The lead article in  today’s New York Times is titled, “U.S. Spy Agencies Failed to Collate Clues on Terrorism.” It provides an analysis of advance information obtained by spy agencies and an attempt to determine who is at fault for the attempted Christmas bombing on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day.

The article casts a wide net. Most to blame, according to the article, seems to be the National Counterterrorism Center, founded in 2004 specifically to encourage sharing of intelligence information among a wide variety of U.S. agencies. The C.I.A., protective of its turf as always, seems to be a secondary source of responsibility because it did not share biographical information it compiled about the bomber. The article also mentions partisan attacks on President Obama by Dick Cheney, the intercept of a communication about an unknown Nigerian in Yemen by the National Security Agency (NSA), and the fact that every plane taking off for the United States must forward details on every passenger. These details, in addition to providing the fact that Mr. Abdulmutallab was on a watch list, would have noted that his ticket was paid for in cash and that he  didn’t check any bags.

I’m  sure President Obama will assess blame in more detail and that people will lose their jobs. While it’s good to know that we were able to intercept hints of the plot, the inability to synthesize intelligence information is perhaps the most troublesome aspect of this potential tragedy.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama Hears of Signs That Should Have Grounded Plot.” It describes an admission by President Obama regarding a systemic failure in the nation’s security system and his pledge to hold the responsible parties acountable.

The article lists several facts known before the attack including the preparation of a Nigerian for a suicide mission, the central role of Yemen for training purposes, and intelligence regarding the movements of Umar Abdulmutallah, not to mention the already provided information about the warning from his father. It concludes that if the information had been properly shared among various departments, they should have been able to connect the dots.

In my opinion, it’s always easy to play Monday morning quarterback and decry what might have been. But we do not live in a perfect world, and that’s what makes the prediction of terrorist incidents so difficult. Of course, President Obama has to claim that the system did not work because he can’t say what’s more true, that a security system, no matter how thorough, will never always work. The terrorists will keep trying to stay one step ahead of our detection apparatus, and we will inevitably respond to their innovations.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “President Seeks to Reassure U.S. After Bomb Bid.” It describes a speech by President Obama, comments by his administration, and developments in the investigation of an attempted Christmas Day bombing on a jet flying from Amsterdam to Detroit.

Al Qaeda in Yemen has now taken responsibility for the incident, leading to increased examination of possible ways to retaliate against both Al Qaeda and the nation of Yemen. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has come under increasing attack for what is perceived as a tepid response three days later. Janet Napolitano has been especially criticized for her statement that “the system worked” on Sunday.

In my opinion, there are few immediate actions that the President could take. A military response should not be rushed but be carefully planned and targeted against Al Qaeda to avoid creating even more enemies in the Middle East. Systemic changes, other than just an increased effort, also require study to be most effective.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s personal character does not mesh well with these type of situations. While the public yearns for emotional support, President Obama is more studious and prone to dispassionate analysis. Even though he is on top of the matter, his political enemies are able to attribute his character nature as displaying a lack of concern or emphasis on terrorism.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “More Questions on Why Suspect Wasn’t Stopped.” It provides more details and background on the attempt by a Nigerian to blow up a jetliner travelling from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day.

The article notes that the individual, Umar Abdulmutallab, paid cash for his ticket to the United States and checked no bags, plus he was already on a terrorist watch list based on information provided by his father. Based on these facts, he should have received a more thorough security review by airport officials before being allowed to board the plane. The Obama administration has ordered an investigation of the watch list process as well as airport screening procedures.

In my opinion, there were definitely enough facts to merit alarm by airport officials.  However, you must remember the thousands of people travelling by air every single day, and the need for security procedures to be 100 percent accurate. Also,  many of the Monday-morning quarterbacks speaking out now have also raised privacy concerns about full-body scanners and patdowns. However, in the age of the Internet, and the age of terrorism, we should definitely provide the full list of TIDE suspects, the most inclusive watch list, to every check-in counter and ticket-buying outlet in the world. This combined with proper identification  procedures would have prevented the Christmas Day incident.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “U.S. Says Plane Passenger Tried to Detonate Device.” It describes the now ad nauseum coverage of the  attempt by a Islamic Nigerian to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight en route from Amsterdam to  Detroit.

The White House described the attempt as an act of terrorism,  and the article provides some of the rapidly developing details, namely that the man had explosive taped to his leg and tried to detonate it by mixing with another substance. It also mentioned a near simultaneous announcement  by Republican Peter King about the  potentially devastating results if the attempt had been successful.

The United States and many foreign countries are immediately responding by stepping up security measures at national and international airports, though in my view, this is rather  like trying to retrieve spilt milk, or in another cliche, closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.

I’m a bit perturbed by the alacrity of Representative King to comment on a national security situation, primarily because it smacks of politics,  and  this is a serious matter. The  non-stop coverage on CNN today is also a bit  overblown as,  after all, noone was hurt,  and it  represents a serious but not world-encompassing event.

It was reassuring, however, to hear about the briefings of President Obama and his hands-on management of the situation. I think  he is doing the right thing  by keeping a low profile and letting  the security agencies, FBI and CIA do their job.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama has Goal to Wrest a Deal in Climate Talks.” It describes President Obama’s impending visit to Copenhagen and the possibility he may be able to achieve a last-minute agreement with almost 200 other countries.

His efforts have been given a major assist by Secretary of State Clinton who has buttressed the U.S. efforts by a promise of $100 billion to assist developing countries with the effects of climate change. This contribution was apparently timed to precede and provide momentum to President Obama’s visit.

Some elements do seem to be falling in place. China, who has objected to verficiation measures as an infringement on national sovereignty, is starting to make some slight concessions. Secretary of State Clinton framed the issue in a more diplomatic word, “transparency,” that may make it easier for some nations to comply.

Of course, the Republicans as usual are trying to blockade efforts. Why don’t they just go home and stay out of it, like they’re doing with healthcare? It’s amazing how so few and so outmoded thinkers can cause so much trouble.

Well, if anyone can pull this off, it will be President Obama. Here’s my best wishes for his ultimate success. He could sure use one.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Pakistan Detains Five U.S. Muslims in Raid by Police.” It describes the arrest of five U.S. students, mostly of Pakistani descent, after they suddenly disappeared from their Washington, D.C. homes. They were at the house of one of the students’ fathers who was linked to a militant group.

The students were not accused of any crime, and the Pakistani authorities said they were still gathering information. The F.B.I. had been notified when the students disappeared and coordinated with Pakistan in tracking them down. One of the students had created a “farewell” video, and the article notes that the investigation comes at a time when there is increasing concern about “homegrown” terrorism such as the incident at Fort Hood in Texas.

The students were all acknowledged as religious Muslims; one was studying to be a dentist; and an acquaintance said they probably didn’t even know the price of beer. If these type of people are being attracted to militant Islamic violence, there truly is a reason to be concerned.

I think we’ll have to wait to see whether anything pans out from the detentions. The Bush administration gained a reputation of making a mountain out of a molehill in these type of situations.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Ethics Rules for Congress Curb but Don’t End Trips.” It describes the result of legislation meant to prohibit lobbyists from paying for Congressional junkets. While it found that the number of trips declined, it still found suspect arrangements, often with a third non-profit corporation set up as an intermediary.

While Congressional representatives do need to travel to learn about and study the objects of their legislation, there is always a line that should not be crossed when there is undue influence on their resulting opinion. Also, no matter how thorough the ethics legislation may be, there are always loopholes and inconsistencies to be exploited.

For example, while lobbyists can’t pay for Congressional travel, their corporate clients can do so, and the lobbyists can meet the Congresspeople at a site as long as they don’t travel together.

So what should be done? Well, exactly what the New York Times is doing. Good investigative journalism will shame the Congressional representatives into submission, primarily because they want to keep their jobs. The worst abusers of the system will always be exposed as long as we have freedom of the press.

So, kudos to The New York Times for a good job and fulfilling their role in our democratic nation.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “In Surprise, Jobless Rate Fell to 10% in November. The rate declined 0.2 percent even though technically 11,000 jobs were lost. Yet there were other encouraging signs. More than 50,000 temporary workers were hired, and the underemployment rate (including those working less hours than they wish) also fell. And, just as important, the average weekly wage rose as well, thus bringing some hope of increased spending to keep the cycle going.

President Obama’s administration credited the stimulus program as a major factor in the improvement, and they deserve some good news for a change. In fact, the improvement in the work force is occurring more rapidly than the last two recessions in the early 1990s and 2001.

The only worrisome statistic involves the number of long-term unemployed created by this downturn. One can only hope they will find some kind of community training program that the administration and Congress are considering.

Typically, the Republicans refuse to give any credit to Obama for the situation, even though they were quick to condemn him when the economy was declining. It’s almost as if they want the economy to remain mired for political reasons. The Republicans seem to be rooting against America and a speedy economic recovery.

Today’s article in The New York Times is titled, “No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums is Seen in Study.” It describes the latest analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan organization, on the effects of the Democrats’ health insurance legislation on the cost of premiums.

The analysis stated that the legislation could significantly reduce the cost of premiums for many people while leaving others relatively unaffected. It represents a major victory for supporters of President Obama’s effort to enact national health insurance.

The report reassured centrist Democratic Senators such as Evan Bayh who had been beset by a Republican misinformation campaign on the effects of the legislation. Not surprisingly, Republicans such as Mitch McConnell and Charles Grassley tried to cherry pick items from the report to justify their continuing opposition.

Meanwhile, according to the article, the White House is now reaching out to moderate Republicans such as Senator Sue Collins, who met with the director of the White House Office of Health Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle, for 45 minutes yesterday.

The Democrats are finally being rewarded for their persistent efforts on behalf of the American people while the Republicans are being exposed for their obstructionist tactics. Even when the C.B.O. comes out with a favorable report, the Republicans seem unable to acknowledge anything positive about the legislation.