Republicans are going all out on the recent attempt to blow up an airplane, and the right wing criticism of Obama over the incident range from borderline reasonable to manic. One of the more ridiculous comments comes from Fox News in which they slam the president for using “allegedly” to describe the actions of a soon-to-be criminal defendant. A real president knows what happened and doesn’t need to reserve judgment. And a real president rants like a 5-year-old as opposed to coming across as “detached” and “reserved.”
Doesn’t he understand that the President’s job is to whip up the fear and anger? After all, we may have to invade Yemen now.
He’s being criticized for not holding an immediate press conference. Never mind that Bush waited a week before addressing a similar attack. That was then, this is now.
He’s being criticized for allowing the suspect (more Harvard talk) to be charged in the criminal justice system (like the shoe bomber) amid calls for more racial profiling.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra meanwhile understands appropriate responsive behavior. You don’t use big words like “allegedly” and you don’t try to calm people. It’s an opportunity to raise money!
And this blogger asks whether Republicans are simply more easily played? Consider that the privacy versus security debate which had largely remained dormant throughout two presidential campaigns has been revived. It all depends on who’s in power.
The Democrats are apparently huddling in fear, reminiscent of the Cold War days, with one exception notable as unlikely. I imagine that more will find their voice after the New Year if the barrage keeps up.
So, is Yemen the new Iraq? Or new Afghanistan anyway? In case you missed it, Maddow had a reasonably comprehensive piece on the issue last night.
Addendum: Not really an update, but I just love this title – Islamofascism vs. Boobs and Penises.
Oh, and a voice of the right wing has finally come up with an answer as to why Richard Reid, the would-be shoe bomber, was tried in civilian court. It’s as lame as they get. The reason Padilla was removed was because the evidence against him wasn’t clear enough to win in civilian court, which of course raises separate questions. Subsequent terror suspects were in fact tried in civilian court.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 29, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Anonymous
Maddow is a bit of a hawk sometimes.
December 29, 2009 at 9:40 pm
dunebilly
nice writing.
enjoyed it very much.
December 30, 2009 at 9:07 am
moviedad
It is no surprise that the propagandists are using fear tactics. It appears another “Pearl Harbor type event” wasn’t enough for the New American Centurions.
“Be afraid, be very afraid..” is their motto.
The thing I fear is the “Jews for Hitler” mentality taking hold in small town America. Though in some ways, that ship has already sailed.
December 30, 2009 at 10:50 am
Anonymous
The answer is simple. If you’re accused of terrorism you’re presumed guilty.
What’s the issue?
December 30, 2009 at 12:10 pm
moviedad
I was referring to 911, not this latest weirdo, who probably is as guilty as they say he is. But let’s have a trial, then we’ll hang him.
December 30, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Eric Kirk
I think anonymous poster was referring to the “Harvard” allegedly talk.