Whoops! CIA Man Retracts Claim on Waterboarding

[Coyote]

I agree.

The difference is that Pres. Bush implemented safeguards that kept the US safe from AL QAIDA ATTACK for the next 7, and Obama dismanteled them, and that's why we then had 3 in one year.

All Obama had to do is keep the safeguards in place, instead he went on a pro-Al Qaida rights crusade

Exactly what was dismantled that specifically led to these three attacks?

One of the changes in procedures that was implicated in letting the underwear bomber through had to do with changes in the no-fly-lists in an attempt to reduce the unweildy number of names and that change actually occurred under the Bush administration.

Also, exactly which of those "dismantled safeguards" have prevented the Fort Hood Shooting and the Little Rock shooting?

I'd really like to see some cause and effect here.

This is what's so scary. It's that the left doesn't get it.

No. What's so scary is that certain wingnuts on the right don't want to get it because they are so embroiled in their petty partisan politics.

For example, their definition of "terrorism" is restricted to Al Queda sponsored attacks on American soil (not interests) alone. They refuse to recognize attacks by individuals that CIA/FBI call "self radicalized" (not recruited by Al Queda) who according to those same agencies represent a very real and growing threat to Americans. Because of this, they can rationalize their claim that Bush "kept us safe" for 7 years since in their world views, all the incidents of terrorism that occurred under Bush can be rationalized away as "not terrorism". That's the only way these wingnuts can reconcile a very lopsided semi-blind view of the War on Terror and the records of multiple administrations in regards to it.

The time to stop the undy bomber was not when he was in the airport trying to board, it was when his father turned him in. He should have been put in surveillance and caught before he even got out of Yemen.

Agreed. However, the procedures that were changed that got him off a no-fly list were changed under the previous administration.

The time to stop the recruiting station terrorist was when he was meeting with Al Qaida.

Until just recently - like a week ago, when he suddenly started claiming ties to Al Queda in Yemen, there were no ties known - in fact, beyond . In fact - Yemen has only come into the forefront of the war on terror fairly recently and it goes to show Al Queda is very flexible and evolves it's strategy constantly to fit our strategies. If you think - on the basis of oh-so-perfect hindsight - that he should have been stopped when he was meeting with Al Queda then...perhaps you also think that we should have been able to stop 9/11?

The time to stop the Fort Hood terrorist is when he was meeting with Al Qaida.

I don't think he ever met with Al Queda.

However, there were a lot of ongoing red flags surrounding him and a lesson learned. I might add he was flagged as potentially a problem well before Obama came into office - so, you going to blame Bush then? Both? Neither?

I blame neither. Lots of stuff is clear in hindsight.

The intelligence agencies already had information about these Al Qaida terrorists before the terrorist attacks. The failure was the lack of aggresiveness to capture them before it even got to the point of an attack.

Why weren't the intelligence agencies more aggresive? Because Obama made them timid. Why were they made timid? Here you go, this is the former director of the CIA & NSA explaining why HAYDEN: Time for CIA to move ahead, not back - Washington Times

You might want to check your dates. Muhammad (the Little Rock shooter) attracted the attention of the agencies when he went to Yemen for 16 months, in 2007. That is apparently when he became radicalized. He was arrested in Nov 2007, and imprisoned in Yemen for overstaying his visa and having a fraudulent Somali passport. Under pressure from the U.S. Government, Yemen deported Muhammad back to the U.S. in January 2008. After his return he was investigated by the Joint Terrorist Task Force. In 2008.

Obama was inaugurated Jan 20, 2009.

Lets go on the the Fort Hood shooter:

Hasan was investigated by the FBI after intelligence agencies intercepted at least 18 e-mails between him and al-Awlaki between December 2008 and June 2009.[49] Even before the contents of the e-mails were revealed, terrorism expert Jarret Brachman said that Hasan's contacts with al-Awlaki should have raised "huge red flags". According to Brachman, al-Awlaki is a major influence on radical English-speaking jihadis internationally.

No red flag was raised either in 2008 or 2009.

In one of the e-mails, Hasan wrote al-Awlaki: "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife. "It sounds like code words," said Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a military analyst at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. "That he's actually either offering himself up, or that he's already crossed that line in his own mind." Hasan also asked al-Awlaki when jihad is appropriate, and whether it is permissible if innocents are killed in a suicide attack.[51] In the months before the shooting, Hasan increased his contacts with al-Awlaki to discuss how to transfer funds abroad without coming to the attention of law authorities.[49]

A DC-based Joint Terrorism Task Force operating under the FBI was notified of the e-mails, and the information was reviewed by one of its Defense Criminal Investigative Service personnel. Army employees were informed of the e-mails, but didn't perceive any terrorist threat in Hasan's questions. Instead, they viewed them as general questions about spiritual guidance with regard to conflicts between Islam and military service, and judged them to be consistent with legitimate mental health research about Muslims in the armed services.[52] The assessment was that there was not sufficient information for a larger investigation.[53] Despite two Defense Department investigators on two joint task forces reviewing Hasan's e-mails, Defense Department higher-ups said they were not notified of the investigations before the shootings. ABC News reported that another government said that Hasan also had contact with other people being tracked by the FBI, who have not been publicly identified.

Nowhere is there any mention of the CIA. Your excuse that the CIA is afraid to act doesn't work here, and responsibility crosses two administrations.

Liberals and Obama got what they want. They got US' intelligence services a lot more concerned about "terrorist rights" than stopping terrorist attacks.

As usual, your conclusion is not supported by the facts.

 

[CurveLight]

Looks like Obama isn't too concerned with Bin Laden either....perhaps you should start bitching about him too.

Nobody pulled your tampon string.

You really need therapy for your "issues".

Says the little kid who thinks he accomplishes anything by saying stupid shit via neg rep. Lol....

 

[CMike]

Exactly what was dismantled that specifically led to these three attacks?

One of the changes in procedures that was implicated in letting the underwear bomber through had to do with changes in the no-fly-lists in an attempt to reduce the unweildy number of names and that change actually occurred under the Bush administration.

Also, exactly which of those "dismantled safeguards" have prevented the Fort Hood Shooting and the Little Rock shooting?

I'd really like to see some cause and effect here.

This is what's so scary. It's that the left doesn't get it.

No. What's so scary is that certain wingnuts on the right don't want to get it because they are so embroiled in their petty partisan politics.

For example, their definition of "terrorism" is restricted to Al Queda sponsored attacks on American soil (not interests) alone. They refuse to recognize attacks by individuals that CIA/FBI call "self radicalized" (not recruited by Al Queda) who according to those same agencies represent a very real and growing threat to Americans. Because of this, they can rationalize their claim that Bush "kept us safe" for 7 years since in their world views, all the incidents of terrorism that occurred under Bush can be rationalized away as "not terrorism". That's the only way these wingnuts can reconcile a very lopsided semi-blind view of the War on Terror and the records of multiple administrations in regards to it.

There are many terrorist groups. However, I am specifically talking about Al Qaida terrorist attacks. That is the scope of my discussion.

Once again...

Because of Pres. Bush's safeguards the US was free from terrorist attacks by Al Qaida for 7 years. Obama, came into office, made our previously aggresive intelligence agencies timed, by scaring them from doing their jobs, and as a result we had 3 terrorist attack in one year.

Agreed. However, the procedures that were changed that got him off a no-fly list were changed under the previous administration.

The no-fly list is not my point. My point is that an aggresive CIA should have picked him up in Yemen. When his father turned him in, he should have been under surveillance, himself and his terrorist buddies should have been picked up, and intelligence information should have been coerced out of them.

However, according to Obama, that would violate his rights

The time to stop him was not at the airport, it was way before.

Until just recently - like a week ago, when he suddenly started claiming ties to Al Queda in Yemen, there were no ties known - in fact, beyond . In fact - Yemen has only come into the forefront of the war on terror fairly recently and it goes to show Al Queda is very flexible and evolves it's strategy constantly to fit our strategies. If you think - on the basis of oh-so-perfect hindsight - that he should have been stopped when he was meeting with Al Queda then...perhaps you also think that we should have been able to stop 9/11?

Why didn't know about his ties to Al Qaida? That is the intelligence failure. And once again Obama has made the intelligence agenices become less aggresive. It's this previous aggresiveness that foiled terrorist attacks.

I don't think he ever met with Al Queda.

You are mistaken. I already posted this stuff.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1971756-post398.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1971756-post398.html

However, there were a lot of ongoing red flags surrounding him and a lesson learned. I might add he was flagged as potentially a problem well before Obama came into office - so, you going to blame Bush then? Both? Neither?

I blame neither. Lots of stuff is clear in hindsight.

The attack occured under Obama. I blame Obama.


Obama was inaugurated Jan 20, 2009.

Lets go on the the Fort Hood shooter:

No red flag was raised either in 2008 or 2009.

In one of the e-mails, Hasan wrote al-Awlaki: "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife. "It sounds like code words," said Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a military analyst at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. "That he's actually either offering himself up, or that he's already crossed that line in his own mind." Hasan also asked al-Awlaki when jihad is appropriate, and whether it is permissible if innocents are killed in a suicide attack.[51] In the months before the shooting, Hasan increased his contacts with al-Awlaki to discuss how to transfer funds abroad without coming to the attention of law authorities.[49]

A DC-based Joint Terrorism Task Force operating under the FBI was notified of the e-mails, and the information was reviewed by one of its Defense Criminal Investigative Service personnel. Army employees were informed of the e-mails, but didn't perceive any terrorist threat in Hasan's questions. Instead, they viewed them as general questions about spiritual guidance with regard to conflicts between Islam and military service, and judged them to be consistent with legitimate mental health research about Muslims in the armed services.[52] The assessment was that there was not sufficient information for a larger investigation.[53] Despite two Defense Department investigators on two joint task forces reviewing Hasan's e-mails, Defense Department higher-ups said they were not notified of the investigations before the shootings. ABC News reported that another government said that Hasan also had contact with other people being tracked by the FBI, who have not been publicly identified.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1971740-post397.html

The job of the intelligence agencies is not to just act on red flags, it's to find the red flags.

He was an Al Qaida operative. It was there job to stop him.

Nowhere is there any mention of the CIA. Your excuse that the CIA is afraid to act doesn't work here, and responsibility crosses two administrations.

The FBI is an intelligence agency too. I guess I have to be extremely specific with you. I am talking about US intelligence agencies.

Liberals and Obama got what they want. They got US' intelligence services a lot more concerned about "terrorist rights" than stopping terrorist attacks.

As usual, your conclusion is not supported by the facts

I always document what I say.

And I will sum up.

All three terrorist attacks assailants were Al Qaida operatives.

Obama made intelligence agencies more scared of their own government than of terrorist attacks. That's what the liberals wanted it and that's what they got.

As a result we got 3 Al Qaida terrorist attacks within the US in Obama's first year.

We were previously protected from them for 7 years under Pres. Bush.

All Obama had to do was keep the Bush safeguards in place, instead he went into an "Al Qaida terrorist" rights crusade, and the country paid the price.

This country is better off when our intelligence agencies are more concerned of stopping terrorist attacks, than protecting themselves from the Obama administration, and that is why we have had these Al Qaida terrorist attacks.

Obama has 3 more years to screw up this country.

How many american civilians will be murdered by Al Qaida terrorists as a result? We will find out.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Nobody pulled your tampon string.

You really need therapy for your "issues".

Says the little kid who thinks he accomplishes anything by saying stupid shit via neg rep. Lol....

Awwwwwwww.....little whiny baby

 

[CurveLight]

You really need therapy for your "issues".

Says the little kid who thinks he accomplishes anything by saying stupid shit via neg rep. Lol....

Awwwwwwww.....little whiny baby

Says the little kid who thinks he accomplishes anything by saying stupid shit via neg rep. Lol....

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Says the little kid who thinks he accomplishes anything by saying stupid shit via neg rep. Lol....

Awwwwwwww.....little whiny baby

Says the little kid who thinks he accomplishes anything by saying stupid shit via neg rep. Lol....

Awwwwww.....itty bitty cwybaby......CuwveLight....

 

[Coyote]

This is what's so scary. It's that the left doesn't get it.

There are many terrorist groups. However, I am specifically talking about Al Qaida terrorist attacks. That is the scope of my discussion.

Once again...

Because of Pres. Bush's safeguards the US was free from terrorist attacks by Al Qaida for 7 years. Obama, came into office, made our previously aggresive intelligence agencies timed, by scaring them from doing their jobs, and as a result we had 3 terrorist attack in one year.




The no-fly list is not my point. My point is that an aggresive CIA should have picked him up in Yemen. When his father turned him in, he should have been under surveillance, himself and his terrorist buddies should have been picked up, and intelligence information should have been coerced out of them.

And when was he in Yemen?

However, according to Obama, that would violate his rights

Where did Obama say this and can you point to a particular policy change as a result of this?

The time to stop him was not at the airport, it was way before.



Why didn't know about his ties to Al Qaida? That is the intelligence failure. And once again Obama has made the intelligence agenices become less aggresive. It's this previous aggresiveness that foiled terrorist attacks.





You are mistaken. I already posted this stuff.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1971756-post398.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1971756-post398.html




The attack occured under Obama. I blame Obama.


Obama was inaugurated Jan 20, 2009.

Lets go on the the Fort Hood shooter:





http://www.usmessageboard.com/1971740-post397.html

The job of the intelligence agencies is not to just act on red flags, it's to find the red flags.

He was an Al Qaida operative. It was there job to stop him.




The FBI is an intelligence agency too. I guess I have to be extremely specific with you. I am talking about US intelligence agencies.

As usual, your conclusion is not supported by the facts

I always document what I say.

And I will sum up.

All three terrorist attacks assailants were Al Qaida operatives.

Obama made intelligence agencies more scared of their own government than of terrorist attacks. That's what the liberals wanted it and that's what they got.

As a result we got 3 Al Qaida terrorist attacks within the US in Obama's first year.

We were previously protected from them for 7 years under Pres. Bush.

All Obama had to do was keep the Bush safeguards in place, instead he went into an "Al Qaida terrorist" rights crusade, and the country paid the price.

This country is better off when our intelligence agencies are more concerned of stopping terrorist attacks, than protecting themselves from the Obama administration, and that is why we have had these Al Qaida terrorist attacks.

Obama has 3 more years to screw up this country.

How many american civilians will be murdered by Al Qaida terrorists as a result? We will find out.

Conclusion: despite the fact that the intelligence failures involving these attacks spanned two administrations - somehow, Obama's pussifying of the CIA caused these attacks...wft? Perhaps you can explain how Obama skeered the CIA before he was even elected

Your logic is the same sort as that which blames Bush for 9/11. How many Americans were killed under Bush's watch?

The only way you can make your case stick is by so limiting it that it makes no sense. Only attacks directly related to Al Queda. Only attacks after 9/11 (excluding the shoe bomber). And any intelligence failures that occurred under his watch but led to the attacks under Obama are Obama's fault. Using the same points you did vis a vis the shoe-bomber and time to get policies in place - Obama didn't "dismantle policies" overnight and, in fact, many of the same policies are still in place. You have not shown any cause and effect relationship beyond opinion pieces.

Great job whitewashing but lousy job debating.

 

[CMike]

The difference is that Pres. Bush learned from 911 and created and implemented safeguards that protected the US for next 7 years from Al Qaida attacks.

All Obama had to do was keep it in place, but as I keep saying he went on an pro-terrorist rights crusade and sacrificed national security as a result. THAT is the reason the attacks were successful.

Coyoto, unlike you, I backed up all my arguements.

1) I showed that Pres. Bush kept us safe from Al Qaida attacks fro 7 years

2) I showed that we had 3 Al Qaida attacks in Obama's first year.

3) I showed why.

4) I also explained why we will have many more as long as Obama continues to make US intelligence agencies afraid of carrying our their jobs of protecting this country


Just to summarize. Obama is incompetent, reckless, naive, and a danger to this country.

 

[Coyote]

The difference is that Pres. Bush learned from 911 and created and implemented safeguards that protected the US for next 7 years from Al Qaida attacks.

All Obama had to do was keep it in place, but as I keep saying he went on an pro-terrorist rights crusade and sacrificed national security as a result. THAT is the reason the attacks were successful.

Coyoto, unlike you, I backed up all my arguements.

Mike, just like you I backed up mine.

1) I showed that Pres. Bush kept us safe from Al Qaida attacks fro 7 years

Yes, by resetting the goal posts to only Al Queda and excluding the Shoe Bomber.

2) I showed that we had 3 Al Qaida attacks in Obama's first year.

Sort of. Of those 3 only one was actually an Al Queda operative (the underwear bomber).

3) I showed why.

That's where you failed. You attempted to lay it all on Obama's table by claiming he frightened the CIA into acting yet, in at least two of those cases - their roots lay in the Bush Administration yet the CIA did not act on them.

4) I also explained why we will have many more as long as Obama continues to make US intelligence agencies afraid of carrying our their jobs of protecting this country

I doubt that. You have yet to show an actual cause and effect relationship instead, you indulge in the fallacy: correlation does not mean causation. You neglect to take in the big picture. For example Yemen has only recently emerged as a threat to be watched - punctuated by the underwear bomber. Yemen was not considered a major concern a few years ago. The situation constantly changes.

Just to summarize. Obama is incompetent, reckless, naive, and a danger to this country.

A thesis you have not yet proven.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Just to summarize. Obama is incompetent, reckless, naive, and a danger to this country.

Seems to be proven everyday. But then that's just MHO.

 

[Coyote]

Just to summarize. Obama is incompetent, reckless, naive, and a danger to this country.

Seems to be proven everyday. But then that's just MHO.

Well...Ollie...I think here you and I (and Mike) will have to respectfully agree to disagree because I don't see it that way...

but time well tell and history will give us a far better perspective than one year in office ever can.

And now it's time to slip into a musical frame of mind.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Just to summarize. Obama is incompetent, reckless, naive, and a danger to this country.

Seems to be proven everyday. But then that's just MHO.

Well...Ollie...I think here you and I (and Mike) will have to respectfully agree to disagree because I don't see it that way...

but time well tell and history will give us a far better perspective than one year in office ever can.

And now it's time to slip into a musical frame of mind.

That's fair, but my music room is always going in paltalk. I DJ videos while in the forums.

 

[Coyote]

Seems to be proven everyday. But then that's just MHO.

Well...Ollie...I think here you and I (and Mike) will have to respectfully agree to disagree because I don't see it that way...

but time well tell and history will give us a far better perspective than one year in office ever can.

And now it's time to slip into a musical frame of mind.

That's fair, but my music room is always going in paltalk. I DJ videos while in the forums.

I don't know paltalk...face it, I'm a techretard!

But, I love music and spend time on the music threads when politics makes me over cynical (or sarcastic beyond bearing)

 

[CurveLight]

The non torture rules are there to help protect our troops if they are captured.
If you support torturing prisoners then you do not support our troops.

Bullshit. How many heads have we cut off?

Fox Logic Alert! Thass always a double bubble guarantee: false dilemma wrapped up in "It's Godly Holy Moral if we do it but for anyone else they deserve the death penalty!"

 

[CMike]

Well...Ollie...I think here you and I (and Mike) will have to respectfully agree to disagree because I don't see it that way...

but time well tell and history will give us a far better perspective than one year in office ever can.

And now it's time to slip into a musical frame of mind.

That's fair, but my music room is always going in paltalk. I DJ videos while in the forums.

I don't know paltalk...face it, I'm a techretard!

But, I love music and spend time on the music threads when politics makes me over cynical (or sarcastic beyond bearing)

Could you help me please?

I have VIA High Def speakers.

A few days ago, I put in my headset, listening to must from my computer, I took out the headset and my speakers won't work.

I checked all the cables. I went into properties for the speakers, and they seem to be up and running, but I don't get sound from them.

Any ideas?

 

[CMike]

1) I showed that Pres. Bush kept us safe from Al Qaida attacks fro 7 years

Yes, by resetting the goal posts to only Al Queda and excluding the Shoe Bomber.

My posts were only talking about Al Qaida attacks. And I said Pres. Bush kept us safe for 7 years, that includes the show bomber.

Sort of. Of those 3 only one was actually an Al Queda operative (the underwear bomber).

All three were Al Qaida operatives. I already posted this stuff.



Fort Hood Shooter Tried to Contact al Qaeda Terrorists, Officials Say - ABC News

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with an individual associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.

Army knew suspected Fort Hood gunman had contact with al Qaeda recruiter.According to the officials, the Army was informed of Hasan's contact, but it is unclear what, if anything, the Army did in response


Man Claims Terror Ties in Little Rock Shooting - NYTimes.com


MEMPHIS — A Tennessee man accused of killing a soldier outside a Little Rock, Ark., military recruiting station last year has asked a judge to change his plea to guilty, claiming for the first time that he is affiliated with a Yemen-based affiliate of Al Qaeda.

In a letter to the judge presiding over his case, the accused killer, Abdulhakim Muhammad, calls himself a soldier in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and calls the shooting “a Jihadi Attack” in retribution for the killing of Muslims by American troops.

That's where you failed. You attempted to lay it all on Obama's table by claiming he frightened the CIA into acting yet, in at least two of those cases - their roots lay in the Bush Administration yet the CIA did not act on them.

Yes, and that's why the US intelligence agencies should have acted on those leads and stopped the terrorists. We don't know at that time what measures we were taken. We do know that under the Obama Administration they were allowed to commit terrorist attacks

4) I also explained why we will have many more as long as Obama continues to make US intelligence agencies afraid of carrying our their jobs of protecting this country

I doubt that. You have yet to show an actual cause and effect relationship instead, you indulge in the fallacy: correlation does not mean causation. You neglect to take in the big picture. For example Yemen has only recently emerged as a threat to be watched - punctuated by the underwear bomber. Yemen was not considered a major concern a few years ago. The situation constantly changes.

Why is so difficult to understand? The US intelligence agencies being aggresive is what stops terrorist attacks.

Obama started his presidency threatening to prosecute US intelligence agency people who he thought were too aggresive. He also threatened to prosecute US intelligence agency people who would be too aggresive.

Obama focused on speaking about rights of terrorists, and blasing away at US intelligence agency operatives. The people needed to stop the terrorist attacks.

It's very easy to see how these people would be more scared of the Obama administration, than of stopping terrorist attacks. Are they going to risk not only their jobs but prison because we have a pro-terrorist administration in place?

If you were a CIA or FBI operative responsible for putting Al Qaida terrorists under surveillance and/or interrogating them, would you?

The proof is in the pudding...

Once again 3 Al Qaida terrorist attacks within america in Obama's first year, compared to the previous 7 when we had zero terrorist attacks by Al Qaida.

Do you truely believe this is pure coincidence?

 

[Coyote]

1) I showed that Pres. Bush kept us safe from Al Qaida attacks fro 7 years

Yes, by resetting the goal posts to only Al Queda and excluding the Shoe Bomber.

My posts were only talking about Al Qaida attacks. And I said Pres. Bush kept us safe for 7 years, that includes the show bomber.

All three were Al Qaida operatives. I already posted this stuff.

Fort Hood Shooter Tried to Contact al Qaeda Terrorists, Officials Say - ABC News

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with an individual associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.

Army knew suspected Fort Hood gunman had contact with al Qaeda recruiter.According to the officials, the Army was informed of Hasan's contact, but it is unclear what, if anything, the Army did in response

My impression was he had not made contact for recruitment or as an operative of Al Queda and his emails, while they attracted the notice of the FBI did not contain anything indicating anything more than research on his part:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10inquire.html?_r=1
Fort Hood: The Al Qaeda question - THE WEEK

Clearly - he should have been more closely monitored but again hindsight is perfect. We also we run facts that contradict your persistant claim that Obama "pussified" the intellegence agencies:- emails indicating contact with al Queda were intercepted beginning in December and, for some years prior to that, the army had been having problems with him, were not sure how to handle them given his being muslim, and showing indications of psychological problems and they passed it on rather than acted on it. That's a flaw in the military bureaucracy.
- Obama was inaugerated in January 20, 2009.

Al Qaeda and neocons agree on something: The Hasan-Al Qaeda reports are “sketchy,” says John Cook in Gawker, but they’re clearly “something both terrorists and wingnuts wish were true.” Both Sen. Joe Lieberman and al-Awlaki’s team “want Hasan to be a Muslim terrorist,” and for the same political reason: it “helps them scare the sh*t out of people.” It’s hard to show that Al Qaeda jihadists are lurking everywhere if Hasan was a mere lone-wolf murderer. “How the Ft. Hood shooter brings radical clerics and right-wing nuts together”
It’s hard to stop fanatics, period: I think the evidence is actually growing that Hasan’s “a crazy fanatic who wanted to get in touch with Al Qaeda,” says Megan McArdle in The Atlantic, and that somebody should have done something about him. But what? The FBI has done “very well” at disrupting terrorist plots, but it’s harder to stop a “lone gunman with no need for a support team.” And that’s true if you’re an Al Qaeda wannabe or an abortion-doctor killer.

If the ball was dropped, responsibility crosses administrative lines but I don't see any real evidence that anyone could have anticipated what he did based on the evidence at the time.

There is no indication that this was related to Obama's policies unless you can clearly point to a specific policy change as the reason, and thus far you have not been able to.

Man Claims Terror Ties in Little Rock Shooting - NYTimes.com

MEMPHIS — A Tennessee man accused of killing a soldier outside a Little Rock, Ark., military recruiting station last year has asked a judge to change his plea to guilty, claiming for the first time that he is affiliated with a Yemen-based affiliate of Al Qaeda.

In a letter to the judge presiding over his case, the accused killer, Abdulhakim Muhammad, calls himself a soldier in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and calls the shooting “a Jihadi Attack” in retribution for the killing of Muslims by American troops.​

Yes, and that's why the US intelligence agencies should have acted on those leads and stopped the terrorists. We don't know at that time what measures we were taken. We do know that under the Obama Administration they were allowed to commit terrorist attacks.

Again, a very weak argument. Using your logic, we have known about this person's activities in Yemen (a red flag country) for some time. At any point he could have been stopped or prevented from returning or watched and picked up. This crosses administrative lines and your attempt to claim "We do know that under the Obama Administration they were allowed to commit terrorist attacks." has the same validity as those who claim that we had intelligence that Al Queda was planning an attack and "We do know that under the Bush Administration they were allowed to commit terrorist attacks."

Why is so difficult to understand? The US intelligence agencies being aggresive is what stops terrorist attacks.

Obama started his presidency threatening to prosecute US intelligence agency people who he thought were too aggresive. He also threatened to prosecute US intelligence agency people who would be too aggresive.

No. Not too aggressive. Those who broke the law. Big difference. No one is above the law. Don't like - then change the law. However - none of that changes the fact that two of those three incidents involved intelligence that was gained prior to Obama entering office.

Obama focused on speaking about rights of terrorists, and blasing away at US intelligence agency operatives. The people needed to stop the terrorist attacks.

Exactly what rights that would have effected these cases did he speak of and can you provide a quote?

It's very easy to see how these people would be more scared of the Obama administration, than of stopping terrorist attacks. Are they going to risk not only their jobs but prison because we have a pro-terrorist administration in place?

Again, your argument falls flat because at least two of those cases cross administrative lines. How is abiding by the law "pro-terrorist"? That's just another typical rightwing talking point exageration. Exactly what has this administration done that is "pro-terrorist"? Have thousands of convicted terrorists been released on American streets? Have policies been put into place preventing intelligence agencies from doing their job? What policies? Can you be exact or is it just talking points? Torture and secret prisons have done more to harm our country than help it. Even Hayden was disgusted at what happened in Abu Ghraib. I've said this before but we walk a fine line between security and freedom. I'm not willing to give up the laws, rights, protections that give us a country worth preserving for what seems a nebulous promise of security.

If you were a CIA or FBI operative responsible for putting Al Qaida terrorists under surveillance and/or interrogating them, would you?

The law allows for quite a bit of latitude regarding interrogation

The proof is in the pudding...

Once again 3 Al Qaida terrorist attacks within america in Obama's first year, compared to the previous 7 when we had zero terrorist attacks by Al Qaida.

Do you truely believe this is pure coincidence?

Well, first off - two of the so-called "Al Qaida terrorist attacks within america" began under the previous Administration. Second, one of them is clearly a lone-wolf attack. Third - the intelligence agencies themselves keep saying Al Queda is constantly changing and adapting it's strategies and remains very dangerous. This adaptation is evident in these attacks. Do I expect to see more attempts? Yes. Is it because of the current Administration?

Show me policy changes that directly caused these attacks. You haven't.

What you are showing me is a logical fallacy.

Everytime I see people outside with umbrellas it is raining.
Clearly, umbrellas cause it to rain.

 

[Coyote]

That's fair, but my music room is always going in paltalk. I DJ videos while in the forums.

I don't know paltalk...face it, I'm a techretard!

But, I love music and spend time on the music threads when politics makes me over cynical (or sarcastic beyond bearing)

Could you help me please?

I have VIA High Def speakers.

A few days ago, I put in my headset, listening to must from my computer, I took out the headset and my speakers won't work.

I checked all the cables. I went into properties for the speakers, and they seem to be up and running, but I don't get sound from them.

Any ideas?

I'm such an idiot when it comes to that sort of thing

 

[CMike]

That the Obama adminstration already had leads gotten by the US intelligence agencies before he took over only damns Obama more.

Obama and his people wouldn't even call terrorism terrorism. They intentionally referred to it as man made disasters.

They didn't even call it a war, it was "overseas contingency" operations.

How seriously did they take this?

The editorial by former CIA director says it all. As you said he pussified the very intelligence agencies that were needed to stop terrorist attacks within the US.

HAYDEN: Time for CIA to move ahead, not back - Washington Times

The people who are supposed to stop the terror attacks are more afraid of the Obama administration than of stopping terrorist attacks.

Obviously, no one is allowed to break they law, and they haven't.

The problem is what the Obama adminstration perceives the law is, is based on protecting terrorists and not hunting them down.

Do you truely believe it's coincidence that we had 3 Al Qaida terrorist attacks in the first year of the Obama administration, when we were protecting for the previous 7 years?

Why do you think that occurred?

 

[QUENTIN]

The people who are supposed to stop the terror attacks are more afraid of the Obama administration than of stopping terrorist attacks.

Were this true, they should be fired and we wouldn't want them.

Anyone tasked with protecting American citizens willing to allow a terrorist attack to occur and kill them because they're afraid of the personal consequences from the DOJ has no business being in the CIA.

It's not true, but that's beside the point. If you really believe that, you can't think those cowards should be agents.