Jump (For My Love)

When I first heard about the failed terror attack upon an international flight from Amsterdam, my first thought wasn't political, "Hell, Bush, couldn't y'all put together a better airline security system?," nor did I panic, forswearing never again to fly. My first thought wasn't: "I want to see the president on television. I want to see him now. I want him to reassure me, and the flying public, that we're going to be secure if we take a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit." That just wasn't my first thought.

My first thought was: "How did this guy manage to get pass security with explosives?" The thought really took flight when I learned that Amsterdam has one of the most probing airline security systems in the world. And then I learned that the terrorist was treated as an "inflight passenger," and was screened with the assumption that he had been searched previously, and didn't warrant a thorough, more exhaustive, one.

Couple that with the reality that airlines are profit-driven, and more cost conscious than security and safety would dictate, this was a sure prescription for a disaster waiting to happen.

Unfortunately, there will be other events. Terrorists are intent on striking us again, possibly with a mortal blow. When they do, Obama can't jump each time the Republicans, by way of their criticism of him, egg him on to do so. He has to use his own judgment. If talking to the American people immediately seems warranted, then speak, otherwise hold your peace. It took Bush six days to speak out about Richard Reid, who was tried, and convicted, in our criminal court system, just as the "underwear bomber" will be, despite calls to try him before a military tribunal. Peter King shouldn't be allowed to set your agenda, nor any other Republican. Republicans get as much mileage from making you jump on cue, as they do from their criticism.

The real story is not that a terrorist attempted to attack us, but that he got as far as he did, using a low-tech method--explosives in his underwear, for crying out loud. First, it was Richard Reid, stashing explosives in his shoes, and you know where that led: The flying public having to remove their shoes to fly. Now with the underwear guy, will that call for the removal of our pants, and a close examination of what might be sewn in the lining of underwear?

Perhaps all airlines should convert to flying nudists only, or those willing to convert to nudism for the extent of a flight. If people don't have clothes on, they can't tuck something away. Well, they could, but it would be harder.

I'm being facetious, of course. One solution would be full-body scans, and I understand only 19 scanners, or so, are now installed, with about 150 more being planned. Now I don't know about you, but I'd rather give up the privacy of having someone peer at my gorgeous body, than run their hands around my private parts.

If we're going to give up some privacy to fly, let's make sure that the sacrifice really works. It has to be extraordinarily hard to get around those full-body scanners, if they're working. I can't see how anyone could hide anything from those scanners, and still be able to walk, let alone talk, and interact with security personnel.

And for goodness sakes, let's start paying security personnel more than minimum wage. It will attract people who might take their job seriously, won't hold a grudge against their employer for working for pennies, and will actually do the job--and won't daydream about what they're going to do after work, but actually focus on the job at hand.

Compared to nonessential jobs, the most important jobs in this country are those that command the lowest pay--our teachers, police officers, and firemen.

If you have the likes of Pat Buchanan saying that its unfortunate that this incident was politicize, then you know somebody went well over the line.

Interestingly, this terrorist incident is not without controversy. Was there an accomplice? We have a well-dressed man intervening for Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab at the Amsterdam airport, and the FBI supposedly arresting someone in addition to Umar, and later denying it.

I don't want to minimize the gravity of the event, because it posed a real threat to the flying public, and to those on the ground, had this plane gone down. No doubt, this event shouldn't have happened. Dots should have been connected.

Yet, I'd like to make this point: Democrats, and the president in particular, can't jump each time Republican critics attempt to use an event to make them look soft on terrorism, dovish on war, and weak on national security. Jumping is not going to make Republicans love you more, nor diminish their attacks. Republicans have a plan: to take back the seats of power by any means necessary. And the method they're using now is to make Democrats and the president look foolish, and ineffective.

It's their aim to convince us that only they can lead us during times of national economic upheavals, and an ongoing war on terror. What they want us to forget is that they had almost eight years to rescue the economy, and to makes gains against terrorism.

Instead, they abandoned the real front on terrorism, Afghanistan, to fight Iraqis, and gave tax breaks to those who didn't need them, the rich. Talk about misplaced priorities!