What's a terrorist to do?

IJ · Post by IJ » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:41 am

I heard (not blaming anyone here, but instead many antiClinton voices in the media etc) that 9/11 was Clinton's fault because he ignored the warning signs. Bush, however, didn't really flip a switch with security plans when he arrived, right? In any case, I'll bet a billion dollars those voices aren't now passing on this attack to the prior President (who also didn't flip a switch...).

Obama's responsible--he's the man who needs to respond--but he's not simultaneously a wishywashy olive branch extender love addict and a guy who merely changed the bumpersticker on Bush's tank, maintained other policies, and added drone attacks in Pakistan. Those two men can't inhabit one body. I've heard nothing about his military plans that suggest this wouldn't have happened under Bush. And the President doesn't necessarily have the power to make many thousands of counterintelligence people put someone on a watch list just because of obvious warnings. Some other people can answer for that.

Why don't we talk solutions instead of politics? Lots of people on BOTH sides have overlooked things; the other sides have found their fault AFTER the fact. Realistically we all know its impossible to prevent any and all incidents from central command, and I'm at least pleased to see that once again, no regular Joes who know what's actually going on are going to hold back on a plane or elsewhere. I'm proud of the regular citizens out there. I'd put a Bill on every flight if I could and I'm right there, too--I can assure you that anyone who doesn't get their bomb to go off within a few seconds of making a scene will be tenderized before I think about sinking in a choke.

Here's a suggestion: instead of waiting to response to attacks and working only retroactively, why not have regular people and our people think about what they would do to get thru security with lethal means, and finally do something anticipatory?

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:44 am

Is this leadership?

From CNN: April 19, 2009
Ex-CIA chief: Obama risks national security

From WSJ (Opinion): APRIL 22, 2009
Obama and the CIA - A President can't placate the left and keep America safe.

From Michelle Malkin: August 24, 2009
Obama’s CIA in turmoil; Panetta on the ledge; awaiting document dump

From Morning Star Online (UK): 30 December 2009
Obama blasts CIA over plane attack

When is the boss going to take ownership? Where have we benefited from "improvements"? How's the morale over there these days?

- Bill

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:48 am

“You can expect a larger than normal turnover in the next year,” a senior adviser to Obama on intelligence matters told ABCNews.com.

Well that explains the increase in CIA career opportunities flyers and e-mails we've been getting at the university lately!

IJ · Post by IJ » Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:58 am

I suggest everyone watch the South Park episode with Cartman giving the morning announcements and the Avatar tie in for perspective.

Meanwhile...

Obama complains action should have been taken over bomber intelligence. This is bad? He should have just patted the intelligence guys on the back?

The WSJ editorial page (guest author Jack Bauer?) doesn't like Obama, and claims that if there'd been another attack all the leftists would have been decrying the intelligence failure, insinuating they'd have expressed a wish for more torture. Wait didn't we just decry waterboarding like 3 days ago in another thread? And while the WSJ editorialist makes it seem like the US authors of the interrogation scheme were cautious and safe, there are plenty of really scary memos from John Yoo and colleagues they omitted and the fact that suspects have died with internal trauma in our custody. I guess the word torture has lost all it's meaning, like the editorial claims.

Also, Obama released some information and a former CIA chief disagrees, saying it gave new information to AQ. However, others claim in the article the material was already publicly available. Presumably only one is right? Others in the article including Sen. Graham (R- SC) regret that we ever permitted the techniques used under the Bush administration policies, claiming they've harmed the country.

I won't ever say the man is perfect but I can't say these links have changed my opinion of him :/

IJ · Post by IJ » Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:06 pm

More unfortunate security related news:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/1 ... index.html

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:55 pm

IJ wrote:
Obama complains action should have been taken over bomber intelligence. This is bad? He should have just patted the intelligence guys on the back?

It's now *his* CIA. When is he going to acknowledge that the organization he changed so dramatically is now his responsibility?

Furthermore... From ABC This Week, Dec 27, 2009

NAPOLITANO: Well, I think, first of all, we are investigating, as always, going backwards to see what happened and when, who knew what and when. But here -- I think it's important for the public to know, there are different types of databases.

And there were simply, throughout the law enforcement community, never information that would put this individual on a no-fly list or a selectee list. So that's number one.

Number two, I think the important thing to recognize here is that once this incident occurred, everything happened that should have. The passengers reacted correctly, the crew reacted correctly, within an hour to 90 minutes, all 128 flights in the air had been notified. And those flights already had taken mitigation measures on the off-chance that there was somebody else also flying with some sort of destructive intent.

So the system has worked really very, very smoothly over the course of the past several days.

****

HOST TAPPER: We're going to start with, obviously, the alarming Christmas attack that almost happened. David, you heard Secretary Napolitano and Robert Gibbs give their answers about why this guy was allowed on the plane.

Did it -- pardon the pun. Did it fly with you?

(LAUGHTER)

NYT BROOKS: Yes, I actually don't think it passed the laugh test with me.

This was just a piece of the transcript, Ian. Napolitano kept with this mantra over and over and over again. Once it started, everything happened as it should.... Yea, a PASSENGER subdued the attacker. He's on the Homeland Security payroll? Meanwhile, the guy's dad goes to the US Embassy and tells them his son has been radicalized. So why does he still have visas to the US? Why isn't he at least on a "check this guy" list? The CIA allegedly interviewed this guy's father and passed the information to DC. Then what?

Obama doesn't inspire confidence, Ian. Apparently the wrong speechwriter is vacationing with him in Hawaii.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:04 pm

IJ wrote:
More unfortunate security related news:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/1 ... index.html

That's a war zone. Things will get a lot worse there before they get better. As of December, there are now more US deaths in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

- Bill

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:22 pm

I'm in favor of the memo releases. This is part of his broader efforts to open up the government, and I applaud him for that. This is one of the areas where Obama has already improved on the Bush administration, and I think it's great. The government needs to be more transparent than it was under Bush, and these memos are part of that. Kudos, I say.

As for his reprimand of the general intelligence failures... doesn't seem wrong to me. I think the president *should* hold the agencies he controls to a high standard. You keep asking when he is going to claim ownership over his CIA... and yet you think it's unfair of him to rebuke his CIA for failures? You're afraid he's going to hurt the CIA's feelings? I'm not buying it.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:05 pm

Valkenar wrote:
You keep asking when he is going to claim ownership over his CIA... and yet you think it's unfair of him to rebuke his CIA for failures? You're afraid he's going to hurt the CIA's feelings? I'm not buying it.

"The buck stops here!"
- Harry S. Truman

An Emotional Intelligence Poem
AUTOBIOGRAPHY IN FIVE SHORT CHAPTERS
by Portia Nelson

I
I walk down the street. There is a deep hole in the sidewalk. I fall in. I am lost … I am helpless. It isn’t my fault. It takes me forever to find a way out.

II
I walk down the same street. There is a deep hole in the sidewalk. I pretend I don’t see it. I fall in again. I can’t believe I am in the same place but, it isn’t my fault. It still takes a long time to get out.

III
I walk down the same street. There is a deep hole in the sidewalk. I see it is there. I still fall in … it’s a habit. My eyes are open I know where I am. It is my fault. I get out immediately.

IV
I walk down the same street. There is a deep hole in the sidewalk. I walk around it.

V
I walk down another street.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:11 pm

Bottom line... Obama is no Harry S. Truman. He has no executive experience, and it shows.

He's also a bit short on the emotional intelligence. These are the kinds of lessons I'm trying to teach my 17-year-old, for Christ's sake!

- Bill

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:49 pm

So all you want is a "mea culpa"? I mean, he said "As President I will do everything in my power to support the men and women in intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security to make sure they've got the tools and resources they need to keep America safe. But it's also my job to ensure that our intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security systems and the people in them are working effectively and held accountable. I intend to fulfill that responsibility and insist on accountability at every level."

That sounds a lot like he's taking responsibility while trying to explain the failures to the american public, and still keep up the morale of the CIA, etc.

What exactly do you want here? "It's all my fault, I'm sorry I'm so sorry"? To my ear "It's my job ... I intend to fulfill that responsibility" sounds a lot like "It's my job to fix this and I will" isn't much different from "The bucks stops here" I mean, if he had slotted that particular phrase in there, would it really have changed the tone of what he said very much? I don't think so.

He's also a bit short on the emotional intelligence.

That statement seems pretty hard to justify. I mean, right-wing cranks complain that he's dangerously charming. Not exactly the signature trait of someone lacking in emotional intelligence.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:19 am

Bill Glasheen wrote: the guy's dad goes to the US Embassy and tells them his son has been radicalized. So why does he still have visas to the US? Why isn't he at least on a "check this guy" list? The CIA allegedly interviewed this guy's father and passed the information to DC. Then what?

According to at least one source, he was put on a watch list. Apparently after interviewing the father they did not feel there was enough evidence yet to revoke his visa and put him on a no-fly list. That will always be a judgement call, and in this case it was the wrong one. To the would-be bomber's credit in this, he acted quickly after his family became concerned, likely before any more info would be found out about him by the CIA or Homeland Security.

As for complaints within the CIA after a change in administration, that hardly seems novel or unexpected. The former head who is complaining was hired by Bush. Many working there would have been hired by the same administration, and thus have similar leanings. Naturally they will not be happy with the new administration, no matter what it does. Plus all working there had up to 8 years to get accustomed to a particular way things were done. But as my company said in a training course I had to take a week before I was laid off, "Change is good" (not out of context either, that was the intent of the message). Basically the complainers sound like I do about my former company, disgruntled by forced change. It's wholly expected.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:20 am

Valkenar wrote:
he's dangerously charming.

If you say so. Personally I still see the law professor with no executive experience. It shows. Just listen to him when he isn't reading off the teleprompter.

I also make a habit of reading rather than listening to his speeches. I find his oratory style distracting. It's kind of like after having heard Gilda Radner do Baba Wawa. It's difficult to listen to Walters any more after that. The style grates on you. The same is true of Obama now. See any number of SNL skits on Obama and the same thing happens. He's almost but not quite as funny as the impersonation of him.

Sorry... the magic is gone.

Valkenar wrote:
Not exactly the signature trait of someone lacking in emotional intelligence.

He doesn't hold a candle to a dozen or so great men and women I've personally known in my life - who have actually accomplished something.

As is evidenced by the articles I cited above, Obama has spent more time ridiculing, exposing, and defanging our intelligence capabilities than making them efficient and effective. It's been all about the bad, bad things Bush did and who can be dragged into court. He's been acting like a lawyer, and not a leader. And then when his new CIA failed to make clear and obvious first-hand information available to key parties, he is outraged and shocked.

HE made the CIA what it is today. It's HIS intelligence agency now. HE owns this screw-up. A good executive doesn't blame the problem on a system that he created. He doesn't look for scapegoats. And he certainly doesn't let his lackey hang out to dry on the Sunday morning talk shows, saying everything went as it should have when clearly we're lucky that CIVILIANS have our backs today.

- Bill

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 2:02 am

Bill Glasheen wrote: He doesn't hold a candle to a dozen or so great men and women I've personally known in my life - who have actually accomplished something.

Just out of curiousity Bill, how many of that dozen were Liberals and/or Democrats?

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 2:03 am

Glenn wrote:
Bill Glasheen wrote:
He doesn't hold a candle to a dozen or so great men and women I've personally known in my life - who have actually accomplished something.
Just out of curiousity Bill, how many of that dozen were Liberals and/or Democrats?

At least half. Uber liberals. I could name names... You forget that I spent a long time in academia, and work with academics in my research.

Why do you think it's so easy for me to debate with liberals?

- Bill