Fearmongering by the Obama Administration.

[PatekPhilippe]

Frankly, I think there have probably been hundreds of alerts that only went out among the intelligence and eyes-only agencies and which the public was never privy to. I think the point Vast was making was that those which WERE made public consistently appeared to be just before some major event that might sway popular opinion. I blame that on Karl Rove and his team who really believed that the public was stupid.

I think you may be mistaken here.....the President is getting hammered on his handling of various National Security issues and now he trots out another Bush tactic. He is indeed...Bush III

Undoubtedly there have been serious concerns about the rise of AQ's power in Yemen, which has been all over the news since the Christmas bomber incident and for which Obama was severely criticized for "not having done anything about stopping it." Why the hell shouldn't he come out and try to tell the American people what IS being done about such incidents and include the fact that all the intelligence points to even more attempted attacks? You make absolutely zero sense. Probably 99.99% of what IS known about potential attacks none of us will never know about.

And speaking of the Christmas event, there was also overly hyped criticism by the usual Republican loudmouths in Washington. I'll be interested in seeing their response to this revelation:

White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan revealed Sunday that he briefed four Republican congressional leaders on Christmas night about the arrest and subsequent handling of the suspect in an attempted sky bombing. "None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point," Brennan said on NBC's "Meet the Press." The revelation could undermine Republican complaints about the reading of Miranda rights to the Nigerian suspect.
For more information...Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com

I wouldn't read too much into that article Maggie...we aren't privy to what was said in that briefing so Brennan could say anything he wanted to the Press. I'm not saying he didn't mention miranda rights but in what context did he say this and what else did he brief them on....we will never know.

 

[MaggieMae]

I wouldn't read too much into that article Maggie...we aren't privy to what was said in that briefing so Brennan could say anything he wanted to the Press. I'm not saying he didn't mention miranda rights but in what context did he say this and what else did he brief them on....we will never know.

Here's the transcript of that particular conversation. You can go to the link and read all of Brennan's comments on the issue.

MR. GREGORY: A lot of that criticism is about the handling of the Christmas Day bomber, Abdulmutallab, Abdulmutallab--sorry, it's hard to get that name right. Why was he treated as an ordinary citizen for even the period of time that he was, providing some information, then getting a lawyer after he was given his Miranda rights?

MR. BRENNAN: He wasn't treated as an ordinary citizen, he was treated as a terrorist. He was immediately taken into custody, he was questioned under the public safety exception as far as Mirandizing an individual. FBI agents were there on the ground, as well as with customs and border patrol agents. We reacted very well to that situation. He was then put into a process that has been the same process that we have used for every other terrorist who has been captured on our soil, whether they be U.S. citizens or non-U.S. citizens--Richard Reid, Ahmed Ressam, Amari and others. They were brought into custody by law enforcement officials and then treated accordingly. So there was no distinction. And, in fact, the FBI's guidelines that they use, the FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, was the implementation of the attorney general guidelines that were finalized by Attorney General Casey in the last administration in December of 2008. That is when those guidelines were put in place. So the procedures and the protocols were exactly consistent with what we've done before. Now, after this incident, the president asked us to take a new look and see whether or not those processes are ones that we are comfortable with and whether or not we can enhance and strengthen them. And that's what we're looking at right now. But those FBI agents and others acted appropriately. And, quite frankly, I'm tiring of politicians using national security issues such as terrorism as a political football. They are going out there, they're, they're unknowing of the facts, and they're making charges and allegations that are not anchored in reality.

MR. GREGORY: Well, let's talk about one of those allegations. Senator Kit Bond saying that members of the intelligence committee were told not to talk at all about the fact that, that he was now cooperating, that he was speaking to the FBI, and yet, then it gets leaked out to the press after that, saying that the administration was responsible for leaking classified data that they were told to keep under wraps.

MR. BRENNAN: Again, inconsistent with the facts. Senator Bond and other senior members of Congress were briefed on Monday about Abdulmutallab's cooperation...

MR. GREGORY: When you brief some Republicans about what--how he was going to be treated, were they on board with the administration's decision?

MR. BRENNAN: On Christmas night, I called a number of senior members of Congress. I spoke to Senators McConnell and Bond, I spoke to Representative Boehner and Hoekstra. I explained to them that he was in FBI custody, that Mr. Abdulmutallab was, in fact, talking, that he was cooperating at that point. They knew that "in FBI custody" means that there's a process then you follow as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of a magistrate. None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point. They didn't say, "Is he going into military custody?" "Is he going to be Mirandized?" They were very appreciative of the information, we told them we'd keep them informed, and that's what we did. So there's been a--quite a bit of an outcry after the fact where, again, I'm just very concerned on the behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football and are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes, whether they be Democrats or Republicans. In the last administration, Democrats I felt were speaking incorrectly about the progress that we were making on the terrorism front. The same thing is true today. And I think those counterterrorism professionals deserve the support of our Congress; and, rather than second-guessing what they're doing on the ground with the 500-mile screwdriver from Washington to Detroit, I think they have to have confidence in the knowledge and the experience of these counterterrorism professionals.

Feb. 7: Brennan, Paulson, Greenspan, roundtable - Meet the Press- msnbc.com

 

[Vast LWC]

I wouldn't read too much into that article Maggie...we aren't privy to what was said in that briefing so Brennan could say anything he wanted to the Press. I'm not saying he didn't mention miranda rights but in what context did he say this and what else did he brief them on....we will never know.

If you had watched the interview on Meet the Press, you would have realized that Brennan was blaming the politicizing of these issues on both parties.

He specifically stated that in his opinion the Democrats did the same thing during the Bush administration.

Mr Brennan was as non-partisan as possible in his interview. You should watch it. He's very no-nonsense and straight-to-the-point.

Feb. 7: Brennan, Paulson, Greenspan, roundtable - Meet the Press- msnbc.com

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I wouldn't read too much into that article Maggie...we aren't privy to what was said in that briefing so Brennan could say anything he wanted to the Press. I'm not saying he didn't mention miranda rights but in what context did he say this and what else did he brief them on....we will never know.

Here's the transcript of that particular conversation. You can go to the link and read all of Brennan's comments on the issue.

MR. GREGORY: A lot of that criticism is about the handling of the Christmas Day bomber, Abdulmutallab, Abdulmutallab--sorry, it's hard to get that name right. Why was he treated as an ordinary citizen for even the period of time that he was, providing some information, then getting a lawyer after he was given his Miranda rights?

MR. BRENNAN: He wasn't treated as an ordinary citizen, he was treated as a terrorist. He was immediately taken into custody, he was questioned under the public safety exception as far as Mirandizing an individual. FBI agents were there on the ground, as well as with customs and border patrol agents. We reacted very well to that situation. He was then put into a process that has been the same process that we have used for every other terrorist who has been captured on our soil, whether they be U.S. citizens or non-U.S. citizens--Richard Reid, Ahmed Ressam, Amari and others. They were brought into custody by law enforcement officials and then treated accordingly. So there was no distinction. And, in fact, the FBI's guidelines that they use, the FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, was the implementation of the attorney general guidelines that were finalized by Attorney General Casey in the last administration in December of 2008. That is when those guidelines were put in place. So the procedures and the protocols were exactly consistent with what we've done before. Now, after this incident, the president asked us to take a new look and see whether or not those processes are ones that we are comfortable with and whether or not we can enhance and strengthen them. And that's what we're looking at right now. But those FBI agents and others acted appropriately. And, quite frankly, I'm tiring of politicians using national security issues such as terrorism as a political football. They are going out there, they're, they're unknowing of the facts, and they're making charges and allegations that are not anchored in reality.

MR. GREGORY: Well, let's talk about one of those allegations. Senator Kit Bond saying that members of the intelligence committee were told not to talk at all about the fact that, that he was now cooperating, that he was speaking to the FBI, and yet, then it gets leaked out to the press after that, saying that the administration was responsible for leaking classified data that they were told to keep under wraps.

MR. BRENNAN: Again, inconsistent with the facts. Senator Bond and other senior members of Congress were briefed on Monday about Abdulmutallab's cooperation...

MR. GREGORY: When you brief some Republicans about what--how he was going to be treated, were they on board with the administration's decision?

MR. BRENNAN: On Christmas night, I called a number of senior members of Congress. I spoke to Senators McConnell and Bond, I spoke to Representative Boehner and Hoekstra. I explained to them that he was in FBI custody, that Mr. Abdulmutallab was, in fact, talking, that he was cooperating at that point. They knew that "in FBI custody" means that there's a process then you follow as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of a magistrate. None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point. They didn't say, "Is he going into military custody?" "Is he going to be Mirandized?" They were very appreciative of the information, we told them we'd keep them informed, and that's what we did. So there's been a--quite a bit of an outcry after the fact where, again, I'm just very concerned on the behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football and are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes, whether they be Democrats or Republicans. In the last administration, Democrats I felt were speaking incorrectly about the progress that we were making on the terrorism front. The same thing is true today. And I think those counterterrorism professionals deserve the support of our Congress; and, rather than second-guessing what they're doing on the ground with the 500-mile screwdriver from Washington to Detroit, I think they have to have confidence in the knowledge and the experience of these counterterrorism professionals.

Feb. 7: Brennan, Paulson, Greenspan, roundtable - Meet the Press- msnbc.com

I see....but as I mentioned earlier...we weren't in that briefing so we don't know what was said. Mr. Brennan knows he cannot reveal classified information to the public and therefore he will say what supports his and the Administrations position on this. Also Mr. Brennan certainly makes a lot of assumptions as to what other people were thinking about the FBI's "process" with reference to the underwear bomber....but at the same time...Republican lawmakers didn't ask specific questions either.

By the same token though he does seem to recognize that this "co-operation" from the bomber SHOULD NOT have been leaked to the Press and NOT politicized by both party's. He also seems to genuinely support our counter-terrorism personnel. I appreciate that.

 

[Vast LWC]

I see....but as I mentioned earlier...we weren't in that briefing so we don't know what was said. Mr. Brennan knows he cannot reveal classified information to the public and therefore he will say what supports his and the Administrations position on this. Also Mr. Brennan certainly makes a lot of assumptions as to what other people were thinking about the FBI's "process" with reference to the underwear bomber....but at the same time...Republican lawmakers didn't ask specific questions either.

By the same token though he does seem to recognize that this "co-operation" from the bomber SHOULD NOT have been leaked to the Press and NOT politicized by both party's. He also seems to genuinely support our counter-terrorism personnel. I appreciate that.

You see? Occasionally there are some non-partisan types out there. I like Brennan, he doesn't pussyfoot around.

 

[rdean]

I prefer Bush's rainbow of "fear". It was so gay. Do they even do that anymore?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, when Bush Jr. was in office, I don't really think we moved off of orange.

This projection is based on actionable, verifiable intelligence that has been obtained from the underoo bomber.

That makes it better than any of the bullshit that Bush Jr.'s admin came up with..........torture never yields any actionable intelligence, or, if it does, most of it (like 90 percent) is suspect.

 

[MaggieMae]

I wouldn't read too much into that article Maggie...we aren't privy to what was said in that briefing so Brennan could say anything he wanted to the Press. I'm not saying he didn't mention miranda rights but in what context did he say this and what else did he brief them on....we will never know.

If you had watched the interview on Meet the Press, you would have realized that Brennan was blaming the politicizing of these issues on both parties.

He specifically stated that in his opinion the Democrats did the same thing during the Bush administration.

Mr Brennan was as non-partisan as possible in his interview. You should watch it. He's very no-nonsense and straight-to-the-point.

Feb. 7: Brennan, Paulson, Greenspan, roundtable - Meet the Press- msnbc.com

Yes, but MY point was the Republicans like Kit Bond and Mitch McConnell implied that they had not been briefed at all, when they had. So typical. Republicans are pros at this kind of stuff.

And I did watch the interview, and also posted the link where you can watch it or read the transcript. Oops, so did you.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I wouldn't read too much into that article Maggie...we aren't privy to what was said in that briefing so Brennan could say anything he wanted to the Press. I'm not saying he didn't mention miranda rights but in what context did he say this and what else did he brief them on....we will never know.

If you had watched the interview on Meet the Press, you would have realized that Brennan was blaming the politicizing of these issues on both parties.

He specifically stated that in his opinion the Democrats did the same thing during the Bush administration.

Mr Brennan was as non-partisan as possible in his interview. You should watch it. He's very no-nonsense and straight-to-the-point.

Feb. 7: Brennan, Paulson, Greenspan, roundtable - Meet the Press- msnbc.com

Yes, but MY point was the Republicans like Kit Bond and Mitch McConnell implied that they had not been briefed at all, when they had. So typical. Republicans are pros at this kind of stuff.

And I did watch the interview, and also posted the link where you can watch it or read the transcript. Oops, so did you.

From your link...

They were very appreciative of the information, we told them we'd keep them informed, and that's what we did. So there's been a--quite a bit of an outcry after the fact where, again, I'm just very concerned on the behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football and are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes, whether they be Democrats or Republicans.

Now how can you make a claim that they "implied" they were NEVER briefed? What link did you read?

 

[MaggieMae]

If you had watched the interview on Meet the Press, you would have realized that Brennan was blaming the politicizing of these issues on both parties.

He specifically stated that in his opinion the Democrats did the same thing during the Bush administration.

Mr Brennan was as non-partisan as possible in his interview. You should watch it. He's very no-nonsense and straight-to-the-point.

Feb. 7: Brennan, Paulson, Greenspan, roundtable - Meet the Press- msnbc.com

Yes, but MY point was the Republicans like Kit Bond and Mitch McConnell implied that they had not been briefed at all, when they had. So typical. Republicans are pros at this kind of stuff.

And I did watch the interview, and also posted the link where you can watch it or read the transcript. Oops, so did you.

From your link...

They were very appreciative of the information, we told them we'd keep them informed, and that's what we did. So there's been a--quite a bit of an outcry after the fact where, again, I'm just very concerned on the behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football and are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes, whether they be Democrats or Republicans.

Now how can you make a claim that they "implied" they were NEVER briefed? What link did you read?

Because they presented themselves before news cameras shortly thereafter railing that the guy had been read Miranda rights and that automatically gave him legal protection. Pay attention.

And read the part about the LAW which says that when such people (any people) are arrested on US soil, they are automatically read Miranda rights. Both Bond and McDonnell knew that, but still implied that it was a bad decision.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yes, but MY point was the Republicans like Kit Bond and Mitch McConnell implied that they had not been briefed at all, when they had. So typical. Republicans are pros at this kind of stuff.

And I did watch the interview, and also posted the link where you can watch it or read the transcript. Oops, so did you.

They actually said that? You're right, that's so typical.

I suppose they'll claim that they "didn't recall" the briefing..

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Yes, but MY point was the Republicans like Kit Bond and Mitch McConnell implied that they had not been briefed at all, when they had. So typical. Republicans are pros at this kind of stuff.

And I did watch the interview, and also posted the link where you can watch it or read the transcript. Oops, so did you.

From your link...

They were very appreciative of the information, we told them we'd keep them informed, and that's what we did. So there's been a--quite a bit of an outcry after the fact where, again, I'm just very concerned on the behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football and are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes, whether they be Democrats or Republicans.

Now how can you make a claim that they "implied" they were NEVER briefed? What link did you read?

Because they presented themselves before news cameras shortly thereafter railing that the guy had been read Miranda rights and that automatically gave him legal protection. Pay attention.
And read the part about the LAW which says that when such people (any people) are arrested on US soil, they are automatically read Miranda rights. Both Bond and McDonnell knew that, but still implied that it was a bad decision.

So how is this implying they weren't briefed? Why are you making shit up?

 

[asaratis]

Like I said ya donut punching cock smoker, why do you turn down the intel, especially if, as you claim, you are a former SEAL?

Personally, I think it is you who has the problem telling shit from shinola, but, to be fair, it's kinda hard to see when a person has their head jammed as far up their own ass as you do.

Keep talking ***** The Weak, you're just looking dumber.

Look *****....show me where I claimed to be a SEAL. If you can find it I'll leave the board...if you can't find it...you have my permission to stop sucking cock in the bus station for money to buy crack.

Hey there you cock smoking colon jouster, did you ever bother to look at your avi? It states that you're a member of SEAL team 1.

Or are you so ******* stupid that you don't even know what your avi represents?

Like I said idiot, you are a ******* moron, almost full blown retard.

You're not a dragon, you're not a biker, you're not a sailor, I'm not a dog...although I have claimed to be a son of a *****.

OK, aside from all the insults flying back and forth, here are some logical reasons why the OP's premise is utterly ridiculous...

1) There's no election happening in the near future. People complained about the Terrorism alerts and warnings that happened immediately before an election, which happened all the time in the Bush administration. If the Obama administration were going to try and use terrorism to build political support, like Bush did, he would do it in October, not February. Duh.

2) The people who are warning of an "imminent attack" in the next six months are intelligence officials making a report to congress, not political appointees making press announcements.

Now, why 'd you have to go tryin' to get back on topic?

Well, when Bush Jr. was in office, I don't really think we moved off of orange.

This projection is based on actionable, verifiable intelligence that has been obtained from the underoo bomber.

That makes it better than any of the bullshit that Bush Jr.'s admin came up with..........torture never yields any actionable intelligence, or, if it does, most of it (like 90 percent) is suspect.

The alert level should never go below orange. Think back and tell me what color it was on 9-11. (I know...the color scheme was invented after that...but tell me what our level of vigil was the morning of 9-11.)

Apparently, you haven't heard what waterboarding the terrorists has yielded. But wait! I forgot! That information is passed out on a need-to-know basis...and you don't need to know!

I've got some nice photos of terrorists being blown away. You wanna see? Do you need to see? I don't think so.

 

[Vast LWC]

If the color level should never go below orange, then why have the 5 colors at all? Why not just 2?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Look *****....show me where I claimed to be a SEAL. If you can find it I'll leave the board...if you can't find it...you have my permission to stop sucking cock in the bus station for money to buy crack.

Hey there you cock smoking colon jouster, did you ever bother to look at your avi? It states that you're a member of SEAL team 1.

Or are you so ******* stupid that you don't even know what your avi represents?

Like I said idiot, you are a ******* moron, almost full blown retard.

You're not a dragon, you're not a biker, you're not a sailor, I'm not a dog...although I have claimed to be a son of a *****.

OK, aside from all the insults flying back and forth, here are some logical reasons why the OP's premise is utterly ridiculous...

1) There's no election happening in the near future. People complained about the Terrorism alerts and warnings that happened immediately before an election, which happened all the time in the Bush administration. If the Obama administration were going to try and use terrorism to build political support, like Bush did, he would do it in October, not February. Duh.

2) The people who are warning of an "imminent attack" in the next six months are intelligence officials making a report to congress, not political appointees making press announcements.

Now, why 'd you have to go tryin' to get back on topic?

Well, when Bush Jr. was in office, I don't really think we moved off of orange.

This projection is based on actionable, verifiable intelligence that has been obtained from the underoo bomber.

That makes it better than any of the bullshit that Bush Jr.'s admin came up with..........torture never yields any actionable intelligence, or, if it does, most of it (like 90 percent) is suspect.

The alert level should never go below orange. Think back and tell me what color it was on 9-11. (I know...the color scheme was invented after that...but tell me what our level of vigil was the morning of 9-11.)

Apparently, you haven't heard what waterboarding the terrorists has yielded. But wait! I forgot! That information is passed out on a need-to-know basis...and you don't need to know!

I've got some nice photos of terrorists being blown away. You wanna see? Do you need to see? I don't think so.

Hey, Asshole-itis.........really? Not a Dragon? Well........the Chinese horoscope will disagree with you........1964 is the year of the wooden Dragon, color red.

Not a biker? Well, several people here in Amarillo (as well as Sturgis, Newport RI, Norfolk, just to name a few) would disagree with you on that. So would the Harley and the Lemond at my house.

Not a Sailor? Again, there are several places that would disagree with you, like every place I was stationed at from 1982 until 2002, retiring here in Amarillo after a VERY successful tour as the Navy supervisor for here.

Not a dog? You may be right on that one Asshole-itis, because a dog would have better sense than to piddle in the corners.

How much good intel do you think that waterboarding has yielded? I'll tell you..........none.

Why? Simple.......anyone who has ever served in the military as an interrogator, will tell you, torture NEVER yields reliable intel.

As far as the "need to know", wrong again........it's been all over the news that even though we boarded someone (KSM) 4 times a day for a month (that's once every 6 hours), he still yielded no valuable intel.

However...........there was another that gave us very good intel. Wanna know why? He was diabetic and was offered cookies.

Oh yeah...........the underoo bomber was given his Miranda rights, and was allowed to consult with a lawyer.

Actionable intel was gained, both in the first interview, and now, with several more.

Civility goes a long ways in getting things. You and the GOP should try it sometime.