Really, Janet?

• Writerbuckeye

  

  "The system worked" was Janet Napolitano's response to how things ended when a terrorist was thwarted in his attempt to blow up an Amsterdam-Detroit airliner.
  
  Really, Janet? How did it work when the guy was banned from getting back into Great Britain but managed to get on a flight to Detroit -- even after his own father contacted US officials to warn them about how radical he'd become, and that he was a threat.
  
  That information was apparently shared with intelligence/anti-terrorism agencies, but he was still allowed onto the plane.
  
  If this had happened on Bush's watch, the media would be howling at the president's heels over flaws in the system.
  
  Here's the link to her comment:
  
  http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1209/Napolitano_The_system_worked.html?showall
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Here is reality: You cannot stop every single attempt to attack the country, you can only concentrate on the big ones. Things do slip through the cracks, there are hundreds of thousands of bits of information passing through many different hands. You cannot simply follow up on them all. Shit is going to happen.
  
  Her answer was in reference to what happened during and after the event. The passengers and crew acted the right way. There were no delays at airports, all other flights radioed in with no problems, everyone acted calm in response to the event.
  
  In a world where you can only stop the big stuff, the focus is more about response than prevention. Intelligence agencies focus on big things, but the local and state, DHS agencies focus on responding. In that regard, the system worked. It calmly responded diffusing the situation.
  
  Now, the prevention aspect does need looked at and adjusted. But, again, shit happens. It is how you respond to it that is the big policy issue.
• queencitybuckeye

  You're both right. No system is 100% effective, but it's foolish to claim it worked in this instance.
• JoeA1010

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Here is reality: You cannot stop every single attempt to attack the country, you can only concentrate on the big ones. Things do slip through the cracks, there are hundreds of thousands of bits of information passing through many different hands. You cannot simply follow up on them all. Shit is going to happen.
  
  Her answer was in reference to what happened during and after the event. The passengers and crew acted the right way. There were no delays at airports, all other flights radioed in with no problems, everyone acted calm in response to the event.
  
  In a world where you can only stop the big stuff, the focus is more about response than prevention. Intelligence agencies focus on big things, but the local and state, DHS agencies focus on responding. In that regard, the system worked. It calmly responded diffusing the situation.
  
  Now, the prevention aspect does need looked at and adjusted. But, again, shit happens. It is how you respond to it that is the big policy issue.

  If they can only stop the big stuff, then why do they bother to have us all go through screening? You mean to tell me they can't stop a guy carrying a bomb onto a plane? And how does that not qualify as big stuff?
• Mr. 300

  

  I wonder if the dude that jumped on the would be terrorist will be prosecuted for roughing up the little maniac???
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  In terms of scale, 1000>200. Most of our prevention should focus on the threat of WMD, wide scale, coordinated, multiple bombings plans. Those are the big ones we need to prevent and should focus our attention on. Someone on a plane, who is not trained and has, what appears to be, no official links to al Qaeda in Pakistan does fall through the cracks. It is reality. There is no perfect system.
  
  For the small stuff that does slip through, again, we need to focus on how we respond. And in this instance, everyone responded correctly.
  
  Why do we go through all the screening at the air ports, because the leaders want us to feel safe. I think most of it is bullshit and not really needed. Taking off our shoes is too much.
  
  But, in terms of this, yes the guy slipped through and that is awful, but it happens. DHS and our guys can't get them all. There does need to be a better, more streamline effort to track and screen passengers (I have a buddy contracted to look at the issue).
  
  Also, keep in mind, this is the same infrastructure that has kept us safe since 9/11. So, don't go blaming, saying it is bullshit and they are all awful when they have been doing their job and the one time where someone falls through the cracks, the response was appropriate.
  
  I'd also say that Israel has some of the tightest restrictions in the world and they still have bombings and attacks. No government can catch them all.
• HitsRus

  

  ^^^while agree with most of that, it is ridiculous to claim that the system worked. The "system" didn't work at all. It failed(the bomb) only because the guy was inept at setting it off....that and that a Dutch passenger grabbed him before he could do any more or get a second try. The thing that bothers me most is that the guy's own father( the head of Nigeria's largest bank) had tipped the U.S. that his son was being radicalized...he was puit on a watch list...but still got on the plane with explosive.
• tk421

  

  HitsRus wrote: ^^^while agree with most of that, it is ridiculous to claim that the system worked. The "system" didn't work at all. It failed(the bomb) only because the guy was inept at setting it off....that and that a Dutch passenger grabbed him before he could do any more or get a second try. The thing that bothers me most is that the guy's own father( the head of Nigeria's largest bank) had tipped the U.S. that his son was being radicalized...he was puit on a watch list...but still got on the plane with explosive.

  Yeah, and in the meantime they practically strip search the little old ladies at the security checkpoints. They probably didn't want to stop him for fear of "profiling".
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  HitsRus wrote: ^^^while agree with most of that, it is ridiculous to claim that the system worked. The "system" didn't work at all. It failed(the bomb) only because the guy was inept at setting it off....that and that a Dutch passenger grabbed him before he could do any more or get a second try. The thing that bothers me most is that the guy's own father( the head of Nigeria's largest bank) had tipped the U.S. that his son was being radicalized...he was puit on a watch list...but still got on the plane with explosive.

  Again, I'm referring to the system of once an event occurs and the response by the crews, passengers and federal aviation officials.
  
  The is split between prevention and response. The prevention system failed, he fell through the cracks, the response system worked.
  
  As to airport screening, as I have stated I don't like them and think they are really unnecessary.
• cbus4life

  As always, Ptown provides spot-on, rational analysis.
• captain_obvious

  A bomb not going off correctly does not mean the system worked, it means the bomb failed, which bailed the system out.
• fish82

  

  The concept of Janet the Drooling Tard leading the homeland security of this country makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. She's awesome!
• Mr. 300

  

  She is now changing her tune. Says the system failed.
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/28/napolitano-acknowledges-security-failed-allowing-terror-suspect-plane/
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Not really. I saw her on MTP and she stated that the system did not act properly to prevent him from getting on the plane, but that once the incident did occur, the system did work on responding to the event.
  
  Yes, the bomb (well it was not a bomb, more like a firecracker,well sparkler really) did not go off, but that was also the result of the fast action of the crew and passengers, of which they acted and performed how they were suppose to perform. It also helps that the guy was an idiot and the device was poorly made. (Which is again why it fell through the cracks)
• Devils Advocate

  

  The crew and passengers will always be part of the "system". to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
  
  I would be interested in seeing how many "attacks" have been thwarted by the security process before the passengers actually loaded.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Not really. I saw her on MTP and she stated that the system did not act properly to prevent him from getting on the plane, but that once the incident did occur, the system did work on responding to the event.
  
  Yes, the bomb (well it was not a bomb, more like a firecracker,well sparkler really) did not go off, but that was also the result of the fast action of the crew and passengers, of which they acted and performed how they were suppose to perform. It also helps that the guy was an idiot and the device was poorly made. (Which is again why it fell through the cracks)

  Here are her quotes from the article. Clearly she is backtracking and weasel-wording...
  
  On Fox News, Napolitano clarified Monday that she was referring to security precautions that went into effect for other flights following the incident in Detroit.
  
  "My comment was that once this incident occurred we were able to immediately notify the 128 flights already in the air from Europe," she said. "We were able to immediately institute new security precautions. ... And we were immediately able to provide additional security for the traveling public."
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote:Not really. I saw her on MTP and she stated that the system did not act properly to prevent him from getting on the plane, but that once the incident did occur, the system did work on responding to the event.
  
  Yes, the bomb (well it was not a bomb, more like a firecracker,well sparkler really) did not go off, but that was also the result of the fast action of the crew and passengers, of which they acted and performed how they were suppose to perform. It also helps that the guy was an idiot and the device was poorly made. (Which is again why it fell through the cracks)

  "Fell through the cracks"? Really?
  
  C'mon, Ptown. Are you so close to the inner circle to fail to see that - small terrorist potatoes or not - this KNOWN Islamic-radical not only made it on board the flight in the first place but was able to carry on the materials necessary to create an explosive device?
  
  In the meantime I would bet the ranch that airport security confiscated all the 6 oz. water bottles and switchblades from the little old ladies and children before THEY boarded.
  
  The system worked?
  
  What would you have labeled this situation had this moronic Islamic radical been successful on detonating the device and killed a couple of dozen people with his "firecracker"? Would that qualify as "big time" or have we decided that flying airliners into skyscrapers sets the terrorist bar?
  
  What about Fort Hood? Is that not a big deal?
  
  In my naive right-wing narrow-minded conservative world, ANY Islamic radical who attacks us here or abroad is big time regardless of how many people are killed or injured.
  
  The sooner the so-called "moderates" and the anti-war left get their collective heads out of the Middle East sand and realize that radical Islam is at war with the Great Satan, the sooner we'll defeat this insanity.
  
  You would think that Beirut, the USS Cole, and at least 9/11 would make that clear.
  
  Appeasement foreign policy is and always will be viewed by politically and religiously brainwashed radicals as a sign of weakness.
  
  This is precisely why liberals - like Janet Napolitano being "in charge" of security - don't give me tons of warm fuzzies.
• eersandbeers

  Now the big news all over the place is that this "terrorist" was trained in Yemen. The man was all over every watch list and was even reported by his own father.
  
  Looks like Obama needed justification for his illegal strikes in Yemen and justification for further intervention.
  
  Sorry, not buying this convenient plot.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I don't understand why you feel the need to put " " around the word terrorist in this situation.
  
  If someone tries to blow up a plane with a bunch of people in it -- I don't think there's any dispute that person should be called a terrorist.
  
  I'm sure if this guy were Israeli, you'd have no problem labeling him as such.
• Footwedge

  So this attack somehow validates that appeasement doesn't work?? Who exactly is being appeased here? The new guy in power has escalated the war in Afg/Pak by 30,000 soldiers.
  
  This situation, just like the Shoe bomber when the other guy was in power, hardly validates that "fighting them over there instead of over here" is making us safer at all.
  
  It hasn't worked and it won't in the future.
  
  The fact is....terrorists exist. And they are going to try and attack Americans and those that allign themselves as our allies. I hardly think that anyone on the right , left or in between disagrees.
  
  I thought it quite remarkable that the WSJ posted an article citing Yemin's blowback for Obama's middle east war escalation.
  
  Whether it's Bush or Obama....you escalate a war, you increase casualties. You increase the resolve of this wretched enemy. You occupy their lands, and you increase blowback. Even the CIA acknowledges this fact. This has always been the case...which the war hawks fail to internalize.
• HitsRus

  

  WRITER BUCKEYE WROTE:
  
  "I'm sure if this guy were Israeli, you'd have no problem labeling him as such."
  
  +1 on that.
• eersandbeers

  Writerbuckeye wrote: I don't understand why you feel the need to put " " around the word terrorist in this situation.
  
  If someone tries to blow up a plane with a bunch of people in it -- I don't think there's any dispute that person should be called a terrorist.
  
  I'm sure if this guy were Israeli, you'd have no problem labeling him as such.

  Some depressed guy who was whining about not having friends on the internet all of a sudden became a major international terrorist who is able to make it past every single TSA check? Not to mention one that every intelligence agency was made aware of by his own father.
  
  Just another false flag "win" served up for the Obama administration to claim victory. Just like Bush did with that group of "terrorists" in Florida.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  eersandbeers wrote:

  Writerbuckeye wrote: I don't understand why you feel the need to put " " around the word terrorist in this situation.
  
  If someone tries to blow up a plane with a bunch of people in it -- I don't think there's any dispute that person should be called a terrorist.
  
  I'm sure if this guy were Israeli, you'd have no problem labeling him as such.

  Some depressed guy who was whining about not having friends on the internet all of a sudden became a major international terrorist who is able to make it past every single TSA check? Not to mention one that every intelligence agency was made aware of by his own father.
  
  Just another false flag "win" served up for the Obama administration to claim victory. Just like Bush did with that group of "terrorists" in Florida.

  You're hilarious.
  
  Dangerously delusional, but hilarious.
  
  EVERYTHING in this guy's background screams terrorist recruit. I suppose we should just ignore that and prescribe him some Cymbalta and be done with it. :rolleyes:
  
  I'll be curious to see how Obama's folks decide to proceed with this guy's prosecution; whether they'll use a military system or throw him into the same one with the same rights as Americans.
  
  Not a betting man, but I'd bet on the latter since it's the wrong thing to do.
• eersandbeers

  Writerbuckeye wrote:

  eersandbeers wrote:

  Writerbuckeye wrote: I don't understand why you feel the need to put " " around the word terrorist in this situation.
  
  If someone tries to blow up a plane with a bunch of people in it -- I don't think there's any dispute that person should be called a terrorist.
  
  I'm sure if this guy were Israeli, you'd have no problem labeling him as such.

  Some depressed guy who was whining about not having friends on the internet all of a sudden became a major international terrorist who is able to make it past every single TSA check? Not to mention one that every intelligence agency was made aware of by his own father.
  
  Just another false flag "win" served up for the Obama administration to claim victory. Just like Bush did with that group of "terrorists" in Florida.

  You're hilarious.
  
  Dangerously delusional, but hilarious.
  
  EVERYTHING in this guy's background screams terrorist recruit. I suppose we should just ignore that and prescribe him some Cymbalta and be done with it. :rolleyes:
  
  I'll be curious to see how Obama's folks decide to proceed with this guy's prosecution; whether they'll use a military system or throw him into the same one with the same rights as Americans.
  
  Not a betting man, but I'd bet on the latter since it's the wrong thing to do.

  
  
  I'm not saying he didn't aspire to be a terrorist. I'm saying the government 100% knew of this man and didn't really want to stop him because it was an easy win.
  
  Isn't it funny how all these failed terrorist plots tend to pop up when a President is having failed domestic issues?
  
  
  
  As a result of the failed attack, new security directives have been introduced for anyone traveling into America. Intense body and hand-luggage searches and sniffer dogs have been beefed up at departure gates and passengers have been ordered not to stand during the final hour of the flight and are not allowed access to any of their hand luggage during the final hour.
  
  However, if you’re a suspicious looking man on a terror watch list with no passport carrying explosives, you should breeze through security with no questions asked, just be sure to have a sharp-dressed man with you at all times.
  
  
  http://www.infowars.com/government-allowed-plane-bomber-to-attempt-attack/
• believer

  

  eersandbeers wrote:I'm not saying he didn't aspire to be a terrorist. I'm saying the government 100% knew of this man and didn't really want to stop him because it was an easy win.
  
  Isn't it funny how all these failed terrorist plots tend to pop up when a President is having failed domestic issues?
  
  As a result of the failed attack, new security directives have been introduced for anyone traveling into America. Intense body and hand-luggage searches and sniffer dogs have been beefed up at departure gates and passengers have been ordered not to stand during the final hour of the flight and are not allowed access to any of their hand luggage during the final hour.
  
  However, if you’re a suspicious looking man on a terror watch list with no passport carrying explosives, you should breeze through security with no questions asked, just be sure to have a sharp-dressed man with you at all times.

  What failed domestic issues? Health care perhaps? I'm thinking BHO & the Dems see that as a "win" not a failure despite widespread public opposition.
  
  But if your conspiracy theory has any merit, then I hope Goofy Janet and the BHO Administration get exposed on it.