Please dissect this "myth" also, Mr. Elliott:

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/let-the-right-one-in/

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/connect-the-dots/

TPM should stop being the water boy for anything called war and ask a few questions.

start by explaining this,
"Mr Abdulmutallab was denied a visa to the UK in 2008 and yet the US granted him a visa for the US despite the fact he was listed on the terror watch list and that his father had warned the US authorities about his son's apparent change and extremist views!"

Since 12/26/09, I've been asking how - and why - so much information leaked out on the underoos bomber, so fast. The normal law enforcement response to such an event is that it's "under investigation". A name, point of origin (perhaps), but the level of detail available only hours after the event?

Think about it.

There's another interesting aspect of this story -- the "fact" that Abdulmutallab's purchase of his ticket with cash should have immediately set off alarm bells within the entire security system. A couple of weeks ago, Jim Lehrer had a discussion on the Christmas incident, and a panelist pointed to the failure to act on the cash transaction. Another panelist, who had been a counsel to the 9/11 Commission, immediately interjected and flatly disagreed. Apparently, credit card fraud is so wide-spread in West Africa, that many airlines won't accept them anymore and will only accept cash.

Haven't heard this issue fleshed out much, either.

Criticising of the security measures here, or speculating on what measures are pointless and which ones aren't is dumb, IMHO. Experts in the field probably spend more time reconfiguring their operations after public disclosures caused by the media and concerned citizens than adapting to any increases in sophistication from would be attackers.

That said, I would say that in general it seems people put a whole lot more stock in the religious zealotry, craftiness and financial backing of terrorists than their actions and record of success would warrant. If you strip away all the conjecture and unsubstantiated conspiricy theorizing, these terrorist plots are hardly sophisticated and are very cheap to pull off. They are just incredibly gutsy and bloodthirty. I'd guess nearly all the would be suicide bombers is socio-pathic or near socio-pathic.

We can do very little to prevent random violent acts by sociopaths. Countries with stronger families, prosperous communities, and more opportunity for indiviual success tend to produce a smaller percentage of spectacularly violent sociopaths, but the percentage so tiny already, and populations and socio-economic status varies so widely between nations that no empirical improvement (if one could be reliably measured)would be even interesting to the majority of people worldwide.

So far the world has survived pretty well going on the simple premise that people are generally not crazy enough to kill themselves to draw attention to their point of view. When people are that crazy, we all ought to realize that giving their point of view more attention, and changing our everyday lives to account for it is counter productive.

Contrary to what Dick Cheney and Rudy Guliani would have you believe, terrorism has made your own personal life more dangerous by an almost immeasurably small amount. I'm not saying ignore it - I am saying react to it rationally. A rational, measured reaction to a FAILED terrorist attack is not something we seem to be capable of.

I'll bet we could tag all Canadien migrating geese and suspend airline takeoffs when flocks are in the area to prevent take off stalls for less than we plan to spend in reaction to this underwear bomber. But then Sully could never be a hero again.

Also - of the six times I've flown to Europe I've checked a bag exactly once. If I can't get it in carry-on, I don't take it, as a general rule. The only time that's not held true is when I was traveling with my wife for an extended stay. Abdulmutallab did have a carry-on backpack according to one account I read. Not checking luggage isn't much of an indicator to "profile," in my opinion.

Even Air America's commentator's were continuing this meme on Friday. It wasn't just the right it was a classic case AGAIN of "They both reached for the gun". (Chicago)

firstly, i am a road warrior. and have been one for decades. i never travel on round-trip tickets. flying internationally, it is often less expensive to purchase each leg of your trip at each leg.

but the story that has been thrown down the rathole is kurt haskell's story. he got some air on npr's atc, then he became disappeared. he gave a later interview on an austin radio show. if i interpreted that interview accurately, his npr interview was censored so as to exclude his observations after the landing at DTW.

the most interesting aspect of this interview has his report of explosive-sniffing dog stopping at the carry-on luggage of another passenger. a passenger that haskell identified as "indian"[i.e., appearing to be from the sub-continent]. and that this passenger was cuffed and removed from the room where all the other passengers of 253 were incarcerated[so to speak].

when haskell's report was made public[never in the paper of record-nyt,by the way,the spokesman for the usg, a ron smith,held a news conference and told the media that kurt haskell was relating a falsehood. no such think occurred at DTW. and of course, president obombya said that there were no accomplices.

i think it was on 30/12/09, haskell was interviewed on an austin, tx radio station[not alex jones] and called ron smith out. called the official spokesman of the usg a liar. and challenged him to a debate on the events that he witnessed that day.

let us not forget that kurt haskell, and his wife, are attorneys in michigan. and that haskell used to be employed as an attorney by the us dept of the treasury.

late on new year's eve, 31/12/09, ron smith retracted his earlier statment[s], and admitted that haskell's story was accurate. but ron smith snuffed the import of the story by relating that the subject had been interviewed by the fbi, then released.

hmmmmmmmmm.

in all the stories on this matter that got ink in the nyt, the wsj, the ft, kurt haskell's stories got no ink. he became the man in the iron mask.

don't you want to know who that male of south asian appearance, cuffed in dtw for a bomb-sniffing dog targeted his carry-on luggage, was? on what country's passport was he traveling? on what visas?

and when he was released, to whom was he released? where did he go then? and on what kind of ticket was he flying? round-trip? or one way? paid for how? and what was/had been his itinerary?

there is, of course, the other interesting feature of haskell's story...the elegantly dressed man[whom haskell identified as an "indian"] who attempted to bully the northwest gate agent at schiphol to boarding the young nigerian without his producing a passport. as haskell related, he overheard this "handler" trying to convince the gate agent that this nigerian was a sudanese refugee and that he put such sudanese refugees on flights from shiphol to the usa all the time.

haskell reports that the gate agent refused to board this individual without the presentation of a passport or other official documents[even sudanese refugees must have documents issued by some government]. further haskell reported that the gate agent referred these individuals to her manager whose office was down the concourse...and that the pair departed the boarding gate, headed in that direction.

the implication is that this meeting with the gate agent's manager resulted in the boarding of the nigerian without a presentation of proper travel documents. and that he was boarded without entering the normal jetway.

there are, of course, many more aspects of this story that have been granted neither ink nor air.

such as, if haskell relates it accurately, how did this elegantly dressed indian fellow[the nigerian's handler] access that concourse without travel documents? because haskell says that he wasn't on nw253 when it landed at DTW.

as a rule, one cannot access concourses at schiphol without a boarding pass.

for me, as a life-long international road warrior, the implication is indelible. the nigerian's passage to nw253 was guided by an employee of some country's intelligence service.

and let us not forget that an israeli company controls security at schiphol. the same company that was responsible for security at bos and dia on 11/09/01. a company completely staffed by ex-mossad,idf.

these are realities of that christmas day in december that the msm ignore. that most internet sites seem to ignore.

why would that be?

From Gary Hart
There is a lack of seriousness, especially where national security is concerned, among those who focus all their attention on a particular language or set of words they favor while more important issues are neglected. Take, for example, the recent inside-the-Beltway taffy-pull over whether President Obama does, or does not, use the phrase "war on terrorism."

Serious people care more about the policy and its effectiveness than the rhetoric surrounding it. It is important to note that those most concerned with the current president adopting the language of his predecessor are following the line of oppressive political figures of the extreme right and left who have understood over the years that he who controls the meaning of words, and who dictates the language to be used, also controls the outcome of the debate.

George Orwell, among others, has most effectively, and frighteningly, pointed this out.

Since Vietnam there has been a concerted effort on the part of some to suggest that one party cares more about national security than the other. They do so despite the fact that the party presumably weak on defense led us through World War I, World War II, the Korean war, and much of Vietnam. Nevertheless, if you start from that notion and convince enough people that terrorism is a function of war, then people must conclude that the party supported by the language hawks alone is equipped to respond to it.

The real issue behind this linguistic taffy-pull is what methods are to be used. If counter-terrorism is a "war," then traditional military measures, including big armies in the field (Iraq and Afghanistan) and invasions, are required. If terrorism is a somewhat sophisticated form of criminal activity, it will require special forces trained in irregular, unconventional warfare to combat it.

So, as inconsequential as the language tussle seems, it does have political and military consequences. How you characterize or describe a problem will usually determine what methods you use to address it. The more the language hawks prevail in demanding their special vocabulary, the more they will dictate our policies. For some of us the proof is in the policy not the words.

To comment, please visit Senator Hart's blog at www.mattersofprinciple.com/.

How come nobody's talking about the other 'myth' that not only did our lad have no luggage, he also boarded that AC without a passport?

It was reported by that US couple who were eye-witnesses to a few other incidents that have proven accurate that the accused bomber was accompanied by an East Indian man at the check-in desk and received some 'special handling' by airport/airline personnel.

Fantastic reporting! This is why I read TPM.

very nice article and comments keep it up TPM
http://www.m65jacket.com