What a fucking dimwit. Can we agree that this dunce is completely over her head in regards to terrorism? As far as I can tell, every time she opens her yap she’s been completely wrong. The only thing she needs is for Obama to issue a statement "Janie, You are doing a great job.
Newbusters, eh? Do you have the quote where they ripped George Bush a new one for not taking enough action after getting a report saying “Osama determined to attack in America”? That would make a nice side by side comparison, sort of establish their strict non-partisan commitment to truth.
And yours, as well.
Well, since you are either too stupid to use google, or are walking around with blinders over your eyes and fingers and your ears, here it is from the horse’s mouth:
or maybe here:
'One thing I would like to point out, is the system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and the crew of the flight took appropriate action."
You know that this was her initial reaction and that she has since pretty firmly stated that the system didn’t work, right?
In case you didn’t know, RealClearPolitics has a video you can watch.
Not what I asked you. Want me to type slower?
You want sources from the other side?
Here’s Eugene’s piece today in the WaPo; he’s so far left he makes Howard Dean look like Pat Buchanan
He hammers Napolatano but absolves the Obama administration, inexplicably. Well, Obama’s his boy, I guess he cannot criticize (the stonewalling, the dodging media… hell, playing golf the next day!)
The WaPo editorial board wasn’t as kind, and they are only slightly less lefty than Eugene
This knucklehead boarded in some dusty low-tech African airport. Then connected in Amsterdam, where they don’t let us put air marshalls on planes coming into the US. How the fuck can that be the case? Why don’t we force those cocksuckers to let us do that?.. else, ban any direct flights from Amsterdam into the US, where all passengers aren’t forced through security again at some real airport.
This boggles the mind.
Yeah, too hard for Newsbusters, but here is another typical hard act for the right:
Seeing right wingers acknowledge that they were mislead and then demand an explanation or a retraction from the source that misinformed them.
When you finish attacking the messenger you might want to watch some video of Secretary Napolitano to see that she wasn’t misquoted.
And while I am happy that the original position was reversed, I will point out that President Bush didn’t get forgiven much for his original statements concerning Hurricane Katrina. Whatever your political position, most posters here will see the risk in making a statement that has to be reversed immediately.
Her initial reaction? 2 days later? What ever floats your boat.
It wasn’t like they caught her off guard in moment. It was clearly a point that she had wanted to make. She specifically brought it up. She only recanted it after someone with half a brain cell nudged her with an elbow and said, ‘Umm, actually it failed pretty miserably.’
That’d be Bushlike of him, and not appropriate to the magnitude of the event.
A city drowned, an airplane did not blow up.
See the difference?
Let me amplify that a little for you, in case all is not clear:
In the one case America lost a major population center along the gulf coast.
In the other a man burned his weenie on a jet plane.
Those are clearly events of different scales.
You wanted an establishment of non-partisan commitment to the truth. I gave you several other sources, and the means to find others in order to verify for yourself.
You know, it might be time to drop the whole ‘play coy and then play dumb’ role that you like so much. Nobody falls for it, and its getting kinda stale.
So, we demand that US air marshals…armed US air marshals…be on board any plane taking off for America, and that any such airport will follow whatever security protocols we demand?
Yeah, that’ll work.
She shouldn’t have used those words in the first place, Sinaijon, but based on GIGObuster’s post it looks like you’re dishonestly quoting Napolitano out of context.
I thank you for your trenchant critique of my posting style. Be assured that I will give it all the consideration it deserves.
We demand it for any plane that wants the privelege of direct-flying into our airports.
For the non-insane among you, here’s an interesting position piece on whether the TSA is making us any safer
From a cost-benefit perspective, you could argue that there should be less intrusive stuff at checkpoints, not more.
Now, stats are like a lamp-post to a drunken man; supposedly used for illumination, but often used to lean on. I’d argue that reducing the security profile at airports would increase the number of terrorists incidents, as evildoers, as a cowboy once called them, figured they could get away with more.
Still, the fact that we don’t have the sniffers at every airport, air marshalls on every plane, is a trave-sham-mockery.
Uh, no. These things are worked out through the framework of the International Civil Aviation Organization - of which we most definitely are a member. Whatever changes we seek have to be made within the context of this framework.
I support going it alone many times, but planes can and do fly between countries, making something like an ICAO a very sensible idea.
Once again the misquote is coming from the ones affirming that she was referring to the system, past and present.
What was originally? I can grant that Napolitano tried to make the system look good but she was referring to the system **after **the indecent took place. Napolitano was not being candid enough earlier that the system prior to the incident needs to be changed.
The reason the messenger from newsbusters needs to be shot for is for his misleading say so’s like “clueless” or “that she conceded the obvious” a messenger that ignores the march of time and editorializes his message does not deserve any respect.
After looking around I’m beginning to doubt that Amsterdam was against our security requests.
I think it’s appropriate you borrowed a word from a beer commercial while making these ridiculous arguments.