Newsweek: Obama Got Pre-Christmas Intelligence Briefing on Terrorist Threats To Homeland
Jan 2nd, 2010 | 11 responses
A new Newsweek report suggests that the terrorism issue which has been pitchforked into the headlines, partisan talk radio and partisan weblogs will be pitchforked even further into prominence through 2010 — all the way to election day: according to the newsmagazine, President Barack Obama got a pre-Christmas briefing “about possible holiday-period terrorist threats against the US.”
The Newsweek report– based on original reporting and not rehashed wire service copy — gives these details:
The briefing was centered on a written report, produced by US intelligence agencies, entitled “Key Homeland Threats”, a senior US official said.
The senior Administration official, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, said that nowhere in this document was there any mention of Yemen, whose Al-Qaeda affiliate is now believed to have been behind the unsuccessful Christmas Day attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to bring down a transatlantic airliner with a bomb hidden in his underpants. However, the official declined to disclose any other information about the substance of the briefing, including what kind of specific warnings, if any, the President was given about possibly holiday attacks and whether Yemen came up during oral discussions.
According to the senior official, the holiday threat briefing, one in a series of regularly-scheduled sessions with top counter-terrorism officials, was held in the White House Situation Room on December 22. Present were representatives of agencies involved in counter-terrorism policy and operations, including Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and FBI Director Robert Mueller. The CIA and National Intelligence Directors Office were represented by deputy agency heads: CIA deputy director Steven Kappes, and David Gompert, the principal deputy to National Intelligence Czar Dennis Blair. Also present was Michael Leiter, director of the National Counter-terrorism Center, a unit of the Intelligence Czar’s office which was created after 9/11 to ensure that intelligence reporting about possible terrorist plots was shared quickly among all US agencies who might have some capability to do something about it.
The magazine, attributing these tidbits to this unnamed senior official, said that these intelligence strands pointed to some kind of plot starting in Pakistan but no where did it indicate anything emanating from Yemen.
This will mean little in America’s 24/7 partisan battle: Republicans will seize on it, generalize it and say Obama was asleep at the switch, Democrats will insist that was not the case and each side will press its (prepackaged) response. Each side has its own version of a “noise machine,” although the mix composing the machines vary. The truth will probably emerge more from mainstream media reporting over the next few weeks, versus predictable op-ed or new media punditry.
Congressional hearings may shed some light on it but those will be colored by political partisan posturing, attack mode (GOP) and CYPA (Cover Your Partisan…. Democrats). GOPers will likely argue the Obama administration’s response/nonresponse to pre-Christmas intelligenc means that the Bush administration’s response to pre-911 info is therefore neutralized by the Obama response or argue Bush administration response didn’t matter as much (tune in talk radio and remember Psychic Joe said it here first).
Newsweek’s report also highlights the upcoming political skirmish over this tidbit:
Asked about what kind of intelligence reporting was circulated to senior officials about possibly holiday period attacks before the failed underpants attack, a US intelligence official, who also asked for anonymity, explained: “As everybody knows, terrorists often speak in coded language, especially when they think their communications might be intercepted. There was no clear discussion of an attack, on Christmas or any other time, in the Middle East or anywhere else. But as veiled as the message was, it was spotted, processed, analyzed, and presented to senior policymakers as a warning sign-however vague-of a holiday attack. While this was handled properly, there were, to put it mildly, virtually no details at all. That happens.” When Newsweek asked a senior Administration official about this characterization of a warning which was passed to White House policymakers, and whether it tracked what was presented at the December 22 Presidential briefing, the official would not comment.
Presidential aides are concerned that Obama will somehow be unfairly accused of dropping the ball on the fight against terrorist in Yemen — a country where, in fact, the evidence suggests Obama, as early as last summer, ordered a significant increase in US intelligence activity. In the weeks before the Christmas attacks, several US officials have told Newsweek, Obama authorized a major expansion in US intelligence, military and material support to Yemen’s government — an escalation which some officials acknowledge could be characterized as a new covert war. But Obama’s public and private actions in expanding counter-terrorism operations in Yemen may not help him avoid answering further questions about what intelligence agencies told him — and didn’t tell him — about possible threats to the US homeland in the days and weeks before the alleged underpants bomber boarded his Christmas Day flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
Meanwhile, in his weekly radio address, Obama tied the attempted attack to Al Qaeda and answered Vice President Dick Cheney:
President Obama declared for the first time on Saturday that a branch of Al Qaeda based in Yemen sponsored the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an American passenger jet, and he vowed that those behind the failed attack “will be held to account.”
In his first radio and Internet address of the new year, Mr. Obama also rebutted attacks by former Vice President Dick Cheney and other Republicans who since the incident have accused him of not recognizing that the struggle against terrorists is a war. Mr. Obama said he was well aware that “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.”
The president’s speech, taped from Hawaii where he is nearing the end of a 10-day holiday vacation, was the third time he has publicly addressed the failed attack on Northwest Flight 253 bound for Detroit on Dec. 25. Mr. Obama noted that he has received preliminary reports about the incident but gave no more details about how a Nigerian man with known radical views was allowed to board a flight to the United States with explosives in his underwear.
Mr. Obama’s comments about the involvement of Al Qaeda, however, were the most direct to date by the highest reaches of the American government. Administration officials and intelligence analysts previously had said they were increasingly confident that Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as the Yemeni branch calls itself, was involved, as it claimed.
But the president until now had shied away from referencing that until analysts were further along in their assessment of the group’s activities and its ties to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian charged with attempting to blow up the airliner.
“We’re learning more about the suspect,” Mr. Obama said in the Saturday address. “We know that he traveled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies. It appears that he joined an affiliate of Al Qaeda and that this group, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America.”
This attempted attack and the administration’s response to it is of huge political import. For years Democrats were outmaneuvered on the issue of national security by Republicans, who successfully painted a picture of them as either weak or incompetent. When Obama won in 2008 polls indicated that the Democrats had made great strides in neutralizing this issue. These developments will negate many of these strides as the GOP takes the national security ball and runs with it as they accuse Obama and the Democrats of dropping it. And the Democrats will scramble to convince voters to have the same faith in the Demmies on the issue as they did in 2008.
To the victor goes the political spoils.
But the bigger issue will be: can BOTH parties learn from the pre-911 and pre-Christmas ball dropping so that in the future terrorists don’t score big with bang?
The BBC offers THIS PROFILE of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
11 Responses to “Newsweek: Obama Got Pre-Christmas Intelligence Briefing on Terrorist Threats To Homeland”
“The truth will probably emerge more from mainstream media reporting over the next few weeks”
HAH! no.
“But the bigger issue will be: can BOTH parties learn from the pre-911 and pre-Christmas ball dropping so that in the future terrorists don’t score big with bang?”
As long as the public rewards the party that rams the most lubed-up and easily swallowed soundbites down their throats?
No. America still has the political sphere it deserves – an absolutely atrocious one, as committed to the public good and the interests of the common man as the Versailles courts of old.
I appreciate the attempt at being neutral and non partisan but I think you have missed the main point. Yes there are political implications for both sides and while that my be important politically, but in the bigger picture this is the least important aspect of this story.
The real importance here is either The Bush administration's approach to fighting this battle or the Obama and Clinton administration's approach is the right one. Not both. There is no middle ground and no neutrality here. You either believe we are facing criminals, or fighting a war and then take action accordingly.
The Bush administrations position was this is a war and our enemies were treated as combatants in a war. Killed, captured and treated as such. The Obama and Clinton Administrations view this as a law enforcement issue, capturing and treating the “suspects” as such. This case points it out as clearly as any to date.
This “suspect” as our president has called him has been read his Miranda Rights and has secured legal council and has given us ZERO intelligence on his plans and co conspirators since that time. Under the Bush administration he would have been detained as an illegal combatant prisoner of war and not been afforded those rights. It is almost certain we would know more today than we currently do if he was not considered a “suspect”.
Now its up to each of us to agree which approach is the right one but this is certain. One of these two approaches is completely wrong and is going to get Americans killed.
Personally I think the Obama administration is putting everyone of us at risk in a way american citizens living on US soil have not been since the civil war. In their very misguided attempt to do justice they are crippling our ability to fight our enemies who have no such sense of justice.
You may believe they are doing the right thing and by their policies they are diffusing the tensions and reducing the risk to Americans by showing how just we are. I think people who believe that are fatally foolish.
Policy wise there is not so much difference. Even on NPR the commentators seem to acknowledge that the Obama approach isn't so very different from the Bush/Cheney approach excepting a few areas.
I agree we are war. I just wonder why, IMHO, we are trying to win a popularity contest. By all means try to be fair, really try hard, but be tough at the same time.
RECOMMENDED NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTIONS FOR ALL AMERICANS
1. Remove Cloudmark Authority from all email servers.
2. Really investigate 9/11, beginning with the truth about WTC-7.
3. Repeal the Patriot Act, and restore our Bill of Rights.
4. Repudiate all wars for profit, and recall our troops.
5. Require single-term limits, and RE-ELECT NOBODY.
###
RECOMMENDED NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTIONS FOR ALL MOTORCYCLISTS
1. Stop forwarding unverified chainmails.
2. Stop giving to others until we've cared for our own.
3. Stop lobbying for “feel-good” legislation.
4. Stop fighting for funds that will eventually be raided.
5. Stop complying with unjust mandates.
###
THE MAGNIFICENT AFGHANISTAN by Johnny Punish (JohnnyPunish.com)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-dGHwe6COM
Click “more info” link for lyrics and commentary.
###
URGE TO SHARE by Ron Greenstein (performs@mindspring.com)
Brief observations of the United States of America during 2009:
Afghanistan: surge
Financial institutions: merge and splurge
The Middle Class: purge
Domestic manufacturing: dirge
Healthcare debate: regurge
Ignorance, arrogance and greed: scourge
###
HAPPY NEW YEAR…
Bruce Arnold
Bruce@LdrLongDistanceRider.com
Follow me on Twitter @ironboltbruce
Co-Moderator, Bruce-n-RC's Biker Forum
Mile Eater Gold Member, Iron Butt Association (IBA)
Sustaining Member, Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF)
2009 Chairman's Circle, American Motorcyclist Association (AMA)
Author and Publisher, LdrLongDistanceRider.com|911TruthBikers.com
Signatory, 911 Truth Statement|Petition (911Truth.org|ae911Truth.org)
Say No to Cloudmark and All Forms of Content-Based Big Brother Censorship
Source Link: http://ldrlongdistancerider.com/bikers_rights_m…
I agree with Leonidas. There really isn't much difference between Obama's policy and Bush's policy. The shoe-bomber was tried in civilian court. I assume that means he was read his Miranda rights at some point. Also, I hear the underwear bomber is talking up a storm, so whatever the interrogation policy is appears to be working right now. I agree that terrorists should be treated as enemy combatants, not criminals, and that Obama's policy has changed somewhat in this respect with regards to extremists captured in foreign territory, but with regards to terrorists captured on American soil, I don't see any substantial difference in policy.
Therefore, while I also appreciate Joe's attempt to be balanced, I think those on the right are more in the wrong if they continue to try to politicize this as Cheney and others are doing. If Bush had still been president, or if McCain had been elected, I don't see any reason to believe that the Christmas bombing attempt would have been stopped sooner. I don't recall McCain ever mentioning in his campaign that we should lower the bar on who gets on the no-fly lists. And the vote in June in the House of Representatives to limit the use of full-body scanners was bipartisan.
Certainly we need to review our processes and make our counter-terrorism efforts better and find out who dropped the ball. And it appears the president is doing just that and we should support him in those efforts.
So how do you explain the trials of the shoe bomber and the “mastermind” behind 9/11…both tried as criminals by the Bush Adm.
Hi Bruce Arnold, and welcome. Please read the commenters rules at the top of the Home page. You posted here at TMV an entire article you wrote. As it says in 'commenters rules', you can put up a paragraph of what you've written as an article, and then link to the rest of the article on your own or another site. THe paragraph from your article, however, ought be on the topic of the TMV post here, and not a veering to other topics. That keeps comments flowing well for everyone. Thanks.
Dr.E
deputy managing ed., tmv
How about a mistake. I know politicians can never admit they made one, but we little folk can sure voice our opinions.
A tale of two enemy combatants: EB #1 is captured overseas, and we try him in military court. Another guy is in the air over the tip of Long Island and we try him in a civilian court (Mirandaized). Not all guys that are caught are going to squeal, some tougher, and perhaps better trained will clam up, lawyer up and become jailhouse lawyers, on our dime. AQ can afford to send as many of these low level malcontents through over our U.S. territories and it cost them $2.98 for a pair of Fruit of The Loom briefs. (Oh, and next time they tell the guy to clam up, his lawyer, paid for by you, is on the way.)
I agree that we shouldn't be mirandizing terrorists, but as I and others have pointed out, we did that under Bush (for those caught in the US) and likely would have done under McCain. From what I understand, Obama did change things to start mirandizing combatants caught in Afghanistan, which I disagree with but that has nothing to do with this case. So, we can, as you suggest, make our voices heard, but the issue shouldn't be politicized. And frankly whether they are mirandized or not doesn't seem to be the major issue here. If we're not going to use “eit”s anyway, then it really doesn't matter whether or not they have a lawyer. As you mentioned, AQ can tell them to clam up or they won't get their 90 virgins or whatever.
Also, it's not the first-responders job to decide what is terrorism and what is plain-ol' criminal activity. We could make the assumption that anyone who tries to do someone else harm on a airplane is terrorism, but that seems to be quite arbitrary. The line becomes gray when you consider other scenarios: what about someone from Yemen who has been in the US for 10 years, who is caught in the act shooting someone else, who (just to make it interesting) happens to be a vet? The first-responders show up on the scene. Do they mirandize or not? How about an American who is caught trying to bring a bomb into a mall? Is that criminal activity or a matter of national security?
If it were up to me, I'd tell first-responders to mirandize, but then would have a process to “de-mirandize” if later we had reason to believe there was a connection to a terrorist group (having the suspect blurt that out helps, but even if he doesn't, there are ways to figure that out).
If it were up to me, I'd tell first-responders to mirandize, but then would have a process to “de-mirandize” if later we had reason to believe there was a connection to a terrorist group (having the suspect blurt that out helps, but even if he doesn't, there are ways to figure that out).”
That sounds like a plan, if feasible. I would also tell FRs to tape everything the minute they crab a perp (as they say: It wouldn't hurt), as he may blab.