Meanwhile...

Are We Lumberjacks? passes on a report from Newsbusters:

MSNBC Anchor Frets: Why Hasn’t Obama’s Election Ended Terrorism?
By Rich Noyes
Created 2008-12-01 10:53

File this one under “Deluded Expectations.” During MSNBC’s coverage of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, on Thursday, daytime anchor Alex Witt seemed frustrated that the election of Barack Obama 23 days earlier — and the accompanying “global outpouring of affection, respect, hope” — had not caused an end to terrorist violence.

Talking with correspondent John Yang, who was covering the Obama side of the story, Witt conceded that while “you certainly can’t expect things to change on a dime overnight....There had been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought — at least hoped — would be dampered down. But in this case it looks like Barack Obama is getting a preview of things to come.”

It almost seems like a parody of liberals’ blind worship of Obama to actually expect that The One’s election would mean terrorists hanging up their bomb belts, peace around the world, lions lying down with lambs, and so forth. For his part, Yang delicately pointed out the more valid concern that “the enemies of the United States, those who don’t care for the United States no matter who’s leading it, would try and test the United States” during the transition from Bush to Obama.

Here’s the full exchange, that took place at about 2:55pm EST on Thursday, after Yang reported on how Obama was being fully briefed by the Bush administration on the terrorist attacks:

ALEX WITT: You know, John, and it’s interesting because there are many who had such an optimstic and hopeful opinion of things, and you certainly can’t expect things to change [snaps fingers] on a dime overnight, but there are many who suggested that with the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration there would be something of a lull in terrorism attacks. There had been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought — at least hoped — would be dampered down. But in this case it looks like Barack Obama is getting a preview of things to come.

JOHN YANG: He’s — it’s a rude awakening, a very, sort of, sober reminder of what he’s going to be facing in just a few weeks. And there is some concern also, there had been some concern, that during this period, during this, the transition period, between Election Day and Inauguration Day, that the enemies of the United States, those who don’t care for the United States no matter who’s leading it, would try and test the United States, would try to take advantage of this period, and I think that may be one thing that we’re seeing right now.

WITT: Okay, John Yang there in Chicago, following President-elect Barack Obama’s Thanksgiving Day dinner having been interrupted by all of this news from Mumbai. John, thank you very much.

And meanwhile meanwhile, Blackfive's Laughing Wolf posts a book report on Dean Ing's Soft Targets, one of my favorite thrillers from the 70s, which I used to good effect to illustrate the terrorist threat in a few reports for various sociology/criminal justice courses:

In the last few days, there has been a good bit of reference to the term-of-art "Soft Targets." We use that term a good bit, and trying to explain it at a meeting with a group of said targets this morning, it became clear that few know and understand it, or how it came to larger use. For those interested in either, allow me to recommend Dean Ing's novel "Soft Targets." That novel was done for a purpose, namely to warn and spark discussion -- and action. Sadly, it didn't spark action and it has been described as a blueprint for the Iran Embassy seizure, though it is in some ways more one for 9-11. It is how I met Dean Ing for the first time, as we were on a panel together entitled "Prophets of Dishonor," a title that apparently kept at least one panelist from attending (possibly, only thing known for sure is that they did not attend).

Yes, it is fiction but people's knowledge of it is one of the ways I separate wheat from chaff in those who claim expertise on terrorism and anti-terrorism. Most serious practitioners are familiar with it, just as "Kiplling" is a good tell on those who fight.

For the record, the way I explained it this morning was as "those who are by law unarmed and are unable and/or unwilling to fight back at all." I also pointed out that the first reaction of all who are not combat vets (and even some of them) was to freeze at first, but it was what you did in the next half second that oft decided if you lived or died...

LW