One never quite knows what to make of stories like this: Homeland Security chief Napolitano says that there is "lots of chatter"
on jihadi networks, now that the tenth anniversary of the World Trade Center attack is close. And an Obama administration official has said that there is a credible but unconfirmed threat
reported of attacks against New York and Washington, perhaps involving a "vehicle laden with explosives."
My question: If another attack were to occur, would the nation rally around Obama the way it rallied around Bush?
I think not. In fact, I think just the opposite would happen.
And I think the change has nothing to do with the qualities or characters of both men. (Obama is a bad president, but he's certainly no worse
than Bush.) Something ugly has happened to our citizenry -- psychologically, socially, spiritually.
Within minutes -- perhaps seconds -- of a new terror strike, much of the public would presume that Obama was responsible. The actual facts on the ground will not matter; ultra-paranoia has become our new national default setting. The birther mania gave us an advance view of what to expect.
At the very least, if a new attack occurs, Fox News will surely push the line that "Obama couldn't keep us safe." Of course, they said something very different in 2001.
(Note to the nutjobs: I will neither print nor read you. And yet you will write to me nonetheless. Why? Because you are nutjobs.