This won't surprise anyone, but I thought that I'd point it out. On December 5th, 2005, the 9/11 Commission released an annual report card, recording progress that the United States has made in working to achieve the goals given by the Commission to prevent another terrorist attack. The Left went into overdrive complaining that we weren't safe enough. They ignored the fact that, though there were far too many F's and D's in the report card, A's, B's and C's outweighed the F's and D's, with the number of F's and D's (counting so-called "F/'s" as F's, and counting I's since I couldn't quite find out what "I" meant [if you know please tell]) coming in at 19 and the number of A-B-C's counting in at 22. Understandably, the low grades made more news, but it seemed some were even entirely ignoring the fact that good grades out-numbered bad.

So the left went into overtime. One DailyKos blogger said, sarcastically, "9/11 Commission Report Card - Shocking, just shocking, not..." The individual whined and complained as most liberals do, that Bush just wasn't doing enough: "[T]hese continuing real national security problems remain unsolved, haunting our nation until that next horrible day of unexpected disaster," he eerily and depressingly said. Well at least its better than during the Clinton years. We didn't have a lot of time to reflect on the haunting nature of waiting for a terrorist attack then-- there wasn't enough time before another one would occur.

But then, hilariously, only two days later when a U.S. Air Marshall shot dead a passenger he said claimed  to have a bomb on a plane, the left pulled its classic switcharoo: This Administration is doing too little, but is also doing too much.

A DailyKos poster said:

"CNN posts a Quick poll in which close to 75% of the respondents said having armed air marshals on planes makes them feel safer.

Welcome to America, post 9/11 hysteria style."

He then made a big deal about how some passengers said they never heard anything about a bomb. I'll get to that in a sec, but, isn't this kind of telling? That one second liberals are saying that we aren't doing enough, then. something happens, and its a violation of civil rights?  CounterPunch.com, a leftist news publication. even asks "[W]hy was he shot 4-6 times?... Why was it not possible to disable the man without killing him?" Why can't we seem to find some kind of mythical "middle ground" where we can prevent terrorism without being tough at all and never killing or hurting anyone? Why can't America never make a mistake?

And about those passengers claiming that he never said "bomb," be a little cautious. There's been some conflicting messages. As proof of this, let's take the claim that he was acting aggressively before he entered the plane. AP reports:

"The airline passenger shot to death by federal marshals who said he made a bomb threat was agitated even before boarding and later appeared to be desperate to get off the plane, some fellow travelers said."

The AP also went on to discuss passengers claiming they never heard the word "bomb." One of them was a man named John McAlhany. But here's the problem: While some witnesses, as the AP reported, claimed that the man was acting aggressive before even boarding the plane, McAlhany claimed he was acting just fine. From Time:

McAlhany said he saw Alpizar before the flight and is absolutely stunned by what unfolded on the airplane. He says he saw Alpizar eating a sandwich in the boarding area before getting on the plane. He looked normal at that time, McAlhany says.

So, apparently, these witnesses are giving all kinds of different stories. Should we really trust everything they say without a deeper investigation?

More inconsistency is found in the witness's claims about whether or not his wife said he had bipolar disease-- in other words, they cannot collaborate on what someone on the plane said. From the Time report above:

Alpizar took off running down the aisle, with his wife close behind him. "She was running behind him saying, 'He's sick. He's sick. He's ill. He's got a disorder," McAlhany recalls. "I don't know if she said bipolar disorder [as one witness has alleged]. She was trying to explain to the marshals that he was ill. He just wanted to get off the plane." 

Hmmmm.... if we cannot determine exactly what the wife did and did not say on the plane from the witness's stories, what causes us to believe that we can determine what the man did and did not say on the plane by witness's stories?

Only an abundant and seething hatred of President Bush, his administration, and his policies, including his air marshal policies.