Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Within hours of the attempted bombing of an airliner as it tried to land at Detroit Metro Airport, Rep. Pete Hoekstra reached for his trusty Blackberry and fired off a stern message to the Obama administration on his Twitter page:
Administration says attempted terrorist attack. No. It was a terrorist attack! Just not as successful as they (AQ) planned.
This is mostly a matter of semantics, of course. Yes, it was a terrorist attack; it was also an attempted terrorist attack because it failed. What is curious, however, is how differently Republicans, including Hoekstra, treat failed attacks that occurred during the Bush administration. It has become virtually a mantra among Republicans that the U.S. never suffered another terrorist attack after 9/11 on George W. Bush's watch, a mantra that Hoekstra repeated just a few weeks ago on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks:
"It's no accident that our homeland has not been attacked in the years since 9/11, nor has it been a lack of desire on al-Qaeda's part, it's because we have prevented it."
But if a failed attack is an attack, as Hoekstra so adamantly claims now in an attempt to score political points against the Obama administration, why doesn't the Richard Reid shoe bombing count as an attack? Because it happened during the Bush administration? Virtually every detail about that failed attack was identical to the one that took place a few days ago; it even involved the exact same substance, but in the bomber's shoes rather than his underwear.
And in fact, Hoekstra himself has referred to the shoe bomber incident as an act of attempted terrorism in a speech to the Heritage Foundation last year:
Although America has not been subjected to an attack by radical Jihadists since 2001, this has not been for a lack of trying. The Heritage Foundation's James Carafano wrote an excellent paper last November that lists 19 attempted terrorist attacks against the United States and U.S. citizens since 2001. These include:An attempt by Richard Reid to detonate a shoe bomb on board an American Airlines flight flying from Paris to Miami in December 2001. A grand jury indictment of Reid found he had trained in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.
So why doesn't the attack on American Airlines Flight 63 in December, 2001 count as a terrorist attack for the Bush administration but an identical failed attack on a Northwest flight a few days ago count as one against the Obama administration?
By the way, there is another similarity as well. The Bush administration tried the shoe bomber in a federal civilian court in Boston, just as the Obama administration is going to try Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in federal civilian court in Detroit. Where was the wailing and gnashing of teeth over civilian trials for terrorists then?
Politics
Comments
it even involved the exact same substance, but in the bomber's shoes rather than his underwear
If the attacker is stupid in addition to being crazy, does it count as terrorism?
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 30, 2009 9:24 AM
I guess Pete has no memory of the anthrax attacks.
Posted by: Ukko | December 30, 2009 9:30 AM
Ed stated:
I've begun to develop a more nuanced personal perception of the Republican party regarding the sort of hypocrisy we see on display here by Rep. Hoekstra on this issue and other issues, e.g., their new-found support for filibustering.
I think we should take them at their word; they aren't merely hypocrites, instead they're increasingly dysfunctional hypocrites. The party seems to be developing an institutional memory using the thought processes best exemplified by Sarah Palin. The past is either forgotten or revised, whatever is most convenient to get one through the present moment with a sound-bite whose quality is irrelevant except for how it plays to the most delusional, ignorant, hateful voter out there.
Sociologists tell us this sort of 'in the present' thinking is a marked attribute of the bottom socio-economic classes. One could then argue that the plutocratic aspect of the GOP, which has always needed and sought a voting constituency given their insufficient numbers, has been consumed by their latest allies, the populist social conservatives.
In one wants some anecdotal examples to better illuminate this argument I recommend reading the comments in the on-line Wall Street Journal. The delusion and hostility continues to grow as these two previously disparate factions become one very ugly monstrosity.
Someone should do a horror movie on the topic. Given horror films are a medium that helps us work through our fears regarding present threats, I'm surprised someone hasn't done a more literal interpretation of this emerging political class.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 30, 2009 9:36 AM
Micheal Heath: One could then argue that the plutocratic aspect of the GOP, which has always needed and sought a voting constituency given their insufficient numbers, has been consumed by their latest allies, the populist social conservatives.
Yes, well, they made that bed - now let them f*cking lie in it.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 30, 2009 9:44 AM
IMO, the most "successful" terror attack against the United States since 9/11 was the UK bottled water thing. Sure, nobody was killed. But the amount of fear and terror it spread, the amount of paranoia, the impact on our everyday lives and the chilling effect towards general freedom... that "attack" pretty much has to be considered an unqualified success, even if the whole ring was busted up before they could even start to put their plan in motion.
And on a side note, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 I said that the biggest factor preventing a similar type of attack in the future would be the fact that anybody who tried to pull any shenanigans on a US flight for the next 10-20 years was going to find themselves in for a world of hurt, courtesy of their fellow passengers. You cannot hijack a plane with a boxcutter any longer. Both this incident and the Richard Reid incident, though attempted bombings rather than hijackings, have lent support to this idea.
Posted by: James Sweet | December 30, 2009 10:09 AM
Jeff Eyges @ 4,
The problem is that our form of government has them influencing our priorities and the outcome of policy intiatives when they are the minority party and with only 40 votes in the Senate. So they're having to live with this condition causes the entire country to also suffer.
The American people face the biggest singular challenge in our history in regards to economics and security - our need to lead the world on reducing green house gases. Yet we're holding back focus given both plutocrats and social conservatives are denialists and they are easily winning the rhetorical battle in the public square.
The plutocracy could have greatly contributed to making the current House/Senate health insurance reform bills far superior, but instead they supported Dems in bed with the insurance companies (to be expected regardless), but also being the party of 'no' on behalf of their populists when they could have brought several great right wing ideas that would have helped the cause. These initiatives revolve mostly around protecting health care provider net profits given successful health insurance reform will drive down health care provider revenues coupled to how to fairly finance health insure to insure long-term public buy-in.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 30, 2009 10:12 AM
Also, let's not forget the Beltway snipers.
Posted by: Ahcuah | December 30, 2009 10:20 AM
Republicans just aren't very bright.
Oh, sure, they're not sub-60-IQ, necessarily, but they're only bright enough to take in the information and not bright enough to remember it or integrate it correctly.
Posted by: Katharine | December 30, 2009 10:32 AM
You write that as though the plutocrats care. As long as they can select or influence the political classes (whoever they may be) to vote "correctly" on the short list of issues that matter to them, the Great Unwashed can do as they damn well please on the rest.
Freedom of speech? Yeah, whatever.
Freedom of religion? Who gives a damn?
Search and seizure? That's for the lower classes.
Freedom of the Press? Just don't touch advertising.
Education? It used to matter, because the economy needed educated workers. Not an issue when the workers can be imported or the jobs exported.
It's a long and growing list of "don't cares." Capital is more and more portable, so the main values of the USA any more are its ability to provide subsidies in one form or another and the amount of wealth remaining to be harvested.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 30, 2009 11:11 AM
The problem is that our form of government has them influencing our priorities and the outcome of policy intiatives when they are the minority party and with only 40 votes in the Senate. So they're having to live with this condition causes the entire country to also suffer.
Michael, I didn't mean the Democrats shouldn't fight back. My meaning was more along the lines of "they got what they deserved".
Although I'd say it hasn't turned out so badly for them over the course of the past thirty years. Occasionally, they may be a little embarrassed by their constituency, but, as D.C. Sessions pointed out just above,
As long as they can select or influence the political classes (whoever they may be) to vote "correctly" on the short list of issues that matter to them, the Great Unwashed can do as they damn well please on the rest.
Plus, a lot of the reason they've been able to continue to do as much damage as they have is that the Democrats - including, it pains me to say, Obama - haven't shown much backbone this past year.
My solution, which I mention here from time to time, is to initiate a a program of intelligence and sanity testing as a prerequisite for voting - although when I say it, I'm an asshole, whereas when Ed says it ( http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/12/dumbass_legislator_of_the_year.php#more ),
Anyone who supports such an idiotic proposal should be immediately barred not only from holding public office but from voting in any election as well.
he's being witty.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 30, 2009 2:07 PM
Jeff,
Very serious problem is, they've made their bed, but now we're all lying it in. What we can see, quite clearly with the Heath Care debate, but with politics in 2009 in general is an obstructionist, extremist Republican party that has a very real potential to shift the entire political culture to the right.
We saw this with Health Care reform directly, but in general you see moderate and even conservative positions labeled as "liberal, socialist, radical, communist," etc. If we had a responsible, legitimate media, these claims would be exposed as the idiocy that they are, but instead our media has become polarized itself between the right-wing media hacks, little more than mouth pieces for the GOP, and the remaining, "profit-first" media hacks who will utilize any "controversy" to boost viewer ratings and who, in a misguided and wrong headed effort to appear "unbiased" present both sides of a debate equally even when one side of the debate is flat out, utterly false.
Add all of this to the fact that the average American voter is clueless and lazy and you have the very real potential for our entire political system to lurch to the right as "moderate" becomes what was, just a few short months ago, very conservative.
I mean think about it, if moderate, slightly right of center is portrayed as radical liberal, and wacked-out fringe right wing is portrayed as "main-stream" what is moderate? Conservative.
In the interim we have an obstructionist party in place of what should be a legitimate voice of opposition. Again, with Healthcare reform we see this, what could have been legitimate arguments, reasonable compromises, rational discourse instead were turned into rabid cynical partisan attacks.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 30, 2009 2:10 PM
dogmeatlib, I largely agree; see my comment #10.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 30, 2009 2:31 PM
Gotcha, posts crossed in the ether.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 30, 2009 2:33 PM
great. now we will have to take off our shoes AND underwear at security points.
i will have to stop wearing my wonder woman underoos...
Posted by: rob | December 30, 2009 3:01 PM
Wikipedia's list includes attacks worldwide since the 19th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents
Beginning with 2001, and listing only attacks within the U.S., it has:
2 attacks after 11 September;
3 in 2002;
0 in 2003;
0 in 2004;
1 in 2005;
5 in 2006;
4 in 2007;
3 in 2008.
Of course, many of these are domestic terrorism, which the HSD wouldn't catch.
The Heritage Foundation list is here:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm
It's very interesting to compare these two lists. There's very little overlap between them; they have maybe two events in common. Heritage even omits Muhammad & Malvo, the two snipers in the Washington, DC area in October 2002.
Of course, Heritage lists only Islamic terrorism directed from outside the U.S. Even so, I think it's valid to say they come up short.
Posted by: Chris Winter | December 30, 2009 5:09 PM
Forgot about Anthrax as well.
Posted by: Anon of Ibid | December 30, 2009 5:20 PM
Life according to the GOP:
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Posted by: Tom | December 30, 2009 8:03 PM
The Republican Party acts as if it is desperate for the country to fail so they can blame it on the Democrats. It seems their greatest fear is that things will get better and Democrats will get the credit.
Posted by: Tom | December 30, 2009 8:06 PM
The heritage list is actually pretty interesting, international terrorism is strategic terrorism, while domestic terrorism tends towards lone wolf style attacks. So it makes sense to segregate the two lists to find patterns. During the time of the most attacks many smart people were particularly active in this country. Attacks are meant to destabalize and distract people who are righting themselves and finding their balance. George W Bush made a very good recruiting and propaganda tool for the islamic fundamentalist. Obama is a more confusing and sympathetic figure. He is harder to portray as a bad guy but they are trying and possibly succeeding. Don't you think it is rational that they would want to prevent us from eating into their manpower capacity? This is not about religion this is about control and power; George W Bush was good for the terrorism business, the Democrats are more threatening to them as they have more potential of taking out the middleman.
Posted by: Elixabeth | December 31, 2009 2:02 PM