Obama’s Response To Attack Is Amazingly Quick

The United States was attacked on Christmas Day in what turned out to be a failed attempt at blowing up an aircraft. The response from the Obama people was disjointed and insincere. Obama was informed of the attack a few hours after it happened and he responded three days later. Some folks have made a big deal about the time it took to respond but that is not as important as what was said when the response actually arrived. Obama contradicted his Homeland Defense Secretary and became increasingly irate at the accusations that he was weak. Regardless of how long Obama waited to respond the real problem was that his response looked more like damage control than national security.

George Bush did not respond until six days after the shoe bomber made his fatal attempt. I do not know if there were legal reasons (the shoe bomber is an American citizen and perhaps they could not make statements that would jeopardize the investigation) or if the White House Press Secretary said anything prior to Bush. When Bush finally addressed it I don’t recall it being about damage control. I just remember that I had to start taking my shoes off every time I went through airport security.

News for TSP, I am not taking my underwear off because of this incident…

Regardless of the time involved, Obama should have been more concerned with the incident and not worried about damage control and he should not have had to clean up the gaffes of his DHS Secretary. Obama and his people (including his media wing at the MSM) should have spent less time defending how long it took Obama to say something with childish comparisons to how long it took Bush and spent more time telling people how they would be kept safe and at the same time inconvenienced as little as possible during the heavy holiday travel period.

One thing that Obama and his people were quick about responding to were the attacks on Obama. Team Obama responded nearly instantaneously when Dick Cheney came out with his criticisms of Obama. Dick Cheney is not a threat to airline safety, terrorists with underpants bombs are. If it took three days to address the real threat it should have taken longer to address Cheney. It should have taken longer to address the other criticisms leveled at the Obama administration. I think Cheney was spot on but that does not mean he could not be ignored by the administration until after they addressed the threat.

By taking its time with addressing the threat but responding in near real time to criticisms the Obama team comes off as being in campaign mode and not in leadership mode. Being president is a tough job no matter who is in there and if it takes them a while to address a situation then when they do address it they should look like they know what is going on. Obama was hurt by the ineptitude of Napolitano. That made them look more inept and added fuel to the fire.

We have already figured out that Obama does not do anything regarding leading the country quickly. It has taken him days or months to come to decisions (except for the crisis spending bills) and while his supporters like to claim he is a deliberative person he does not appear as such when he is able to immediately respond to criticism.

It also did not help the cause for Obama to say; “We will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable” and then leave his press conference to play golf. I realize he is on vacation so it might have been prudent to maybe leave that “we will not rest” part out of the speech and save it for a time when he is not, you know, resting…

The left was quick to point out George Bush discussing the seriousness of the terrorism threat while playing golf but remain silent about Obama’s very similar situation.

Washington Examiner
Swamp Politics

UPDATE: Excellent article by Charles Krauthammer.

Big Dog


If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

31 Responses to “Obama’s Response To Attack Is Amazingly Quick”

  1. Adam says:

    Obama didn’t discuss the threat while playing golf. That’s a little different than discussing the event and then going to play golf. Let Obama discuss how many tur’ists we’re gonna send to hell while he’s shooting hoops and we’ll see how unhinged the GOP becomes.

    Obama cannot ignore attacks by these GOP flunkies. He has his agenda to work toward still his administration seems to want to address these lies quickly instead of staying caught up in this garbage.

    The GOP seems to think it’s OK to compare response to a failed attack where no one was even seriously hurt, much less killed, to Katrina or 9/11 where where countless Americans are displaced from their lives or dead altogether.

    The GOP is still suffering a severe case of needing to trash Obama in the same way they think Bush was trashed time after time but they haven’t quite caught on yet that you need to actually compare similar things for this to have any impact.

  2. Big Dog says:

    Adam, the logic breaks down quickly. Katrina was a natural event that man has no control over. We have been through this before but let me help you. The biggest failures came from state and local government and their inability to take care of people. While there is blame all around each state is responsible for itself under our form of government and LA did not do what it was supposed to.

    People were part of the failure as well. They were told to leave and decided to stay. Nagin was protecting himself and let 500 buses get flooded. Buses which would have taken all the folks out. As a consequence we spent days rescuing people the locals should have taken care of.

    As for this event where no one was seriously hurt. That is moronic. You are saying that it is all OK because no one got hurt. So can I sign you up for water boarding because it does not hurt anyone?

    And to help you understand, what I said was that he should not have said they would NOT REST… and then went to play golf which is resting. He should have left that out. There is a big difference between saying what a threat terrorism is while playing golf and saying you will not rest until you catch the bad guys and the going out to play golf, which is resting. I know it is hard for you but Obambi and his people are incompetent and you know it which is why you work so hard to protect the very things you hammered at Bush for.

    It is OK, the left has lots of therapists.

    He can’t ignore the attacks? You might be on to something. Bush ignored the attacks and did his job. Obama is more concerned with his attackers than those who attack the country.

    Read for content Adam, it might make it easier.

  3. Darrel says:

    Bigd: “Team Obama responded nearly instantaneously when Dick Cheney came out with his criticisms of Obama.”>>

    That was pretty quick. And his hypocrisy has never been more beautifully dismantled than this very through spanking Maddow gave him. Truly a keeper.

    “Rachel Maddow holds Dick Cheney and Republican opportunists to account for their shameless hypocrisy, distortions and outright lies in criticizing President Obama’s response to the attempted bombing of Flight 253 in the face of their abject, egregious failures to deal with terrorists threats to the United States when they were in power.

    Republicans, left to their own devices, have in this case excitedly launched a series of obviously baseless, factually incorrect, demonstrably untrue and hypocritical attacks.

    We`re supposed to take national security advice from you guys? Really?”

    Good stuff, transcript here, long but worth it. No mercy shown.


    • Big Dog says:

      Yes but did Cheney criticize him for the response? I think he criticized for the attitude in general and not the response.

      Rachel Maddow? Who watches her? Combine her and Olberdouche and they still don’t have as many viewers as any Fox show of similar genre.

      Hmm, if Maddow and others spent as much time scrutinizing Obama and his administration as they did protecting him then we could keep the government honest.

      The only good thing about Maddow is she was decent enough to wish Limbaugh a speedy recovery rather than wish he died like some of the classless.

      Maddow criticizes Cheney, big deal, perhaps she could address the things he said rather than giving her apologies for Obama and trying to present things in a misleading fashion then she might have a case.

      After five days of Republicans owning the airwaves on this issue, doubling and then tripling down on politicizing this thwarted terrorist attack,

      She says this in a fashion that would give viewers (and those who read the transcript) the impression that it was thwarted by some government program or action. We already know Obama supporters are not very bright as shown by Howard Stern and others just before and just after the election. The morons did not know anything about him or his positions and when McCain positions were attributed to Obama people went gaga over them…

      So it is not like Maddow is talking to a room full of scholars (not that she even could).

      First of all, it was a failed attempt not a thwarted one because the device did not work. If it had then the plane would be gone. Second, after the failed attempt the “thwart” was passengers who reacted to the attempt and were able to because it failed. Thank God for the passengers because government, Obama’s government, let them down.

      She is easy to spank (though she probably likes women doing it) because she is an apologist.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “Obama supporters are not very bright as shown by Howard Stern and others”>>

        I used to think Stern was all T & A and stupidity but I had never given it a fair shot. Then I started listening when he went on Satellite. Now I think he’s some kind of genius.

        Getting someone to give you contract for $500 million dollars? Even a rightwinger should be able to appreciate the smartness of that.

        Bigd: “Yes but did Cheney criticize him for the response? I think he criticized for the attitude in general and not the response.”>>

        Let’s check. From the very beginning of Cheney’s comment:

        “As I`ve watched the events of the past few days, it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won`t be at war.” —Link

        That would be criticizing him for the “response.”

        Maybe Cheney should watch more Maddow.


        • Big Dog says:

          I see it as a preface to the pretending we are not at war rant that follows. Obama was low key and did not get his anger up until he was attacked.

          I thought you did not believe in torture. Why would you then ask Cheney to watch Maddow.

          I think intellectually he would clobber her.

          Stern is a very smart man. You don’t have to agree with content for him to be intelligent and getting people to pay you alot does not make you smart. Olberdouche gets paid pretty good money and he is dumber than a box of rocks.

          But you are admitting Limbaugh is smart. Look at what they pay him.

          What do you mean even a rightwinger. We are the party that believes in getting paid what someone is willing to pay you. You guys have the regulation of salary all locked up.

          I guess that was your dig at us being stupid. I can understand your need to do that. Penis envy…Don’t worry though at least Maddow has one (Hillary and Michelle Obama too).

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd then: “Obama supporters are not very bright as shown by Howard Stern and others”>>

          Bigd now: “Stern is a very smart man.”>>

          When you hold incoherent beliefs, it often leads to contradictions.

          Bigd: “But you are admitting Limbaugh is smart. Look at what they pay him.”>>

          I agree, Limbaugh is smart (his contract was less than Stern’s). I could wipe the floor with him as I do with his ditto heads all the time, but he’s reasonably intelligent while at the same time terribly dishonest. It’s very difficult to defend palpable falsehoods in an open and fair forum. Limbaugh is careful to never compete on a level playing field. When rightwingers try to defend their material on a level playing field we find they consistently get creamed. You would know a little bit about that first hand.


  4. Big Dog says:

    You have never creamed me at anything. You have only given your conjecture or the opinions of others with whom you agree. So no I would not know about that.

    I don’t know you well enough but Limbaugh would probably cream you. But then again, I know I could lead this country better than Obama and I know I have more leadership training and experience then he ever will so we are entitled to our beliefs.

    His contract was less than Stern’s and Stern’s adventure is going broke. He will not get a lot of money this time. The smart business man will negotiate to have a good future as well.

    I can see where you are having trouble with my statements. When I said as shown by Stern I meant he did interviews that showed Obama supporters as not being bright, not that he was the example. There is no incoherence, just misunderstanding. I should have written it better. Stern conducted interviews that showed Obama supporters not to be too bright.

    I don’t care for Stern’s shows (though I have found some of them entertaining) but I have no doubt he is a smart man.

  5. Adam says:

    It doesn’t matter what the cause of the trouble was in New Orleans. We’re talking response. When New Orleans was drowning Bush was playing guitar with his buds. When terrorists were crashing planes in NY, PA, and DC Bush was thinking about how to make it look like Saddam Husein did it. When a terrorist tried and failed to kill Americans conservatives compared his response to 9/11 and Katrina.

    “Read for content Adam, it might make it easier.”

    Write factual content and I’ll give it my best shot.

    • Blake says:

      Libbies- just gotta live with them, because killing them is no sport- that’s like clubbing Harp seals-
      The libs all said that Bush’s response to Katrina was late and ineffectual- not so, but then you would have to know how the government is set up to know the difference here- Gov. Blanco had to ASK that the Feds come in- which she waited two days to do.
      Whereas, Nobumma just had no comment, and let his ineffectual surrogates come on the talk shows and look like the fools they are- Napolitano should have been fired six months ago, and even this new guy, what’s his name- Brennan, can’t speak with authority, what with all the water they’re carrying for the Oaf-in-Chief. Meanwhile, he stays silent, which at least was, for him, the wisest course, or he might have said that the Plane’s crew had “acted stupidly”- and had to have another beer summit.

  6. Adam says:

    Or maybe Obama should have just said “Bring ’em on!” Is that tough enough? Is that deciderly enough? Is that going to scare them tur’ists into no longer attacking us?

    • Blake says:

      No- you let the Delta Force loose, and say, go get ’em- and leave them to do their job- if there is collateral damage, so what- Delta Force is disciplined enought to keep it to a minimum.
      Besides, it was Bin Laden who said there ARE no innocents. It is time we played by his rules.

  7. Big Dog says:

    Factual content from a man who wrote a bunch of speculation about what Bush was doing and even better, what he was thinking.

    The issue in NO matters because of the state’s rights and the federal government not being able to rush into a state to help unless asked. You can’t wait until the last minute and expect the entire government to mobilize in a moment’s notice. FEMA has a 72 hour response, it was there in that amount of time. Prior to that the policy is YOYO. The state failed to respond, failed to properly train people who left (police) instead of staying to do their jobs and the state failed to evacuate people. The feds were called after all this so they had to rescue and recover. I know it is hard for you to comprehend with your hatred of all things Bush but even though there were problems at the federal level, the reason people died and the reason people were stranded and the reason people were not evacuated is ALL on the state and the city.

    The follow on response had to clean up that mess and a bunch of uninformed people blamed it all on Bush and the feds. We have been through this before. I don’t expect you to know how it works but you should pay attention when someone who has worked on this stuff tells you how it works.

    Obama is busy scaring the public with lies about the world ending if we do not do what he wants now to pass health care takeover or stimulus or immigration amnesty or anything else. He is too busy scaring us to scare his friends and family in the Muzzie world.

    I will let him figure it out but I will say this, they are not buying the extended hand of a man who lived and worshiped with them. They are mocking him and still trying to attack us. It might have been Cowboy Diplomacy but they feared Bush because he would attack.

  8. Adam says:

    If you want Obama to puff his chest out and strut around like a cowboy and talk tough and respond quickly to even thwarted terrorist attacks then that’s fine I guess but let’s not live in any fantasy world where we pretend that does anything to protect our country or our allies from terrorist threats.

    Terrorists didn’t fear Bush then and they don’t fear Obama now. Terrorism in the world increased nearly every year under Bush and the attempts haven’t stopped inside or outside the US.

    Inside our borders where law enforcement can deal with threats we have done a pretty good job of preventing major terrorist attacks up to now. Outside our borders where our allies have to live with the results of the Bush Doctrine the terrorists brought it on for sure. Thousands and thousands have died every year from Islamic terrorism since 9/11.

    • Big Dog says:

      As I explained earlier, the attack was failed not thwarted. A thwarted attack would be one in which the people who are supposed to protect us got the guy before he got on the plane and attempted to detonate a bomb. It was a failed attempt, not a thwarted one. Notice the difference.

      Did terrorism increase or did the reporting of it increase? Did it increase or did we flush out what was already there.

      Did terrorism go down since Obama was elected? Has it decreased? Have attempts in the US gone down?

      And Obama is not tough enough to pump out his chest.

    • Adam says:

      I was assuming that since passengers stopped the man from doing what he wanted to do that it was thwarted. I wasn’t aware that the word thwarted had to be so loaded and political to you.

      Al Qaeda is larger now, the Taliban is resurgent, and terrorist attacks have increased in number and scale all over the world. I can’t say that terrorism has gone one way or another under Obama in his 11 months in office but I can say for sure that it didn’t get better under Bush in his 8 years.

      The only thing Obama needs to do to his chest is work on his abs. We don’t want to have a flabby Obama on the beach again.

      • Big Dog says:

        That was no way to talk about Michelle.

        The way you are using thwarted is designed to make it look like that it worked as designed or that the system worked as it were.

        Thwarted would indicate that it was stopped before it was able to occur. Since the guy detonated his load it was not thwarted. The definition of thwart is:

        To prevent the occurrence, realization, or attainment of:

        No one prevented the occurrence. The triggering device failed and the guy caught on fire which was put out by passengers. If the trigger had worked they would all be dead.

        The passenger did not stop the man from doing what he wanted to do. The guy did it and his device did not work, big difference.

        Is al Qaeda larger or do we just know about more of them. Have our actions flushed them out in the open. Maybe it is the same number and we just know about them.

        Besides, they are in disarray and they keep dying.

        I do not believe that there is any way to actually measure such a thing but I know that the number of attacks on American interests seem to have been lower during the Bush years. Don’t include our soldiers like some morons do and what of ours was attacked by terrorists?

      • Darrel says:

        A man tried to sneak a bomb on a plane in his shoe, now we all have to take our shoes off in airports.

        A man tried to sneak a bomb on a plane in his underwear….

        Bigd: “I know that the number of attacks on American interests seem to have been lower during the Bush years.”>>

        They steadily increased:

        Terrorist Attacks Rose Sharply in 2005, State Dept. Says

        “The number of terrorist attacks worldwide increased nearly fourfold in 2005 to 11,111, with strikes in Iraq accounting for 30 percent of the total, according to statistics released by [Bush’s] U.S. counterterrorism officials yesterday. ”


        Bigd: “Don’t include our soldiers like some morons do”>>

        That’s not a nice thing to say about Bush’s state department.

        Terror attacks worldwide rose 25 percent in ’06

        “Altogether, 40 percent more people were killed by increasingly lethal means around the globe.”


        Course, if you ask Bush’s completely clueless spokesperson you get a very different (and false) answer:

        Dana Perino Claims No Terrorist Attacks on U.S. During Bush Presidency


        • Big Dog says:

          Our soldiers are at war. The attacks on them are acts of war.

          I seem to recall that I said attacks on American interests, you know our soil or our embassies. You give the worldwide increase. Spain leaves the war and gets attacked, other places have been attacked. How many have attacked us here in the US? How many have bombed our embassies? How many have bombed our ships? A lot of them took place during the Clinton Administration and 9/11 occurred then the number of attacks on our interests went down. There were plenty of attempts but none successful here in the US.

          I am sure Perino meant after 9/11, but it could have been a mistake like Obama visiting 57 states. The person who rants against her fails to mention any other attack after 9/11 on our soil. I believe I mentioned 9/11 and I believe that I said our interests, not worldwide. I get it, any person associated with Bush is some moron if they do not completely explain themselves but people associated with Obama made a mistake, Turbo Tax, fatigue, whatever. I assumed she meant after 9/11 because it would seem rather obvious. If this guy is so bent over this statement by Perino can you point out where he goes after Biden for all his moronic stuff, stand up Chuck…

        • Big Dog says:

          As your source says, nearly half are in Iran and Iraq… and it is almost 3 years old.

          How many in America?

        • Adam says:

          “There were plenty of attempts but none successful here in the US.”

          Thank goodness for law enforcement, right?

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “I am sure Perino meant after 9/11, but it could have been a mistake…”>>

          I wasn’t even considering the 9/11 attacks. That was obviously a boo.

          Remember, when she made this comment, she was chiding the Obama Administration for NOT labeling the Ft. Hood massacre “terrorism.” She then said: “We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term.”

          As one commenter responded:

          “Oh yeah, only the largest terrorist attack on US soil ever. Then there were the anthrax attacks. Perino insists the Ft. Hood shooting — one event by one deeply disturbed man — is an act of terrorism. OK, by that standard, we must include in Bush’s list of terrorist attacks on US soil the DC sniper (and the guy’s name was Muhammad!), the grenade blasts outside the UK Embassy in NYC (which Fox’s Michelle Malkin declared was “clearly meant to terrorize or worse”), and the Ohio sniper. Let’s not forget the Glen Beck fan who attacked a Knoxville church for being liberal . There were also attacks on abortion clinics that I’d certainly categorize as terrorism: May 2000, arsonists hit a clinic in Concord, NH; September 2000, a Catholic priest drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic then pulled out an ax before being shot at by a security guard; June 11, 2001, a bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington; November 2001, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics; July 4, 2005, a clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson; December 12, 2005, Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana; September 13, 2006, David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women’s Care Center in Davenport, Iowa, then doused the lobby in gasoline and started a fire; April 25, 2007, a package left at a women’s health clinic in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death; May 9, 2007, a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia, was set afire; December 6, 2007, Dr. Curtis Boyd’s clinic in Albuquerque, NM was destroyed by arson — later that same month, two Planned Parenthood buildings were attacked, with arson destroying a surgery center used for abortion. In fact, in just the last year of Bush’s term alone, 20% of abortion clinics were attacked, up from 18.4% in 2005 (also a Bush year). Any others I’ve missed?”

          Actually, he missed a lot.

          Appalachian School of Law shooting

          Amish School shooting

          Virginia Tech massacre

          The El Al ticket counter attack at Los Angeles International Airport on July 4, 2002.


      • Adam says:

        “The way you are using thwarted is designed to make it look like that it worked as designed or that the system worked as it were.”

        This is your imagination. If ‘thwart’ is good enough for Fox then it should be good enough for you, right?

        Interview with Terrorism Expert Bruce Hoffman:

        Yes, because new structures have emerged. It is not an “either/or”-phenomenon: There are both new cells inspired by al-Qaida and actual al-Qaida terrorists active today. That is why I think al-Qaida is more dangerous than it was on 9/11. Because you have now a vast sea of self-radicalized Muslims in many places in the Muslim world that aren’t necessarily connected with al-Qaida but willing to act. So you still have an al-Qaida organization that is operating on its own but is also seeking to tap into that pool of unhappiness and disaffection.

        • Big Dog says:

          If Fox used thwarted, they are wrong. I know your argument is weak when you use Fox to justify it because you hate them.

          I don’t know if there are more or if they are just more evident. It is like seeing a few roaches (the insect not drug related stuff) and then you spray bug spray and a billion roaches run from under the stove. Did the bug spray cause more roaches or did it just expose the ones that were already there?

          Israel has been dealing with Muzzie terrorists for a long time.

        • Adam says:

          It’s not an “If Fox used” situation. Just click the link and see for yourself. You can pretend there is some loaded meaning in thwart for liberals but you’re just beating a dead horse.

          Fox is just a radical and biased mouthpiece for the conservative movement in the US. I thought you’d appreciate seeing your folks saying it was thwarted.

    • Blake says:

      Oh God, NO! Nobumma could NOT strut- remember how bad he looked in Michelle’s Jeans when he was trying to toss out that baseball?
      And Bush is responsible for all the terrorism in the world today?
      What Kool- aid have YOU been drinking, Adam?
      That is as fallacious a statement as “Gitmo is a recruiting tool for Jihadists” What bull- The majority of terrorist attacks have happened BEFORE Gitmo ever existed- so that “rationale” is a lie, as are most all of the rest of your statements from the liberal left.
      The truth is that jihadists do not care who they blow up- they will target Hotels in Bombay, or trains in England or Spain.
      Schoolhouses in Russia, or planes in America- they do not care, and we should not care how they are treated- they have lost any “right” to have rights, or be treated in a civilized fashion.

  9. Big Dog says:

    Was it law enforcement that collected the information or carried out the job based on the info of other agencies?

  10. Big Dog says:

    Well Adam, I happen to like to use words correctly and thwarted is not correct in this case no matter who uses it.

    It was a failed attempt and nothing else. I know that you would like to think otherwise but if the trigger had worked it would have been a successful attempt.

    I know it is difficult for you to understand but that is the way it is.

  11. Big Dog says:

    Attacks on an abortion clinic are extremists not terrorists.

    I don’t think all those you mentioned fit the bill. We get to a point where we call all acts of law breaking terror and that is not the case.

    One component of terror is that it has to terrorize people (or have that intent). The Ft. Hood murderer was probably an act of terror that was meant to dissuade the US from continuing in the Middle East.

    The recruiter bombing obviously leftist terror ala Ayers.

    What did the law call them? That would be the main thing. Anthrax attack, not sure. Who did it and what was the motivation? Was it terror or a disgruntled scientist taking advantage of the situation?

    You can show all these Americans breaking the law but show me where the radical Muslims were in here doing these things? Those are the enemy. If we label our own citizens the enemy then we are admitting they are attacking the country and that is treason. Are you sure you want to go there?

  12. Doug Hayden says:

    The Obama Administration will respond quickly, and decisively, and long as it’s not OUR country! LOL Check out this short animated cartoon we created…hope you get a laugh.


    Enjoy –
    Insanity Island – Leaders in the Conservative Cartoon REVOLUTION! :D