Obama prevented N.Y. attack. Not so much...

Watching everyone pat each other on the back has become just a bit disgusting. I'm not sure what Obama and his sycophants are so happy about; they prevented nothing.

The Times Square attack was not prevented, predicted or impeded by the actions of anyone in the Obama administration. Sorry, it's the truth. What prevented disaster in New York was simply an incompetent terrorist and and alert t-shirt vendor.

The bomb was placed and ignited; it simply malfunctioned. Had we been dealing with a well trained Jihadist they would still be piecing together the victims for identification and the bomber would be long gone.

I don't want to detract from the job that law enforcement did after the fact. The agencies involved tracked down and arrested Faisal Shahzad with amazing proficiency. That is to be commended. What bothers me is that it was all after the fact.

We need to be asking how this guy managed to fly under the radar, construct a crude bomb, and then place it in one of the most well protected targets in the United States? If this untrained and ill-equipped moron can do it then what would have happened if there had been a seasoned veteran at the helm?

Our President has invited these types of attacks with his simplistic view of the world and his defeatist rhetoric. Obama is busy bowing to our enemies when he should be putting a boot in their asses.

Maybe this is a reminder to the citizens of this country that we are not immune; we are not insulated against the wrath of those who would seek to destroy us.


  1. (1) On the point of whether the attack was prevented, or not, by the actions of anyone in the Obama adminstration, I think I agree with you. However, I don't read press accounts as self-congratulation so much as simple relief that the bomb didn't go off and that the bomber was detained.

    (2) On the point of how the guy managed to fly under the radar and plant the bomb, I'm afraid we will have to disagree that terrorist attacks, per se, are that easily preventable. Without a police state, no government could possibly track every potential threat and prevent every attempt, every single time. President Bush couldn't do it, so I don't see why we are holding President Obama to this impossible standard. Consider this: No one in the world is better at preventing bomb attacks than our soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet bomb attacks take place in those countries on an almost daily basis. (As a matter of fact, this is what asymmetric warfare is all about--the advantages that the weak side can exploit by being smaller, by being less organized and by using novel tactics.)

    We can keep our eyes open and try to detain people with the means/motive/opportunity to carry out these attacks, but 100% percent in preventing attacks by a determined enemy is not realistic. Our best long-term strategy is to ensure that we keep our enemies from having the means, motives and opportunity in the first place. This means something more than a simple-minded "boot up their a--" approach.

    (3) As to the claim that the President has invited these attacks with defeatist rhetoric and a simplistic view of the world, I'll have to reserve judgment on this claim until you can present a better-specified argument about exactly how his rhetoric and worldview have done the inviting. For the moment, let me complicate your life with this notion: President Bush presumably did not share President Obama's defeatist rhetoric or simplistic worldview, and nevertheless terrorist attacks were planned, attempted and carried out on his watch. So how can we differentiate between the effects of President Obama's rhetoric and that of Preident Bush? I submit to you that, bottom line, our enemies across the sea do not differentiate between President Obama and President Bush as much as you do, bows to foreign leaders or no bows.

  2. On point 1, I've heard far more about domestic policy from this administration (bailouts, re-passing the Patriot Act, putting Panetta in charge of an intelligence service, etc.) than any concrete actions to prevent successful attacks. I know of nothing, off hand, that shows that they are seriously taking on terrorism - and this worries me.

    On 2, I'd like to know, how law enforcement can track a domestic "sleeper cell" in Michigan, and yet a man who's trained in Pakistan does not draw suspicion. Perhaps if the administration would open its eyes and admit the terrorists do indeed fit a profile, we can build upon that...The terrorist attacks during the Bush administration were the first of their kind, on an unprecedented scale - surely you don't compare those to the becoming-all-too-common tactics illustrated Saturday night?

    As to 3, I personally believe when it comes to terrorism, where human life is at risk, if you admit that there will be "some casualties", then you're admitting you cannot or will not do what is necessary to protect American lives. Whether it's a "defeatist rhetoric" or simply a waning, lacking constitution, there's no excuse for the preemptive sacrificing of victims.

  3. Brenners:

    Good points all. But here's the thing--do we really think that, with all the tools already put in place by the Bush administration 8 years ago, the Obama administration still needs to be doing more? And, what's more, advertising the fact? Lord knows the members of the Tea Party are freaked out about the power of the state as it is. (I would say that they don't need to be nearly as concerned as they are, but they don't listen to me all that much.) I would think that the last thing the President could afford to do right now would be to put forth a new version of the Total Information Awareness program that Admiral Poindexter proposed after 9/11. The howls would be incessant.

    On your response to point #2: that's actually a very good question ("how can law enforcement...). As a matter of fact, I would not be surprised if President Obama and Eric Holder were asking that very question right now. And no, of course I wouldn't compare 9/11 to the Times Square Attack. But the FBI doesn't have first-responder jurisdiction in Times Square--the NYPD does. The bomb was disguised as a parked vehicle. Parked vehicles are common all over New York City. I don't think we'd want to go into maximum-alert response every time we saw anything that could potentially be a car bomb. Ultimately, it wouldn't be efficient.

    Brenners, I think your last point is the most important one. Of course you're right to say that there's no excuse for the preemptive sacrficing of victims. But we're engaged with an intelligent, adaptive enemy. We can't be defeatist, but let's recognize that if you want 100% security, you pretty much have to set up an perfectly effective police state. I don't want that, and I doubt that you do. The Israelis have been dealing with the terrorist threat for years, and they can't prevent every single attack. Our soldiers and Marines face this threat every day overseas, and they can't prevent every single IED attack. We can train people to be much more vigilant, we can improve our domestic security capabilities, and we can make sure that local police have the necessary training to respond to suspected bombs, but ultimately there will be people who will attempt to carry out attacks. President Bush could not stop the Shoe Bomber from attempting an attack, so again, I don't see why we should be holding President Obama uniquely responsible for not having prevented the Times Square Bomber from having parked his Nissan in Times Square. We should take note of lessons learned, thank God for our good fortune, and continue the fight from here.

  4. To the above comments---True,we cannot make it without someone getting through, Bush,he had learned more toward the end of his presidency,so obama had all that knowledge,so should be BETTER at keeping us safe. roger/rogette


Be respectful or be deleted. Your choice.