The clocks were only supposed to move back an hour on Sunday morning, but you could be forgiven for thinking someone had accidentally pushed them back a whole year. At the very least, it seems that way in upstate New York, where a congressional race has turned into a battle between two old rivals, Vice President Joe Biden and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Biden started the face-off at a rally for Democratic candidate Bill Owens. Criticizing Owens' rival, independent Doug Hoffman, Biden turned his attention to Palin, who's endorsed Hoffman.
"Sarah Palin thinks the answer to energy is ‘Drill, baby, drill,' " Biden said. Then, he added, "It's a lot more complicated, Sarah."
Palin hit back quickly -- on Facebook, of course. She quoted Ann Coulter on the vice president's position on energy, and ended her post, "There’s one way to tell Vice President Biden that we’re tired of folks in Washington distorting our message and hampering our nation’s progress: Hoffman, Baby, Hoffman!"
On Tuesday afternoon, President Obama addressed the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 for the second time in two days. Unlike the remarks he made on Monday, these were apparently planned hastily, with such short notice given to the pool of reporters in Hawaii with him that the live feed of his comments was audio only, with video going to tape.
In contrast to what he'd said on Monday, and what his administration's message has been over the past few days, on Tuesday Obama took a harder, more realistic line. While he was careful not to criticize members of the intelligence community personally, he did admit to numerous mistakes that allowed the incident to occur, and was stern in speaking about them and saying they'd be addressed, and soon.
""[T]here were bits of information available within the intelligence community that could have and should have been pieced together," Obama said. "When our government has information on a known extremist and that information is not shared and acted upon as it should have been so that this extremist boards a plane with dangerous explosives that could have cost nearly 300 lives, a systemic failure has occurred, and I consider that totally unacceptable."
His full remarks:
Yesterday, I updated the American people on the immediate steps we took, the increased screening and security of air travel to keep our country safe in the wake of the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day.
And I announced two reviews, a review of our terrorist watch list system and a review of our air travel screening so we can find out what went wrong, fix it, and prevent future attacks. Those reviews began on Sunday and are now underway.
Earlier today, I issued the former guidelines for those reviews and directed the preliminary findings be provided to the White House by this Thursday. It's essential that we diagnose the problems quickly and deal with them immediately.
Now, the more comprehensive formal reviews and recommendations for improvement will be completed in the coming weeks. And I'm committed to working with Congress and our intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security communities to take all necessary steps to protect the country.
I wanted to speak to the American people again today, because some of this preliminary information that has surfaced in the last 24 hours raises some serious concerns. It's been widely reported that the father of the suspect in the Christmas incident warned U.S. officials in Africa about his son's extremist views.
It now appears that weeks ago this information was passed to a component of our intelligence community but was not effectively distributed so as to get the suspect's name on a no-fly list.
There appears to be other deficiencies, as well. Even without this one report, there were bits of information available within the intelligence community that could have and should have been pieced together.
We've achieved much since 9/11 in terms of collecting information that relates to terrorists and potential terrorist attacks, but it's becoming clear that the system that has been in place for years now is not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we collect and the knowledge we have.
Had this critical information been shared, it could have been compiled with other intelligence, and a fuller, clearer picture of the suspect would have emerged. The warning signs would have triggered red flags, and the suspect would have never been allowed to board that plane for America.
Now, the professionalism of the men and women in our intelligence, counterterrorism, and law enforcement, and homeland security communities is extraordinary. They are some of the most hard-working, most dedicated Americans that I've ever met. In pursuit of our security here at home, they risk their lives day in, day out in this country and around the world. Few Americans see their work, but all Americans are safer because of their successes.
They have targeted and taken out violent extremists. They have disrupted plots and saved countless American lives. They are making real and daily progress in our mission to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaida and other extremist networks around the world. And for this, every American owes them a profound and lasting debt of gratitude. Moreover, as Secretary Napolitano has said, once the suspect attempted to take down Flight 253, after his attempt, it's clear that passengers and crew, our homeland security systems, and our aviation security took all appropriate actions.
But what's also clear is this: When our government has information on a known extremist and that information is not shared and acted upon as it should have been so that this extremist boards a plane with dangerous explosives that could have cost nearly 300 lives, a systemic failure has occurred, and I consider that totally unacceptable.
The reviews I've ordered will surely tell us more, but what already is apparent is that there was a mix of human and systemic failures that contributed to this potential catastrophic breach of security. We need to learn from this episode and act quickly to fix the flaws in our system because our security is at stake and lives are at stake.
I fully understand that even when every person charged with ensuring our security does what they are trained to do, even when every system works exactly as intended, there's still no 100 percent guarantee of success. Yet this should only compel us to work even harder, to be even more innovative and relentless in our efforts.
As president, I will do everything in my power to support the men and women in intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security to make sure they've got the tools and resources they need to keep America safe, but it's also my job to ensure that our intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security systems and the people in them are working effectively and held accountable. I intend to fulfill that responsibility and insist on accountability at every level.
That's the spirit guiding our reviews into the attempted attack on Christmas Day. That's the spirit that will guide all our efforts in the days and years ahead. Thank you very much.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., apparently plans to continue his hold on the nomination of Erroll Southers to head the Transportation Security Administration. But Senate Democrats want to take him on, and Majority Leader Harry Reid will reportedly schedule a cloture vote sometime shortly after the chamber returns from its holiday recess.
It's not too surprising that Reid would try to overcome DeMint's objections now. Beyond the obvious problems caused by the lack of someone permanently in charge at TSA, there's a political angle too -- after the attempted bombing of Flight 253 on Christmas, DeMint's fellow Republicans are likely to be uncomfortable about being seen to block Southers' confirmation.
The timing could be a little better for Reid, though. The recess means the incident won't still be on the front pages by the time of the cloture vote, which diminishes some of the power of the issue for him.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., isn't up for reelection until 2012. And it's a good thing for him, too. A new Rasmussen poll shows him almost 30 percentage points behind one potential Republican challenger, Gov. Dave Heineman.
The survey shows 61 percent of respondents going for Heineman in a hypothetical matchup; by comparison, only 30 percent said they'd vote for Nelson.
Rasmussen attributes Nelson's precarious position to his reluctant support for his fellow Democrats' healthcare reform legislation.
"Just 17% of Nebraska voters approve of the deal their senator made on Medicaid in exchange for his vote in support of the plan. Overall, 64% oppose the health care legislation, including 53% who are Strongly Opposed," the polling firm says.
It also appears Nelson would get at least a small boost if he shifted positions on the issue -- if he votes to block reform, the number of respondents who say they'd vote for Heineman drops to 47 percent, with 20 percent of those supporters now going to Nelson, who'd be at 37 percent.
It's not all bad news for Nelson, though: 2012 is a long way off, and there's still plenty of time for public opinion in Nebraska to swing away from the GOP. Plus, in three years, reform legislation is likely to be less of a front-burner issue.
Karl Rove's marriage to his wife, Darby, lasted almost 24 years. The pair wed in January 1986 and were granted a divorce last week.
In a statement announcing the divorce, spokeswoman Dana Perino said, "The couple came to the decision mutually and amicably, and they maintain a close relationship and a strong friendship. There will be no further comment, and the family requests that its privacy be respected."
Additionally, Politico quotes an unnamed "family friend" as saying, "They did spend Christmas together with their son, and they plan to spend time together in the future. They maintain a strong friendship and they both feel that that friendship is a source of comfort and inspiration for their friends and family."
As detailed in this space Monday, there's a reason that the Transportation Security Administration is without a permanent head, and that reason's name is Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. DeMint has a hold on the nomination of Erroll Southers, one he put on because he's concerned that the administration will allow security screeners to use collective bargaining procedures.
These kinds of holds are often the sort of thing that senators like kept quiet -- hence the anonymous nature of many of them. DeMint's not one to do anything quietly, and he'd gotten coverage for this hold previously. But in the wake of the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253, he's getting some attention for the hold, and it's not a good kind of press for him or his fellow Senate Republicans.
Many major outlets have stories on DeMint's hold Tuesday -- the Washington Post has one, as does the Los Angeles Times. McClatchy has one, too, headlined, "Who's running the TSA? No one, thanks to Sen. Jim DeMint." Not the kind of headline anyone wants about themselves.
For now, DeMint's office says the senator won't drop the hold. But don't be surprised if you see some pressure from other Senate Republicans leading to Southers' confirmation soon enough.
Sometimes, it seems you could set your watch by Michael Goldfarb. The Weekly Standard writer — who served in the McCain press shop last year — can always be counted on to come forward to express concerns about nearly everything the Obama administration does, especially if it relates to terrorism. He didn't miss his cue following the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253, either.
In a post on the Standard's blog Monday, Goldfarb expressed his displeasure at the fact that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has been charged in civilian court.
"Of course, we ... don't get to interrogate him to find out who he was working with and what other plots are out there," Goldfarb wrote, continuing:
If he were treated as an enemy combatant and transferred to military commission system, we could use Army Field Manual techniques without Miranda (not as effective as enhanced techniques, of course, but much better than standard police practice). We could use his non-Mirandized statements against him in military commissions, so long as the statements were not forcibly coerced and were otherwise reliable.
This isn't the first time conservatives have expressed concern over the possibility of Miranda rights for accused terrorists. After the Obama administration announced that some detainees from Guantánamo Bay would be brought to the U.S. to stand trial, Rush Limbaugh seized on that theme. He even played civil libertarian, saying:
Now, think about something here. There are going to be a lot of precedents set in this trial. For example, let's just look at Miranda. Right now, every suspect has to be read his rights and is told he doesn't have to say a word, that he can get a lawyer.
But if he says something, it can be used against him. Now, if these clowns, if these terrorists are convicted without having been Mirandized, what does that precedent set? If he can be convicted without being Mirandized, if he didn't get his habeas corpus rights, can't they then be denied to us in the future, under this precedent? Well, but they're being given every constitutional protection as though they were citizens. See, this is the point. They get Mirandized, or they don't get Mirandized, and they get convicted. So a precedent is set that suspects do not need to be Mirandized and they can still be found guilty. Okay, so then you end up in the court system, and they don't Mirandize you, and you say, "Wait a minute, I wasn't Mirandized!"
This whole worry is rather silly; it stems from a misunderstanding of the basic principles underlying the Miranda warnings. The part of those warnings that's relevant here deals purely with the right against self-incrimination; it stems from the portion of the Fifth Amendment that reads, "No person shall ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The typical Miranda warning similarly specifies, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law." (My emphasis.)
All this is intended to prevent people from involuntarily testifying against themselves in a criminal trial. If law enforcement doesn't care about using a suspect's statements in court, they can interrogate that person without ever reading them their rights; they just can't use any incriminating information at that person's trial. Moreover, again, it's a right against self-incrimination — if a suspected terrorist gives up information about fellow conspirators before being properly Mirandized, that information is admissible.
So what does this mean for Abdulmutallab? Well, it means that — assuming prosecutors are satisfied with the array of charges currently available — law enforcement would technically never even have to Mirandize him. They don't need a confession in order to convict him; he already pretty well incriminated himself by trying to blow up his crotch in front of a bunch of witnesses.
There's another flaw in the logic used by Goldfarb, Limbaugh and others. The Miranda warnings inform someone of his or her rights, no more — interrogation doesn't magically stop at that point. The person in custody still has to exercise those rights. And in this case, it appears that Abdulmutallab has already started talking about some associates.
War Room is written and edited by Alex Koppelman, with contributions from Salon reporters around the country.