Saturday Night In Times Square

I'm late to the party on the Times Square bomber, but it's nice to see the left-wing dishrag refer to him as simply a "suburban father"...

He had obtained citizenship through marriage to a woman who was born in Colorado — the authorities say she and their two young children are still in Pakistan, where they believe he was trained in making bombs last year in Waziristan, a tribal area that is a haven for militants.


On Saturday, the authorities said, Mr. Shahzad drove a Nissan Pathfinder packed with explosives and detonators, leaving it in Times Square.


About 7 p.m., as a robot from the bomb squad was being summoned to the S.U.V., Mr. Shahzad called his landlord from the train to Connecticut and said he had lost his keys; in a criminal complaint filed on Tuesday, the authorities said the keys had been locked inside the Pathfinder.


The landlord met him at the apartment that night to let him in. “He looked nervous,” said the landlord, Stanislaw Chomiak, who had rented him a two-bedroom apartment in Bridgeport since Feb. 15. “But I thought, of course he’s nervous, he just lost his keys.”


In nearly a dozen years in this country, Mr. Shahzad had gone to school, held steady jobs, bought and sold real estate, and kept his immigration status in good order, giving no sign to those he interacted with that he had connections to terrorists in Pakistan. Nor was there any indication that he would try to wreak havoc in one of the world’s most crowded places, Times Square.


His neighbors in Connecticut said the things neighbors always say about someone who suddenly turns up in the headlines — he was quiet, he was polite, he went jogging late at night. Like so many others, he lost a house to foreclosure — a real estate broker who helped him buy the house, in Shelton, Conn., in 2004 remembered that Mr. Shahzad did not like President George W. Bush or the Iraq war.

Hell, based on the last point, he could have qualified for the Times editorial board. But give the Times credit -- at least they're not acting like MSNBC, where one of their anchors was actively disappointed that Shahzad turned out not to be a Tea Party member. What's really ironic is that she cites the case of the Hutaree militia in Michigan, just days before the members of said militia were released on bond by the judge. At times, I'm wondering if the mainstream media has finally given up the false premise that they're objective.

Meanwhile, it appears to be more and more clear that Shahzad was indeed trained by the Taliban. Kudos to our guys for capturing him, even if he almost escaped by suddenly evading surveillance and due to a snafu involving the watch list. These investugations aren't perfect, but this one was done rapidly and concluded with the capture of the bad guy without loss of life. That's pretty good. Then again, I might feel better about all this if Janet Napolitano seemed competent, which doesn't appear to be the case. Of course, in this Administration, she probably qualifies as a superstar because she actually pays her taxes.

He Meant To Burn the Family Jewels?

Just when you thought the stupid stuff in the blogosphere was limited to healthcare reform...

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab really mean to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 as it came in for a landing on Christmas Day over Detroit, or was the object of his terrorist plot simply to scare us? As bizarre a question as that seems to be, Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan indulgently quotes six paragraphs from one of his readers espousing that exact theory.

The reader’s argument seems to hinge upon the supposition that the goal of Islamic terrorists is terror for the sake of terror, and that if terrorists really wanted to bring down an airliner, Abdulmutallab would not have carried out his attack in the manner that he did.

In the linked article, Bob Owens does a decent job tearing this theory to shreds. But Vodkapundit does a pretty decent job summarizing it well...

A man does not set fire to his penis for a job he expects to botch. Period.

Now there's a sentence that's never been typed before.

They're Not Depends, That's For Sure

Scott Ott knows funny...

In the wake of the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253, President Obama, in a news conference from the Pacific White House in Hawaii, on Monday cautioned Americans to avoid "lashing out against folks in puffy underpants."

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, the son of a wealthy Nigerian banker, faces charges of attempting to destroy an airliner by detonating a high explosive sewn into what the FBI described as "boxers or briefs ... but clearly not adult incontinence undergarments."

"Our future as a nation depends on how we react to this incident," the president said. "If we start profiling people based on the mere appearance of their slacks, a lot of incontinent adults as well as infants and toddlers will be swept up in the discriminatory backlash. Civil rights and social justice must take precedence over our parochial concerns about fire, explosions, crashes and the potential of physical harm resulting from such events."

...Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced new security measures for airports, including a requirement that passengers "dispense with belts, allowing their trousers to sag in a manner that would reveal any potential undergarment threat."

What's scary is that the security measures in this article might be as effective as the ones TSA is now implementing.

'Nuff Said

Sometimes, a picture really is worth a thousand words. Good job by Michael Ramirez.

The Terrorists Are Still Trying to Kill Us

So we take a few days off, and some idiot with low self esteem and an apparent inability to handle explosives sets fire to his crotch while trying to blow up an airliner landing in Detroit on Christmas Day. Of course, this means less convenience when flying for the rest of us, which I would happily exchange if I knew it would make us safer. Bottom line, I tend to agree with Bruce Schneier, who notes that the only real safety improvements since 9/11 are more alert passengers and reinforced cockpit doors (I can't recall if more armed marshals are flying, or if pilots are now permitted to be armed; if either is true, I'd add those to the list).

But the problem isn't the lack of convenience, or this terrorist in particular, or other guys trying the same technique. It's the fact that we came very close to having a massive tragedy in Detroit on Christmas Day, and we're not sure that we have a security protocol that will prevent the tragedy from occurring. What saved us this time was a brave passenger jumping in and the incompetence of the "alleged" terrorist, not some brilliant detective work.

Ann Althouse rips Janet Napolitano appropriately, and it's pretty clear that she's going to be clinging to her job in the New Year. That's entirely correct, because you cannot go on television and claim the system worked when it most emphatically did not; between the CIA's failure to circulate a report about the suspect in question and the fact that the guy's visa renewal was denied, we're looking at a systemic failure of a massive proportion. Hell, even Maureen Dowd has it right here (I can't believe I just wrote that)...

We seemed to still be behind the curve and reactive, patting down grannies and 5-year-olds, confiscating snow globes and lip glosses.

Instead of modernity, we have airports where security is so retro that taking away pillows and blankies and bathroom breaks counts as a great leap forward.

If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?

We are headed toward the moment when screeners will watch watch-listers sashay through while we have to come to the airport in hospital gowns, flapping open in the back.

I don't know about that, although I recall that my initial idea after 9/11 was to have travelers arrive at the airport and strip down to fly naked. Video conferencing would become much more popular, and it would cut down on global warming emissions, don't you think? Megan McArdle is thinking the same way.

The politics of all this are theater to the underlying issue. Napolitano should probably be gone, and Obama's overly cool public statements are probably not what public wants. But the bigger problem may be the mindset of the administration -- it's PR effort/response time can be improved, but the underlying viewpoint informing it may not change...

The attempted bombing occurred at 11:30 a.m. Friday, Christmas. When finally Obama spoke after the weekend, he vowed to hunt down "all who were involved" and promised, as has become standard, to "use every element of our national power to disrupt, dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us."

Nothing less is required, and there can be no arguing with the stated mission.

Even so, Obama's description of Abdulmutallab as an "isolated extremist" was remarkable and disturbing. This radicalized young Nigerian is nothing of the sort. He operated, in fact, as an Al Qaeda-recruited, Al Qaeda-supplied, Al Qaeda-directed foot soldier - as, to put it directly, an enemy combatant, and not as the criminal "suspect" of Obama's description.

In similarly distant fashion, the President ordered up a "review" of how Abdulmutallab smuggled explosives onto the jet and a "review" of how he slipped through the government's various terror watch lists despite signals of clear and present danger.

Missing then was a statement about those obvious and unacceptable security cracks; the name, rank and serial number of the officials who would conduct the inquiries, and a deadline for completion and a report to the public. Tuesday, Obama filled in those rather basic blanks.

The systemic failure is a huge problem, and can only be solved by a leader who's engaged in the problem and considers it a priority, and also only by a leader who still has the trust and confidence of the public. Jim Geraghty is right on the final point...

In 2008, President Obama was elected with high hopes and very high expectations. He can say that no one, including himself, ever said any of his agenda would be easy, but he obviously didn't mind that so many voters saw him as a larger-than-life, miraculous "Obamessiah" character. This year has been a long series of disappointments as, by many indicators, America's circumstances have gotten worse. The unemployment rate has risen all year, the foreclosure wave has continued, the deficit has exploded, health care has proven much harder to deliver than expected, the cabinet was full of scandals, pork and earmarks continue with no hesitation, the stimulus web site is full of false data, cap-and-trade is dead, the Gitmo promise is broken . . . The right-track/wrong-track numbers are still pretty bad. Obama's job approval numbers are underwater, 50-50, or barely above. The public is losing faith in this guy on a lot of fronts.

A large chunk of the public grew weary of Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, sometime in 2005; after Katrina and Harriet Miers, the public stopped listening to him and wrote him off as a failure. But the one thing they gave him credit for was preventing any further attacks on the homeland after 9/11. Perhaps if there is a successful attack, the public will not turn on Obama. But if two planes fall out of the sky, the public will lose faith in this president fast. And while I didn't vote for him, I don't want him to be seen as a useless joke with three years left in his term. I'm pounding the table over this because lives are at stake, and because I don't want to see a failed president running out the clock until January 20, 2013.

Take it seriously, Mr. President. Work the problem hard, at least as hard as you've worked on health care... and hopefully more effectively. Because it's probably the most important part of the job.