Christmas Day Terrorist

Clinton was a POTUS. I've read bios of every single president of the United States, and my general impression is that there's not a single one that wasn't a proper bastard in one way or another.

Politics is a nasty game. To rise to the top, you have to do some nasty things. Sometimes you have to do nasty things for the greater good, the needs of the many etc etc.

Yet when someone gets there, they are expected to be modicums of sweetness and light.
 
Two words: Richard Reid. Comparable incident - failed aircraft bomber, Bush was in front of the cameras the day after. Liberals screamed about how slow Bush was.

I think it was more the fact that Bush was on holiday less than 600 miles away yet didn't do anything other than fly over it two days later. That is what really stuck in the craw.

And that is before you get to "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job".
 
I am adopting the exact same rationale these people used when Bush was in power.
If that's the position you're going to take then I don't want to see you complaining about the state of politics in this country.
 
Right, and I didn't give a fuck about what Bush had to say about that then, just like you shouldn't give a fuck what Obama has to say about this now. I'd avoid lumping me in with your liberal group, because it won't do you any favors.

I, like everyone else who had a functioning brain stem then, cared what Tom Ridge had to say about it. I don't need "reassurances", I don't want "camera play", I don't have to have some big friendly face tell me everything's under control. I just want information, and I want it from the source of wherever that information is coming from... which is the Department of Homeland Security, in this case.

You strike me as someone who thinks the same way, so why are you so wrapped up in what Obama's doing about it, aside from this bullshit "turnabout is fair play" rhetoric? You know all he's going to do is tell Janet to work on it or fire her, so why do you need him to tell you this?


I care because that's part of the job he's paid to do and he's not doing it. I am holding him to the exact same standards Bush was held to, so you shouldn't be complaining about it unless you also complained about the treatment Bush received. (Which would be about never, looking at your post history.)

In addition, his handpicked Secretary of Homeland Security is a complete and utter failure at the job mentioned above, so the job devolves upon him to do... and he's not doing it.

Also, I believe you identified yourself as a liberal. Not so?

I think it was more the fact that Bush was on holiday less than 600 miles away yet didn't do anything other than fly over it two days later. That is what really stuck in the craw.

And that is before you get to "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job".

Um, Bush was on holiday less than 600 miles away from the airport? And he just flew over the spot in the air where Richard Reid tried to blow up the plane? That doesn't make any sense. Are you talking about Shoe Bomber Boy, or something else?

And if you want to talk about disasters and presidential reactions to them... Well, just go there. I've got ammo for that.

If that's the position you're going to take then I don't want to see you complaining about the state of politics in this country.

Since when have I ever complained about the hyperpolarized state of politics? Ever?
 
Last edited:
Then I'll do it. I hate how polarized politics is. It's all made to make the parties look like they're all that different, they're not. They agree on most of the general shit.

It's like the Israel-Palestine conflict. Either you're on the side of the democracy combatting terror, or you have to be on the side of the occupied, opressed, stateless people.

I had a look on a Norwegian web site dedicated to support Israel (With Israel for Peace), they had listed which members of parliament was members of a society called "Friends of Israel", and which were members of a society called "Friends of Palestine". I'm seriously considering trying to get into our parliament, just to join both societies.

I'm a friend of Palestine. And I'm a friend of Israel. One thing doesn't rule out the other.

/Rant
 
It turns out that the CIA's been tracking this guy since at least August and even had a report on him from his father for five weeks prior. But, thanks to the 'Gorelick Wall' which Bush removed and Obama put back in place shortly after his inauguration, nobody outside the CIA knew about it. Which is why Obama had to hurriedly call another presser today to admit that there have been 'systemic failures' after his administration's first pressers came under fire from even his own supporters.

Specifically, the same systemic failures that 9/11 was blamed on, that Bush fixed, and that Obama promptly reinstated. Nice, huh? And, of course, he's blaming Bush.

Even the UK Telegraph is starting to have a WTF? moment about Obama, printing this article.
 
Last edited:
But, thanks to the 'Gorelick Wall' which Bush removed and Obama put back in place shortly after his inauguration
Can you tell me more about this, specifically how Bush ("W." I suppose) tore it down and Obama put it back up? I was unable to find anything in this regard.
 
Can you tell me more about this, specifically how Bush ("W." I suppose) tore it down and Obama put it back up? I was unable to find anything in this regard.

No problem.

Borrowed from a tin-foil-hat-ish site and edited (to remove the tin-foil hattedness) so as to save myself a lot of typing. I linked the original, but they had the raw elements of the best capsule description of it that I have seen:

What is the Gorelick Wall? It is a policy developed by Clinton appointee and former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, who after the first terrorist bombings of the World Trade Center of Feb. 26, 1993, was placed as the head of a blue-ribbon commission to find the causes in our internal security that allowed these bombings to occur.

In March 1995, Gorelick cowrote a memo that, in the words of Attorney General John Ashcroft, goes "beyond what is legally required ... [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."

What does this mean? It means that the FBI cannot share intelligence with the CIA, the NSA, the DEA, ATF, the military or any other security agency in America. It is a unilateral, self-binding policy reminiscent of the proverbial saying, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

In his opening statement before the 9/11 commission on April 13, 2004, Attorney General Ashcroft was outraged to learn that the commission had not investigated or been told of Gorelick's memo and her role regarding the "wall." To show the utter duplicity and incompetence by politicians of both parties, Ashcroft's assertion was disputed by former Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., a member of the commission, who said, "Nothing Jamie Gorelick wrote had the slightest impact on the Department of Defense or its willingness or ability to share intelligence information with other intelligence agencies."

Furthermore, after almost 15 years since Gorelick's memo, it is now beyond question that the Gorelick Wall led to barred anti-terror investigators from accessing the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, already in custody on an immigration violation on 9/11. The Gorelick Wall also caused protracted, internecine struggles between the {Clinton-era} Janet Reno Justice Department and FBI Director Louie Freeh because Reno (and President Bill Clinton) viewed terrorist attacks as police matters rather than issues of counterterrorism.

More information from a 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial:

At issue is the pre-Patriot Act "wall" that prevented communication between intelligence agents and criminal investigators--a wall, Mr. Ashcroft said, that meant "the old national intelligence system in place on September 11 was destined to fail." The Attorney General explained:

"In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.

"When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists.

"At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, 'Whatever has happened to this--someday someone will die--and wall or not--the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain 'problems.' "

What's more, Mr. Ashcroft noted, the wall did not mysteriously arise: "Someone built this wall." That someone was largely the Democrats, who enshrined Vietnam-era paranoia about alleged FBI domestic spying abuses by enacting the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Mr. Ashcroft pointed out that the wall was raised even higher in the mid-1990s, in the midst of what was then one of the most important antiterror investigations in American history--into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. On Tuesday the Attorney General declassified and read from a March 4, 1995, memo in which Jamie Gorelick--then Deputy Attorney General and now 9/11 Commissioner--instructed then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and United States Attorney Mary Jo White that for the sake of "appearances" they would be required to adhere to an interpretation of the wall far stricter than the law required.

Ms. White was then the lead prosecutor in cases related to the Trade Center bombing. Ms. Gorelick explicitly references United States v. Yousef and United States v. Rahman--cases that might have greatly expanded our pre-9/11 understanding of al Qaeda had investigators been given a freer hand. The memo is a clear indication that there was pressure then for more intelligence sharing. Ms. Gorelick's response is an unequivocal "no":

"We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation" (emphases added).

In case anyone was in doubt, Janet Reno herself affirmed the policy several months later in a July 19, 1995, memo that we have unearthed. In it, the then-Attorney General instructs all U.S. Attorneys about avoiding "the appearance" of overlap between intelligence-related activities and law-enforcement operations.

Recall, too, that during the time of Ms. Gorelick's 1995 memo, the issue causing the most tension between the Reno-Gorelick Justice Department and Director Freeh's FBI was not counterterrorism but widely reported allegations of contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign from foreign sources, involving the likes of John Huang and Charlie Trie. Mr. Trie later told investigators that between 1994 and 1996 he raised some $1.2 million, much of it from foreign sources, whose identities were hidden by straw donors. Ms. Gorelick resigned as deputy attorney general in 1997 to become vice chairman of Fannie Mae.

From any reasonably objective point of view, the Gorelick memo has to count as by far the biggest news so far out of the 9/11 hearings. The Mary Jo White prosecutions and the 2001 Moussaoui arrest were among our best chances to uncover and unravel the al Qaeda network before it struck the homeland. But thanks in part to the Clinton Administration's concern with appearances and in part to its legacy, these investigations were hamstrung.

Ms. Gorelick--an aspirant to Attorney General under a President Kerry--now sits in judgment of the current Administration. This is what, if the principle has any meaning at all, people call a conflict of interest. Henry Kissinger was hounded off the Commission for far less. It's such a big conflict of interest that the White House could hardly be blamed if it decided to cease cooperation with the 9/11 Commission pending Ms. Gorelick's resignation and her testimony under oath as a witness into the mind of the Reno Justice Department. What exactly was the purpose of the wall?

Here a copy of the actual memo in PDF form.

More commentary and info/links are available here on this blog. (Not mine.)

As an aside, after her questionable 9/11 commission service, guess where she turned up next? Director at Fannie Mae, where she was instrumental in creating another enormous disaster.

After the 9/11 Commission turned in its (IMHO) low-quality report, many of the common-sense alterations were made in our intelligence community by Bush (about which many of the lefties and liberals screamed) as part of the Patriot Act and other means. One of the first things Obama did? Reverse the dismantling of the Gorelick Wall and put it back up to 'protect the citizens,' something that's been acknowledged by Obama in all but name in his latest presser and is indirectly referenced in this White House blog entry from February (linked to show timeframe). On the advice of, surprise, one Jamie S. Gorelick of his transition team.

As for what Ms. Typhoid Mary Gorelick is doing these days? Well..... making more disasters, no doubt.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so I've done a lot of reading on the subject right now, and what baffles me is that every source of information I turned up uses the same quotes and the same sources of information, but analyzes the situation very differently and thus draws very different conclusions. Therefore, I was unable to understand the complete situation as of yet.

However, what I'm still missing are connections to the current administration.
 
Last edited:
US 'stopped Dutch installation of full body scanners'
he United States prevented Dutch authorities from installing full body scanners before the suspected Christmas Day bomb plotter passed through security at Amsterdam's airport, the Dutch government claimed today.

The Dutch claimed that they had been trying to install the machines for flights to the US since 2008 but had been blocked by US officials who wanted passengers to all destinations screened.
...
remainder of the article (timesonline.co.uk)

Dutch media isn't reporting anything about this claim, but if this turns out true we will see some heads rolling.
 
Full body scanners, no more carry-on luggage, having to sit still for the final hour of any flight...

Preemptive data storage, warrantless wiretapping, CCTVs on every corner, a goverment-issued GPS transmitter on every car...

Copying machines leaving a watermark on ever piece of paper they produce...

Where will they stop?

The main problem are not terrorists any longer. The main problem is that our liberties are no longer being eroded, but taken away from us.

In the name of anti-terror measures, paranoid security politicians from the political left as well as the right are turning the western world into an orwellian nightmare. The CIA, BND, Mossad and whatstheirname right now know more about you than the KGB ever did. Trying to communicate outside goverment controlled areas is suspicious activity.

If you got nothing to hide, why should you bother?

Cause it's your RIGHT, your privilige, what the Founding Father of the U.S., the white rose in Nazi Germany, Solidarnosc in the CSSR and many others fought (and even died) for - to leave the government, the police, even secret services in the dark, knowing nothing about your thoughts, communications, what you're up to.

If you commit a crime, it has to be punished, of course.

But even if you plan a crime (even an atrocity like a terrorist attack), as long as you're not carrying it out, it's not the governments business.

This so-calles "negative libery" (see: John Locke) is taken away from us, piece for piece, until nothing's left.

The price of total security is the loss of liberty. And no one wants that. Except for Al-Quaida.

DISCALIMER: Not all government measures listed above were introduced as part of the "war on terror". Some of them are not yet implemented. But they are all planned somewhere in the so-called "western world".

EDIT: No matter how tight the security net will be, terrorists will find a way through. It's their job. And, according the the CIA (via news agencys) they already got their hands on a full-body scanner, so they'll find a way 'round that.
 
Last edited:
What I don't understand is why this attack happened at all. During the 2008 election Democratic Party supporters constantly ridiculed those who talked about "National Security" and "The threat of terror" as being uninformed and living in the past.

Surely they couldn't have been wrong, could they?

:)

Steve
 
You can never rule out the possibility of a terrorist attack. There's very little chance we'll see a terrorist attack in Norway, but that doesn't mean we can rule out the possibility, there may always be a loony.

Now, I don't think we'll ever end up with no terrorist attacks, no attempts. But I'm tired of fear mongering, and naivity from those who think it's impossible.

They're both bloody wrong.
 
What I don't understand is why this attack happened at all.

Because the idea that you can stop all terrorism is a complete fantasy.

Probably like this guys "links to Al Qaeda".
 
Um, Bush was on holiday less than 600 miles away from the airport? And he just flew over the spot in the air where Richard Reid tried to blow up the plane? That doesn't make any sense. Are you talking about Shoe Bomber Boy, or something else?

Katrina.

And if you want to talk about disasters and presidential reactions to them... Well, just go there. I've got ammo for that.

Start with Bush first, fella.
 
And something really irks me about this whole "WELL IT'S ONLY FAIR" approach to blaming Obama for everything just because someone at some point blamed Bush for something: if you thought it was asinine, unfair, biased complaining then... as you repeatedly insinuate... what does that make it now? How is it any different, now that you're the one doing the asinine, unfair, biased complaining?

And I identify with liberals, sure, but grouping me in with the your view of liberal ideology is flawed. How many liberals do you know who hate unions and oppose global warming legislation? :p
 
Since when have I ever complained about the hyperpolarized state of politics? Ever?
Good point. You complain about the numerous failures of our government. Failures due, at least in part, to the hyperpolarized state of politics in this country.

How would the removal of the Gorelick wall have stopped this attempted terrorist?
 
And something really irks me about this whole "WELL IT'S ONLY FAIR" approach to blaming Obama for everything just because someone at some point blamed Bush for something: if you thought it was asinine, unfair, biased complaining then... as you repeatedly insinuate... what does that make it now? How is it any different, now that you're the one doing the asinine, unfair, biased complaining?

And I identify with liberals, sure, but grouping me in with the your view of liberal ideology is flawed. How many liberals do you know who hate unions and oppose global warming legislation? :p

Is this where I'm going to jump in and rant about how someone who shows socialist-ish views in economy and liberal views in the bedroom is a liberal, while someone who is liberal-ish in the economy, and really regulative in the bed room is a conservative?

From that logic, a marxist should be a fan of liberal economics and hate dogs.
 
Is this where I'm going to jump in and rant about how someone who shows socialist-ish views in economy and liberal views in the bedroom is a liberal, while someone who is liberal-ish in the economy, and really regulative in the bed room is a conservative?
You can if you want, but I was just saying not to lump me in with the generic liberal "NO BLOOD FOR OIL/I WAS SO HAPPY WHEN OBAMA GOT ELECTED I CRIED" stereotype that I keep getting compared to for some reason. :p
 
At least if they do use full-body scanners.. We could finally find out the truth about Lady Gaga.
 
Top