Liz Cheney’s group smacks Obama: “100 Hours”; Update: Dems plot to protect Napolitano at hearings

posted at 6:43 pm on January 8, 2010 by Allahpundit

I was with Lowry and Ponnuru in the “let the man golf” camp but we’ve clearly lost that debate with the public, which is A-OK by me. Consider this LC’s version of the “now watch this drive” clip of Bush that Michael Moore immortalized in Fahrenheit 9/11, never to be repeated for the simple reason that The One will never again drag his feet on addressing a terrorism crisis the way he did last week. Which solves one political problem for him — but others remain:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of adults say factors such as race, ethnicity and overall appearance should be used to determine which boarding passengers to search at airports. Twenty-six percent (26%) say these factors should not be used to determine which passengers to search. Another 15% are not sure.

Interestingly, however, even more Americans (71%) believe such profiling is necessary in today’s environment. Eighteen percent (18%) disagree and see profiling as an unnecessary violation of civil rights…

Nearly half of likely voters (46%) believe current airport security measures are not strict enough.

Two clips for you here, one of Cheney’s ad and the other of Ted Koppel advancing the counterthesis that effective counterterrorism can be done without a lot of security theater. Note how blunt is he about The One scrambling to reassure the public for purely political reasons. Exit question: Given the fact that American intelligence agents evidently now need to be explicitly told to follow-up on terrorism leads, how exactly does Koppel see this as a case of overreaction?

Update: Seems the White House thinks public testimony from someone who’s surprised to find Al Qaeda a determined bunch might not go well.

First, they may shield her from the Senate Judiciary Committee, keeping conservative senators like Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and others from bashing her in a major public forum. She may instead appear before the Senate Commerce Committee, where some expect her to receive gentler treatment.

Next, the White House is working on Sen. Joe Lieberman, the mercurial chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, to avoid an ugly clash in his hearings. Lieberman will grill the secretary but won’t call for Napolitano to resign, and he could reiterate his support for her remaining at the DHS post, Senate aides say.

“To some extent it’s going to be a free-for-all; we are as angry as anybody about this,” said an aide to a senior Senate Democrat. “But apart from saying the wrong thing early on, the breaches aren’t really the fault of Napolitano and DHS, so she’s not going to be the target.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

NO MORE CHENEYS, NO MORE BUSHES

PappyD61 on January 8, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Let me perfectly clear.

We can no longer let granny carry on free hotel shampoo bottles.

seven on January 8, 2010 at 8:25 PM

That’s one sweet ad.

gophergirl on January 8, 2010 at 8:34 PM

NO MORE PAPPYD61S

DaveHusseinS on January 8, 2010 at 8:41 PM

So you thought it was legitimate for Michael Moore and the rest of the Left to go after Bush because went to Crawford and also golfed?

terryannonline on January 8, 2010 at 7:54 PM

What you fail to see is that Bush was already taking care of business, while Obambi was not. It took 100 hours before Obambi addressed the situation. Not even a fair comparrison. Hell, he couldn’t even address the Fort Hood “incident” without doing a shout-out to someone…Keep on trying to defend that loser….
Here is what a REAL leader looks like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqOhlM136TU&feature=related

lovingmyUSA on January 8, 2010 at 9:09 PM

One…that is one hell of a powerful ad. Very powerful.
Two…Obama has that Charles Barkley hitch in his golf swing and, I’ll say this in the most tactful way I can, looks the opposite of manly.

OxyCon on January 8, 2010 at 9:20 PM

Oh boy. I am probably going to get slammed for this but here it goes.
Ted Koppel was correct…but for the wrong reasons.
Al-Quada loves it when they see the results of their actions in our media. To them, it cheap entertainment. Execute a low cost (in their minds) terrorist attack on our country and watch it for months in the media. All through the Bush years the media was talking constantly about Al-Quada in one form or another. They like that. But in the last year the mood had changed in this country. We were talking about social engineering being rammed down our throats and not talking about them. So Al-quada decided to knock on our door and wake us up. Now they got what they want, attention.
Koppel is dead wrong about Obama being wise about not making a big deal out of this recent attack and giving the attention that Al-quada seeks. Obama is OUR president, not theirs (ouch, that hurt) and WE demand more from our Prez. Al-Quada declared war on us, the American people and our way of lives, not against it’s Government, military or the President. Once the Underwear bomber attacked, we reported it. The attention Al-Quada sought was already given. Having Obama remaining on vacation means nothing to Al-Quada but means everything for the people that he was elected to protect.

Electrongod on January 8, 2010 at 9:32 PM

RIP Catherine “Jean” Biden.

RushBaby on January 8, 2010 at 7:15 PM

The few times I saw her interviewed she seemed such a nice lady, and a real lady in the best sense of the word.

Joe may be something of a joke to many of us but he’s still human, and my prayers are with him and his family tonight.

TXUS on January 8, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Earlier today on another thread at Hot Air I made a joke about Joe Biden that I deliberately, for political purposes, constructed to make Joe look stupid and foolish. Shortly thereafter I left Hot Air and went to google news and found out that Joe’s mother died today.

Thank you RushBaby, TXUS, and others for the reminder that decency requires respect for the humanity of political foes in their time of loss of deeply loved family members. And I pray this evening to “… God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;” (2 Corinthians 1:3) that He would remember Joe Biden and his family in those “mercies” and that “comfort”
concerning the death of today of Joe Biden’s mother.

Basil Fawlty on January 8, 2010 at 9:36 PM

So whose fault was it ?
No really,
who is responsible for this incident ?
Anyone ?

macncheez on January 8, 2010 at 7:06 PM

I heard it was some guy named Systemic.

PatMac on January 8, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Yeah, we’re serious about fighting terrorism – let’s hide the Homeland Secretary from any embarassing questions from Senators during hearings to improve homeland security.

PatMac on January 8, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Should she personally be given the pink slip for her performance to date?

I don’t think that Homeland Security Secretary is the primary problem here, although her level of competence is now open to question. Frankly, the POTUS was right in that *he* is the final authority on ensuring that the Executive Branch does its job to the best of its ability to keep the country safe.

Two strikes so far. I hope nobody else has to die before the leadership finally gets its priorities straight and their collective act together. President Bush certainly had his challenges (Katrina, anyone?) but when Rita and subsequent natural disasters occurred, the level of cooperation and coordination had considerably improved.

No more slip ups, Feds. When you guys miss the obvious, lives are threatened. The time to remain PC has long since passed.

itzWicks on January 8, 2010 at 9:48 PM

And now for the mid-term grades.
B+ to our enemy for at least making an effort,
and an “Absent with no excuse” for our President and his team.

Electrongod on January 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM

And now for the mid-term grades.
B+ to our enemy for at least making an effort,
and an “Absent with no excuse” for our President and his team.

Electrongod on January 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM

He thought he could just vote “present.”

massrighty on January 8, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Here is what a REAL leader looks like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqOhlM136TU&feature=related

lovingmyUSA on January 8, 2010 at 9:09 PM

You don’t need to me remind about the positives about G.W. Bush. If you read my comments here in Hot Air and read my blog it is quite obvious I’m a supporter of W. I just want to be fair. I didn’t get worked when I heard about W. went golfing and so forth, why should I not give Obama the same benefit?

terryannonline on January 8, 2010 at 10:18 PM

I didn’t get worked up when I heard about W. went golfing and so forth, why should I not give Obama the same benefit?

terryannonline on January 8, 2010 at 10:19 PM

I didn’t get worked up when I heard about W. went golfing and so forth, why should I not give Obama the same benefit?

terryannonline on January 8, 2010 at 10:19 PM

The golfing and so forth are merely the visual and visceral manifestations of Obama’s unbelieveable inability to “get it” on national security. He’d rather gut intelligence gathering, and these pictures reflect his incomprehensible indifference to the safety of Americans.

He’s not one of us.

BuckeyeSam on January 8, 2010 at 10:47 PM

He’s not one of us.

BuckeyeSam on January 8, 2010 at 10:47 PM

What do you mean by “He’s not one of us”?

terryannonline on January 8, 2010 at 11:20 PM

I was with Lowry and Ponnuru in the “let the man golf” camp but we’ve clearly lost that debate with the public, which is A-OK by me.

Allah

Atta boy. You teach us really good snark and the definition of “huffing”, and we’ll teach you the basics of “visceral reaction”. Good – good.

Jaibones on January 8, 2010 at 11:52 PM

I didn’t get worked up when I heard about W. went golfing and so forth, why should I not give Obama the same benefit?

terryannonline on January 8, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Could it be that you didn’t get worked up when Bush took a vacation or played golf because he took the whole terrorist thing seriously? Bush changed the mood and policies of this country on how and why we need to stop terrorists. His actions on this threat speak louder then words. But then Obama shows up on the scene and his actions tell a different story. He talks about taking the threat seriously but remains on vacation. His administration that he handpicked made the situation worse.
Bush was “tested” many times by our enemy on the effectiveness of the new system and it seemed to work pretty well for the last 7 years. Obama gets tested by our enemy twice in one year and he plays golf and shrugs it off.

Electrongod on January 8, 2010 at 11:56 PM

You don’t need to me remind about the positives about G.W. Bush. If you read my comments here in Hot Air and read my blog it is quite obvious I’m a supporter of W. I just want to be fair. I didn’t get worked when I heard about W. went golfing and so forth, why should I not give Obama the same benefit?

terryannonline on January 8, 2010 at 10:18 PM

1) If you insist on grading Obama’s performance as CIC based on W’s, go ahead; however, unless you are willing to argue that Bush was a superb CIC, the grading scale is flawed.

2) What’s to say that Bush shouldn’t have been given flack for some of his past actions? What’s to say he didn’t handle 9-11 correctly initially? Is the book already closed on that one?

3) We’ve seen time and time again that in times of crisis, if you will, Obama and his team will

a) Ignore
b) Gloss over
c) Change Story
d) repeat.

And just to clarify, they do this shamelessly on a level even the most squirrel of a Bush adviser would blush after doing…

4) Let’s not forget what Obama was eating while he was wisely not falling for the Iranian trap of supporting the masses of youths being shot in the streets…

5) And, finally, as you always seem to relish in pointing out, at the end of the day, pundits that attack BHO for his handling of say terrorist issues are trying to score one for their team. It is all just a game, right? Perhaps this particular political quandary has upset you, but will you be as indignant next time Maverick or one of his dear friends throws a conservative under the bus in the name of big-tent-rino-ism? Next time the Progressive GOPers vote for Amnesty? Next time Michael Steele opens his mouth?

MeatHeadinCA on January 9, 2010 at 12:28 AM

2) What’s to say that Bush shouldn’t have been given flack for some of his past actions? What’s to say he didn’t handle 9-11 correctly initially? Is the book already closed on that one?

Didn’t say that. I said that I had no problem with the Bush’s response. Obviously, others will disagree or there wouldn’t be the movie Fahrenheit 9/11. But how could I have no problem with Bush response but throw a fit about Obama? That is not being consistent.

terryannonline on January 9, 2010 at 12:37 AM

Didn’t say that. I said that I had no problem with the Bush’s response. Obviously, others will disagree or there wouldn’t be the movie Fahrenheit 9/11. But how could I have no problem with Bush response but throw a fit about Obama? That is not being consistent.

terryannonline on January 9, 2010 at 12:37 AM

Assuming you have no problems with Bush’s response, I don’t see how you must have no problem with Obama’s response. See 3) and 4). That said, you are free not to have a problem with Obama’s response. There are others here who have tried to point out how they personally see Obama’s response as being orders of magnitude worse than anything Bush ever done, but that doesn’t mean you have to agree with them when it comes to your personal perception.

Honestly, I don’t see what Obama (as he is) could do to actually respond correctly. His point of view is so different than that of most posters here that he’d literally have to adopt a new philosophy to satisfy what most here would say is the correct way.

MeatHeadinCA on January 9, 2010 at 12:45 AM

Anyone who says Janet doesn’t deserve to get the boot because she didn’t do anything wrong has obviously not ever worked in government. When you know your boss doesn’t think highly about going after terrorists, I guarantee you that you will not go after them either unless you want to lose your job. $hit always rolls downhill. That is why she has to go. Her influence at the top is preventing DHS from protecting this country.

gordo on January 9, 2010 at 12:48 AM

gordo on January 9, 2010 at 12:48 AM

Although I can see where you are coming from, getting rid of Napoleon will not somehow create an environment where DHS or any other gov’t agency could suddenly do its job efficiently. I realize you didn’t say this, but my point is that Janet is one of many individuals that are making the system less and less efficient.

MeatHeadinCA on January 9, 2010 at 12:52 AM

Honestly, I don’t see what Obama (as he is) could do to actually respond correctly. His point of view is so different than that of most posters here that he’d literally have to adopt a new philosophy to satisfy what most here would say is the correct way.

MeatHeadinCA on January 9, 2010 at 12:45 AM

I’m not saying that Obama doesn’t have a different perspective when it comes to terrorism. He does. What I have issues with is people trying to capitalize on the golfing and vacation images. I think Michael Moore’s point of showing the golf swing video of Bush is to say “He was golfing. He really doesn’t care about people’s lives being threatened.” And now the same thing is being done to Obama. I don’t like that.

I don’t mind pointing out the different approaches to national security and saying this works better. What I don’t like is people portraying them (Bush or Obama) as callous bastards who don’t care about human lives, which ultimately is what I think the point is.

terryannonline on January 9, 2010 at 12:56 AM

I’m not saying that Obama doesn’t have a different perspective when it comes to terrorism. He does. What I have issues with is people trying to capitalize on the golfing and vacation images. I think Michael Moore’s point of showing the golf swing video of Bush is to say “He was golfing. He really doesn’t care about people’s lives being threatened.” And now the same thing is being done to Obama. I don’t like that.

I don’t mind pointing out the different approaches to national security and saying this works better. What I don’t like is people portraying them (Bush or Obama) as callous bastards who don’t care about human lives, which ultimately is what I think the point is.

terryannonline on January 9, 2010 at 12:56 AM

People taking cheap shots is not particularly stimulating and doesn’t encourage honest debate. That said, it is a political strategy that has some benefits in the short term. Now, are you going to become upset/disturbed every time a politician on the Right or Left makes a dishonest political maneuver?

MeatHeadinCA on January 9, 2010 at 1:01 AM

I think Michael Moore’s point of showing the golf swing video of Bush is to say “He was golfing. He really doesn’t care about people’s lives being threatened.” And now the same thing is being done to Obama. I don’t like that. Except in case of Obama its true
terryannonline on January 9, 2010 at 12:56 AM

Sorry, couldn’t resist

macncheez on January 9, 2010 at 1:04 AM

People taking cheap shots is not particularly stimulating and doesn’t encourage honest debate. That said, it is a political strategy that has some benefits in the short term. Now, are you going to become upset/disturbed every time a politician on the Right or Left makes a dishonest political maneuver?

MeatHeadinCA on January 9, 2010 at 1:01 AM

Well I guess I’m particularly sensitive when it comes to cheap shots when in pertains to national security. It’s a serious issue and don’t want it used for political point scoring.

terryannonline on January 9, 2010 at 1:13 AM

Well I guess I’m particularly sensitive when it comes to cheap shots when in pertains to national security. It’s a serious issue and don’t want it used for political point scoring.

terryannonline on January 9, 2010 at 1:13 AM

Others might say Amnesty, Abortion policy, The Constitution, Federalism, &c are issues that shouldn’t be used in political point scoring. I don’t see how “National Security” is so much different than most Conservative beliefs, and if it is an elevated issue, how did it become that way?

I may have misread you, and I’ll check in the future, but are you implying that you are OK with political point scoring on other issues? Or are you simply emphasizing “National Security?”

MeatHeadinCA on January 9, 2010 at 1:35 AM

terryannonline on January 9, 2010 at 12:56 AM

I will try one more time…Moore took pot shots at BUSH AFTER he had taken action…We are taking shots at Obambi because he HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION! You are failing to see the difference. Obambi DID NOT RESPOND FOR 100 HOURS! There is a world of difference here–and we are not doing tit for tat.
If Obambi had come out strongly and forcefully and addressed the situation right away, that would be different.
It is the same as the Ft. Hood incident–he was forced to say something–I doubt if he would have even uttered anything if his teleprompter had not said, “Um, Barry…”

lovingmyUSA on January 9, 2010 at 3:34 AM

Our Presidents do need vacations and some relaxation from the difficult job that they hold, but when a person is elected to be President, they must expect to be interupted by a 3:00 am phone call every once in awhile. The President was silent for 100 hours before he spoke to the American people and the people responsible for connecting the dots where skiing and enjoying their Christmas holiday while the rest of us watched to see who was in charge. We weren’t the only ones watching……!!!!!!

Mr. President, I don’t want Mary the White House cleaning lady to be the only person in charge in Washington D.C. just in case the phone rings at 3:00 am again!!!!

yoda on January 9, 2010 at 6:35 AM

where = were

yoda on January 9, 2010 at 6:37 AM

Why does Napolitano need protection at hearings? Are these hearings where the truth comes to life, that Sec. Napolitano and DHS has been on cruise control.

MSGTAS on January 9, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Passing a boondoggle of a health care bill or keeping America safe from terrorists. Judge for yourself what the Precedent really cares about.

chickasaw42 on January 9, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Mr. President, I don’t want Mary the White House cleaning lady to be the only person in charge in Washington D.C. just in case the phone rings at 3:00 am again!!!!

yoda on January 9, 2010 at 6:35 AM

I am not to sure about that. Maybe Mary would actually answer the phone instead of having it pass into voice mail.
:)

Electrongod on January 9, 2010 at 10:36 AM

Bozo doesn’t get a pass AP because the guy is nothig but a professional celebrity jackass. He hasn’t performed any real work since he was sworn in.

Bush actually performed some like real work, y’know?

Bozo jet sets around the world after completing his failed world apology tour. He parties, he goes on TV incessantly, Magazine interviews and spreads, radio show call ins, dates, golf and public appearances every where.

And when his Christmas vacation is interrupted by a terrorist act he shows his annoyance at having to deal with it.

He’s a disgrace.

dogsoldier on January 9, 2010 at 11:14 AM

He’s a disgrace.

dogsoldier on January 9, 2010 at 11:14 AM

He is so much more; all of it bad, but “disgrace” about sums it up.

Extrafishy on January 9, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Go Liz! I am glad that someone had the Malkins to hammer that bozon on his non-stop vacationing. When he is not on TV bloviating, he is golfing or joy riding on air force — all on the taxpayer’s dime in the middle of ‘the great recession’.

bitsy on January 9, 2010 at 12:55 PM

NO MORE PAPPYD61S

DaveHusseinS on January 8, 2010 at 8:41 PM

As funny as it gets. I salute you!

One of my dogs, poor boy, was suddenly startled and rudely awakened when I busted out laughing.

He’ll get over it soon enough, but I’ll still be chuckling.

Trochilus on January 9, 2010 at 1:24 PM

I’m with Ted Koppel on this: pretending that random crotch-grabs of grannies on the jetway is “doing something” is just plain STUPID.

Award the TSA contract to El-Al and I think we’ll all feel much safer.

DarthBrooks on January 9, 2010 at 2:42 PM

There is a simple solution to screening airline passengers.

Since only muslims are going to blow up the airplane they’re riding on, we can go back to 9/10 screening procedures and add just one final screen. Before every passenger leaves the security area he/she must step on a copy of the Koran. No-step, no-fly. Easy as pie.

lonesomecharlie on January 9, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Honestly, I don’t see what Obama (as he is) could do to actually respond correctly. His point of view is so different than that of most posters here that he’d literally have to adopt a new philosophy to satisfy what most here would say is the correct way.

MeatHeadinCA on January 9, 2010 at 12:45 AM

Exactly what I want from him.

A new outlook on what it means to be President of the greatest society the world has ever produced. A commitment to protecting the greatest government system ever seen by humanity. Instead of apologizing for mistakes, reiterate the example of freedom and liberty we are to the world.

I’m not looking for much. Just a President who IS President of these United States and not some academic guy who wants to experiment with he latest trends in social engineering.

petunia on January 10, 2010 at 8:58 AM

Comment pages: 1 2