Obama's Christmas Day Bomber Lie

BeAChooser

Banned
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
11,716
So never mind the SOTU (since none of you want to actually discuss it), here's another example of the ease with which Obama and his administration LIE:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/lack-intelligence

And the president, three days after interrogators supposedly elicited valuable intelligence about Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula from Abdulmutallab, claimed that the attack was the work of “an isolated extremist.”

That last claim was the subject of an exchange between Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, and the NCTC’s Michael Leiter at the January 27 hearing.

Asked how the president could have made such a claim, Leiter made it clear that the intelligence community had told the White House about Abdulmutallab’s involvement with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula—something the bomber acknowledged in his initial interview with the FBI.

I will say that on the night, on Christmas night we advised the White House, and I think the White House immediately said, that we believe this was an attempted terrorist attack. I will also add that during this entire look back—an ongoing investigation, as you know—different pieces of information have come forward which have made it more and more clear, I think, each day of his connections to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

King pressed Leiter: “Who would have allowed him to say ‘isolated extremist’ when he was not isolated?”

“Congressman, I know that the National Counterterrorism Center and others were providing intelligence to the White House on an ongoing basis,” replied Leiter. “I simply don’t know how those statements were produced.”

The White House hasn’t been any more forthcoming. Asked for details on the handling of Abdulmutallab, Gibbs has provided little information. At a White House briefing, he was asked about a media report that Abdulmutallab had been interrogated for fewer than 50 minutes before FBI agents read him his rights. Gibbs claimed that he did not know how long the interrogation lasted. But in an earlier appearance on Fox News Sunday, Gibbs had not disputed a claim from Chris Wallace that the interrogation lasted just 50 minutes. Gibbs further claimed that FBI interrogators “were able to get all that they could out of him.”

That, of course, is nonsense. Several sources confirm that Abdulmutallab’s interview lasted 50 minutes. And while Abdulmutallab did share some information about his time in Yemen, sources say that intelligence professionals, particularly those who have been tracking Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, are furious that they did not have any opportunity to learn more from a person who might have fresh knowledge about the group and its leaders.

Are we really safe with a bunch of cover-your-ass liars defending us, folks?
 
Yet another idiotic BaC thread. . .

So never mind the SOTU (since none of you want to actually discuss it),
That's an absurd lie. Several of us have been discussing the speech on several different threads.

here's another example of the ease with which Obama and his administration LIE:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/lack-intelligence



Are we really safe with a bunch of cover-your-ass liars defending us, folks?

So what do you have here? You're complaining that someone said that Obama said it was a "isolated extremist"? You don't suppose there's even a tiny chance that Republican Peter King is either willingly mis-remembering what Obama said or honestly misunderstood something he said? (This is why hearsay isn't generally considered evidence.)

You've got no better source than this for your claim of what Obama said?

Also, you think making a solid case against this criminal is a sign of weakness?

Sure we could strip the guy of the rights of the accused (get a confession without giving him his Miranda rights, for example, or deny his request for counsel or simply torture him), and then you'd be the first in line complaining when we have to release him because we didn't bother dotting every i and crossing every t in making our case to prosecute him.

ETA: I should also observe your continued desire to do away with the Bill of Rights (or at least those parts of them that guarantee the rights of the accused). Why do you hate our freedoms?
 
You don't suppose there's even a tiny chance that Republican Peter King is either willingly mis-remembering what Obama said or honestly misunderstood something he said?


That guy? I remember several years ago him saying some ridiculous, outrageous, unsubstantiated claims about Canada, its immigration system, and the supposed presence of Al-Qaeda in the country in worrying numbers.
 
I have to wonder, too, whether Obama might have been simply observing good OpSec while resources were being put in place to follow up on the information that the FBI did obtain. When you gain intelligence concerning a small cell organization, you use it while it is fresh and you use it before the targetted operation knows that they have been identified, or you have just called fire on empty desert.
 
I suspect Obama may has said something like, "So far this looks like an isolated terrorist. . ." or something like that.

In his first public statement after the incident, I saw no hint of even that sort of statement:

CNN said:
In his first public comment since the Christmas Day incident, President Obama said he directed his national security team to "keep up the pressure on those who would attack our country."

"We do not yet have all the answers about this latest attempt, but those who would slaughter innocent men, women and children must know that the United States will do more than simply strengthen our defenses," Obama told reporters in a break from his Christmas holiday in Hawaii.

Linky.

At any rate, BaC seems most upset that the guy got the rights of the accused as guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, and that after he lawyered up, the FBI didn't continue to question him.
 
At any rate, BaC seems most upset that the guy got the rights of the accused as guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, and that after he lawyered up, the FBI didn't continue to question him.

The FBI had probably extracted all the actionable intelligence they were going to get out of him before he got a lawyer.

Of course, what they did get out opf him prior to that is not useful at trial.

Like they needed anything other than his flaming undies to get a conviction.:rolleyes:
 
The FBI had probably extracted all the actionable intelligence they were going to get out of him before he got a lawyer.

Of course, what they did get out opf him prior to that is not useful at trial.
ETA: I don't think that's true. If they gave him his Miranda notification, and he still confessed, that confession is admissable.

I'm not certain, but I also think you can explain his rights, and when he says, "I want a lawyer" you can say, "Your lawyer's on his way, but we're giving you a plea offer for information that's only on the table up until your lawyer arrives." (Although I don't think you can say, "We've got evidence that will result in the death penalty for you, but we'll deal it down if you confess," if it's not true that you have such evidence.)



Like they needed anything other than his flaming undies to get a conviction.:rolleyes:

True, but you can certainly louse up a slam dunk case by not following the rules.
 
Last edited:
Even if you guys were to claim leftysergeant as one of your own, I hereby disavow BAC and Rush Limbaugh as my kind of conservative...
What garbage...
 
Looks to me like the rightwingers are in a hissy fit because Obama's DoJ is doing things right, in spite of the fear machine's best efforts.

Yup--they don't like the rights of the accused as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. As I've been saying, they don't like our freedoms.
 
Even if you guys were to claim leftysergeant as one of your own, I hereby disavow BAC and Rush Limbaugh as my kind of conservative...
What garbage...

Point well taken.

You are entitled to consider any of our arguments against positions BaC espouses to be strawman arguments if applied to conservatives in general.

I'm not sure I agree with your position on Rush, though. His wacko views are apparently taken seriously by a great many members of the Republican Party. While his more bizarre statements aren't typical of conservatives, I don't think most of what he says is very far off of mainstream Republican positions.
 
ETA: I don't think that's true. If they gave him his Miranda notification, and he still confessed, that confession is admissable.

True. But they still can ask him all the questions they want before that, as long as there is no coercion or intent to scare him into confessing, as long as they have no intent to use the answers against him.

And it is also true that anything he says after being Mirandized is admissible.

The problem with the Bush/Gonzo/Yoo approach is that they compromised everything they got out of most suspects by violating every rule of civilized police investigation, so that no court can even lawfully admit the information gathered at trial.
 
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So never mind the SOTU (since none of you want to actually discuss it),

That's an absurd lie. Several of us have been discussing the speech on several different threads.

Well Joe, then please provide links to the threads where the content of the speech has been discussed. Because I looked and didn't find any at JREF, other than the one I posted (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166031) and in that one no one has even attempted to challenge any of the specifics and complaints I cited. The only other instance I found at JREF where the SOTU was the topic was this, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166016 , which starts as follows "It occured to me while perusing the political boards that there is no discussion of the SOTU address." And that thread contains no discussion of the specifics in the address. So by all means, Joe, point me to the discussions you claim I missed. :D
 
I suspect Obama may has said something like, "So far this looks like an isolated terrorist. . ." or something like that.

No Joe. Obama said this:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59115

This incident, like several that have preceded it, demonstrates that an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist.

And that statement was made AFTER the suspect had already admitted to authorities that he'd been trained by al-Qaeda bomb makers in Yemen and that there were others trained to do the same thing. And the link in the OP of this article indicates that the Whitehouse was informed of this prior to Obama calling the terrorist "an isolated extremist". Furthermore, Janet Napolitano, even after Obama's statement, said that "Right now we have no indication that it's part of anything larger". LIAR. No wonder Obama has kept her on-board. LIARS are most comfortable in the company of LIARS.
 
Stop that, BaC. You have no idea how counter-terrorist actions work. You don't announce at the head of a breass band what you are about to do or what you know about the plot. You just go do something.

You watch too many spy movies and action flicks. Or maybe you just take too seriously the kinds of things idiots like Rummy and Dick Nosferatu Cheney say about how to fight terrorism.

"Never let the enemy know what you know or how you know it" is one of the basic principles of military intelligence.
 
I hereby disavow BAC and Rush Limbaugh as my kind of conservative.

What kind is that, rwguinn? Is your kind the kind that is comfortable with lies and liars? Do you, for example, accept Obama's claim that he inherited an 8 trillion dollar projected 10 year debt increase even though a CBO report that Obama himself had cited stated the projected debt increase at the time he took office was only 4.4 trillion? Do you, for example, think Napolitano wasn't lying when she said "Right now we have no indication that it's part of anything larger" even though the bomber had already told the FBI that he was indeed part of something MUCH larger? Yes, rwguinn, is that the kind of conservative you are?
 
No Joe. Obama said this:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59115



And that statement was made AFTER the suspect had already admitted to authorities that he'd been trained by al-Qaeda bomb makers in Yemen and that there were others trained to do the same thing. And the link in the OP of this article indicates that the Whitehouse was informed of this prior to Obama calling the terrorist "an isolated extremist". Furthermore, Janet Napolitano, even after Obama's statement, said that "Right now we have no indication that it's part of anything larger". LIAR. No wonder Obama has kept her on-board. LIARS are most comfortable in the company of LIARS.

What did he mean by "isolated extremist"?
 
What did he mean by "isolated extremist"?

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ee-a-foreign-terrorist-right-in-front-of-them

“President Obama recently used the phrase that ‘we are at war’ with terrorists. But unfortunately his rhetoric does not match the actions of his administration," said Collins, the ranking member on the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.


“The Obama administration appears to have a blind spot when it comes to the War on Terrorism," she added. “And, because of that blindness, this administration cannot see a foreign terrorist even when he stands right in front of them, fresh from an attempt to blow a plane out of the sky on Christmas Day."

… snip ...

“This charade must stop. Foreign terrorists are enemy combatants and they must be treated as such. The safety of the American people depends on it," Collins said.
 

Back
Top Bottom