The Glade 4.0

That's quaint, Montegue. You still think that government cares about your well being.

Ah Yes, That Dainty, Sensitive, Dovish Dick Cheney We've Heard So Much About

Dan Pfeiffer, White House Communications Director, today:

I think we all agree that there should be honest debate about these issues, but it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers.

Just to clarify, this is the same former vice president who we were told was Darth Vader, ruthless and cruel, obsessed with terrorism, draconian and lacking in perspective, stopping at nothing to find anyone who could be even remotely connected to al-Qaeda and using excruciatingly painful forms of interrogation that leave decent souls traumatized and Jack Bauer wincing.

And now we're supposed to believe he's insufficiently interested in condemning the attackers? He's beyond condemning him; he wants to waterboard him until his lungs qualify for a federal wetlands status.

Look, guys, I realize you're on the defensive, but pick a line of attack and stick with it.

Well, they were, but this dumbass blew only two things to smithereens: efficiency and pleasantness in flying. Oh, sorry, three: his crotch.

You can certainly have that opinion, but you're simply incorrect. Far be it from me to endeavor to dispel you of your ill-conceived notions, however.

More jarring still were Obama’s references to the terrorist as a “suspect” who “allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device.” You can hear the echo of FDR: “Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor.”

Obama reassured the nation that this “suspect” had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant — an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians — and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point — surprise! — he stops talking.

This absurdity renders hollow Obama’s declaration that “we will not rest until we find all who were involved.” Once we’ve given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed, and sent him.

This is all quite mad even in Obama’s terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator — no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.

We seem to be incentivizing attacks here in the US as opposed to abroad:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZW ... E3OTZiMGU=

We seem to be incentivizing attacks here in the US as opposed to abroad:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZW ... E3OTZiMGU=

Which, as the article points out, incentivizes making the attacks on our turf, where we won't shoot you just for being armed, where we give you a lawyer instead of a waterboard, and where we have a burden of proof to levy lasting consequences against you.

Given that, who's going to pass on coming here to attack us, rather than fighting our forces on their own turf where we'll just shoot them?

We just need to re-define the process to make it more streamlined in cases where guilt is obvious.

Which, as the article points out, incentivizes making the attacks on our turf, where we won't shoot you just for being armed, where we give you a lawyer instead of a waterboard, and where we have a burden of proof to levy lasting consequences against you.

Given that, who's going to pass on coming here to attack us, rather than fighting our forces on their own turf where we'll just shoot them?

Which, as the article points out, incentivizes making the attacks on our turf, where we won't shoot you just for being armed, where we give you a lawyer instead of a waterboard, and where we have a burden of proof to levy lasting consequences against you.

Given that, who's going to pass on coming here to attack us, rather than fighting our forces on their own turf where we'll just shoot them?

So nobody's got any news on what airport security has been like for flyers recently? I fly out of Buffalo in 4 days.

I had two flights on New Years day. Both times the planes were over an hour late, due to the planes I was flying on were in-bound from the states. We were told it was caused specifically due to take off time due to extra measures. They wanted to be real certain that we weren't blaming the airline(Air Canada.)

So as far as I'd say, expect delays. If you have tight connection times, it could suck.