President Barack Obama suggested Thursday he would not fire anyone for the attempted Christmas airline attack, saying it appears the security lapses that led to the near-disaster were not the fault of a single individual or institution. “Ultimately the buck stops with me,” said the commander in chief.
He declared anew that the government had the information to prevent the botched attack but failed to piece it together. He announced a range of changes designed to fix that, including wider and quicker distribution of intelligence reports, stronger analysis of them and new terror watch list rules.
But, added Obama, “When the system fails, it is my responsibility.”
Obama, needs to make a defining decision. Is this a criminal matter or a war? What has happened is precisely his fault.
How wonderful to have our leader admit it when mistakes happen, as opposed to the previous administration which was insistent that it didn’t make mistakes – remember President Bush at one point couldn’t even name a mistake he had made. I trust our current president to do what he can to fix what he can.
Mark, you may trust him, but those who do are becoming fewer and fewer. And you can’t possibly be accusing Obama of humility. That’s a good one.
Well, as a matter of fact, it was not the O-man’s fault. There was system error. Is this a move to the Episcopal side, you know, like the dark side? Because last I heard, owning and repenting of sins you didn’t commit was a particular speci-al-ity of the ECUSA/TEC but only for ancestor sins no living person had relation to, but of course, the government was to pay reparations or such. Is the O-man buying this?
A failure in what country’s airport security to detect bomb material was Barack’s personal fault. O wow, the hubris is mounting to new heights.
#1: [blockquote] What has happened is precisely his fault. [/blockquote] I’m sorry, you lost me on that one. Obama has been in office for less than a year, and we have a screw-up in the terrorist tracking network that was set up under Bush. Just how exactly does that make the thing that has happened “precisely” his fault? I think he was quite generous (and correct, tactically) to say that the buck stops with him. He has taken full responsibility for the system that Bush set up. But what is it that Obama contributed to the screw-up that made it so “precise”?
Obama sets the over all policy. He changed Bush’s decision to react to terror as an act of war against this Country to a criminal matter to be handled as a civil criminal justice problem and he has let the executive branch departments know that. This is his screw up. If you all want to give him a pass, fine.
“He said the lapses were widespread but suggested no officials would be fired.”
It appears the road to bureaucratic success runs along the path of assuring whatever screwup might occur on ones watch is so broad and deep that it is impossible to hold any definable number of bureaucrats to account for their culpability. And of course Obama nobly stands tall to shoulder the ultimate responsibility while, quite naturally, of course, accepting none of the blame.
“Obama didn’t tell intelligence officials to dramatically change what they’re doing. Instead, he told them to do it better, and faster. He left it to them to figure out how.”
Now there is LEADERSHIP for all to admire and emulate! Although, this approach does leave open to Obama the option to apply future Presidential criticism when needed should a bad outcome ever result from the faceless bureaucracy’s self-selected remedial actions. And, of course, as he took no role in defining the implemented solutions there will be no Obama fingerprints on the putrid product that might lead to inconvenient episodes of accountability consequence syndrome for the dear leader.
Bill Clinton should sit at Obama’s feet and take weasel word lessons.
I think its interesting that when the president shows some humility, people still complain. I doubt he could convince his erstwhile opponents. If he walked on water, people would complain that he couldn’t swim.
Interestingly, many conservatives are impressed by his process and plan.
I’m sure that some conservatives think he personally permitted the terrorists on board the plane. They expect him to have immediate control over the entire bureaucracy. I’m not sure what, exactly, he should take the blame for. Specifics might be helpful. However, compared to the way Bush handled the shoe-bomber attempt, Obama did quite nicely.
#2: Asking a President to name his mistakes is inviting him to supply ammunition to his enemies. Politics isn’t a meeting of Moral Re-Armament.
Obama rode on a crest of anti-Bush sentiment and pushing the idea that this son of a Muslim could change the attitude of world Islam to the US with a couple of speeches full of historical howlers. But he couldn’t. The Greeks called this hubris.
# 8: “However, compared to the way Bush handled the shoe-bomber attempt, Obama did quite nicely.”
Can youi explain what Bush did or didn’t do? Richard Reid’s attempt happened on Dec 21, 2001, just 3 month after 9/11, while anti-terrorist measures were still taking shape. If he had been profiled, he would never have flown.
It’s easy to “take responsibility” when there are no personal consequences for doing so. Words, words, words.
I appreciate the President’s expression of responsibility. Unlike some comments above, I am not interested in fighting the “it’s all Bush’s fault” or “it’s all Obama’s fault” squabbles. The question is whether the changes Mr. Obama has ordered are the right set of changes to address the problems. For my part, I think a clear-headed understanding of what we are fighting as a nation is the first step. We are fighting radical Islam, not by our choice. Secondly, no foreigner has a “right” to enter the U.S. Any foreigner who has contact with radical Islamists abroad should have his visa cancelled. Obviously this means focusing on Muslims. Sad, but necessary. Any foreigner who has recently visited Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia or Afghanistan should be denied a visa unless he can demonstrate a valid business or diplomatic reason for the visit. These steps mean that intelligence information must be shared with the State Department and acted upon there. Additionally, American citizens and legal residents who have contact with radical Islamists either here or abroad should be investigated and charged with crimes if appropriate. Some of this is going on, but not enough, as Maj. Hassan’s case indicates.
From what I understand of the situation, someone does need to be fired. I mean, the man went through security screening loaded with explosives (I believe more than once, though I have read a few conflicting reports on that.) The only reason the bomb didn’t go off was because the bomber was incompetent.
Archer, #13, see [url=http://volokh.com/2010/01/08/ten-unanswered-questions-in-the-flight-253-summary/]this list[/url] of unanswered questions about the bombing attempt.
The final security screening occurred in the Amsterdam airport, where no U.S. official has jurisdiction to fire the security staff.
ember, the question is why Abdulmutallab’s visa had not been cancelled, and why he had not been placed on a “do not fly” into the U.S. list. I don’t suppose anyone here is suggesting that the U.S. government can fire Dutch security staff.
Secretary Napolitano’s unfortunate and not well considered remarks immediately after the event have no doubt forced the President to be more visible than would otherwise be the case. Her comments were the reflex actions of a politician trying to minimize and soothe the public. But I have not the slightest doubt that the Detroit incident would have occurred regardless of who was president. Those who try to pin this on Obama would blame him for the weather.
The unfortunate reality is that the international civil aviation network is a target of preference for these murderous zealots. They will eventually bring down some more planes. To avoid such incidents bringing the entire national and international economy to a halt, governments should do everything they can to prevent the attacks, but need to inject realism into their comments. By accepting so much responsibility in his public remarks (and I agree with those who think that some of this is tactical, for public consumption) and implying that we can have a zero-defect system, this President ensures that when the next attack occurs, the political, psychological and economic impacts will be more negative damaging than otherwise would have been the case.