Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education
- from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
The Memphis Commercial Appealreported Saturday that Ibrahim faced terrorism charges after threatening to blow up seven local businesses. He told proprietors at the BP gas station that "If you don't close this place up, I'm going to blow it to pieces." The police report indicates that Ibrahim had Islamist paraphernalia in his car, and he was carrying a butcher knife. Responding to news reports, a number of commenterson therightareappropriatelyquestioningthe decision to release this man on bail. But to the politically correct River Mud Company blog, a menacing jihadist, armed with a deadly weapon, treathening mass destruction, is just a "lone wacko." Not only that, he's a cool wacko, since he's scared the real enemey, conservatives tired left Fort Hood apologists:
I’d wager this guy doesn’t even belong to a mosque at all, much less some sleeper cell.
All that aside, we’re talking about a guy with a butcher knife up his sleeve threatening to blow up random East Memphis gas stations on Christmas Day. Not an airplane, not a skyscraper, but the corner dine and dash. That’s not an attack on Western civilization, it’s the behavior of a disturbed individual. To his credit, though, if he was trying to scare people, he certainly frightened the wingnuts.
I suppose they have a point. Between the threat to democracy posed by this dude and the attack on our freedoms from that other guy who set his balls on fire, how can Liberty survive?
The link at the quote goes to the communist Alternet. That "guy trying to set his balls on fire" is now under worldwide investigation for a near-catastrophic security breach that threatened hundreds of lives. The bomb materials Abdul Mutallab sought to deploy are among the most powerfulcurrently available. In addition to the horrific loss of life, a succcessful attack could have shut down the U.S. and international aviation industry -- and the global economy -- on the scale of September 11, 2001.
So, yeah, there might be just a couple of reasons to take seriously these "lone" jihadis looking to kill untold numbers of people in an escalating holy war on the West. But it's not just the Abduls nd the Mohameds folks need to look out for. It's also the radical leftists are in total solidarity with these murderous demons, the communist-Islamist alliance against freedom.
I was reminded of Jessica Simpson while watching the Dallas game tonight. Tony Romo's a playa I guess, but I'd still be hangin' with Jessica. And now she's gettin' hot for Billy Corgan? Cant' see why. But no matter: Jessica was out and about for the Christmas holidays in New York City, and she looks simply fabulous -- sans make-up, a real turn-on in my book. According to a celebrity blog, "Jessica Simpson looks real fresh in these candid shots. I say this girl looks better with only a little make-up on. Her outfit looks great too." I couldn't agree more. More pics here, "Jessica and the Simpsons Gather For Christmas in NYC."
Qassam rockets -- named after Izz al-Din al-Qassam, the militant Syrian preacher and Muslim Brotherhood member killed in 1935 while fighting British and Zionist forces in Palestine -- are the most recent innovation in attacks on Israeli civilians. Hamas first introduced them in Gaza in September 2001, about a year after the start of the second intifada. Although Hamas has the most advanced rocket manufacturing and launching capabilities, other groups have made similar weapons a staple of their arsenals, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Quds rockets), the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (al-Aqsa rockets), and the Popular Resistance Committees (Nasser rockets).
EVERY DAY the dangers to Israel's security and very survival mount. At this time, the government and the people of Israel need to be able to trust in the IDF's ability to defend the country. Rather than earning that trust, those tasked with our defense are spending their time berating the political leadership for their own failures. Moreover, they are expressing a disturbing desire to pass the buck on fighting Israel's enemies while aggressively hounding Israelis.
CROWLEY: So, just to finish up on the question-- I do want to talk to you about security measures -- but do you think -- has there been any evidence of the Al Qaida ties that this suspect has been claiming?
NAPOLITANO: Right now, that is part of the criminal justice investigation that is ongoing, and I think it would be inappropriate to speculate as to whether or not he has such ties.
What we are focused on is making sure that the air environment remains safe, that people are confident when they travel. And one thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action. Within literally an hour to 90 minutes of the incident occurring, all 128 flights in the air had been notified to take some special measures in light of what had occurred on the Northwest Airlines flight. We instituted new measures on the ground and at screening areas, both here in the United States and in Europe, where this flight originated.
So the whole process of making sure that we respond properly, correctly and effectively went very smoothly.
It's mindboggling, especially live. Napolitano looks almost like a travel industry booster. She refuses to "speculate" on the suspect's ties to Islamist militants. She has no clue as to how close the U.S. came to another catastrophic terror nightmare:
I think Candy Crowley had Napolitano pinned down there for a second, on this comment about how the atttacker "was one individual literally of thousands that fly and thousands of flights every year." Crowley rightly follows up with " you are right, this was one individual, but that’s really all it takes," but then goes into her own long soliloquy that blows the moment. But check Napolitano's interview with Jake Tapper on ABC's "This Week":
Again we get this line that "the traveling public is safe." But what's most troubling is how the secretary keeps suggesting not only that "the system worked," but that "the passengers did their job." Hello! It's not the passengers' job to interdict terrorists! Whoa! The transcript is here. When Tapper asks about an investigation into the TSA's delays in deploying the latest screening technology, Napolitano replies:
Well, without going into the accuracy or inaccuracy of that particular report, new technology has been deployed, but there is a more important point to be made, which is that, A, technology is evolving all the time, it's not a static situation.
And B, even with the most sophisticated technology, everybody needs to play a part in their security. That's why I think the actions of the passengers and the crew on this flight deserve praise. That's why the men and women who have been working really overtime Christmas Day, yesterday, whatever, to make sure that all other flights remain safe, why that system is so important.
In any case, there's lots of disbelief and outrage on the right. Jonah Goldberg says Napolitano should be fired (via Memeorandum). Michelle Malkinadds that Napolitano's "hapless first-responder mentality is simply a reflection of the man who hired her." And from Darleen Click, "Janet Napolitano — open bets on firing resignation day."
The Iranian capital erupted in massive and fiery morning-to-dusk protests as tens of thousands of demonstrators clashed with security forces on the occasion of an important Shiite Muslim holiday.
Several witnesses told The Times that Iranian security forces opened fire with live ammunition against unarmed protesters near College Bridge in in the capital. And opposition news websites reported that several protesters had been killed, including Ali Mousavi, the adult nephew of opposition figurehead Mir-Hossein Mousavi.
Reformist websites said he was shot and taken to a Tehran hospital, where his uncle and other relatives soon arrived.
The information could not be independently confirmed, and a police source denied that protesters had been killed in a comment to the pro-government Fars News Agency.
But a witness in front of City Theater in downtown Tehran said she saw a fallen man, apparently stabbed in the back, and spotted another man falling to the ground after a volley of shots was fired near Enghelab Street, which emerged as the epicenter of the day's clashes.
The reports of deaths came during a harrowing day of multiple, rolling clashes between police and Iranian protesters coinciding with an important Ashura religious commemoration as well as the significant seventh day of mourning following the death of the country's leading dissident cleric, Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri.
Reformist websites and witnesses also reported clashes in the cities of Qom, Esfahan, Najafabad, Kashan, Shiraz, Babol and Mashhad.
Demonstrators vowed to continue the protests into the night, with reformist news websites identifying key Tehran squares for gatherings.
"There is no let-up," said Farzad, a 30-year-old who attended today's protests with his girlfriend. "We will go ahead until we topple the government."
Across the capital, witnesses described scenes of pandemonium, which were confirmed by video footage posted online. One described Tehran as a war zone, and another likened the situation to open "civil war" as increasingly bold demonstrators took on security forces, in one case stripping a member of the security forces naked before letting him go, a witness said.
Despite a heavy crackdown, the protest movement that emerged from Iran's disputed June 12 presidential election has grown increasingly daring, with those who want abolition of the Islamic Republic increasingly vocal.
Protesters had vowed for weeks to turn today's annual Ashura commemoration marking the 7th century martyrdom of Imam Hossein into an anti-government demonstration.
The authorities are taking a risk in using lethal force against protesters during the Islamic Moharram, during which war and bloodshed is deemed to be religiously haram, or forbidden. It raises the likelihood of a series of mourning cycles, as required by Shia tradition. It was such a mourning cycle that fatally undermined the Shah's regime when it tried to suppress demonstrations in 1978.
I'm thinking about the circumstances surrounding the attack on Northwest Flight 253. I always do whenever there's another terrorist attack. I'm especially intrigued -- no bothered, actually -- by the response of the leftists. I've commented already on folks like Spencer Ackerman and Matthew Yglesias, inveterate America-bashers, so no need to rehash it. No, my sense is that even level-headed folks fail to appreciate the transformation in circumstances of American and international life since September 11, 2001 -- a transformation that had been building for sometime, as in the nature of global conflict and the increasingly catastrophic incidence of attacks on citizens of the United States and elsewhere. We don't think too often about this, since the possibility of personal danger seems so far removed for most people -- but also because it's been almost ten years since the attacks on New York and Washington. Time heals all wounds, so in that sense our healing has also made us increasingly impervious to the continuing threat of diabolical terrorism.
Northwest Flight 253 (Northwest is the parent company of Delta) sits on the runway in Detroit, having landed safely after an alleged attempted terrorist attack. Credit: J.P. Karas / Associated Press (Source).
I read some portions this afternoon from Brigitte L. Nacos' textbook, Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Understanding Threats and Responses in the Post 9/11 World. One passage from the introduction was quite moving, regarding the perception of danger in the age of postmodern terrorism. Nacos writes of the consensus perceptions of terrorism in 2001 and earlier:
Even before the dust had settled around the totally destroyed World Trade Center and the partially demolished Pentagon, people in the United States and abroad began to recognize that this terrorist assault pushed the United States and much of the world into a crisis that seemed equally dangerous as, or perhaps more explosive than, the Cold War conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States and their respective allies in the decades following the end of World War II. In some quarters, the end of the Cold War had fueled expectations for an even greater international understanding and cooperation and a "peace dividend" that would better the economic conditions in the underdeveloped world along with improvements in the industrialized nations. But during the 1990s, such dreams did not come true. Instead, there was a troubling wave of conflicts in many parts of the world.
Instant commentary in the media compared 9/11 with the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor sixty years earlier, claiming that both incidents had been as unexpected as bolts of lightening from a blue sky. Indeed, two months before the kamikaze flights into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a former counterterrorism specialist in the U.S. Department of State wrote in an op-ed article in the New York Times, "Judging from news reports and the portrayals of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal.... Nothing of these beliefs are based on facts" But others warned for years that the United States and other Western countries should brace for catastrophic terrorism that would result in mass disruption and mass destruction. Walter Laqueur, a leading terrorism expert, for example, who had characterized terrorism in the past as an irritant rather than a major threat, came to a different judgment at the end of the 1990s, when he concluded,
Terrorism has been with us for centuries, and it has always attracted inordinate attention because of its dramatic character and its sudden, often wholly unexepected occurrence. It has been a tragedy for the victims, but seen in historical perspective it seldom has been more than a nuisance.... This is no longer true today, and may even be less so in the future. Yesterday's nuisance has become one of the gravest dangers facing mankind.
Several horrific incidents in the 1990s and certainly the events of 9/11 proved the pessimists right and ended the threat debate. One could argue that the new age of terrorism began in December 1988 with the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, caused by a terrorist bomb that killed a total of 270 civilians on board (most of them Americans) and on the ground (all of them Scots). This was, at the time, the single most devastating act of terrorism in terms of number of victims. Actually, nearly as many Americans were killed when extremists of the Lebanese Hezbollah drove an explosive-laden truck into the U.S. Marine barracks near the Beirut airport in 1983. But while the victims were deployed as peacekeepers and thus were not combatants in the sense of fighting a war, they nevertheless were not civilians like the passengers and crew aboard Pan Am flight 103 and the people who died on the ground in Lockerbie ... whether civilians or members of the military are targets or victims figures prominently into the discussions of what kinds of violent acts constitute terrorism. The fate of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, along with the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 that caused the death of 168 persons, represented turning points in the lethality of terror. Until these events, the widely held supposition was that "terrorists want a lot of people watching and a lot of people listening and not a lot of people dead." But after Pan Am flight 103 and the terror of Oklahoma City, this assumption is no longer valid.
The remainder of the introduction is equally fascinating. A key point mentioned is that while there has in fact been a declining trend in the number of terrorist attacks since the 1980s, there has been a concommitant tendency for increasingly spectacular incidents -- and importantly, this increase has been marked by the dramatic rise of religious terrorism, "the use of violence for political ends by groups whose motivations and justifications are couched in religious convictions, terms, and symbols."
Of all the lessons learned in this painful decade, the most terrifying by far is that the West faces a long-term challenge from radical Islam. Crucial ideas about the future of democracy will increasingly focus on the passionate, articulate jihadist movement that is now making war on the West and everything the West cherishes.
There’s small comfort to be found in the fact that most Muslims deplore violence. Even if Islamists and their sympathizers are only a tiny minority, the vehemence and dedication of their movement can exert great influence in many countries. One Islamist dream, to begin by introducing shariah law, is not crazy. There are politicians who think of it as an interesting compromise.
What should worry us, at this stage, is our response to Islamists. Are we strong enough to fight them off? They assume we are not. They consider us lazy, decadent and complacent — and they have plenty of evidence to support their argument.
The fact that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was able to trigger his home-made incendiary device on board a US airliner represents an intelligence and security failure of staggering proportions.
Tough questions need to be asked of not just the US security agencies – such as the CIA and the FBI – but also of Britain's MI6, MI5 and the Metropolitan Police's counter-terrorist unit.
How can a Muslim student, whose name appears on a US law enforcement database, be granted a visa to travel to America, allegedly acquire an explosive device from Yemen, a country awash with al-Qaeda terrorists, and avoid detection from the world's most sophisticated spy agencies?
Every intelligence agency across the world is fully aware that the targets of choice for al-Qaeda and its numerous affiliates and sympathisers are airliners – preferably those flying to the US. Yet Abdulmutallab seems to have avoided detection in both Nigeria and Holland when he passed through the various security checks at Lagos and Schiphol airports respectively.
Embarrassingly for the Washington, Lagos airport had recently been given the "all clear" by the US's Transportation Security Administration, an agency established in the wake of the 9/11 attacks which was supposed to improve the security on American airliners.
Attacking airlines is not exactly new territory for al-Qaeda. After 9/11, Richard Reid, a British Muslim convert, tried to blow up a transatlantic airliner by detonating explosives hidden in his shoes. More recently, Britain was the base for the so-called liquid bomb plot when a group of British Islamists plotted to destroy up to 10 US bound airliners in a series of attacks designed to kill thousands.
As 9/11 showed, for a relatively cheap outlay- the cost of the operation was estimated at round £300,000 – the impact of an airline attack can be global: the desired conclusion for every al-Qaeda mission.
Yet Abdulmutallab, a 23-year Nigerian, who US officials said studied mechanical engineering at University College in London, came frighteningly close to committing a terrorist atrocity undetected.
If you missed it, check out Air Canada's "traveladvisory."
Also, at the New York Times, "New Restrictions Are Imposed on Air Passengers": "The restrictions will again change the routine of air travel, which has undergone an upheaval since the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington in September 2001 and three attempts at air terrorism since then."
There will be more attempts in the future. But Democrats will continue to pooh-pooh the threats, and radicals like Spencer Ackerman and Matthew Yglesias will laugh at what a "joke" al Qaeda is, while calling for a "law enforcement" approach that's careful not to inflame tender Muslim sensibilities, insh'allah.
William Jacobson wrote an important post this morning on the leftist reaction to the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines 253. See, "Terrorist Attacks Plane, Think Progress Attacks Pete Hoekstra." Checking William's essay we find that the first reaction of radical bloggers is to deny conservatives a partisan advantage on national security. Steve Benen's entry was the most egregious, "PETE HOEKSTRA, SHAMELESSBUFFOON...." Basically, amid a security threat that even the administration's taking seriously, radical leftists are reduced to namecalling.
But there's something more significant to consider with regards to how the left perceives this terror plot. I'm reading Spencer Ackerman's post on this, "al-Qaeda’s Desperate Bid For Relevance, The Failed Plane Attack & Afghanistan." Despite his purported national security "credentials," Spencer Ackerman's woefully unserious about war and terrorism. Recall that this is the guy who called for President George W. Bush's death at the Hague, and for that reason alone his rants will garner the attention of leftist foreign policy vultures. A good example of this childishness is Ackerman's tweet from yesterday, seen here:
Then at his essay, he links to this tweet from Dylan Matthews (we can infer that Matthews means Detroit, not Denver):
There's a huge logical leap from suggesting that Abdul Mutallab's attempted attack was amateurish to suggesting there's no al Qaeda threat justifying a U.S. presence in Afghanistan. But that's the thinking of people like this, and it's surprising how much play such unseriousness gets in leftist policy circles.
Ackerman links to Matthew Yglesias' post as well, from yesterday, "Not So Scary 'Terror'." Yglesias writes there:
Obviously, people shouldn’t be lighting anything on fire inside airplanes. That said, all the big Christmas airline incident really shows to me is how little punch our dread terrorist adversaries really pack. Once again, this seems like a pretty unserious plot. And even if you did manage to blow up an airplane in mid-air, that would be both a very serious crime and a great tragedy, but hardly a first-order national security threat.
I can't imagine the possibility of a single terrorist taking down a trans-Atlantic passenger airliner as being simply a "serious crime and great tragedy." While not on the scale of a strategic nuclear exchange, we minimize the serverity of such lower-grade terror attacks (dismissing them as "tragedies") at the risk of much greater -- even catastrophic -- threats to human life.
The plot to blow up an American passenger jet over Detroit was organized and launched by al Qaeda leaders in Yemen who apparently sewed bomb materials into the suspect's underwear before sending him on his mission, federal authorities tell ABC News.
Investigators say the suspect had more than 80 grams of PETN, a compound related to nitro-glycerin used by the military. The so-called shoe bomber, Richard Reid, had only about 50 grams kin his failed attempt in 2001 to blow up a U.S.-bound jet. Yesterday's bomb failed because the detonator may have been too small or was not in "proper contact" with the explosive material, investigators told ABC News.
Investigators say the suspect, Abdul Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian student whose birthday was last Tuesday, has provided detailed information about his recruitment and training for what was supposed to be a Christmas Day suicide attack.
But even in the absence of evidence of al Qaeda's ties to the Abdul Mutallab, we know the nature of al Qaeda's threat has been transformed significantly since September 11, 2001. Audrey Kurth Cronin, an expert on international terrorism, and the author of "How al-Qaida Ends: The Decline and Demise of Terrorist Groups," has noted recently that al Qaeda today is a fractured organization with a decentralized leadership. The group is more of an idea than an actual entity. As such, there's little doubt of the seriousness of the threat, since follow-on organizations will likely take up the initative where Osama bin Laden left off. Indeed, Kurth Cronin suggests that while al Qaeda's capabilities have been significantly weakened, and Western leaders have indeed suffered from an over-emphasis on leadership decapitation, "Even in its diminished state, al Qaeda and its franchises remain armed and dangerous."
And this is to say nothing of the larger military and political threat from al Qaeda in South Asia. The nexus between Taliban operatives in Pakistan, the Lashkar terrorists implicated in the Mumbai attacks, and remnants of the al Qaeda operatives from pre-9/11 Afghanistan remains a central focus of American strategic planning and national security interests. (See, Bill Roggio, "Al Qaeda builds a 'Shadow Army'.")
It would thus be pure suicide to take serious the anti-American rants of "experts" such as Spencer Ackerman and his terrorist apology-brethren in the Democratic Party. Indeed, "Attackerman" is already walking back some of his more stupid ruminations from yesterday (without much success, for that matter).
Live blogging: I'm watching HBO's documentary, 'Terror in Mumbai'. This is a gripping production. Some of the witnesses are showing their injuries. The Mumbai killers walked slowly through the train station, killing indiscriminately. Blood is everywhere at the station. Mothers tried to protect babies. Some were shot dead.
10:16am: The video of the killing is so real. Unbelievable amounts of blood at the train station. The police had no training or preparation for such an attack ... The terrorists left the train station (Chhatrapati Shivaji), heading to the hotels ...
10:21am: Police intercept communications between the terrorists and the handlers in Pakistan. Attackers hit the Tiffin restaurant at the first hotel. Now the clips are from the Leopold Cafe. Fareed Zakaria, of CNN, is the narrator. He notes that the terrorists, poor villagers, are mezmerized by the opulence at the hotels. The videos are from hotel cameras mounted high on the walls. It's like the cameras are silent witnesses to evil ...
10:30am: The Taj hotel is set on fire. More communications between the terrorists and their controllers in Pakistan. Smoky inside the hotel. Fire blazing outside. Mumbai police gathering in the streets (afraid to storm the hotel...).
10:38: Mumbai's top three police commanders were killed. The city's security forces are in complete meltdown mode. There's an interview here with one of the surviving terrorists, Kasab. He describes his training in a terrorist indoctrination camp. It sounds like something from Pol Pot's Cambodia ... trained to kill, without remorse ...
10:42: Watching this, I get the feeling of how it all went down in real time. The controllers were ecstatic with the success of the operation ... they were thrilled that the entire world's media was watching the horror in Mumbai ...
10:44: Now, a pair of the killers are headed to Nariman House, the location of the Jewish hostel ... hostages are taken. More communications between the handlers in Pakistan and the terrorists ... victim's families are interviewed here. Mothers in tears at what happened ..
10:48: They program documents the capture of "Kasab," the terrorist who is interviewed. He says "we were all supposed to die ..." That is, the assault was a total suicide operation. Handlers have no respect for human life, not even those of their killers ... "For your mission to end successfully you must be killed ... God is waiting for you in heaven," the controller tells Fadahlallah, one of the gunmen ... "God willing, God willing" is the response from the killer in Mumbai ...
10:56: Now, videos of the commando raid at the Jewish house ...
11:05: It's over now.The film doesn't dwell on the killings of Rabbi Holtzberg and his wife Rivkah. Reports earlier indicated that they were targets all along. The film concludes with audio tapes of the Lashkar-e-Taiba plotters in Pakistan. The voice says, "you're just watching the trailer. The full movie is yet to come.
Then, Fareed Zakaria gives his final analysis: Pakistan security services are implicated, since Lashkar was established to fight in Kashmir. There's no disentangling state sponsorship here, which is a failure of American foreign policy, since Pakistan is our key "ally" in South Central Asia.
I'll have more analysis in a later post today. I'll be writing about the attempted airline plot in Detroit, and the left's reaction to it. Meanwhile, I found this report on Mumbai, "Sixty Hours of Terror: Ten Gunmen, Ten Minutes." I can't vouch for it's credibility, but it's worth a look for some of the information in any case ...
Early this afternoon, I saw something online about how someone tried to set off a firecracker on an airliner. Thinking this was a prank, I went upstairs to read and then fell asleep. Now it turns out the story is a major Christmas day terrorist threat, and is likely to cause a new round of leftist denialism and handwringing. Thers, at Whiskey Fire, dismissing the episode as mere "tiny bombs," suggests this is great news for conservatives, who'll "wet their pants in an ecstasy of hysterical screeching." But late news reports indicate a threat of potentially catastrophic proportions. From the New York Times, "Terror Attempt Seen as Man Tries to Ignite Device on Jet."
A Nigerian man tried to ignite an explosive device aboard a trans-Atlantic Northwest Airlines flight as the plane prepared to land in Detroit on Friday, in an incident the United States believes was “an attempted act of terrorism,” according to a White House official who declined to be identified.
The device, described by officials as a mixture of powder and liquid, failed to fully detonate. Passengers on the plane described a series of pops that sounded like firecrackers.
Federal officials said the man wanted to bring the plane down.“This was the real deal,” said Representative Peter T. King of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, who was briefed on the incident and said something had gone wrong with the explosive device, which he described as somewhat sophisticated. “This could have been devastating,” Mr. King said.
The suspect smuggled a powder aboard the plane in a container taped to his leg, the official said. Covering himself with a blanket to hide his actions, he used a syringe to inject a liquid into the powder, and a fire resulted from the combustible mix, according to the official, who did not identify the materials.
Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air commented on the incident noting, “He may just be a nut who smuggled fireworks on the plane, but still, that leaves the question of how he managed to do that.”
Well Ed, here’s how:
Let’s start with the fact that there is no screening system or requirement in place at international airports that will detect explosives. If the preliminary reports that the Nigerian brought firecrackers on the plane that’s not surprising at all. Fireworks normally do not contain any metal and will pass undetected through any of the walk thru metal detectors used throughout the world. Here we are 8 years after the 9-11 attacks and we still employ security detection systems incapable of detecting explosives.
Then there is the laughable TSA restrictions on liquids you can bring on board a plane. Here’s the TSA policy:
Make Your Trip Better Using 3-1-1
3-1-1 for carry-ons = 3.4 ounce (100ml) bottle or less (by volume) ; 1 quart-sized, clear, plastic, zip-top bag; 1 bag per passenger placed in screening bin. One-quart bag per person limits the total liquid volume each traveler can bring. 3.4 ounce (100ml) container size is a security measure.
Consolidate bottles into one bag and X-ray separately to speed screening.
Be prepared. Each time TSA searches a carry-on it slows down the line. Practicing 3-1-1 will ensure a faster and easier checkpoint experience.
3-1-1 is for short trips. If in doubt, put your liquids in checked luggage.
Declare larger liquids ....
Truth is you can get at least one pound and two ounces worth of liquids into a quart bag. So try this scenario on for size. Two terrorists traveling together pack their clear plastic quart bags with six 3 ounce bottles. That is 18 ounces each. Let’s also assume they put a binary liquid explosive in the bottles, such as PLX. And they have a small amount of TATP to use as a booster charge.
Under this scenario two terrorists working together can bring more than 1 kilo worth of high explosives onto a plane undetected. There is no required system in place that will detect the explosives in their TSA approved “clear plastic quart bags.” So Ed, you should not be surprised with the firecrackers. We still do not have a security technology in place at all airports that can prevent such a threat.
Eight years ago Richard Reid, an Al Qaeda operative, boarded a plane in London wearing shoes packed with TATP. He’s lucky he did not blow himself up just walking to the plane because the explosive is so volatile. He tried to light his shoes but, because he had pissed on his laces, they were too damp to light. His fellow passengers beat the crap out of him and prevented a terrorist incident.
So here we are 8 years later and we still have done nothing to prevent the threat from an explosive. I fully acknowledge that it is a threat we rarely see. But that excuse will not fly if a terrorist group decides to run the risk of blowing airplanes out of the air. Let’s face it, we never learn.
On that cheery note, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
None of this should be surprising. Mark Schmitt, commenting yesterday on the Senate passage of the ObamaCare monstrosity, remarked:
I've always argued that Obama viewed his central domestic mission as changing the culture and practice of American politics. The passage of health reform is a revelation of just how desperately that change is needed and how difficult it will be to achieve.
Well, maybe not so difficult, if the wholesale rejection of American Christmas traditions are any indication.
A $10 billion investment in community health centers, expected to go to $14 billion when Congress completes work on health care reform legislation, was included in a final series of changes to the Senate bill unveiled today.
The provision, which would provide primary care for 25 million more Americans, was requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
The program is distasteful as a matter of pork barreling, but it points to something that I've shown at this blog: Achieving universal health coverage is entirely feasible through state-level intitatives. State-federal grant programs are used routinely to fund everything from community development to education. And so it is with health care. In September, I investigated the left's outrage at the swine flu death of a college student in Ohio. As I showed at the time, Ohio has acheived virtually universal health coverage through an aggressive system of community health networks. No one is to be denied treatment under network policy, and Ohio launched the "Health Care Coverage Reform Initiative" which pledged to provide 100 percent coverage to Ohioans by 2011. Whatever the merits of the programs, the case demonstrates that universal health availability is entirely possible without the creation of new federal programs.
So, it's especially important to note that Senator Sanders is perfectly willing to cut loose the ObamaCare "public option" in exchange for earmarked healthcare for the states. Why? Why would a declared socialist forego the expansion of the federal Leviathan in exchange for a few billion dollars for the states? It's obvious -- especially from the language of the press release, which hails "the revolution" in primary health care -- that citizens could be fully and competently served at the state and local level. That's how federalism works. It's always better to seek local solutions to policy questions, and especially in this case when the U.S. is on the verge of destroying the last protections for private health provision in the nation.
The example also provides a window into the communist mindset of the most hardline leftists. At Firedoglake, BrianSonenstein has announced the threat of a primary challenge against Senator Sanders. Think about that. Leftists want to out the socialist Bernie Sanders! Previously it was Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut who was within the FDL crosshairs. Now we're talking about a self-proclaimed Marxist who's being targeted by Hamsher's Henchmen. Even Nate Silver's taking issue. He notes:
There have ... been people who have been arguing the bill in what I believe to be bad faith ... I mean in particular two or three of the writers at the blog FireDogLake. I don't exactly know what's going on over there; as a group, they're whip-smart, and they also reflect a diversity of voices, some of which I have had a problem with and others of which I haven't. But some of the initiatives they've launched over the past week, particularly teaming with Grover Norquist to pursue a conspiracy theory about Rahm Emanuel, threatening to primary Bernie Sanders, and attacking Joe Lieberman's wife, are a little bizarre and not reflective, in my view, of a website that is in the frame of mind right now to have a fact-based debate about the merits of the health care bill.
Actually, I don't think FDL is in "the frame of mind" to have a fact-based debate on healthcare. Jane Hamsher's been in the news for appearing on Fox News in an attempt to create a bipartisan consensus in opposition to the bill. But no one on eitherside wants to cooperate. Hamsher wants a federlized state socialist health bureaucracy. The only difference between Hamsher and her fellow travellers, like those at Daily Kos, is patience. She wants the Stalinist solution now. Kos is looking in terms of the five-year plans.
Either way, with Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders selling out the public option for the local health clinic option, it's perfectly clear that the ObamaCare legislation to totally unnecessary, and that the hordes at FDL are pushing the most extreme leftist program imaginable. This is a debate over the scope and speed of the socialist takeover. Witnessin this debate -- this internecine battle among socialists -- is perhaps the most informative element of all the recent wrangling over passage of the bill.
I went out for a bit to get a couple of things. Here's the parking lot shuffle outside the Target store at the Irvine Markeplace. I picked up a couple of CDs and a gift card:
I cruised down to South Coast Plaza after that. Actually less hectic there. Warm weather today too, probably high 70s in Costa Mesa/Santa Ana. And Sorry if that's not too "Christmas-y." If folks want a White Christmas around here, theyll need to head for the high elevations. Or, perhaps folks prefer having "four seasons." See, "Withering Storms Batter the Nation as Travelers Face Delays, Deadly Conditions" ...
I parked next to this hot Chevy Camaro:
South Coast Plaza's the location for Orange County's haute couture. Lots of designer stores, like Zegna:
And Versace:
I was heading over to Nordstrom's:
Didn't actually see anything I wanted (for my wife, that is). So, I took some pics of Santa's House. Families are waiting to have their pictures taken:
I took the escalator down to get a better shot. This is the back side of Santa's House:
Santa, with one of his elves, waiting for the next family:
Okay, my wife texted. She needs to go out too. I'm heading back out to the car, but first a shot of the Brooks Brothers store:
One of the abiding delusions of the male mind is the belief it is actually possible to put off critical Christmas shopping until late on the 23rd of December. I am the apostle of this delusion. I take comfort in this false belief every year. No amount of actual experience ever shakes my conviction that it is not only possible to shop like this but economically prudent too. And every year this faith is tested and found wanting. Whatever I may save in last minute markdowns I pay for in this evening's glowing and gut-wrenching angst.
My sense is there's little doubt that the Democrats will get their disastrous ObamaCare monstrosity passed. Legislative chokepoints remain, of course. The bill could die in conference committee, and apparently there's some buzz on this exact possibility. From Patricia Murphy, "Senate Passes Sweeping Health Care Reform, but Trouble Lies Ahead"
President Obama told PBS' Jim Lehrer on Wednesday he is "very satisfied" with the Senate bill, and predicted a smooth road ahead as the House and Senate meet to work out their differences. "You know, what's interesting is, the House version and the Senate version are almost identical." Obama said he would be directly involved in the conference process, but declined to list specific provisions that would be deal breakers for him.
Other potential negotiators were not so optimistic. In the days leading up to the vote, moderate Democratic senators warned their House colleagues that any changes to the Senate bill on abortion, taxes, or the public option could jeopardize health reform altogether.
Senators took to the floor to pass healthcare reform legislation today, marking the first time the body has conducted business on Christmas Eve since 1963 (before that, it was 1895). But even as the votes tallied along the expected party lines, with the final count 60 to 39, it was clear that hard work remains. Democrats are steeling themselves for the contentious process of melding the Senate and House versions of the bill, with liberal lawmakers warning that they are ready to bargain hard and push back in the wake of a process that left many feeling steamrolled by their more conservative colleagues.
The conventional wisdom has been that whatever healthcare bill was given the nod by the Senate, where only one defector would sink the legislation, would form the basis for conference committee negotiations with House Democrats. But there is a growing sense that "this is going to be a lot more difficult than people realize," says Mike Lux, a Democratic political strategist. True, when Howard Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, blasted his party for bowing to conservative and centrist Democrat demands and urged Senate lawmakers to "kill" their bill rather than push through legislation without a public option, few seemed fazed ....
But the public option remains a point of contention—and there are others, including rules regarding federal funding for abortion and the "Cadillac tax" on premium health plans. The crux of the complaints coming from liberals is that though the president supported the public option and a number of other reform measures, he did not fight for them ...
President Obama praised the Senate's 60-39 passage of the $871 billion health care overhaul bill despite the fact that not a single Republican voted in favor following 24 consecutive days of often bitter debate and deep partisanship.
"This will be the most important piece of social legislation since the Social Security Act passed in the 1930's and the most important reform of our health care system since Medicare passed in the 1960's," said Obama, before leaving for his Christmas vacation in Hawaii, which he delayed until Senate passed the health care bill.
The president also hailed the legislation as the "largest deficit-reduction plan in over a decade," and added that he looks forward to working with both chambers of Congress "over the coming weeks" to bring a final bill to his desk.
All 58 Democrats and two independents voted for the health care bill, as expected, without any Republican support. Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who is retiring at the end of his term, was the lone Republican who did not vote.
In a celebratory press conference, jubilant Democratic leaders invoked the memory of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose wife Vicki watched the vote from the Senate gallery.
"This is a victory for the American people," Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said. "This morning's vote brings us one step closer to making Ted Kennedy's dream a reality."
Dan Riehl's fed up with the lies, "This is getting surreal. He either deserves to be called a liar straight out, or a clueless dilettante who really doesn't understand how dangerous he is."
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. Thank you for shopping through my links.
