Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
That's the name of the alleged Delta Airlines Leg Bomber. He didn't quite get the job done for Al Kayda (sp) this time around. Here's to hoping that those that follow him are equally incompetent.
But, what is more incompetent is how this sorry excuse for a terrorist was permitted to get on a plane bound for the U.S. anyway. Let us review the facts that we know. There are other, more damning facts we don't yet know, I am sure, but here's what we know right now.
1. His father called the U.S. Embassy one month ago and informed Embassy staff that he thought his son's radical Islamic views were a danger to the U.S. and urged the U.S. to watch out for him. That's a pretty strong warning. The guy's Dad calls. Maybe that kind of warning should get more attention, perhaps?
2. His name (not exactly a household name, mind you), was subsequently added to the Terror Watchlist, maintained by U.S. Intelligence agencies.
3. He bought his plane ticket with cash (Hello? CASH!!!)
4. He did not check any bags from Lagos, Nigeria to Detroit, Michigan. Zero. Zip. Nada. Not a bag. Have you ever been on a flight from a place like Lagos to any city in the U.S? Let's just say, there's a lot of luggage, per passenger. Yet this guy pays cash and then shows up at the airport with no luggage. Gets on the plane, no problem.
No bags and paid in cash. Those two facts ALONE should have kept this guy from getting on a U.S. bound plane. Yet, he was also on a Terror Watchlist. What exactly does one do with a Terror Watchlist if one doesn't watch out for the people on said Watchlist?
Please explain to me what Janet Nepolitano meant when she said "the system worked". What system was she referring to? The inflight video system? I am hardpressed to see how one can come to the conclusion that the security apparatus of the U.S., or the coordinated global airline security procedures, distinguished themselves in this case. Question: is Janet Nepalitano the right person for Homeland Security if she thinks this is an example of a success?
The only reason we are not looking at footage of scraps of aluminum and suitcases strewn about the suburbs of Detroit is luck. Pure luck, a little incompetence a couple of courageous passengers.
Not very inspiring, is it?
Woldy
Monday, December 28, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
"Fat Cat Bankers"
1. Did our President actually say "I didn't get elected to help fat cat bankers. . . " on Sixty Minutes last night?
Does anyone else think this language, in referring to professionals in the finance industry, seems a bit . . . well, un-Presidential?
And a little too . . . manufactured for his audience. Afterall, he really likes to employ former fat cat bankers as advisors, tsars (he likes to hire tsars) and employees in the federal government. So, he doesn't not like fat cat bankers. He hires them all the time. And, he listens to them. This Administration has kind of gone over-board trying to help fat cat bankers and the firms they work for.
So, what's this all about, this language about not wanting to help fat cat bankers? Could it be a brazen attempt to rally his left-leaning political base because he has done so many things recently to royally piss them off? Me thinks so.
2. Lending. As long as we are on the subject, it seems a bit disingenuous (to say the least) to be publicly lambasting the . . . uh . . . fat cat bankers for not lending out the money the Federal Reserve has so cheaply made available to them. Since it has been Government policy (from various agencies involved in the soup that is financial regulation in this country) to encourage these very same financial institutions to build up their capital base. Does the President know what this means? It means that we have been telling the banks not to loan money but instead to build up capital.
So, now we are calling them out for . . . not loaning the money . . . we told them not to loan.
And, blaming them for the slow pace of job growth in the process.
Ain't politics great?
Woldy
Does anyone else think this language, in referring to professionals in the finance industry, seems a bit . . . well, un-Presidential?
And a little too . . . manufactured for his audience. Afterall, he really likes to employ former fat cat bankers as advisors, tsars (he likes to hire tsars) and employees in the federal government. So, he doesn't not like fat cat bankers. He hires them all the time. And, he listens to them. This Administration has kind of gone over-board trying to help fat cat bankers and the firms they work for.
So, what's this all about, this language about not wanting to help fat cat bankers? Could it be a brazen attempt to rally his left-leaning political base because he has done so many things recently to royally piss them off? Me thinks so.
2. Lending. As long as we are on the subject, it seems a bit disingenuous (to say the least) to be publicly lambasting the . . . uh . . . fat cat bankers for not lending out the money the Federal Reserve has so cheaply made available to them. Since it has been Government policy (from various agencies involved in the soup that is financial regulation in this country) to encourage these very same financial institutions to build up their capital base. Does the President know what this means? It means that we have been telling the banks not to loan money but instead to build up capital.
So, now we are calling them out for . . . not loaning the money . . . we told them not to loan.
And, blaming them for the slow pace of job growth in the process.
Ain't politics great?
Woldy
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Sorry for the hiatus . . .
1. Health Care. Here are a few things to think about the current legislation being debated by Senate Democrats. First, the bill is now up to 2100 pages. Please raise your hand if you think any of the legislators who will vote on this legislation have actually read it. And, if they have read the words on the pages, raise your hand again if you think they have any idea what the actual real-world impact of the bill will be.
Second, in poll after poll it is clear that the American People are afraid of this legislation. This is partially because . . . we have no idea what is in this proposed law . . . because Senate Democrats aren't telling us. And, they aren't telling the Senate Republicans, either. In fact, they are conducting negotiations secretly without any public disclosure of the policy specifics they are considering.
Question: is this the type of open and transparent government the Democrats, and President Obama, ran on? Oh, sorry, that was an impolite question. We are supposed to forget the campaign promises and statements now that the election is over (but, wasn't that why many of us voted for them . . . sorry, impolite again). (I am sure at this point, if there are any Obama Supporters still reading, they are readying a response that will no doubt call out the Bush Administration and a comparison to how much better this is to Bush . . . I feel better already.)
Third, it is increasingly becoming clear that whatever form this Democrat legislation (let's call a spade a spade) will take . . . it is going to raise costs, not lower them, on a per capita basis. This is from the CBO, and various policy wonks and think tanks. How does this square with what President Obama said were his priorities in this effort? Answer: not at all. Where does this leave Obama in the minds of many people next time he tells us what his priorities are? Is it so hard to figure out why politicians rate so low in poll after poll?
Fourth, Joe Lieberman is opposed to the public option, in any form, including a stealth form that pops up later, because he has been told in plain English by Congressional Democrats that the legislation is being used as a step towards the goal of nationalizing health care (see recent WSJ interview). If Obama, and Congressional Democrats want that as the end-game, why aren't they saying so? I will tell you why: because the American People don't want nationalized health care . . . and the Democrats know better what is good for us than we do.
DISCLAIMER: As if I need to do this again . . . I am not a Republican. I am part of the vast Middle who are independent minded and non-party people.
2. Monday Morning Quarterbacks. Why is everyone so smart now, a year later? Where were all these Congressional critics of our Treasury and Federal Reserve a year ago, when the bullets were flying and it was so unclear what was going to happen to our economy? I'll tell you where they were . . . scared crapless. And, relieved that someone else's butt was on the line fighting the raging fires that threatened to consume us all.
Now that the danger has passed, these hypocrits on Capitol Hill are busy parsing blame to everyone . . . but themselves. Who was it that repealed Glass-Steagall? Was that Henry Paulson, Tim Geithner and Alan Greenspan? Nope. It was Congress . . . under a Democrat President (Clinton). Oh yeah, and who pushed and pushed for federal financing of more and more home loans? Was that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, among others? And, now those two are raising their voices loudest to call for more Congressional oversight of our financial system.
Is this Alice in Wonderland, and are we supposed to believe that up is down and down is up?
I am not sure that all the decisions that we made a year ago to bail out this or that firm were good decisions. And, I said so at the time. But, the fact is, that I really had no idea what the impact of not bailing them out would be. And, neither did the policy makers. But we had to do something and what we did apparently stopped the train from going over the cliff. So, the combination worked to save us all from ruin.
Maybe saying "thank you" would be in order. Instead of holding sham hearings, made for TV, that are designed to embarass the very people who saved us.
No wonder Congress has 26% approval ratings (seems high to me, but that besides the point).
Enough for now,
Woldy
Second, in poll after poll it is clear that the American People are afraid of this legislation. This is partially because . . . we have no idea what is in this proposed law . . . because Senate Democrats aren't telling us. And, they aren't telling the Senate Republicans, either. In fact, they are conducting negotiations secretly without any public disclosure of the policy specifics they are considering.
Question: is this the type of open and transparent government the Democrats, and President Obama, ran on? Oh, sorry, that was an impolite question. We are supposed to forget the campaign promises and statements now that the election is over (but, wasn't that why many of us voted for them . . . sorry, impolite again). (I am sure at this point, if there are any Obama Supporters still reading, they are readying a response that will no doubt call out the Bush Administration and a comparison to how much better this is to Bush . . . I feel better already.)
Third, it is increasingly becoming clear that whatever form this Democrat legislation (let's call a spade a spade) will take . . . it is going to raise costs, not lower them, on a per capita basis. This is from the CBO, and various policy wonks and think tanks. How does this square with what President Obama said were his priorities in this effort? Answer: not at all. Where does this leave Obama in the minds of many people next time he tells us what his priorities are? Is it so hard to figure out why politicians rate so low in poll after poll?
Fourth, Joe Lieberman is opposed to the public option, in any form, including a stealth form that pops up later, because he has been told in plain English by Congressional Democrats that the legislation is being used as a step towards the goal of nationalizing health care (see recent WSJ interview). If Obama, and Congressional Democrats want that as the end-game, why aren't they saying so? I will tell you why: because the American People don't want nationalized health care . . . and the Democrats know better what is good for us than we do.
DISCLAIMER: As if I need to do this again . . . I am not a Republican. I am part of the vast Middle who are independent minded and non-party people.
2. Monday Morning Quarterbacks. Why is everyone so smart now, a year later? Where were all these Congressional critics of our Treasury and Federal Reserve a year ago, when the bullets were flying and it was so unclear what was going to happen to our economy? I'll tell you where they were . . . scared crapless. And, relieved that someone else's butt was on the line fighting the raging fires that threatened to consume us all.
Now that the danger has passed, these hypocrits on Capitol Hill are busy parsing blame to everyone . . . but themselves. Who was it that repealed Glass-Steagall? Was that Henry Paulson, Tim Geithner and Alan Greenspan? Nope. It was Congress . . . under a Democrat President (Clinton). Oh yeah, and who pushed and pushed for federal financing of more and more home loans? Was that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, among others? And, now those two are raising their voices loudest to call for more Congressional oversight of our financial system.
Is this Alice in Wonderland, and are we supposed to believe that up is down and down is up?
I am not sure that all the decisions that we made a year ago to bail out this or that firm were good decisions. And, I said so at the time. But, the fact is, that I really had no idea what the impact of not bailing them out would be. And, neither did the policy makers. But we had to do something and what we did apparently stopped the train from going over the cliff. So, the combination worked to save us all from ruin.
Maybe saying "thank you" would be in order. Instead of holding sham hearings, made for TV, that are designed to embarass the very people who saved us.
No wonder Congress has 26% approval ratings (seems high to me, but that besides the point).
Enough for now,
Woldy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)