i would like to comment on the below:

“where there increasing reports of Iran-sponsored al-Qaeda groups gaining strength?”

for your information Al-Qaeda is known for being Suni & Iran is known for being Shi’a, which is a big different between them, Suni Calls Shi’a Infidels. and they just confirmed this in Saudi Arabia, now how can two party’s with such problems be helping each other.

i take it this newspaper is Jewish, because only Jews would like to blind the world so they all can hate Muslims equally.

I hope people of knowledge and understanding look into what i just wrote to believe that some organization does not really want peace anywhere all they care about is brain washing the whole world for personal satisfactions.

“I think the year-long mantra of “Bush destroyed the Constitution” is now almost over, and we will begin again worrying about our collective safety rather than scoring partisan points by citing supposed excesses in our anti-terrorism efforts. With the delay in closing Guantanamo (from the promised shuttering on Jan. 20, 2010 to . . . sometime in 2011?), Obama’s quiet copy-catting of Bush security protocols (such as wiretaps, intercepts, tribunals, and renditions), and the popular outcry against the upcoming show trial of KSM in New York, a public consensus is growing that radical Muslims like Hasan and Mutallab will continue to attempt to kill Americans. Citizens increasingly understand that the last eight years of relative safety following 9/11 were due only to heightened security at home and proactive use of force abroad, that we should cease trying to appease radical Islam by dreaming up new euphemisms (“overseas contingency operations,” “man made disasters,” etc.), and that it is time to stop the apologetics and kowtowing, and grudgingly accept that thousands of radical Islamic fundamentalists worldwide want to kill Americans — and dozens of governments, at least on the sly, hope that they do. Such venom has nothing to do with past American behavior or George Bush’s strut, nor can it be ameliorated on the cheap by Barack Obama’s Nobel Prize, middle name, or reset-button diplomacy.”

You have a very short memory.

How you morons can blame obama for something like this while refusing to hold Bush accountable for the SUCCESSFUL terror attacks that were carried out under his watch is beyond me

So let’s see; YOU YOURSELF stated that Bush was accountable for every single terrorist attack that happened while he was President.

But now you spin and scream and blabber that your Barack Obama is not responsible for anything.

And then I loved this:

You do this right at the beginning, so you can go to work knocking down an argument that you constructed, because you just can’t handle me as a debate opponent. You have to make up something so ridiculously over-the-top that even a five-year old could beat it down, but that’s the only way you’ll stand a chance.

Perhaps when you grow up, Levi, you may be able to make it past infantile fantasies that explain why everyone else is wrong and you are always right, especially when those fantasies are such a clear example of projection. But for now, you’re not even close to it.

you forget unlike with Bush and his predecessor, the Obama administration was fortunate in not having to develop security measures where none existed before. Obama has now made most of the Bush policies accepted practice in his administration. Unfortunately, those in charge of implementation and over-sight are obviously too busy sippin eggnog. AFK was not our concern on the 1st leg of his trip, however that all changed when he presented himself in Amsterdam. Why didn’t the red flags wave the moment his name showed up on the monitor screen? Now instead of a mea maxima culpa, the useless Homeland Security Secretary full of excuses. Today she’s focused making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows and saying, ” how successful the system was thanks to the passengers on the flight”. Now it’s up to passengers to be the “Be-all/End-all”…… How’s that for the “spinmeisters” rallying in an attempt to save face??? Napolitano is an incompetent mess. She needs to go.

The biggest arguement in the current administration making us less safe is the releasing of more jihadists, shuttering of Guantanamo, giving the terrorists more rights than the soldiers trying to kill them, and not calling a terrorist attack on Ft. Hood a terrorist attack.

Adding that with bailing out of Fannie and Freddie while not capping their pay, and arguing that the bomb not going off is an example of the system working, you have to wonder if dumb luck is the official policy of this terrorist loving, Mao cheering administration.

I don’t think Obama is a very good President at all, but he’s doing a better job of keeping Americans safe at this point in his term than the dolt you guys most recently saddled us with.

I take this to mean that Bush had 9/11 on his hands within eight months while Obama has made it to over eleven months without a 9/11 equivalent. On this bit of non-arguable nothingness, I certainly agree.

You also say Obama is not a very good president, but you think that when comparing him to Bush that while both are dolts, Bush is the greater dolt. On that I suppose we could agree to disagree.
Now the left has chosen to see Ft. Hood and the Northwest would-be bomber as isolated anomalies in which the perps acted alone.

The war on terror has caused us to compile a list of over 500,000 individuals who need to be monitored.

When a guy shows up with sophisticated explosives sewn into his underpants or even implanted under his skin and he uses a syringe to inject the catalyst into it, you may certainly assume he did it all by his lonesome without help from anyone. You can even assume that he chose Detroit because he hates MoTown music. You can further assume he was acting nobly to test the TSA. You can assume Pat Robertson talked him into it and Karl Rove helped.

But the President of the United States probably needs to take these incidents seriously. He probably needs to be sure that his emphasis on turning acts of terrorism into local police actions is sufficient to adequately fighting terrorism.

The would-be Northwest bomber is in custody, all lawyered up and operating under his Miranda rights.

He would be a more serious threat, legally, if he purposely exhaled an extra amount of carbon dioxide.

I don’t normally do this in an internet debate, but I’d like to ask you to back that up with something. I don’t remember ever hearing anybody on either side of anything attempt to pin responsibility for the shoe bomber on George Bush, so who have you been talking to/reading? A quick search of ‘shoe bomber Bush’s fault’ reveals absolutely nothing relevant, save for someone on the Hannity forum making the exact same point I’m making.

Although let’s face it; you’re not going to produce anything, you’re not even going to try. You just believe things happened that way because you’re too wrapped up in your conservative fantasy land to remember how many glaring contradictions you need to whole-heartedly commit to on a daily basis to keep up the illusion that you have opinions that are coherent. I’m leveling a charge at you and your side and backing it up with an analogous situation and previous posts from this very blog, and the best you can do is say ‘No, you are!’

The positions that you’re ascribing to me in the rest of your post have nothing to do with what I said. If I say President Obama isn’t responsible for this single, isolated incident, you deliberately misinterpret it to mean that I don’t hold him responsible for anything. You do this right at the beginning, so you can go to work knocking down an argument that you constructed, because you just can’t handle me as a debate opponent. You have to make up something so ridiculously over-the-top that even a five-year old could beat it down, but that’s the only way you’ll stand a chance. The only question is; do you secretly know that you actually have got nothing, or is the brainwashing job they’ve done on you so effective that you truly believe I’ve said the things that I clearly haven’t?

Really, Levi, your posting here is quite humorous. We all remember how you bashed Bush at every opportunity, but now have reversed yourself and insist that Barack Obama is never accountable, that Barack Obama has nothing to do with anything, and that Barack Obama can never be held responsible.

For example, shill leftists like you DID call George Bush a failure and a sniveling coward over the shoe bomber. Why can’t the same be done for Barack Obama.

The problem here is that you can’t hold Barack Obama accountable. We already know that. That’s why you attack Bush constantly; your child Obama has nothing to recommend him other than his skin color, so your only hope for making him look better is to constantly tear down Bush.

As expected. I usually don’t see much more than ‘Bush kept us safe’ whenever I broach this topic, but it’s funny how you’re all interested and curious about finding out the specific details about these other events that have happened since Obama’s been President. You’re asking questions about whether or not Obama took his eye off the ball by focusing on his domestic agenda, or if Napolitano is too obsessed spying on tea partiers – I wonder if you were so inquisitive in the immediate aftermath of 9-11? You might remember it, the terror attack that actually happened? You’re being absurd tossing out all this innuendo and blame for a non-event while glossing over the fact that Bush presided over the worst terror attack in our history so you can bleat on about how safe he kept us.

CON-SIS-TEN-CY. Do you even know what that word means?

And I remember the similarly hysterical Somali pirates thread well enough without checking the archives, I posted about a dozen times in it. It’s good stuff if you’d like to read it again:

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/04/11/america-held-hostageday-four/

My favorite comment comes from someone else though. Neptune wrote:

I think these hysterics have finally caused me to stop reading the blog. We should expect restraint from our leaders and measured, considered use of our considerable military force. Implying a nation is being held hostage is no less inflammatory than anything you accuse the left of.

Best wishes to you all.

This is the same kind of thing; it is straight up unreasonable to expect that President Obama could have done anything to prevent a guy from getting on a plane in Nigeria. But again, your inability to reason isn’t the question here so much as your inability to be truthful and consistent. The bottom line is that this would not have elicited this kind of reaction if President Bush was the President, and we actually have an almost identical parallel to test that hypothesis. Remember the shoe bomber? That happened under Bush’s watch, so why don’t you tell me how much of a sniveling coward George Bush is because that dude got on an airplane and almost blew it up?

and just plain dumb luck.

True. Look for BJ Clinton to claim that he stopped it, just like he prevented the LAX attack.

while refusing to hold Bush accountable for the SUCCESSFUL terror attacks that were carried out under his watch is beyond me, but that’s what I get for having some sense of honesty.

Oh bullshit. If you had some sense of honesty, you’d be curious as to why Algore’s airline security plans were buried after a half mil donation to the DNC. You’d also hold BJ responsible for ignoring bin Laden, assisting the terrorist group KLA with the bombing of Bosnians, importing the Mujahideen and other Islamo-fascists into the Balkans etc. No, you’re not honest. You just blame Bush for the failures of liberals.

Remember when you boneheads tried to pin the Somali pirates thing on him?

Nope. If you got off your lazy ass and looked at the archives, you’d find there was much praise of Chairman Obama for the “Somali pirates thing”.

So if Bush was such a dolt, what did BJ do to protect the homeland? He treated the terrorists as criminals and tried to be nice to the rest and we got 9/11 for our troubles.

Elsewhere, note that a Reuters Alternet blogger has become something of a homophobe of convenience. Which is to say that Alterna-newser believes that directing invective at fellow citizens is the key to protecting the public for terrorists.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144815/x-mas_terror_elicits_the_expected_response_from_greater_wingnuttia/

Apparently to our comrade at AlterNet, blowing up people in mid-air is perfectly alright, because we should, like Barack Obama, just make ourselves unavailable to react to it.

I don’t think Obama is a very good President at all, but he’s doing a better job of keeping Americans safe at this point in his term than the dolt you guys most recently saddled us with.

The real question is why do we allow easy access to these people? We spend too much time looking for (and missing) weapons and explosives and not near enough time looking for terrorists (since that would involve profiling and hurting CAIR’s feelings).

With the tough issues facing this country the last thing we need is some pusillanimous pacifier chumming the water. Energized bunnies sell batteries…not foreign policy… We would be much better served if the MSM did not allow it’s tween-like-crush to bias future commentary. The course ahead of us is not some namby-pamby fight, but brutal affairs where heads hit the sidewalk.