Because You Can't Spell Clusterfark without the Letters TSA

As one wag quipped on Twitter, “I’m just looking for a girl who is a lady in public and a TSA screener in the bedroom.”

Allahpundit sums up Hillary’s hair-splitting response to the TSA’s credibility meltdown thusly:

Via Mediaite, I’ll leave you to supply your own hacky joke about what Bill’s view of “enhanced patdowns” might be. Two interesting elements here, though. First, notwithstanding her leeriness about junk-touching, Hillary ends up defending the policy anyway. She’s in no position to do otherwise given that Napolitano and The One himself support it, but watching one Democratic all-star after another come out publicly in favor of strip-or-grope really brings home what a politicized farce most national security issues are. Had this happened while Bush was in office, their brows would all be exquisitely furrowed while prominent Republicans would be much more equivocal; needless to say, this exchange last night between Huckabee and Whoopi Goldberg would have been very different on both sides. No policy issue is immune from politics, but this one should be a bit more immune, no?

And coming later this holiday week? “Videos like this one suggesting a wait-line apocalypse coming on Wednesday,” Allahpundit adds.

All of this of course a result of the TSA’s massive epistemic closure, which hardwires Epic Fail into the system,  Power Line’s Scott Johnson writes:

The TSA is bound by a form of political correctness that has long rendered it a joke. With its newly implemented scanning and pat down procedures, however, the TSA has become something worse than a joke. It has become intrusive and humiliating to a degree that is difficult to accept.

How bad has it gotten? This bad. But since “Ridicule is man’s* most potent weapon,” as one of the president’s heroes once wrote, fortunately, T-shirts are available in the lobby.

* Apropos of nothing, like the president’s own rather outdated mid-20th century worldview, wasn’t Saul rather sexist and old-fashioned for using the M-word when a more inclusive gender-neutral word would do?