About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Myths and falsehoods surrounding the Christmas Day terrorist attack

January 08, 2010 12:58 pm ET — 83 Comments

Conservative media figures have politicized the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack to criticize President Obama's handling of national security matters. But their assertions about Obama's and former President Bush's handling of terrorism and national security are replete with myths and falsehoods.

MYTH 1: Trying Abdulmutallab in civilian court will endanger U.S. security

CLAIM: Civilian trials for terrorists is "the reason 9-11 happened."

  • DICK MORRIS: "[T]he reason 9-11 happened is that Bill Clinton treated the '93 bombing of the Trade Center as a crime, not as an act of war." [Fox News' Hannity, 1/4/10]
  • SARAH PALIN: Obama's "fundamental approach to terrorism is fatally flawed" and "treating this threat as a law enforcement issue is dangerous for our nation's security. That's what happened in the 1990s and we saw the result on September 11, 2001." [Facebook, 1/5/10]

REALITY: Holder testified that claim is based on "factual inaccuracies," "mis-information." While Morris and Palin did not explain their claims, Sean Hannity suggested on December 11 that Osama bin Laden was "tipped off" by the trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and his guest Andrew McCarthy responded that bin Laden was "certainly tipped off" by being included on a list of co-conspirators that was turned over to the defense during those trials [Hannity, 12/11/09]. In fact, during a November 18, 2009, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Attorney General Eric Holder testified that there was "mis-information with regard to this whole question of this co-conspirator list" because the list was "not a classified document," but prosecutors "could have sought a protective order" to stop its release.

MYTH 2: Bush did not try terrorism suspects in civilian court

CLAIM: Trying Abdulmutallab in civilian court "takes us back to the days of the Clinton administration"

  • Steve Doocy claimed that trying Abdulmutallab in civilian court "takes us back to the days of the Clinton administration, when things like this were treated as a law enforcement issue, and not as a national security issue." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 1/4/09]

REALITY: The Bush administration tried several terrorist suspects in civilian court, including the shoe bomber and Moussaoui. Indeed, Zacarias Moussaoui was charged in civilian court, pled guilty and was sentenced by a jury to life in prison for his role in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks after the jury declined to give him the death penalty, and shoe bomber Richard Reid -- who reportedly claimed he was a member of Al Qaeda -- is serving a life sentence in a Colorado prison for "trying to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight with explosives concealed in his shoes" after being charged in civilian court and pleading guilty. Moreover, in May 2009, Slate.com reported that according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, "federal facilities on American soil currently house 216 international terrorists and 139 domestic terrorists."

MYTH 3: Obama waited an unprecedented amount of time before discussing the attack

CLAIM: Obama waited too long before speaking about the failed attack

  • KARL ROVE: "First of all, I think it was a mistake for the president to have the incident happen on Christmas and for him not to be heard from for four days. The White House sent out its people to spin the press in that they were trying to reassure the American people. Well, I don't understand why keeping the president off the stage and then not having him explain it for four days is supposed to reassure us." [Hannity, 1/5/10]
  • BRIAN KILMEADE: "A lot of people were saying [Obama] was a little detached over in Hawaii when he first" spoke about the attempted attack. [Fox & Friends, 1/5/10]
  • DOOCY: "It took [Obama] three days." [Fox & Friends, 1/5/10]

REALITY: Bush waited six days before responding to 2001 shoe bomber attack. On December 22, 2001, after Reid attempted to light a fuse in his shoes while aboard a U.S.-bound American Airlines international flight, the passengers and flight crew were able to restrain him and foil the plot. Bush first mentioned Reid on December 28, 2001 -- six days after Reid's attempted bombing -- during a press conference in Crawford, Texas. In a December 29 article, Politico reported that "it was six days before President George W. Bush, then on vacation, made any public remarks about the so-called shoe bomber, Richard Reid, and there were virtually no complaints from the press or any opposition Democrats that his response was sluggish or inadequate." Politico added: "That stands in sharp contrast to the withering criticism President Barack Obama has received from Republicans and some in the press for his reaction to Friday's incident on a Northwest Airlines flight heading for Detroit."

MYTH 4: Napolitano's remarks following attempted attack prove she's not qualified

CLAIM: Napolitano should be fired for saying "the system worked" after the attempted Christmas day terrorist attack, even though it was foiled by the public

  • DOOCY: Napolitano is "number one on the list" of people who might be fired because "she said, yet, don't worry, everything worked, before she said, it did not work." [Fox & Friends, 1/5/10]
  • On December 28, Fox Nation posted an article about Napolitano, claiming that she "conceded Monday that airline security failed in allowing a Nigerian on a terror watch list and allegedly armed with explosives onto a Detroit-bound flight, a turnaround from her declaration a day ... earlier that 'the system worked.' " Fox Nation headlined the post, "Fire Napolitano? She Says 'The System Worked,' Then Backtracks," even though the article to which it linked contained no declarations about firing her.
  • "GUNNY" BOB NEWMAN: Napolitano is "not qualified to conduct a cavity search on a bowling ball." [Fox News' America's Newsroom, 1/4/10]

REALITY: Napolitano explained her comments were in reference to the emergency response system. On the December 27 broadcast of CNN's State of the Union, Napolitano stated that "the system worked" before discussing the emergency notification system and response to the incident.

NAPOLITANO: 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. [12/27/09]

Later on NBC Napolitano said that "the comment is being taken out of context" and clarified that she was referring to the fact that, after the incident, they "were immediately able to notify the 128 flights in the air on protective measures to take, immediately able to notify law enforcement on the ground, airports both domestically, internationally, all carriers, all of that happening within 60 to 90 minutes." On Fox News, after Doocy stated that "there are some who are calling for her to lose her job," Bush Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff defended Napolitano's job performance, stating: "I think she's actually done a good job."

Bush administration officials previously claimed success from a publically thwarted attack. In a December 28 article, ABC News' Jake Tapper noted that Bush administration officials -- including Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft -- "claimed success" due to the public's role in thwarting Reid's bombing attempt.

MYTH 5: After 9-11, there were no cases of domestic terrorism

CLAIM: Bush successfully prevented any domestic terrorist attacks after 9-11

  • SHERMAN FREDERICK: "Obama now talks tough about keeping America safe. But in the two cases of domestic terrorism since 9/11 -- both on Obama's watch -- red flags flew aplenty." [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1/3/10]
  • MICHAEL GOODWIN: "Obama often complains about the problems he inherited from George W. Bush, but he also inherited a record of zero successful attacks on America after 9/11. If Islamic terrorists succeed on his watch, he can't blame Bush." [New York Post, 1/6/10]

REALITY: Several domestic attacks took place under Bush in addition to 9-11. One conservative, Rudy Giuliani, even went so far as to say Obama "should be doing is following the right things that Bush did -- one of the right things he did was treat this as a war on terror. We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We've had one under Obama." In addition to 9-11, there have been several post-9-11 terrorist attacks attempted during the Bush administration, including the 2001 Anthrax attacks, which then-Attorney General John Ashcroft called a terrorist attack; Reid's 2001 attempt, which Chertoff described as an attempt to "carry out terrorist operations for Al-Qaeda"; the 2002 attack against the El Al Airlines ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport, which a 2004 Justice Department report "officially designated as an act of international terrorism"; the 2002 DC-area sniper, who was convicted on terrorism charges; and the 2006 attack at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, in which graduate Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drove an SUV into an area of campus and struck nine pedestrians; he later reportedly said he wished to "follow in the footsteps of one of my role models, Mohammad Atta, one of the 9/11/01 hijackers."

MYTH 6: Obama refused to acknowledge attempted attack was part of a larger plot

CLAIM: Obama claimed that the attempted attack was the work of an "isolated extremist," and not a "plot"

  • Kilmeade claimed that Obama "contradicted himself. His original statements the day, three days after the attack, was, an isolated extremist would have had no chance against an alert citizenry -- to paraphrase. He now made it clear this was a plot; we're at war; it wasn't an isolated extremist." [Fox & Friends, 1/5/10]

REALITY: Obama did not limit blame to an "isolated extremist." In his original December 28 response to the attack, Obama never suggested that the attack was not a "plot." Rather, he said, "We do not yet have all the answers about this latest attempt," adding: "Those plotting against us seek not only to undermine our security, but also the open society and the values that we cherish as Americans. This incident, like several that have preceded it, demonstrates that an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist."

MYTH 7: Temporary embassy closure in Yemen following attempted attack was a sign of weakness

CLAIM: The temporary closure of the U.S. embassy in Yemen was a "victory for Al Qaeda"

  • BILL KRISTOL: "Closing the embassy in Yemen last night -- I mean, I don't -- you know, no one wants State Department officials being put at risk and all that, but that is a sign of weakness. Closing the embassy? We can't protect our own embassy in Yemen, a place we have special operations forces, a place we say we're working with the government on the front lines of the war on terror? And there's a terror threat -- and we close the embassy? That's a victory for Al Qaeda. This last week has been a victory for Al Qaeda in that region, I'm afraid." [Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, 1/3/10]
  • On January 4, the Fox Nation linked to a January 3 Associated Press article on the embassy closure using the headline: "Is Closing the U.S. Embassy in Yemen a Sign of Weakness?"

REALITY: U.S. embassy office in Yemen was also closed during Bush administration. In a January 23, 2002, article (accessed via the Nexis database), The Washington Post's Walter Pincus reported: "A senior Al Qaeda leader held by U.S. forces in Afghanistan provided information about an alleged plot to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Yemen with a truck bomb, leading to last week's decisions to close the embassy consular office and tighten security around the facility, Bush administration officials said yesterday."

Other nations' embassies in Yemen also closed. The AP article to which Fox Nation linked noted that Britain also closed its embassy in Yemen due to "[s]ecurity reasons." Additionally, The New York Times reported on January 4 that the "French, German and Japanese Embassies were also largely or entirely closed to the public." The United States reopened its embassy two days after closing it, following a raid by Yemeni security forces against Al Qaeda.

Myth 8: Racial profiling is an effective way to prevent terrorism

CLAIM: We "have to profile" Muslims in order to avert terrorist attacks

  • RUDY GIULIANI: "You have to" do "rationally-based" profiling or "you're putting yourself in great danger." [CNN's Larry King Live, 1/6/10]
  • KILMEADE: "[N]inety percent of these terrorists are men, Islamic men between 20 and 30. Why are we pretending that all of us should get equal training [sic]? Shouldn't we just tell -- if you're a 20- to 30-year-old Islamic male, even if you have no evil intentions, expect to be delayed. We have to -- we have to profile." [Fox & Friends, 1/4/10]
  • LT. GEN. TOM McINERNEY: "[W]e have to use profiling, and I mean be very serious and harsh about the profiling. If you are an 18- to 28-year-old Muslim man, then you should be strip-searched. And if we don't do that, there's a very high probability we're going to lose an airliner" and if "that age group doesn't like it, then what are they doing to stop this jihad against the West?" [Fox News' America's News HQ, 1/2/10]

REALITY: Security experts say such profiling is ineffective and potentially "dangerous." Several security experts have denounced the use of racial profiling as ineffective and potentially dangerous, including Chertoff, who recently called profiling for terrorists "misleading and, arguably, dangerous" and that "the danger and the foolishness of profiling" is that "people's conception of what a potential terrorist looks like often doesn't match reality."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Conchobhar (January 08, 2010 1:20 pm ET)
      12 2
      It's been said before, but it bears repeating. If Obama walked on water, these jerks would attack him for being to "elitist," to swim.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by lmn36us (January 08, 2010 1:39 pm ET)
           
        well he should have gotten right on it! that way no one could say anything bad. Comparing this to bush is scary
        Report Abuse
      • Author by justanoldliberal (January 08, 2010 2:49 pm ET)
           
        well said--no need for any more comments!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Jabberwocky (January 08, 2010 2:59 pm ET)
        2 12
        Which "jerks"? Is everyone who disagrees with President Obama a "jerk"? Seems a little over the top.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (January 08, 2010 3:12 pm ET)
          4 3
          Are you really so obtuse as to suggest conch meant "every single person who disagrees with Obama"?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Jabberwocky (January 08, 2010 3:26 pm ET)
            2 7
            No I think he ment only the "jerks" not everyone. The problem is how to discern which is which. Maybe Conch can help us out here and identify who are the "jerks" who disagree with President Obama and who are the fairminded ones who simply don't like some of his policies. I'm sure there must be an easy way to tell.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by captain_mike (January 08, 2010 4:38 pm ET)
                 
              Umm, well, let's see.

              How about you read the article that the comment was made about. Read the false claims and lies made by people who seek to use this terrorist attack as a means to political gain and are willing to lie to do so, lies that are well documented step by step in the article. The "jerks" would be those who consistently lie and make these false claims.

              Is that so hard? Too hard for you?

              OK, how about this then? If they seek to improve their own situation at the expense of the country, its people, and its leaders, in no small part by contributing to and hastening what they hope will be the ultimate failure of this President, they are, at the very least, jerks.

              Jerks whose lies were documented in above story: Dick Cheney, Dick Morris, Sarah Palin, Steve Doocy, Karl Rove, Bob Newman, Bill Kristol, Rudy Giuliani, Sherman Frederick, Michael Goodwin, Brian Kilmeade.

              Other jerks who disagree with Obama and use lies, innuendo, rumor and more lies to attempt to discredit our sitting government and belittle our government in the eyes of the world, thereby playing right into the hands of terrorist organizations whose stated intent is to cause fear, mistrust, and unrest in our country: Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, et al.

              So who are the non-jerks who disagree with Obama and may actually be what this country needs the most right now? I'd say that includes anyone who does so on matters of importance, questions of economic policy, political ideology, and political perspective and is willing to discuss issues or present dissenting opinions and ideas without the need to lie or attempt to rewrite the recent history of the U.S.A. Anyone willing and able to take part in intelligent discourse the aim of which is to improve our government and our country, not to "take it back" or hasten its failure.

              It all seems pretty simple to me, but I'm just a simple guy who wants everyone to get along.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by archae (January 08, 2010 5:14 pm ET)
              7  
              It's easy to tell who the jerks are.

              The hypocrites.
              The liars.
              The rabble-rousers.
              The armchair "warriors."
              The "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" loons.
              The torture advocates.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Floyd (January 09, 2010 8:24 am ET)
                1 5
                archae-- the hypocrites. the liars. the rabble-rousers. ....

                Well, I guess that would include all the liberals too. Actually, looking at your list again, ALL of those fit liberals except "the kill em all, let God sort em out loons", since liberals don't believe in God.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Missouri Democrat (January 10, 2010 3:40 pm ET)
                1 1
                Arch you forgot all the employees of Faux Nooze.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (January 08, 2010 5:29 pm ET)
              5  
              There is an easy way to tell. If one argues his/her points like he/she understands critical thinking - that is an excellent indicator. There are some critics like that, but unfortunately they are few and far between these days. Even decent conservative Republicans like Bob Barr and Richard Lugar can see what is going on with much of that mindless kind of criticism - much to their credit.

              In short, you need one of these.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (January 08, 2010 6:10 pm ET)
          5 1
          Which jerks? Well, the people who push these lies and myths after they've been debunked! The people this article by MMFA is about!

          Why was this difficult for you, jjmilano? Conchobhar said "these jerks". It seemed pretty darn clear to me who he was referring to.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Conchobhar (January 08, 2010 6:52 pm ET)
            3  
            Thanks, Dolly. You, Open_Mind and Archae pretty much covered the ground, leaving me to apologize for using to when too was required.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 09, 2010 11:48 am ET)
          2  
          Nope, only the idiots who would rather LIE that engage in honest debate.

          Now... WHY would that be?

          BECASUE THEY'D LOSE, AND BE EXPOSED FOR THE HYPOCRITICAL, THEIVING, LYING, GREEDY LITTLE MONEY-GRUBBERS THAT THEY ARE!

          ----------------------------------------------------------------
          And I've yet to see anyone on Fox I wouldn't call a 'jerk' - and that INCLUDED Alan Colmes.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (January 09, 2010 2:55 pm ET)
        4 1
        Here's something from the Huffington Post that compares and contrasts the way that Obama dealt with this attempted bomber and the way that Bush did. It's a myth that Obama didn't act fast enough - they DO demand that he walk on water.

        Now let's compare the previous administration's response to a nearly identical terrorist plot -- Richard Reid's failed shoe-bomb attack (the same chemical, the same target, the same intended consequence, in same month of the year, with the same twisted ideology). Consider these two weeks, from eight years ago:

        Dec. 22: Reid's attempt fails.

        Dec. 28: Bush hosts a press conference from his Texas ranch. In his opening statement, the president makes no reference to the terrorist attempt. Reporters ask Bush 15 questions, zero about the Reid incident. The president references the failed attack anyway, saying a total of 89 words on the subject.

        Dec. 29: The president reads his weekly radio address. He makes no reference to the attempted terrorism.

        Dec. 31: Bush again chats with reporters at a media availability in Crawford. Reporters ask Bush 10 questions, zero about the Reid incident. Again, Bush referenced the matter briefly, saying 53 words on the subject.

        Jan. 4: Karen Hughes hosts a briefing for reporters. There were no questions about the Reid incident, and the subject wasn't addressed.

        Jan. 5: The president reads another weekly radio address, and makes no reference to the attempted terrorism. Later that day, Bush appears at two public events, one in California, the other in Oregon. The shoe-bombing incident doesn't come up at all at either event.

        Do you notice a difference between the two weeks after the Abdulmutallab plot and the two weeks after the Reid plot? Tell me -- which of these two presidents seemed to respond to the attempted attacks more forcefully, more seriously, and with more depth? Which of the two seems more engaged when it comes to counter-terrorism?

        Keep in mind, Bush faced literally no criticism for hardly responding at all to an attempt to blow up an airplane over the United States. There was no media pushback, no complaints from Congress, nothing. And this was just four months after 9/11, when presumably the terrorist threat was foremost on the nation's mind.

        Rudy Giuliani said on CNN this week, "I think [Obama] has to make a major correction in the way he is dealing with terrorism because I think he has mishandled the situation. First of all, it was 10 days too late. This is something you react to immediately, not 10 days later after your vacation.

        ************************************************************

        Bush went on vacation after he heard about the shoe bomber. Obama was already ON vacation.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Cheney2012 (January 08, 2010 2:06 pm ET)
      1 24
      MYTH: Obama is a competent Commander-in-Chief
      Report Abuse
      • Author by foresyte (January 08, 2010 2:28 pm ET)
           
        MYTH: Bush was elected in 2004.
        FACT: Obama was elected in 2008.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (January 08, 2010 2:38 pm ET)
        3 4
        Thanks for not feeding the troll.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ABBA|Proudly teaBAGGING Liberals (January 08, 2010 4:46 pm ET)
            1
          Oh dolly how lucky we are to have your thoughts....
          Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (January 08, 2010 3:14 pm ET)
        7 2
        Myth: Cheney2012 thinks for himself and is witty to boot.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (January 08, 2010 4:39 pm ET)
        7 1
        MYTH: Cheney2012 has more than one functioning brain cell.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (January 08, 2010 4:45 pm ET)
            6
          Ep, ep, ep, ep, ep. You just fed the "troll" and you know DollySue's rule? Not on her watch.

          Another poster headed for the woodshed.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (January 08, 2010 6:14 pm ET)
            5  
            Yes, you're right, they all did 'reply' to the troll.

            But only to mock him.

            Not to follow him down the rabbit hole, trying to debunk what he said. Which then leads to more and more replies, all intended to derail the thread away from MMFA's point.

            And you know that, RightON. You know the purpose of a troll post, and Cheney's failed big time, maybe because of my warning.

            So, yet another "fail" on your part.

            And please, don't feed the troll post that's likely to be posted in reply to THIS comment of mine.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (January 08, 2010 6:24 pm ET)
                4
              "maybe because of my warning"

              Bingo Dolly Sue, that is exactly what I said. You warned your followers not to reply and they did. You didn't say don't reply unless you mock, you said don't reply. But they did. Perhaps your warnings fell on deaf ears or your goons didn't go their house and yank their power cords out of the wall. Whatever happened, you are losing your grip, my Dear.

              The sheep are scattering.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (January 09, 2010 12:21 am ET)
                2  
                Nope, I didn't say not to REPLY. You lie. Once again, you totally misrepresent what actually happened.

                What did I actually say? I mean, I know, you had to scroll up to read what I wrote, and I guess since it was really close to your quitting time of 6:45, you couldn't take the time to hit the mouse button 4 times up and back, huh?

                "Thanks for not feeding the troll."

                So no, I didn't tell people not to reply. I told them to not feed the troll, and they didn't. They didn't allow that troll to derail the thread by following the troll post down the rabbit hole! This is not rocket science!

                And I never had a "grip" here. I don't have any friends here, and don't want any friends on this anonymous internet. I don't come here to win friends. I come here to influence people, and I do every day I post, but I don't expect/demand to do that with every thing I post. I also don't care how many people love me and adore everything I post. I don't care about other people's opinions of me.

                You, however, know that in order for YOU to be successful, you need to have at least a modicum of respectability, and so that's why you softened your posts on a couple of occassions in the last couple of days, but you just have so much personal animus towards me that you can't resist any opportunity to throw a personal attack my way.

                Please, continue to ooze any remaining bits of credibility you ever had here. Please don't stop.


                Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (January 09, 2010 8:52 am ET)
                  1 4
                  But, you fell for it hook-line-sinker! :) You whine about trolls and demand nobody speak to them, but you hold a wild irregular conversation trying to convince yourself you are the king of posters and can do no wrong.

                  So, since you're the only one allowed to post, let's discuss the issues:
                  Myth #1; How does OBL being 'tipped off' provide an excuse for whether US security will be endangered? How does that prove that as a myth?

                  Myth #3; mmfa explained that the "reason" Obama taking so long to respond to the Christmas day bomber is because Bush took so long to respond to the shoe bomber. Could you explain why THAT makes it a myth that Obama took too long to respond??

                  Myth #4; similar analogy: 'mission accomplished' by Bush. It is still continually used as a demonstration of a "Bush lie" even after being explained as being taken out of context. Just like Napalitano is doing by saying 'well, one part of it worked as expected'.

                  Myth #5; no claims of 'no attacks' are being made. The claim is 'no successful attacks'. Bit of a difference, but not to those who are blinded by hatred.

                  Myth #7; again using a comparison to Bush as an excuse, when knowing both incidences DID do what is being claimed it didn't do (be a sign of weekness to al queda).

                  Myth #8; how is using personal opinion the same as myth-busting? Arguing that racial profiling is inneffective simply because you don't like it isn't a very good arguement. But, feel free to use personal opinion to counter the FACT that the majority of security personal agree racial profiling works for what it is designed to do.

                  Yeah, make sure you follow your own rules and don't respond to the troll. Even when one asks simple questions about falsely busted myths, resulting in promoting miss-information by mmfa.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by snoopy (January 09, 2010 10:18 am ET)
                    3  
                    The claims made by reichswiners and the reality of the situation were already neatly laid out by MMFA in the preceeding article. Apparently you either failed to read it before posting or just refuse to believe the evidence suggested. If it's the latter there would be no use for DD to respond to you because you made it clear by taking that position that you are a denier and no amount of evidence presented will sway you otherwise...
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (January 09, 2010 3:11 pm ET)
                    2 1
                    Myth # 1. If it's dangerous to release that info, then in this case, it can be supressed was the point. The fact that OBL might have been tipped off by that info (and there's no evidence he actually was, btw) in the previous case doesn't mean that that same kind of info can't be protected in this case. Man, that was easy.

                    Myth # 3. Nope, MMFA didn't do what you claim above. Re-read their posting. Their claim was that it can't be an issue that Obama took a long time to respond unless Bush took a really, really, really long time to respond. And since no one complained previously about the length of time it took for Bush to respond, it can't be a legit issue to raise WRT Obama.

                    Myth # 4. You're wrong about what Napolitano said because you've cropped her comment and taken it out of context. And Bush's "Mission Accomplished" 'explanation'? Baloney. No one ever says that an Aircraft Carrier's mission has been accomplished after they arrive back in port, so it clearly referenced the overall invasion of Iraq, and it was wholly inaccurate depiction of events in Iraq!

                    Myth # 5. Several claims of "no attacks" HAVE been made, you fool, and documented here at MMFA! What a tool you are.

                    Myth # 7. If it's truly a sign of weakness on the part of a President to close an embassy due to suspected terroristic threats, then these same people who are claiming that now should have claimed it years ago when Bush did it, but they didn't. It's not a sign of weakness - it's a sign of intelligence and is a very reasonable thing to do, but in addition, it demonstrates the hypocrisy of the right. They're pushing this myth to make Obama look bad.

                    Myth # 8. No reasonable person 'agrees' that racial profiling works or would be an appropriate tactic. One cannot tell the religion of someone by their race, nor can we tell radicals by their ethnicity! Thinking that we can derail terrorist attacks by looking for a typical type of person is ludicrous and wouldn't work. It's not a 'personal opinion.'

                    You are 0 for 6 on this post and 0 for infinity on every other post you've ever made here, Floyd.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Floyd (January 10, 2010 9:23 am ET)
                      1 1
                      That's ok, dd. I expected nothing but vitriol, denials and spin or all, for the 'myths' you couldn't disprove. Typical behavior from a liberal. I never expect honest discourse, but complete disrespect from those who are closed-minded and prejudiced beyond comprehension.

                      1; you failed to address my question
                      3; it remains NOT a myth that Obama took a long time to respond. People "complaining" about how long it took was NEVER the issue, the FACT remains he took a long time.
                      4; the similarity lies in the fact that both statements are taken out of context by both opposing groups. And, both statements can mean what the person saying them means and what the complainer says they mean. In this case; "the system worked" does not include private citizens stopping terrorist actions that the government fails to discover.
                      5; "successful" is the key word that you continue to ignore... this time, the last time and every time.
                      7; again, "complaints" (or lack of) is NOT the crux of the arguement. The FACT remains it shows a sign of weakness for an embassy to be closed because you fear an enemy. It was when Bush did it (whether there were complaints or not) and it is when Obama does it (whether there are complaints or not)
                      8; your interpretation that a "reasonable" person wouldn't profile is ludicrus (at best). I still haven't seen any 85 year old grandmother types loading bombs onto airplanes or trucks ... have you? However, the Christmas day bomber fit ALL the profiles that would have been in use to stop terrorist bombers.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by wzwriter (January 10, 2010 11:10 am ET)
                           
                        The biggest myth of all - "Floyd knows what he's talking about". Disproved here at MMFA on a regular basis.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Floyd (January 11, 2010 8:56 am ET)
                          1  
                          But, never using facts. The only disproof ever brought are personal opinion. Which, after niceguyeddie complained of not getting honest debate, seems kind of hypocritical on its own merit. So you continue making these typical left-wing 'arguements' while the right side continues to talk substance.
                          Nothing to say about my comments to dd? No? I didn't think so. You'd rather propogate to your friends in the only writing style you know ... fiction.
                          Report Abuse
      • Author by comonsensebob (January 09, 2010 10:39 am ET)
           
        I think people who have a clear mind based in reality know which myths we are talking about here.
        Let me ask you, do you believe that former President Goerge Bush kept all americans save during his presidency, That is a big myth.
        Do you use the "He kept us safe after 9-11" if you do, I would again ask you, does that mean ALL Americans, including our military? or how about the civilian contracters in IRAQ or AFGHANISTAN, what about the Americans working for the State Department, or, maybe even the journalists.
        If my memory serves me correctly, there were many Americans killed, maimed, kidnapped, be-headed, etc.

        I also seem to remember more than one incident of military deaths such as soldiers shooting other soldiers, throwing grenades into tents.
        All this, happening while EX President Goerge Bush "kept us safe"
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Jabberwocky (January 08, 2010 2:55 pm ET)
        10
      Let me get this straight. Did anyone on the left or at Media matters ever criticize President Bush on 9/11 or after any security event for taking too long to get in gear or address the Nation? It seems I recall such criticism. If so, then fair is fair. President Obama can be equally criticized for taking four days to address the country on this issue. Now if no one on the left critisized Bush for staying too long with those kindergarden students or for ever taking too long before speaking out, then you are right, President Obama doesn't deserve any criticism either.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (January 08, 2010 3:04 pm ET)
          6
        It's a fair point; but when you are knee deep in defending at all costs the actions of one political party and equally vociferous at all costs of attacking the other party, then you will never admit it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Jabberwocky (January 08, 2010 3:21 pm ET)
            5
          And niether will you admit it. Good point though, I agree. I guess it comes from being in charge. I saw Bush attacked left and right. It's fun being in charge, isn't it?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (January 08, 2010 5:04 pm ET)
          5  
          Don't you get in trouble when you talk about the republican party like that?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mari2jj (January 09, 2010 12:32 am ET)
            1
          Yes the issue is that one party defends the things they do and then they malign those very thing when the other party does it. Sounds totally illogical to me, in fact totally dishonest
          Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (January 08, 2010 3:18 pm ET)
        4  
        If you want to talk about fair is fair, then it's equally fair for us to point out that using the same yardstick the right deserves to be called traitors and un-american.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ScienceBuff (January 08, 2010 5:12 pm ET)
        5 1
        jj.milano4855 -
        Let's do apples to apples. Can you find any examples of media criticizing WPE Bush for that? I await your examples. Frankly, even if you find an isolated example, I doubt you will find the seemingly coordinated effort we see cited here.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 08, 2010 5:29 pm ET)
        5  
        I would be curious to see the articles you are referring to that were attacking Bush "on 9/11" or even shortly thereafter. I remember him getting a pretty big fat pass for quite some time afterwards. I would love to see your analysis and comparison of attacks on G-Dub after 9/11 and attacks on Obama after Christmas. If Fahrenheit 9/11 is the best you got, you may want to check a calendar, that was quite some time after the event.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (January 08, 2010 5:32 pm ET)
        3  
        President Obama can be equally criticized for taking four days to address the country on this issue.

        Wrong-o! Three days. As opposed to SHrub's six days after Reid's attack, which you seem to think is perfectly okay, probably because he's a Repub and you like Repus. Tell me, are you always this fact-free or did you learn it from Bob Jones U.?...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (January 08, 2010 6:17 pm ET)
          3  
          Bush was in Washington on the day that the shoebomber hit.

          He then went on vacation.

          He didn't make a statement on the shoebomber.

          6 days later, he finally had a press conference while in Crawford on his fake ranch (it had been a hog farm) and he responded to a question about the shoebomber 6 days later.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (January 09, 2010 12:11 am ET)
        3  
        Let me get this straight. Did anyone on the left or at Media matters ever criticize President Bush on 9/11 or after any security event for taking too long to get in gear or address the Nation? It seems I recall such criticism. If so, then fair is fair.
        Well to be fair, you are arguing a strawman. Republicans are specifically talking about how long it took Obama to address the issue publicly - not how long it took him to "get in gear". I do not recall any such complaints by the left under Bush about how many days it took him to address an act of terrorism and I call total b.s. on your memory. Please provide examples that demonstrate the widespread complaints by liberals at the time of the events in which liberals complained about how long it took President Bush to address the nation about an act of terrorism. Let's compare apples to apples here. Happy hunting. I won't hold my breath waiting.

        [http://www.fastcashonline.com/images/nobullyellowmatch2.png]
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Jabberwocky (January 08, 2010 3:17 pm ET)
        12
      Just because President Bush did something, doesn't mean people on the Right are happy about it. We lost an opportunity to gain some useful information with this Christmas Day attack by allowing the attacker to get lawyered up. Could you imagine if we fought World War II this way? I can't imagine how the outcome would have played out.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by miles2go (January 08, 2010 3:23 pm ET)
           
        "We lost an opportunity to gain some useful information with this Christmas Day attack by allowing the attacker to get lawyered up."

        And you know this how?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (January 08, 2010 3:30 pm ET)
        7  
        Feel free to post proof that terrorists in the past who were tried the same way lawyered up and denied us useful information. I'm also waiting in breathless anticipation for you to expound on your WW2 analogy, because on the surface it looks like just another in a long list of made up canards that have no basis in fact or relevance.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (January 08, 2010 6:18 pm ET)
          5  
          People held as enemy combatants can refuse to talk, just like people who are mirandized.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (January 09, 2010 10:14 am ET)
            3  
            Good morning DD!

            I particularly had a good laugh about JJ.milano's WW2 analogy. He believes we'd be better off treating terrorists like it was WW2. Let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we?

            WW2
            1. Global conflict
            2. Opposing forces are treated as enemy combatants under the Geneva Conventions
            3. Per the Geneva Conventions combatants are only required to give their name,rank and serial number
            4. Prisoners are given housing and three meals a day
            5. Prisoners can't be tortured for info.

            War on Terror
            1. Global conflict
            2. Terrorists are purposely not defined as enemy combatants in order to deny them protection of the Geneva Conventions
            3. Prisoners are tortured for information regardless of it's known value
            4. Prisoners are purposely treated inhumanely (see Abu Ghraib)
            5. Torture is a way of life!

            It makes total sense now why he wouldn't want P.O.W.s if WW2 treated the same as we treat terrorists!
            Report Abuse
      • Author by captain_mike (January 08, 2010 4:47 pm ET)
           
        What makes you so sure that anyone before the Bush/Cheney thugs routinely tortured enemy captives? You make an assumption that we fought WWII (or any other war except the Bush "War on Terror") as a bunch of war criminals in violation of all accepted rules of conduct on the battlefield. As far as I know, prisoners of war are required by the Geneva Convention to give their name, rank and serial number and can be confined to humane quarters in POW camps for the duration of the conflict.

        Do you honestly think we defeated the Axis by waterboarding a bunch of German soldiers? That seems like an unfounded assumption and one that is patently unfair to the men that conducted themselves with honor and decency as American soldiers in WWII and other wars.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikelartist (January 08, 2010 4:55 pm ET)
        5  
        Try to think for yourself before parrot right wing spew.

        It takes a simple scan of news article outside the FOX news pinhead circle to discover that the suspect didn't "LAWYER UP". He squealed like a stick pig, he sang like a canary, from the moment he was subdued. That was reported from day one.

        Try... just TRY and get a clue before spouting right wing talking points.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (January 08, 2010 7:44 pm ET)
        4  
        You fought in World War II? Do you know how America fought WWII?

        How old are you anyway?

        If we were playing by the same rules as we were using in WWII, Bush would be in prison somewhere along with his evil overlord. I guess you'd be happy if he were since you righties weren't onboard with everything he did.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Floyd (January 11, 2010 9:08 am ET)
             
          Why would Bush be in prison? For doing what the left demanded he do? You don't remember the political speaches made by Clinton (both), Gore, Pelosi ... ect.. at the beginning of the 'war on terror'? Heck, they were demanding heads-on-a-stick even before Slick Willey left office. It's just that SW's balls were being held by someone else so he didn't have any to spare to fight a true national threat. But, you're happy sending an American hero to the gallows for your politically driven agenda?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by GreenLantern (January 08, 2010 9:38 pm ET)
           
        If world war II were fought with repubs in power, Prescott Bush and his ilk would have sided with Germany to make more money on their war machine, We would have kept selling oil to Japan to line their pockets even more and Japan would not have attacked us and we would have been a proud Axis power. Makin' money for the man off of war!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (January 09, 2010 12:25 am ET)
        4  
        We lost an opportunity to gain some useful information with this Christmas Day attack by allowing the attacker to get lawyered up.
        According to the Whitehouse, the Christmas bomber was interviewed for several hours from the FBI and provided actionable intelligence. So much for your talking point.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Floyd (January 11, 2010 9:44 am ET)
             
          Obama should be sent to the Hague! With your claims of torture, our president should dutifully imprison himself for his war crimes. After Obama made such stirring claims that he would NEVER torture the enemy, here we have proof of waterboarding done to the first enemy combantant Obama has the opportunity to "interview".

          Well, if Bush was still in power, that's how the left would spin it! After all the insinuations against Bush for torture, everyone knows what "interviewed... by the FBI" means. But, it sounds like you actually approve of this "interview" process. Why is that?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by scanlontodd9871 (January 09, 2010 11:00 am ET)
           
        do we really know what kind of information we did or not get? Do you really think torturing this kid would have made a difference? I think by not pleading guilty yesterday is going to help us out a lot more. Even r Reed (shoe bomber) pled not guilty. Did that not happen under GW?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Floyd (January 11, 2010 9:47 am ET)
             
          scanlon-- Do you really think torturing this kid would have made a difference?

          Didn't you read what openmind just said?? He said we got lots of "actionable information" after torturing the guy.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (January 08, 2010 3:26 pm ET)
      1 1
      Myth 8: Racial profiling is an effective way to prevent terrorism
      CLAIM: We "have to profile" Muslims in order to avert terrorist attacks


      But Islam is a religion, not a race, right?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cameron19 (January 08, 2010 3:54 pm ET)
           
        i THOUGHT SO TOO...
        BUT, SOME PEOPLE TRUELY THINK A RELIGION IS A RACE...
        IN THE CASE OF JEWISH PEOPLE, SOME DECLARE THAT AS A RACE ASWELL.

        i DISAGREE WITH THAT

        BUT I GUESS IF YOUR A BLACK MAN (THIS IS STRICTLY A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE) AND A DEVOUT JEW, AND YOU PERFER TO CALL YOURSELF A JEWISH PERSON RATHER THAN AFRICAN AMERICAN, BECAUSE THATS WHAT YOU TAKE MOST PRIDE IN...
        RIGHT...?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by trrll (January 08, 2010 5:04 pm ET)
           
        Islam is a religion, not a race. However, people who follow that religion do not necessarily have it tattooed on their foreheads, so profiling necessarily relies upon observable characteristics, such as racial characteristics associated with the citizenry of nations in which many people are Islamic.

        Security experts agree that profiling offers only limited security, because it is predictable. While one can circumvent profiling by identifying those traits used to identify individuals as threats and choosing agents who do not appear to exhibit those traits, there is no way to defeat random screening. It is precisely the kind of screening that many people decry -- e.g. the harmless grandmother who is searched -- that offers the greatest degree of protection, because their is no way to circumvent it. Moreover, random screening adds "noise" that makes it more difficult to identify any specific traits that may be used for targeted screening.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (January 08, 2010 5:38 pm ET)
        3  
        Is there hope for you yet, dex? Several of us have been making that point for the last few days! Reid is Caribbean/British, Abdulmatallab is Sub-Saharan African, and Jose Pasilla is Hispanic. Do the "profiling" cheerleaders simply mean to say "profile everybody but the white folks"?...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by tuersm3856 (January 08, 2010 4:37 pm ET)
      1 1
      Drudgereport today showed an image doctored to look like Janet Napolitano is ogling the image of a naked woman with the headline "Big Sis wants to see under your clothes."

      Pretty stupid. Incidentally, take that scan of the young woman into Photoshop and invert the colors. Woohoo!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ABBA|Proudly teaBAGGING Liberals (January 08, 2010 5:23 pm ET)
         
      what a bunch of "talking points"...

      MYTH 1: Trying Abdulmutallab in civilian court will endanger U.S. security - Just exactly HOW will it NOT be a security nightmare to try this terrorist, non-citizen in a civilian court... Eric Holder is a fool... Time will tell, just like the faux global warming fakery.

      MYTH 2: Bush did not try terrorism suspects in civilian court - OK the "shoe bomber" IS an American citizen... AND Bush made a mistake in allowing Moussaoui. I thought America wanted a change, which is it???

      MYTH 3: Obama waited an unprecedented amount of time before discussing the attack - Again, I thought America wanted CHANGE, Hope and Change?? just like Bush hmmm...

      MYTH 4: Napolitano's remarks following attempted attack prove she's not qualified - Of course she's not qualified. COME ON of COURSE she made a lame excuse for claiming the "system worked"... If she WAS referring the "emergency response system", well then she wasn't addressing the ISSUE which is/was HOW DID A TERRORIST GET ON A PLANE DESTINE FOR THE US, ESPECIALLY after warning from the TERRORISTS FATHER. Duh!

      MYTH 5: After 9-11, there were no cases of domestic terrorism - Go ahead, twist and spin... does the word "SUCCESSFUL" mean ANYTHING, Obama has had at LEAST ONE SUCCESSFUL ATTACK, Fort HOOD Terrorist.

      MYTH 6: Obama refused to acknowledge attempted attack was part of a larger plot - Question, DID Obama say it was an ISOLATED INSTANCE or not... YES he did, perhaps he later contradicted himself (or corrected himself) later BUT he DID say it... Personally I'd like to see him PROVE his commitment to our security. START LOOKING AT BEHAVIOR and FIRE the idiots that let the pantybomber on the plane headed for the US.

      MYTH 7: Temporary embassy closure in Yemen following attempted attack was a sign of weakness - AGAIN, I thought you moonbats wanted CHANGE so why tell me BUSH DID IT. Who cares Obama is suppose to be in charge now...

      Myth 8: Racial profiling is an effective way to prevent terrorism - I don't think ANYONE said ANYTHING about "RACIAL" profiling. Exactly what "RACE" is involved. It has NOTHING to do with "RACE". I know you all aren't that ignorant. Clearly this is another use of the overused "RACE" card.... Oh, perhaps you think ARAB is a race, of maybe Muslim is a race.... Hmmm... pathetic. Oh BTW - The REAL security experts, the Israelis certainly have PROVEN profiling (NOT racial profiling) WORKS... PROOF, not conjecture. Pathetic....
      Report Abuse
    • Author by joedla1117 (January 08, 2010 6:53 pm ET)
      2  
      This is absolute proof that the right wing will attack anything and everything from Obama, just to discredit him. Since they have absolutely nothing positive to offer, we have to assume they fall into 4 categories.
      (1) They are part of the Very Sore Losers Club.
      (2) They are racists.
      (3) They are wealthy individuals who may have to pay their fair share under his programs, or are in it for unjust monetary gains.
      (4) They are so dumb, that they actually believe the fictitious misinformed Fwd...Fwd...Fwd...(Forward to everyone you know)..
      Trash Emails from so called friends, and relatives. Someone needs to teach them how to identify the truth.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by chain_br8kr (January 08, 2010 7:21 pm ET)
         
      "Racial profiling is an effective way to prevent terrorism"

      The problem with this statement is many of the people who believe this would not be affected by profiling thus their enthusiasm about profiling others. It's easy to push something when you know you are not the one who will be effected or inconvenienced.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DixieChyc (January 09, 2010 8:12 am ET)
      2 6
      Myth 1 - Trying Abdulmutallab in civilian court will endanger U.S. security.-
      No matter what happened in the past, terrorists should not be tried in civilian courts. Our civilian courts should be reserved for citizens. No matter whom the president is.

      Myth 2 – Who cares what Bush did? He has been gone for a year. Our new president (and his supporters) should stop relying on the failures of past presidents to excuse his own.

      Myth 3 – Obama waited too long before speaking about the failed attack.-
      You quoted Rove, Kilmeade and Doocy, yet not one of the quotes you used even mentioned Bush at all. In your Reality, you said Bush waited six days before responding to 2001 shoe bomber attack. So what? The point is Obama did wait too long, and so did Bush. But Bush had nothing to do with the quotes you used and neither did he have any part in the decisions and actions of Obama.

      Myth 5 - Bush successfully prevented any domestic terrorist attacks after 9-11.-
      Terrorist attempts during the Bush years and during the Obama year show that terrorists will not stop, no matter how many olive branches they are offered. Giuliani was right when he said one of the things Bush did right was that he reacted to the hatred and violence by Muslim extremists by acknowledging that we are engaged in a War on Terror.

      Myth 6: Obama refused to acknowledge attempted attack was part of a larger plot.-
      Whether or not Obama made this claim in so many words, it is true that in the year that Obama has been president, he has continued to downplay Muslim extremism. All in the name of Political Correctness. He thinks we should all play nice-nice in the sandbox while the bullies are throwing copious amounts of sand in our faces.

      Ok, Myth 7 is like Myth 3 - Temporary embassy closure in Yemen following attempted attack was a sign of weakness-
      You quoted Kristol, but nowhere in the quote did Kristol mention Bush at all. Yet in your Reality, you said the U.S. embassy office in Yemen was also closed during Bush administration. Again, who cares what Bush did?! It is time for Obama to stop relying on what Bush did or did not do.

      As for Myth 8 – Racial profiling is an effective way to prevent terrorism.-
      The claims by Giuliani, Kilmeade and Lt. General McInerney that America should profile Muslims in order to avert terrorist attacks are valid.
      I am not sure who your Security Experts are, but it makes no sense to frisk or body search blond females who are 60 years old, or white male middle-aged executives. Terrorist attacks or attempts have not been perpetrated by such individuals. It is a fact that attacks and attempts have been perpetrated by a certain group (mostly 18- to 28-year-old Muslim men). Should we be careful with everyone? Yes, but let us be real here. War has been declared on us by jihadists, not our grandmas!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (January 09, 2010 12:14 pm ET)
        4  
        Your response to myth #1 is a violation of the U.S. constitution. Period. You have to re-write it to make it fit your neat little scenario, but that would mean the constitution is a living, breathing document that can be changed. My, what a conundrum that turns out to be for the reichswine who want a strict constructionist litmus test applied to all constitutional rulings..
        Report Abuse
    • Author by azannaphx (January 09, 2010 3:17 pm ET)
         
      I just joined and this is my first post, and I have something on my mind about the media coverage this past week about terrorist attacks. We have have had two things that have happened. The failed attempt on Christmas day of the underwear bomber and then the successful suicide bomber in Afghanistan in killing and injuring the CIA agents. It seems to me that the media is giving far more coverage and pundit analysis of the underwear bomber than the death of those CIA agents. Could it be because there is more fertile ground to whine about President Obama?

      I think that the coverage is disproportional to the outcomes of each event. I do not recall mindless whining about the President when the shoe bomber did his deed.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.