GUT CHECK TIME for Obama and Democrats

In an ironic twist of fate, health care reform suffered a near fatal blow on Tuesday because an anti-reform Republican replaced Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Senator Kennedy, a leading American advocate of healthcare reform for several generations, died of cancer just as the finish line was in sight. He will be succeeded by Scott Brown, who came up quietly through the Massachussetts legislature to shock the Democratic establishment. He defeated State Attorney General Martha Coakley, who expected a cakewalk into the Senate. Obama's stumping for Coakley was not enough, just as it wasn't enough to help Jon Corzine win the Governor's race last November in another deep blue East Coast state, New Jersey.

Put aside the fun facts that the dashing Brown posed nude for Cosmo in his 20's and tried to pawn off his daughters on national TV during the victory speech on Tuesday night. The election was a dramatic defeat for the Democratic party just as Obama is hitting the one year mark of his administration. Massachussetts was a solid blue state that Obama carried by a huge margin, and a longtime stronghold for Senators Kerry and the beloved homegrown Kennedy clan. This race wasn't even supposed to be close, but the evidence shows that moderate independents who make up the largest chunk of the Massachussetts electorate migrated en masse to Mr. Brown, who ran as an anti-establishment outsider. Critically, the balance in the US Senate shifted from 60-40 to 59-41, leaving Democrats one vote shy of the filibuster-proof majority of 60 votes needed to pass health care reform and other parts of the liberal agenda.

In the immediate aftermath we are witnessing panic and dissent within the Democrat ranks, and gloating and rejoicing on the part of Republicans. The finger-pointing began even before the polls closed: administration officials blaming Coakley's lackluster campaign, Coakley's people blaming the DNC and the administration for not providing greater material support in a close race, and ugly internecine warfare in the Massachussetts Democratic party that was probably the largest factor of all. Many have concluded that the vote was a referendum on Obama and on healthcare reform. Meanwhile we are to believe Republicans and Tea Party folks are ascendant, the national electorate has shifted sharply to the right, and the 2010 midterms could become a bloodbath for Democrats. Whether any of this is true is debatable. But Tuesday was clearly a sick day for advocates of health care reform, including the president, but the show must go on. Here is why.

Democrats still own a massive majority. Many Democrats in Congress, in their weak-kneed fear that other "safe" seats across the country might fall in November, have forgotten that they were elected to office not simply to win more elections, but to serve the people. One measly defeat of a third-rate Senatorial candidate is by no means reason to give up on health care reform, or even scale back an already weak bill. Anyone who believes that reforming the health care system is right for the country, even if it is incremental reform, needs to double down on their efforts to pass it. Now is the time to courageously stand for convictions and deeply held beliefs, not abandon them out of fear. And if you are booted out of office, so be it. At least you can claim an ounce of integrity for standing for something. Yes, this might be Obama's Waterloo as Jim DeMint predicted, but at least he would go down in history as having fought for something that eluded liberals for 60 years and coming closer than any of them.

What seems to be getting lost here is that 59-41 is still a historically massive advantage, and paired with a House majority it's a far larger mandate than George W. Bush ever had. Yet under his watch the Republicans were able to steamroll through critical legislation such as the decision to invade Iraq. The problem with Democrats is that they lack that type of discipline. They need to find it, fast. The entire bickering caucus needs to get back on message. Passage of a bill in some form would be a victory that would not only help Democrats get re-elected, it would actually help real people.

This is About those 30 million uninsured Americans, remember? It's easy to see why some Massachussetts voters weren't scrambling to elect someone to office who could help pass health care reform. That's because Massachussetts already has a form of universal coverage, ironically implemented under Republican Governor Mitt Romney. Passage of health care reform at the federal level would not really help people in the Commonwealth at all. To the extent people were aware of that fact, Brown exploited it.

This represents a larger symptom of the health care struggle: most people are either pretty healthy or happy with the insurance they already have. The insurance industry is also perfectly content with the status quo, with laws in place which help keep the oligopolies in business and highly profitable. However, this arrangement comes at the expense of the millions of Americans who cannot get decent coverage, many of whom are children, the working poor, or the chronically ill, people who cannot speak for themselves as loudly as industry lobbyists. Who speaks for them? It was supposed to be Obama and his allies in Congress. To give up on them now, after already caving in on the public option and a hundred other needed reforms would be disgusting.

The Opposition. Sure, there is a groundswell of grassroots opposition to reform, though I believe this only played a limited role in Massachussetts. Politicians by nature must pay attention to this type of sincere and heartfelt opposition. However, much of it is fueled by the aforementioned contentment with the current system, coupled with fear. Fear of change, fear of spending more while the economy is a mess, fear of socialism, and even fear of the fictional Sarah Palin construct called "Death Panels" are what make the teabaggers tick. The opposition movement, to the extent they rally around any rational concept, are united by fear. And their scare tactics have successfully crept into the Democratic psyche. Yet neither the teabaggers, nor the Republican party have a plan on the table to cover the 30 million uninsured Americans. What are we supposed to do, just pretend they don't exist, and let them suffer and die from curable diseases? Nobody seems to have a good answer on that, except Republican coughs about tort reform, a good idea that at best would only constitute a fraction of the cost controls we need. The policy of saying no at all costs is untenable.

Obama's Position. The Obama camp is understandably rattled. The national mood has soured considerably since the inauguration exactly one year ago. Approval ratings have plummeted. The media has turned on the president for the second time, the first being during the long election cycle when now long-distant and irrelevant memories of Reverend Wright and Tony Rezko nearly derailed Obama's nomination. Most self-identified Republicans appear to hate Obama with a passion for his agenda which they consider diabolical, while many liberals are disappointed that Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan and compromising on civil liberties, the environment, and healthcare reform promises.

A sober look at his record, something the media is not paid to do, will show that Obama is not doing so badly. Sure, 10% of Americans are waiting in line for unemployment checks. The would-be Christmas bomber made us tremble and disrupted holiday travel. Deficits stare at us and look to grow bigger. While Obama's popularity abroad is high, we have not yet seen tangible foreign policy victories in relation to Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, or Israel-Palestine yet. Most Americans do not think we are better off than a year ago.

However most economists agree we have successfully avoided a more monumental collapse in the economy, and part of the credit must go to the administration's work in assisting the banking and auto industries, along with the stimulus package that clearly created and preserved jobs. We have seen steady improvement in the stock market and stopped much of the bleeding in the housing sector. The government over the last year has aggressively gone after terrorists, arresting or killing many before they were able to do harm to American interests.

Obama's position is much stronger than it might seem from emboldened critics and disheartened supporters. He inherited power at a historically difficult time, and has only been in office for a year. The next national election will not be until November. The players are in place. Now is the time to fight tooth and nail for health care reform, using whatever legal means available, including passing pieces through the 51 vote reconciliation process. It is critical to pass a bill with even minor reforms, so that in the future a more enlightened government can build on them. Losing at this stage, when a health care bill is so close, would set back efforts for years if not decades. It's quite possible that the fleeting Democratic majority may end as soon as November.

The 2010 election will hinge on the economy, not health care reform, as any provisions in the bill including higher costs and taxes will not kick in for several more years. The economy is the issue that will matter most at the polls, as Democrats can expect to be kicked out if they don't demonstrate that they were able to create jobs after nearly two years of being in power in Washington. It would be a mistake to conflate health care efforts with the Massachussetts election, which is exactly what the opponents of health care want the Democrats to do. If Scott Brown is the straw that breaks the health care reform camel's back, the Democrats should resign right now and leave Washington, and spare us the pretense of being in charge of anything, let alone our government.

It's gut check time. The next ten months will show what Obama and his party are really made of, will define their legacy far more than the first year did, will determine if they deserve to stay in power or not. Hope still exists, but the clock is ticking.

Powdered Crotch, Hidden Weapon

Passengers on Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit were nearly treated to an unpleasant Christmas day fireworks show, courtesy of a young Nigerian traveler named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. There are striking parallels aplenty to another would-be airplane bomber, Englishman Richard Reid a.k.a the "shoe-bomber" who attempted to light some explosive-filled footwear on fire with a match during Christmastime 2001. A stark contrast is that Abdulmutallab packed the explosive PETN powder tightly against his crotch inside his underwear, which we can safely say wasn't a jock itch remedy. The Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist intended to use a syringe of fluid to set off the explosion, ostensibly in hope of taking down the plane with him.

Fortunately, both men were forcibly stopped by alert passengers and flight crew just in time to prevent a potential fiery explosion, which might have damaged either plane enough to force an emergency crash-landing. Abdulmutallab, like Reid, is now in jail. Such heroism and vigilance, while applaudable, offer small comfort for those of us who feel that these pyromaniacs should have been intercepted by government agencies first, especially 8 long years after the catastrophic 9/11 attack when four hijacked airliners became weapons of mass destruction.

There is much at stake in the foiled Abdulmutallab terror plot. It is a shadowy tale of international intrigue spanning many countries, involving many US and foreign government agencies, and brings to light key details of how America executes its counter-terrorism efforts on the front lines. In the final analysis, both sides failed. The Jihadist network did not get the plane crashes they sought; and the security apparatus of America suffered "systemic failure" as President Obama admitted several days later. The fight is far from over, so this is a good time to assess what is happening and demystify the strategies we are using to defeat the bad guys.

Terror, Inc. is alive and well. While the crotch bomb failed to blow, another terror plot was executed very successfuly a few short days later. A Taliban commando dressed as an Afghan military officer blew up a US compound in Afghanistan, killing 8 CIA officers in one of the deadliest attacks of the entire 8-year Aghanistan campaign, and in the six decade history of the CIA itself. Though entirely separate incidents in different countries, they illustrate that the tentacles of Jihad are truly global and have a very long reach.

In November yet another airliner bomb plot was foiled as a man carrying PETN and a syringe, just like Abdulmutallab, was captured in Somalia by the authorities at Mogadishu Airport before he could get on the Dallo Airlines flight. Judging by the fact that these are the only two known PETN plots, they happened within about a month, and both men had connections to Yemen, it is likely to be backed by the same Al-Qaeda network in that country. It is embarrassing that Somalia's dysfunctional government could stop the guy from getting on their airliner, but the US government did not stop Abdulmutallab from flying Northwest's friendly skies. In an unfortunate twist, the Somali government released their man from custody, losing a vital source of evidence perhaps for good. Yet another terror plot may have been foiled recently as five Americans of Pakistani descent from D.C. are being held by the Pakistani government for, among other charges, casing Pakistani nuclear facilities for a potential strike. This is not the first time that a foreign government is holding Americans on charges of terrorism on their soil, a strange turning of the tables.

These disparate events prove the significant reach of the terror networks, which thanks to the Internet and no shortage of weak and strong states to stage their bases in, are truly globalized in nature. Take Abdulmutallab- a Nigerian, living in England, trained in Yemen by Saudis, and boarding a flight in Amsterdam bound for the United States. Nigeria, England, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Holland, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and the United States: with a borderless enemy full of loose affiliations operating in dozens countries, it is foolish to think we can defeat terrorism by military means alone. The "War on Terror" initiated by the Bush Administration is a monumental example of a fool's errand on behalf of an ignorant citizenry, one that has led us to spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan without buying even a basic modicum of security. Terrorism is a criminal law enforcement problem, not a war, not deserving of the legitimacy the far-flung members are given by calling it a war, and must be treated as criminals. We continue thinking of our national security policy as a "War on Terror" at our own peril. Sadly, this moniker is just one of the mistakes committed by a Rogue's Gallery of national security professionals.

A Comedy of Errors. If there were ever a chance to catch an angry young anti-American terrorist red-handed on a silver platter, before he ever boarded a plane, this was it. Abdulmutallab was ratted out by his own father, of all people, far in advance of Christmas. Several months ago, after noting his son's flirtations with Al-Qaeda in Yemen, including correspondence indicating the boy wouldn't see his family again, Abdulmutallab the Senior informed officials of Nigeria, along with State Department and CIA personnel at the US embassy. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is a Muslim Nigerian who bought a one-way ticket, with cold hard cash, and checked no bags in. And all this just one month after the failed PETN attempt in Mogadishu in November. It boggles the mind to wonder how this person was given a US visa, and did not have it revoked at any point during the process.

It should have been easy to track down this amateur with a profile screaming "catch me please!" He seems to have been on the radar of multiple agencies, including just within the United States alone: State, CIA, FBI, TSA, and other pieces of the Department of Homeland Security puzzle. Who should be held accountable in this labyrinth of a bureaucracy? Central to the furor is the so-called "watch lists" maintained by the intelligence commmunity; instead of the "no-fly" list that could have stopped him at the boarding gate, Abdulmutallab was placed in another broader database, tucked away with 550,000 other names. Washington must take a very close look at how these various databases are used and updated, as in this case it was rendered completely ineffective. We must make better use of these lists, and have better protocols to investigate red flags properly. We must have much better lines of communication between agencies. Finally and related to that, our human intelligence and signals intelligence must be better at connecting the dots. We were getting electronic chatter from Yemen that a Christmas attack was imminent, but this information was not cross-referenced with any of the numerous other red flags.

Politicizing the incident. When under attack, it would be nice to see the nation come together as one in the face of a shadowy enemy. But like nearly everything in a polarized America at war with itself, Flight 253 has demonstrated a level of finger-pointing between politicians to rival that of the security officials. Most disgusting of all is the opportunism displayed by Congressional Republicans and right-wing bloviators in the media, attempting to seize back the political high ground on their bread and butter issue of national security, and the spotlight after being rendered irrelevant in the health care debate, which degenerated into a tug of war between liberal and conservative Democrats only. The cheap shots at Obama attempt to paint him as weak in the face of our enemies.

The Obama administration damaged itself by waiting far too long to make a statement on the incident. This shook the nation's confidence during the heaviest period of airline traffic on the calendar. When Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano finally spoke, she initially said the system worked, when it was quite obvoiusly the opposite. Counting on passengers and flight attendants to take down a terrorist isn't exactly watching the multi-billion dollar system work, and nobody was fooled. Obama made a critical error. Though Republicans have tried to jump on this as evidence of an administration weak on national security, the poor initial reaction is inconsequential for national security in the long run. Hopefully the White House learned its lesson on message control during a crisis. Meanwhile, many seem to have forgotten the incompetent prevention and response measures by Bush and Cheney to disasters such as 9/11, when Mayor Giuliani became the soother of America's psyche for a week rather than the president. Additionally, Republicans and Democrats alike stayed quiet during the Richard Reid incident in 2001 as well. The latest attackes are ample proof of putting politics above country.

The most consequential question of the day is Guantanamo Bay. There is evidence of a connection between Abdulmutallab and two Saudi figures released from Guantanamo by the Bush administration, who allegedly turned up in Yemen in the Al-Qaeda fold to help train jihadists like Abdulmutallab. There are two ways of looking at this set of facts. One is the tack being taken by former VP Dick Cheney, who refuses to allow his failed legacy to speak for itself, and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI): we should not release detainees held as enemy combatants in Guantanamo, because they will go back to the business of terror again, like an ex-con freed from jail to commit more rapes. The other side of the coin is the one that Obama seems to espouse, though in a more lukewarm manner than before: holding enemy combatants indefinitely, without presenting proper evidence of wrong-doing or setting up some form of trial, against the spirit of most laws, will result in enough anger to help Al-Qaeda and the Taliban recruit new members. Meanwhile the guys who do finally get out will desire revenge for the way they were treated. This in turn, makes us less safe.

The evidence clearly shows that Guantanamo should still be shut down, but the Christmas day incident will force a continued debate on the matter. Those engaged in the battle to shut the base down lost a key general, when White House Counsel Greg Craig was pushed out of the administration this fall.

Airline Security. In examining the technical aspects of airline security, it is necessary to step back and look at the bigger picture. No matter what measures are put in place- including invasive new machines that will show the exact contours of a passenger's body- a terrorist who is halfway competent and willing to kill himself will find a way to take innocent lives, on a plane or elsewhere. I attended a presentation by a security consultant who regularly passes through TSA checkpoints at airports across America with lethal weapons such as guns and knives on his person. His team uses a combination of distractions, less-detectable materials, and hiding techniques. Focusing on an individual security measure will only lead to trying new ways of killing people. The magnometers present in most airports today cannot detect explosives, only metals. This means that we rely on poorly trained, poorly paid TSA personnel using wands and old-school body searches to find explosives or drugs. Adding the new machines, at many billions of dollars during a time of budget shortfalls, may help with that specific problem, but as a nation we will still have many other vulnerabilities. Another piece of the solution is better law enforcement: the type that we see by the detectives on "Law and Order" or "Criminal Minds." This requires the police work of deducting connections, motives, finances, putting weapons in someone's hands, and the enabling supply chains in order to destroy them. It will also require close cooperation with other nations, including some that are unsavory.

Abdulmutallab should be tried and sentenced in a court of law for all the world to see. And given a lifetime to rot in jail, rather than the paradise that he probably thought would await him as the martyr he never became. As Americans, we are bigger than the enemy. We have the righteous winds at our back, and morally acceptable tools at our disposal.

Empty words such as "victory" in the context of Iraq and Afghanistan are pipe dreams, nice things to talk about, if even worthy goals since we created the messes over there. However, it was dumb for us to believe that military campaigns would in any way eliminate terrorism. Terrorism is everywhere, and we will have to deal with it everywhere. Drying up the wells that foster terrorists will require more than swinging around our big guns wildly, as we have spent nearly the last decade doing.