Quote of the Day: Obama Takes Heat Republicans and Media Neglected to Direct at Bush on Similar Terrorism Incident
Dec 30th, 2009 | 28 responses
Our political Quote of the Day is the key part of a piece by Josh Gerstein in The Politico which notes that the Republicans and the news media are reacting to President Barack Obama’s delayed statement on the failed airplane bombing in way totally at variance with how they reacted to Bush. In Bush’s case? Not a peep when he didn’t react for nearly a week:
Eight years ago, a terrorist bomber’s attempt to blow up a transatlantic airliner was thwarted by a group of passengers, an incident that revealed some gaping holes in airline security just a few months after the attacks of Sept. 11. But it was six days before President George W. Bush, then on vacation, made any public remarks about the so-called “shoe bomber,” Richard Reid, and there were virtually no complaints from the press or any opposition Democrats that his response was sluggish or inadequate.
That stands in sharp contrast to the withering criticism President Barack Obama has received from Republicans and some in the press for his reaction to Friday’s incident on a Northwest Airlines flight heading for Detroit.
Democrats have seized on the disparity and are making it a centerpiece of their efforts to counter GOP attacks on the White House. “This hypocrisy demonstrates Republicans are playing politics with issues of national security and terrorism,” DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan said. “That they would use this incident as an opportunity to fan partisan flames…tells you all you need to know about how far the Republican party has fallen and how out of step with the American people they have become.”The Democrats’ counterattack is aimed largely at two Republican congressmen who have been particularly critical of Obama, Reps. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.). But neither GOP lawmaker will concede applying a double standard to Obama.
Yet, the similarities between last Friday’s incident and the attempted shoe bombing in 2001 are striking.
Read it in full to read about the similarities.
In the case of the GOP, the way our politics now works, those on the attack against Obama will do the verbal limbo to say this is apples and oranges. But the bottom line is that Bush wasn’t criticized because he was “their” President. This concept of “their President” and “our President” is one of the uglier aspects of our mega-partisan political scene, where every opening is used by partisans to hammer and go on the offensive.
Hypocrisy is not limited to one party. Note how some Democratic pundits and politicos who under Bush went almost ballistic over rumblings that GOPers were thinking of eliminating the filibuster are now calling for…eliminating that terrible filibuster. Consistency conshmistency, what does it matter if it helps our side?
But on the terrorism issue, the GOP’s politicization of an issue that needs to be depoliticized by both parties is clear. See yesterday’s post HERE which touches on the issue.
And the media?
As someone who worked for it and in it over the years (on a per piece basis fulltime overseas from South Asia and Europe and working for two newspaper chain newspapers in the mid-west and West) the reality is that there really is a “pack journalism” response to media coverage. If no one is doing a story a story sometimes is not done if it’s not an aspect that’s being covered.
This pack mentality continues today, although it is far more frenzied. The news cycles are now faster, the competition for (the ailing) old and (blossoming) new media to get audience share is fierce and weblogs feel they have to respond immediately. The media mix now truly takes on a life of its own and it usually come to life most actively on negative or outrage stories.
The old adage that “If it bleeds leads” is now less important than a new one: If it is screams its a dream.
AP photo composite from The Politico.
OPINIONS DIFFER. SO HERE’S SOME OTHER WEBLOG REACTION TO THE POLITICO STORY:
–Ben Smith:
The cycles of media and politics have accelerated since 2002; but that doesn’t really explain the critics’ double standard.
I’ve previously defended Obama’s immediate reaction to the underwear bomber, including dismissing the idea that he should have ended his vacation…..But the two plots took place in very different contexts.
Reid’s plot was mere months after 9/11, during which time Bush was overseeing a radical revamp of airline security procedures, the creation of TSA, the forming of the Department of Homeland Security (all of which I vehemently opposed as both silly and unconstitutional) and launched a war in Afghanistan (which I supported). So, not only was the public conditioned to think terrorist plots were normal but they were keenly aware that the president was handling the situation, even if they weren’t thrilled with how he was doing so.
Fast forward eight years. We haven’t had a terrorist attempt aboard an aircraft since Reid’s comically failed attempt to ignite his shoes. The public is complacent, correctly viewing airport security as a nuisance. The new president has, thankfully, not had to demonstrate leadership in the wake of a terrorist attack on American soil.
And, yet, we’ve only had a couple of politicians trying to make hay over Obama’s handling of this. And one of them’s Peter King, for goodness sakes.
Welcome to Politics 101, Josh! The problem is two fold with your narrative, though, Joshy. First of all, Obama has shown himself not only to be relatively weak on terrorism and terrorists, but, somewhat divorced from leadership. His admin dithered for days over their response, and sent out idiotic Janet Napolitano to say that the system worked, then had to walk the moronity (I know, not a word) back. Secondly, yes, it did take 6 days for Bush to make a response himself, but, as the Huffington Post inadvertently points out, the Bush admin was on top of its game.
The Bush admin. gave measured responses and was paying attention. While he was certainly on Christmas vacation, much as Obama was, we did not get stories about Bush getting a briefing, then running off to the gym 15 minutes later, then playing golf. Multiple times.
Anyhow, its nice to see The Politico be in the pay of the Obama admin….
Remarkable story out today from that left-wing rag The Politico* about the similarities between the ways that President Obama and President Bush responded to very similar failed airplane attacks, and the strikingly different ways that the two commanders-in-chief were treated by your “liberal” American media….
…I’d explain this except I don’t really understand it myself, despite having worked more nearly three decades in the media. It does make a difference that Democrats were highly deferential to Bush because U.S. troops were waging war in Afghanistan in December 2001, while Republicans are highly critical of Obama today…because we’re still waging war in Afghanistan?
–The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein:
The bellowing by Republicans over the Obama administration’s supposedly lackadaisical response to the attempted bombing of an airliner over Detroit seems as much about political posturing as legitimate national security concerns.
How else to explain the GOP’s relatively quiet reaction eight years ago to President George W. Bush’s detached response after a similarly-botched terrorist attack?
Stein provides a lot of detail about the incident when Bush was President, how the administration reacted and how others didn’t then writes:
And so there you have it. The Bush White House downplayed not just the Reid incident (handing over lead responsibilities to federal law enforcement officials) but also consciously deflected attention away from bin Laden out of concern about elevating his latest antics.
In contrast to that response, the current White House has been quite active. The attempted bombing of the plane over Detroit occurred on December 25. That night, Obama convened a secure conference call with his Homeland Security and counter-terrorism advisers. He did the same the next morning and the morning after that. On the 27th, the president dispatched his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, and the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, to the Sunday shows to take questions on the matter. And on December 28, he gave a public statement while still on site in Hawaii.
Obama may not have worn a tie while giving those remarks (which has annoyed more than a few conservatives). But he did host a public address specifically on the situation (which Bush did not do). And while Napolitano may have gaffed during the first round of interviews by proclaiming that the system worked, it was nothing worse than what then-Attorney General John Ashcroft said about Richard Reid back in 2001.
Read it in its entirety.
–Marbury:
Perhaps the news cycle has speeded up somewhat since then. Also, perhaps Bush had earned himself such “credit” in the arena of taking-terrorism-seriously after 9/11/01 that he didn’t need to react to the next incident so quickly, whereas (apparently) Obama has yet to gain his war-on-terror stripes. What’s missing from that perspective, however, is something Obama is trying to re-introduce – an awareness of AQ and their (potential) followers as a target audience. The bigger fuss the president makes over a failed terrorist attempt, the bigger they look.
In December 2001, Reid tried to blow up an airplane en route to the United States, intending to murder the Americans on board. In December 2009, Abdulmutallab tried to blow up an airplane en route to the United States, intending to murder the Americans on board. To hear several prominent far-right Republicans tell it, Abdulmutallab’s attempt must be President Obama’s fault — as they see it, the suspected terrorist wouldn’t have tried to commit mass murder were it not for the administration’s policies. Failed attempt or not, the effort itself, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said, is evidence of the White House’s “approach” being wrong.
For any grown-up, that’s obviously insane. But taken at face value, doesn’t that necessarily mean that Bush/Cheney policies were equally responsible for Reid’s nearly identical terrorist plot? If Abdulmutallab’s attempt is evidence of Obama’s national security strategy being misguided, wouldn’t Reid’s attempt also be evidence of the Bush/Cheney strategy being equally misguided?
What’s more, is there any evidence — any at all — that congressional Democrats attacked Bush/Cheney for Reid’s failed attempt? I suspect there isn’t, which is why it seems like the two parties simply aren’t playing the same game.
28 Responses to “Quote of the Day: Obama Takes Heat Republicans and Media Neglected to Direct at Bush on Similar Terrorism Incident”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV and Brandon Roark, Mark Ritter. Mark Ritter said: Quote of the Day: Obama Takes Heat Republicans and Media Neglected to Direct …: The Moderate Voice That stands in… http://bit.ly/65D667 [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV: Quote of the Day: Obama Takes Republican Heat GOPers and Media Neglected to Direct at Bush on Similar Terrorism Inc… http://bit.ly/8eIlpG...
Laughable. In 8 years we have apparently learned nothing about how to prevent terrorist bombings on airplanes and Obama is supposed to be given a pass for his complicity in this?
The Reid attempted bombing occurred within 3 months of 9/11/01. The country was trying to sort through the implications. Gitmo had not yet received any detainees. Congress and the White House was debating how to reorganize intelligence. We had not yet gone to war, only to the UN. Bush had united a struggling nation and had an approval percent in the high 80s.
Fast forward. The liberals/media attacked Bush for years, saying he was too aggressive about terrorism, demanded Gitmo be closed, splashed national security documents on the front page of the NY Times… Obama has gone so far as to prosecute CIA agents for being tough on terrorists.. to give them extra rights.. to import them to the mainland US.
And now, in the face of a failed response to terrorists they want to politicize the failure by dragging up a case from 8 years ago and pull a “how dare they attack Obama” number. Don't you see that the whole POINT of all this ruckus is that the cases were handled the same way? Have we learned nothing in 8 years? Why is Obama still handling these cases as if they were civilian crimes instead of part of a war? You don't treat enemy combatants as if they were some guy robbing a gas station when you are at war. You treat them as enemy combatants. You don't prosecute your intelligence agents for extracting information and give the enemy lawyers and legal rights.
If Obama wants to go back to business as usual in 2001 he is going to get criticized for doing that. Yes, even by the media who has thus far given Obama the fluff ride of the century.
This is one of those stories where normally I'd be arguing with DaMav, but not in this case. For the record, I didn't approve of the way we were handling the terrorism situation under GWB and was actually hoping for a new direction in that area under the new administration. But this story struck me as kind of crazy. I first heard about it on Twitter where Glenn Greenwald Steve Benen were both bitching about how Politico was acting as a “mouthpiece for Cheney” without asking questions and I referred them to this very post to show they were covering both sides of it.
But back to the narrative at hand, I don't think anyone was *applauding* the fact that it took Bush 8 days to respond to the shoe bomber and was on vacation at the time. I think the country was still pretty much in shock from 9/11 and then had another dose of shock dumped on top with the Reid story. But again… that's the WHOLE POINT. Bush and company didn't do a good job of that, but it was right after we had gotten woken up to the fact that we were seriously under attack. Eight years have gone by. Should we be getting a little better at it by now???
I think that's the point which makes this comparison rather weak. It's one thing to carp about something the Republicans did under Bush which got the approval of his own party if they then bitch about it when Obama does the same thing. But that doesn't apply here.
Joe -
If you can remove your lips from Obama's groin region long enough to actually see the big picture, you will see that was a complete failure for his administration, whether you want to talk about the failure of the CIA to inform other departments, the failure of the no-fly list, the failure of the US embassy, the failure of Napolitano to take this seriously intially, to Obama's miserable reactions and speeches.
Add to that the absolutely inane new TSA regs, the new attempts to unionize the TSA, and you have what can only be called incompetence.
And yes indeed, the press was known for its kid-glove, fawning love of GWB. If you are a crackhead.
This also sums up why I do not for one second trust the government to run healthcare.
Get a grip and grow up, your offensive blather impresses nobody. Also it obscures any valid contributions you might have to make.
Bite me
As for the business at hand, the reactions from the right are disproportionately partisan – as would be expected from quarters who have expressed a clear wish for Obama to “fail”. Why is anyone surprised that making political hay is the be-all and end-all for some folks? One would almost think they appreciated the opportunity to unload.
The mental contortions of conservatives continue to amuse me. The would-be bomber was placed on a terrorism watch list during Bush's reign, the visa was granted during his reign, the warning from his father came under Bush's term, the visa was not revoked during Bush's term, and he was not placed on the no-fly list under Bush; four separate failures to act. There have been NO warnings about the guy during Obama's brief tenure. It ALL HAPPENED UNDER BUSH. Am I wrong?
Now, there are over a half a million people on the terrorism watch list, probably way too many. But the idea that Obama should have reviewed a half million people that BUSH DIDN'T is insane and wildly partisan. When the warnings occurred Bush did nothing. Again, none occurred during this administration, hence identifying the threat would take a review of past events that Bush didn't deem important. Bush's fail, not Obama's.
Needless to say, any fool can make comments like that when they aren't face to face. Maybe your last “vacation” wasn't long enough? Sorry you're having a bad day..
Apparently the absurdity of the Obama hate is exceeded only by the tenacity of the GWB apologism. It's long past old already and it's only been a year. So much to look forward to.
There have been NO warnings about the guy during Obama's brief tenure. It ALL HAPPENED UNDER BUSH. Am I wrong?
My understanding is the bomber's father reported his suspicions to the US Embassy three months ago and the CIA five weeks ago?
Let's take your points one by one:
* The would-be bomber was placed on a terrorism watch list during Bush's reign
If true, how is this a negative?
* the visa was granted during his (Bush) reign
“The suspect had been granted a standard two-year US tourist visa in 2008 when, as US officials have stressed, there were no signs he was connected to terrorism.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12…
* the warning from his father came under Bush's term
The warning came in November 2009, this year. Your statement is factually incorrect.
* the visa was not revoked during Bush's term
Bush had already retired when the father warned the US.
* he was not placed on the no-fly list under Bush
Yep, Bush was no longer President and thus would have had problems taking this action after the warning was received.
* four separate failures to act.
You should hope we aren't keeping score since the only one that is even a “possible” is him getting a tourist visa in 2008. Given subsequent warnings the question is why this wasn't revoked.
* Am I wrong?
I'll let the facts speak to that.
* wildly partisan
your response was indeed
Don't confuse GD or the other Lefties at TMV with facts that don't support their worldview. They are after all 'reality based', which means their version of reality.
Here's the Obama/Clinton State Department defending the decision to give the bomber a tourist visa in 2008. Along with a rather unsatisfactory (imo) answer as to why that visa was not revoked when the information about the terrorism risk was received.
As for why the visa was granted, there was no alarming or disqualifying information on the visa application, Kelly said. He was a student at a reputable school and had ample financial resources, meaning he wasn't seen as an illegal immigration risk, according to Kelly.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12…
I am having a great day, actually. Just sick to death of you and Joe and the like trying to blame Bush for the failures of The Dear Leader.
Oops. Serves me right for not researching it myself. I read the warning was in 11/08. BTW, I didn't count putting him on the list in the first place against Bush (count them). Nonetheless, this guy didn't get a visa under Obama, but under Bush, despite already being on the watch list. I'll also note that I didn't criticize Bush about Reid, unlike you guys. But I'm sure you don't want to revisit the many warnings about 9/11, which as I recall, was a bit more serious an attack, ignored and even rudely dismissed by Bush. (“OK, you've covered your ass now.”)
normally I'd be arguing with DaMav
Aha!
The rumours that my picture was pasted on the dartboard in the spacious TMV staff lounge are true!
Frankly I don't care what form your delusions take, I'm just glad I don't have to be you.
You are all correct. This is a democratic/institutional failure. You want perfection, dig up Mussolini, he got the trains to run on time. We live, or die, with malfunctioning behemoth organizations like the FBI, CIA, FNMA/FDMC and Homeland. Some were created during different presidential administrations, so I don't see the logic of associating blame for a future event. (Share the blame.) The goal should be to make these organizations efficient (ha, ha) which most administrations resist. It's the bureaucracy, stupid. Some work better than others, think GB, it pulled crotch bombers visa, and EL Al has a safe airline. We need to improve, not bitch and moan and complain about “systemic risk”, and other political speak BS and do nothing else except making me pee in a jar.
Obama vows to protect ‘freedom of ignition’ for Muslims
KAILUA, HAWAII (AP) – Taking a break from his Hawaiian vacation, President Obama addressed the issue of the failed airliner bombing attempt over Detroit by saying that “right wing extremists” were to blame.
“As Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano pointed out,” said Obama, “the system works. As President, I’ve done everything in my power to support and encourage ‘man-caused disaster’ attacks on American soil – from not using the ‘T’ word, to treating alleged violent attacks by people of certain religions as criminal nuisances. Judging by the Christmas incident in Detroit, I’d give the system a good, solid B+.”
“Unfortunately,” continued the President, “a right-wing extremist interfered with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s freedom to exercise his religion, and prevented him from fully expressing his opinion about America’s recent vicious attacks on the peaceful land of Yemen. Let me be clear – this sort of repression of universal rights will not be tolerated by this administration. We won’t put up with it from Fox News, and we sure as hell won’t put up with it from some stinking Dutchman. Rest assured that Jasper Schuringa will be held securely in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility pending an appearance before a full military tribunal.”
Under new directives ordered by the Obama administration in the wake of the tragically failed attack, passengers on US domestic and international flights will be prohibited from having pillows, blankets, or “any other material or device” which might be used to put out a fire and interfere with an “enthusiastic expression of political opinion or zealous religious activity”.
hi there everyone:
some comments have been removed and other comments may not track quite right. Read the commenters rules, please. If two or more commenters want to take out after one another, as we say here in the scrub, “Take it outside”… meaning communicate with each other off TMV comments site.
Thanks.
dr.e
Before we learned Bush was incompetent, he got a pass. The Left does no service to itself by holding Obama to the Bush-standard. At least the White House could have said that President Professor was “studying the problem.”
lol
I just hope someday, not this time (a tempest in a tea pot), O doesn't “study” an issue so much that he winds up “focusing” us.
My comment to Joe, while having a single nasty snark, WAS on point, and directly commented on his post. So, one single aspect of a post offends you or Joe, and the whole post gets canned? And you don't can the post that attacked me and made no reference to the initial post or the topic at hand, to which I simply said bite me in reply? THAT is too offensive for the delicate sensibilities here?
You are getting overly zealous. Bite me, too.
Dear Austin
Please read the commenters' rules at the top of the home page. If you disagree with the clear-cut rules for commenters that help us to maintain a civil site for all commenters and all readers (most of whom do not leave comments), please take your complaint to our Managing Editor, Pete Abel. I have always commented to you with respect Austin. I am sorry to see your last remark to me.
Thanks.
dr.e
Glad to see the one comment of mine removed. I just came back to do it myself as it was bothering me. One of those moments when I could have been a bit more patient or tolerant. Ah well… so it goes.