and or edited by the Comment Editors.
The best guess is that either something in your comments triggered the automated anti-spam or it just glitched.
Be advised however that you do not have any "right to free speech" in BC beyond what the owners permit. It is a private site so they can intervene, censor or eject as they see fit.
98 - roger nowosielski
Truer words were never spoken, Deano.
It is a "private site," as you have so aptly put it. But then again, it's no different, I suppose, with other media.
There isn't such a thing as unconditional free speech unless you're Rupert Murdoch.
99 - Jeannie Danna
Tom,
Thank you for responding again...let me quote that famous line- can't we all just get along? :)
Probably not, but we'll try!
I wrote an article in culture about post traumatic stress, it received maybe all of five comments. My point here is, that little piece was almost as hard as writing about my Mom's medical nightmare.
I have no hidden agenda folks..i just want my mothers life and suffering to mean something...i will continue to point out the need for national health care and i will continue to be called a ranting lunatic...
100 - Jeannie Danna
Deano,
Thanks for the advice.
101 - Tom Carter
#96 -- Roger, it doesn't matter at all to me which president was in office when attacks were planned and executed. As you know, I was simply responding to an earlier remark Jeannie made.
I still don't know what you and STM mean with vague statements about some kind of agenda. The only political agenda I have is truth and common sense, or at least that's what I try to bring to discussions of issues. If a label is necessary, then I'll tell you that I'm a moderate democrat, which is supported by my voting record over my entire life and my positions on most issues that supposedly define people in terms of liberal/conservative and Democrat/Republican.
I'm not going to put a bunch of links in a comment, but if you feel you need to know more, send me an e-mail. I'll respond with links to articles I've written elsewhere. But rather than accusing me of having some kind of hidden agenda, why not just respond to substance on the merits?
102 - Cannonshop
Roger, what kind of people do you think you're dealing with? I'm spectacularly curious. I'm also curious about how you assume it doesn't matter in their strategic thinking which president is in office when they're planning their attacks.
Jimmeh Carter tried the Appeasment route (combined with the incompetent military operation route) in the seventies with the net result of...well, you lived through that era, I assume.
Let's frame this into a level you've got more of a chance of experiencing/understanding.
Do you negotiate with a mugger? Do you negotiate with the guy who's going to rape your wife, or your daughter?
Do you try to negotiate with Bullies, Roger? Find out how to stroke their insecurities, how to improve their self-esteem? Understand WHY they want to knock your teeth in even though you just met them?
Did Negotiation help with the Nazis? or Pol Pot?
No. these are not people who are 'misunderstood'-they want to kill you, Roger. That is what they want to do. They want you dead, and your ideas dead, Roger, THAT is what groups like Al Quaeda and the Taliban want-they aren't interested in coexistence, or tolerance, they are interested in turning you, and everyone like you, into fertilizer.
"Why" at this point is immaterial, a pointless, empty question. If you're really fascinated by said empty, pointless question, you'd better get into the History books and go back a couple hundered years-that's about how long the U.S. alone has been pissing off the Islamic world, when it gets up to the West itself, you go back to the First Crusade.
You don't negotiate or try to reason with that, because there's no negotiation possible with it, no reasoning that will work.
How do we know this?
It's been TRIED. over and over and over again. If you want to know how to deal with someone, you watch how they deal with each other. If you're curious about someone's priorities, you listen to what they're saying.
If a man says he wants to kill you, it's a good idea to believe him absent evidence to the contrary.
103 - roger nowosielski
Cannon,
You greatly exaggerate the alleged difference between the two parties. And as long as you continue to do so, it only proves you're a dupe.
Secondly, if I'm laboring under some gross misconception about the state of the world, you're under even greater misconception about the state of America.
And lastly, I have never indicated anything to the effect that the threat against us aren't real. It's typical to divert attention from the real subject. Of course they're real and yes, they are our enemies. But the point I'm arguing, the point you're so conveniently trying to evade rather than deal with - perhaps WE have got something to do with it.
But as long as you keep on insisting that our hands are clean, you're bound to focus only on the faults of the enemy rather than your own.
How much plainer can I be?
Do I need to say it in Russian?
104 - doug m
Cannon should study some history because deals have been reached with terrorists all the time. And you don't even have to go too far back as payoffs were made to people trying to kill US soldiers in the last decade alone.
This notion to not even care to understand why people are trying to kill is part of the reason it will never end.
105 - Dr Dreadful
Cannon's deeply cynical view ignores history, although he claims it doesn't.
The violence in Ireland was ended, after hundreds of years of oppression, repression and bitterness, by peaceful means. After the dust had settled it turned out that negotiations between the various parties had been going on for longer than any of them cared to admit.
While negotiations certainly played a part, a bigger factor in getting the IRA and other Irish terror groups to lay down their arms was public opinion, driven by economics. Both loyalist and republican terrorists had been enjoying steadily less and less popular support, because people realised that fewer bombs and ambushes meant more companies were willing to invest in Northern Ireland, which in turn meant more jobs and greater prosperity. Being in the IRA ceased to be glamorous or respectable.
I don't necessarily suggest that this is the way to go when dealing with al-Qaeda and affiliated idiots. Just that there are ways to tackle terrorism besides meeting fire with fire.
106 - FitzBoodle
It's pretty clear that 9/11 was the fault of C. Rice, who ignored warnings (and spent her time in office appointing her cronies to admin positions), and she should have been fired forthwith. But she was a crony of GWB so he spared her (although I think she lost a lot of credibility in the Inner Circle). So GWB gets some blame for putting personal loyalty ahead of loyalty to country.
By contrast, it seems evident that Obama has almost NO personal loyalties. I suppose that's a Good Thing.
107 - Jeannie Danna
Ask the little children being killed as we type safely away at our keyboards if the American soldiers are terrorists!
i know the answer
108 - Jeannie Danna
#106 FitzBoodle makes a good point..almost every position was either a college roommate or a friend owed. The cronies admin.
109 - roger nowosielski
I think the IRA, Dreadful, is a good example. It's much clearer cut, of course, than the present situation because of ethnic and territorial unity, but we should study it nonetheless.
110 - Cannonshop
#105 Doc, can you name the major difference between, say, the IRA and our current opponents?
Our current opponents aren't centralized in any meaningful way-there's no "Sinn Fein" for the Jihadis, and unlike the Irish problem (or the Communist bloc in the Cold War) you're not looking at fundamentally materialist/nationalist feelings here- the perversion of Islam that drives this embraces both suffering, and murder as things that are not only not sins, but are virtuous in and of themselves under the doctrine of Conversion by the Sword.
What this means, is that to an Al-Quaeda operative, the victims of the bombing get to go...
to heaven, their souls are saved by the act of being killed as part of the Jihad.
By contrast, the IRA ran a spectrum from bald dialectical materialism (the PIRA and Maoist OIRA) to Christianity (lots of different factions), none of which offered the carrot of both Heaven for killing, and Heaven for the killed.
Further, there WERE people in the IRA who could control the fanatics and enforce a deal on their own side. There aren't any of those in the Middle East-as the failure of the brokered accords with PLO demonstrates daily. Further to that, the IRA was highly dependent on funding sources that dried up as popular opinion in the irish diaspora (particularly U.S., Canada, and other western nations with strong irish background ties) shifted. The end of the Soviet Union (and their sponsorship) put a severe dent in the marxist-inspired late-stage activists since the Irish are not a 'tribal' people in the sense that, say, Pakistan or other southwest asian nations are.
The situation is thus:
You make a deal with local leader X, but that deal doesn't apply to local leaders A-W or Y and Z. the terms likely offend at least ten of those remaining twenty-five local leaders, and at least twelve of those local leaders will act as they would in the absence of said deal.
Furthermore, all twenty-six local leaders will shelter operatives from one another thanks to family ties, tribal agreements, or spiritual obligations, since you're an Infidel, and they don't have any obligation to honour their word to you beyond the range of your direct vision.
This is a very, very different situation from the IRA and Protestant Paras-both of whom, in final analysis, were and are driven by Nationalist sentiments foremost, with other issues being secondary. Materialist nationalists will try to avoid dying, non-Materialist nationalists tend to view murder and suicide as sinful necessities rather than honourable acts of virtue and spiritual generosity.
Populist Nationalists, further, require public support for their actions-this limits what they will do, and provides a means to make them stop doing it.
With the Jihadi situation, there's not ONE check on their behaviour beyond "Fear of getting caught without succeeding in the attack".
The differences are cultural, structural, and fundamental-it's a whole different kind of conflict than, say, the Vietnamese vs. France, or Irish vs. British.
111 - Dr Dreadful
Cannon, I'm perfectly well aware of the many differences between Irish terrorist idiots and Muslim terrorist idiots.
With that in mind, kindly re-read the last two sentences of my comment.
112 - Cannonshop
#17 Doc, correction: it's not a new term. One of the major drivers behind the Soviet attempt to change the Geneva Convention in the 1970s to include non-uniformed combatants was that their "Progressive Elements" in various hot-spots were being treated as "Unlawful Combatants" and often summarily shot when captured, or shot after being interrogated. Notably, the United States Senate refused to ratify the change, which in turn means the edition of Geneva our troops are held to by Law does not include protections for non-uniformed combatants, aka unlawful combatants or 'irregular forces'.
(this is also why the 'gentlemen' involved in the Phoenix Program under Johnson weren't eligible to be tried as war-criminals. Not even under Carter...)
Now, summarily doing-in captured jihadis would look worse than running GitMo does, but it's legal under the edition of Geneva that applies to the United States Military. (whether it's legal under UCMJ or not is a separate question!) Since the bulk of our opponents are non-uniformed or 'illegal' combatants, we're stuck with a problem derived from the dilemna-do we shoot them, or do we imprison them, or do we let them go and have to deal with them again?
Bush tried to walk the razor-blades on that one, and the result of trying to satisfy everyone was that a significant number of enemy captures who were released, showed up again, but this time with new techniques, and no fear of being caught. Simultaneously, it generated bad press and political pressure at home-something that the enemy can, and does, employ leverage on with glee, and the eager assistance of the American Left, who have no idea what surrender will cost them.
113 - Tom Carter
Cannonshop, I know a bit about the Phoenix Program, which existed during both the Johnson and Nixon presidencies. I've also known quite a few people who were directly or indirectly involved in it.
If you're saying, in general, that Americans involved in the Phoenix Program were war criminals, I'd be interested to know why you think that.