an attack that does not succeed in achieving its intended result is not an attack at all and should be referred to as a newt.

only if it gets better is it an attack.

One more example of how certain U.S. policies (war mongering, war profiteering, etc.) never change; regardless of which “political party” occupies the White House.

you can say that again!

Janet Napolitano gave him no other choice. None.

Not to be pedantic (which of course means I’m going to be pedantic), but there’s nothing Derridean about this. It’s closer to Baudrillard, although he had an almost reactionary fear of televisual culture. And unlike Derrida, Baudrillard was also a dumb*ss.

FINE.

A formal definition of the noun “attack” includes this:

a belligerent or antagonistic action

President Obama is correct that it was an attack.

Spencer Ackerman is correct that it was a failed attack.

Is it Derridean messaging or just sloppy shorthand?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kku7zb4unog

TD – well said. Abdulmutallab attacked. He failed to harm people or property. But he attacked.

This Mickey Kaus item makes the maximal version of the Napolitano-painted-him-into-this-corner point I made above, putting an interesting positive spin on it.

I’ve been thinking about this since I read a tweet to the effect of “It was ATTEMPTED terrorism, it was TERRORISM.”

I’m more concerned than I probably should be about what is a semantic issue, but I think if the language we use to talk about terrorism loses the ability to distinquish between a terrorist act that fails and one that doesn’t, that’s moving in a really scary direction.

Well, this discussion has proceeded on the question of whether it was an (attempted) attack, not whether it was terrorism. But the president has said it was both, and I agree with him.