The system worked?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Lurker, just because you keep repeating something doens't make it true. I've posted plenty of things that you have refused to address, other than to post a link and cliam all answers lie there. Its a dishonest response, I'm not the only one who noticed.

Dd..

Should we expect complete safety in the air? No, I don't think we should. But I think a leader should say that. Obama, or whoever is in power, should make a blanket statement that no matter what we do, no matter how hard we try, the best we can do is reduce terror attacks, not eliminate them. Occasionally, they are going to get one over on us. And that's the price we pay for living in a free (less and less though) society. But he doesn't have the guts to say that. Again, he's no leader. Nice guy, but no leader.

[Lurker]

just because you keep repeating something doens't make it true.

If only you'd learn that.

I've posted plenty of things that you have refused to address, other than to post a link and cliam all answers lie there. Its a dishonest response, I'm not the only one who noticed.

You posted a Politico piece and an op-ed. That's all. You built a false narrative about the Obama Administration being happy with what happened which was negated by the news article I posted. Your latest fabrication of what kind of leader Obama is flies in the face of his actions since the incident and the video statement of his I posted. And I can only imagine the bleating and howling that would ensue if Obama did what you say you want and made a statement that we can only reduce terror attacks.

You are a raging partisan trying to exploit a terrorist attack for political gain. That's what people have noticed in this thread.

[Embar Angylwrath]

From that nasty right wing hack job NPR...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =122034842

The president's comments Tuesday came in response to criticism of the government's handling of the foiled attack, both before and after the fact

Obama spoke out publicly for the second time in as many days about the Christmas Day bombing attempt — a marked contrast from the weekend, when he stayed out of sight, vacationing in Hawaii with his family. Aides say Obama deliberately kept a low profile at first, to avoid alarming the public or rewarding the attackers.

Also, getting a reaction to Obama's mishandling of the event through blogs/op-eds is just as important as the fats, since it gauges the response of the American people. Perhaps you don't get that. Or perhaps you're just being a partisan hack. Personally, I don't care. What I DO care about is the CIC's response to an attack over American soil, and his response, when it finally came three days later, was meek.

And he also directly contradicted Gibbs and Napolitano too. "The systyem worked" changed to "systemic failure". Pretty mixed messages there, dont you think.

[Lurker]

getting a reaction to Obama's mishandling of the event through blogs/op-eds is just as important as the [facts], since it gauges the response of the American people.

Well there's your problem. Blogs and op-eds don't gauge the reaction of the American people, they gauge the opinion of the person writing the blog or op-ed.

I'm not sure what you think the NPR text shows. NPR wasn't adding weight to the criticism, they were reporting on it. We all know Obama was being criticized. It's just clear the criticism was partisan, hypocritical, and absurd. Not overreacting to the incident was the right thing to do, as I said here and Ddrak said here.

What I DO care about is the CIC's response to an attack over American soil, and his response, when it finally came three days later, was meek.

Obama's response was comprehensive, transparent and timely, much more so than Bush's response to an identical incident. Nobody should have or did attack Bush. What we are seeing is a cynical political strategy where Republicans try to exploit a terrorist attack for political gain. Nothing more.

And If you really care that much about how long it took Obama to say something or what he said when he did, seek professional help. I for one don't believe you give a shit about this other than as a strategy to attack Obama.

And he also directly contradicted Gibbs and Napolitano too. "The systyem worked" changed to "systemic failure". Pretty mixed messages there, dont you think.

Only if you continue to lie about what Gibbs and Napolitano said. The "system" they were talking about was the response system after the incident. They also said in the same interviews that an investigation was underway to determine what went wrong with the intelligence and screening process prior to the incident. Both items were part of their interview.

Obama said there was a "systemic failure" in the intelligence sharing and watch lists that should have prevented the attack. Obama also backed up Napolitano's comments about the response system working, saying "As Secretary Napolitano has said, once the suspect attempted to take down Flight 253, after his attempt, it's clear that passengers and crew, our homeland security systems, and our aviation security took all appropriate actions". Both items were part of his statement.

So, no... there was no contradiction unless you remove context and ignore huge chunks of what was said by each person. They all gave a comprehensive overview of what went right and what went wrong, and that further investigation was needed. I do understand that this level of complexity will be completely lost on someone as shallow and stupid as you seem to be. Not my problem.

And to think, all Obama had to do to please you was say, "we can't win them all".

[Embar Angylwrath]

Seems Obama doesn't think "the system worked".

WASHINGTON, Jan 5 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama told his security chiefs on Tuesday that the botched Christmas Day plane bombing was the result of a screw up by U.S. intelligence and that the country had barely dodged disaster, according to a quotation released by the White House.

"This was a screw up that could have been disastrous," the president said during a meeting in the White House situation room, according to the White House media office. "We dodged a bullet but just barely. It was averted by brave individuals not because the system worked and that is not acceptable. While there will be a tendency for finger pointing, I will not tolerate it."

[Lurker]

As I said a few days ago when you asserted that Obama contradicted Napolitano because they both happened to use the word "system" (while referring to different things, moron) ...

So, no... there was no contradiction unless you remove context and ignore huge chunks of what was said by each person. They all gave a comprehensive overview of what went right and what went wrong, and that further investigation was needed. I do understand that this level of complexity will be completely lost on someone as shallow and stupid as you seem to be.

Not that I was really going out on a limb with that prediction given all the stupid ignorant stuff you've posted over the years, but still nice to be right.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... rror_N.htm

The current National Security Advisor on the failed terrorist attempt... his take? The system failed.

[Lurker]

My take on shallow, childish Embar... Still lying about what Napolitano said.

Nobody has tried to deny that something went wrong with the intelligence or screening process prior to the incident.

If you want to have an adult discussion about what the lapses were prior to the incident, or about the speed and transparency Obama has brought to the review process, or what steps should be taken to improve security and screening... fine. But you make yourself look like a childish moronic jackass by continuing to lie about what Napolitano said or what Obama did.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Napolitano answered a question that wasn't asked. No one asked whether reporting procedures AFTER an incident worked. The question was in clear context of preventing the attack, not about filing paperwork.

[Lurker]

Even if it were true (it isn't, see below) that Napolitano dodged a question, that doesn't change the fact that you are lying about what she actually said.

And since Napolitano commented on what went wrong with intelligence and screening and promised a full investigation, she didn't actually dodge anything. Which makes you doubly dishonest.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I'm not disputing her quote. I'm taking issue that she dodge the question and answered something that wasn't asked. She knew damn well the American people aren't that interested that what form was filled out and what bueurocrat filed the form. Why would she even want to make that asinine statement that had no bearing on preventing that knucklehead from gettingon the plane? She was deflecting.. you know it, I know it, and the American people know it. Stop being such a partisan hack.

[Lurker]

So now she just discussed what paperwork was filled out. Uh huh.

*points at Embar and laughs*

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.examiner.com/x-21300-Rasmuss ... sm-attempt

Head terrorism official stays on slopes after the attack. Obvioulsy part of the system working.

[Lurker]

Wow! Was he actually on the ski slopes the whole time?

I guess that means you aren't going to grow up and engage in a discussion about things that actually matter? Still sticking with your childish and dishonest "system works" poo flinging?

[Embar Angylwrath]

What's childish is trying to make an argument that the system worked by narrowing in on an out-of-context response by a politician who dodged the question and gave a non-sequiter answer. I've given plenty of examples of how people were asleep at the wheel. How the system as a whole failed. You maintaining the system worked is like saying that just because a car has one good tire but no engine, the car works. You can't make a statement that the system works, and then isolate a small subset of the system, point to that, and say that just because that worked, the system worked.

Well I suppose you could, but if you did, you'd look like a pandering politician or partisan hack.

[Lurker]

Now you're lying about what I said.

Let me try one last time, and then you can continue your childish poo flinging alone.

No one said "the system worked" in the way you are alleging. NO ONE. From the very start the Obama Administration, including Napolitano in the interviews where the "system worked" comments were made, acknowledged failures in the intelligence and screening that allowed the terrorist to get as far as he did. From day one a detailed investigation was promised so we could determine what went wrong and what changes were needed.

GROW.THE.FUCK.UP.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicol ... orked.html

Here's Napolitano on CNN. So where does she acknowledge failures? In fact, she says there was no indication there was any failure in the screening process, expressly contradicting your statement. She also includes right-thinking, action-taking passengers as part of the system that worked. If that's the case, issue a 9mm to every passenger and we'll have them out-gunned on every flight, if we are going to be part of the "system".

You've been delusional in this entire thread. You want pass off your opinion on who was thinking what as fact. Now you're just flat out lying. You've sunk pretty low.

Face it Lurker, you're just a party hack. You used to be able to focus on facts and context, but I guess that only applies when a Repub is getting a drubbing. Too bad, you're pretty smart, and passingly literate. Its a shame to see you devolve like this.

[Embar Angylwrath]

2nd post.. YAY!

Aside from the quibbling over nuance, semantics and context, there remains a larger issue that should be addressed. Was the response handled correctly?

I say no.

From Napolitano giving a hedged message claiming that a system that allowed a terrorist onto a plane was a system that worked, and which is easy to attack, to Gibb's hissy-fit and dodging with reporters, to Obama's delayed response (his handlers didnt even inform of the attack until several hours after, and then he had a tepid response before heading off to shoot hoops) to the head of terrorism not bothering to cut short his ski vacation to assess and monitor the developments, to Napolitano's comments that this was the act of an isolated individual, only to find out later it was a coordinated al-Queda operation, to the Presidential advisor on national security stating that the soon-to-be-released report will "shock" the the average American, to the hasitly 11th hour redaction of said report... totally mismanged. This was an adminstration playing catch-up and damage control. And they continue to do so.

Sorry.. this doesn't leave me or the rest of the non-Obama cocksucking Americans with a warm and fuzzy. This is the Keystone Cops in charge of flight safety, and the only aspect that comes shining through is that safety ultimately lands in the hands of right-thinking passengers. As much as Obama maintains "the buck stops here", he flies on AF-1, with a full contingent of bodyguards and sycophants. For the aborted terrorism attempt, the buck stopped with passengers and crew. Everything else failed.

This was totally mismanged my the WH, whatever your opinions on the actual response.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/w ... 447399.stm

Koppel on how Obama mismanged this. Sort of a different view point. Essentially Koppel comes out and says Obama's first reaction (tepid, down-playnig) was the correct one, but he abandoned that line and gave al-Queda exactly what it wanted, and Obama contradicts himself in the process.

[Select]

GROW.THE.FUCK.UP

Usually with bickering or flaming here, especially here in the political forum, people usually deface character and intelligence, yadda yadda yadda. For Lurker to spit that out, he has to be pissed. It's so out of his character.