Thomas Lindaman, in the usual right-wing fashion, tries to exploit an attempted terrorist attack to slam Obama. Lindaman is complaining that Obama took three days to make a speech.
According to Republicans, Obama immediately convening secured calls with John Brennan, his Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism Adviser, and Denis McDonough, National Security Staff Chief of Staff... where he gave orders on heightened air travel safety measures, and staying updated on the situations being taken to keep the American people safe and on the investigation... doesn't matter. Then a weird tangent: Apparently when Obama does make a fairly quick statement, like in the Henry Gates situation, it's a "snap judgment." Henry Gates was a professor in his own home, he showed two forms of ID to the police officer, then the cop called university security services anyway. Then Gates was arrested because he demanded the dickish cop's name and badge number, which he had every right to do. After being asked by the press (during a conference that was totally irrelevant to Gates, BTW), Obama stated the cop "acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home." Why was Obama's judgment on that a "snap" one, according to Republicans? ....Oh, because Gates was an uppity black man. Sorry, Obama was right. The moment the cops realized the home was his, they should have left immediately.
Anyway, enough of that non-sequitur. Let's get back to the Underwear Bomber:
Lindaman then states:
Funny, but the same people who call Obama "deliberate" for taking three days to make a statement are the same ones who went nuts over George W. Bush spending 5-6 minutes in a classroom on 9/11 after hearing of a plane hitting the World Trade Center. Go figure.
Apparently, according to Lindaman, Obama immediately taking action but not immediately making a public statement is exactly the same as this:
Republicans are cool with Bush just sitting there after being told "America is under attack." But Republicans are pissed that Obama was not scrambling to the podium to kiss scared Republican boo-boos because a guy set his nuts on fire and was subdued, even though Obama actually was taking action immediately. To Republicans, standing at a podium is more important than actually getting things done.
"I am offended that Obama isn't personally standing in front of this guy's crotch holding a megaphone and shouting about freedom!"
Now, you may say that I'm being unfair about comparing the Underwear Bomber to 9/11. But what's funniest about this, is that I don't want to do that. It's the REPUBLICANS that are comparing the Underwear Bomber to 9/11. Republicans, in their usual insanity, are actually comparing one of the largest terrorist attacks in human history, occurring against multiple targets in a coordinated attack, with a guy that failed to blow up an airliner after he set his nuts on fire. That's the opposite of what Republicans should be doing. Because it makes Republican leaders look bad (or worse, rather).
Remember the Shoe Bomber, which was a VERY similar situation to this? THAT is what this should be compared to. So why aren't Republicans comparing the Underwear Bomber to the Shoe Bomber?
Oh, wait... it's because Bush WAITED A WEEK to talk about the Shoe Bomber, then tried him in court. WHOOOOOOOPS! When that happened, Republicans said it showed he was strong on national security. However, Obama taking three days to talk about the Underwear Bomber, then plans to try him in court... THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!
The point of terrorism is to instill terror, panic, hysteria. If you deal with this nut (and terrorism generally) rationally but firmly, we win.
But you guys shoot yourselves in the foot again, by comparing this to 9/11.
Hell, why not compare it to Katrina? After all, Obama, who was still a senator at that time, didn't do anything when that happened, just like Bush didn't. Right?