Barack Obama

[TracyCoxx]

Why is Al Asiri, the so called Underwear bomber who tried to bring down a plane on xmas being given a civilian trial? He is not a US citizen. And the indictment mentions nothing about terrorism or even Al Qaeda even though it's known Al Asiri was with Al Qaeda. Why?

The administration's response to this attempted bombing has been abysmal. First they allow a person who is actually on a terror watch list onto a plane, then we get lucky and subdue him, and Napalitano says the system works. What did National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter do when he heard of the news? Resumed his ski trip.

We are now told Americans will feel "a certain shock" when a report is released today detailing the intelligence failures that could have prevented the alleged Christmas Day airline bomber from ever boarding the plane. This should be interesting. So BO has 2 strikes before he's been in office even a year. The Ft Hood terrorist attack, and the attempted xmas jet bombing. Al Qaeda is certainly sensing weakness and are circling, testing their prey, and probing for weaknesses.

Then there was the CIA attack in Afghanistan on December 30th. Well BO has them investigating climate change now. Yes I'm serious. Instead of letting them do what they've done so well during most of Bush's terms, they're now investigating climate change.

The question the BO administration wants to know: If you ignore terrorists, will they go away?

The question I want to know: Why isn't Al Asiri being tried as an enemy combatant rather than as an American citizen, which he clearly is not?

[randolph]

Hey, come on Tracy, blaming Obama for these security screw ups is ridiculous. We have had these problems in the last few administrations. It is the bureaucracy that is the problem. I have been to Washington and seen the incompetence and self centered administrators wallowing in politics. We spend billions on the CIA and they get conned by a Jordanian the same way Bush/CIA got conned by an Iraqi. What we need is a lean and mean security division that has its act together. Since Obama is releasing the report to the public, it sounds like he means business to get these jerks shaped up.

[jdawg]

I agree with Randolph, this is a Washington problem not an Obama problem. Agencies don't talk to each which creates problems with intelligence. It sounds like we had a lot of good info on the dude and he still got onto a plane with a failed attempt at murder.

I'm kinda worried about the Yemen situation. This place is hot, but do we open up yet another front? I'd suggest not, but anyhing is possible.

Randolph was also pretty spot on with the reasons why they hate us. I believe Al Qaeda put out a document or something stating reasons why they attacked. I wish I could remember the book or website I read it from as its stuff everybody should read.


I disagree with the comment Tracy made about how Al Qaeda should realize they made a mistake with 9/11. If anyhing they are pleased with the results. They got a weakened United States which had to be a goal.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by jdawg

I agree with Randolph, this is a Washington problem not an Obama problem. Agencies don't talk to each which creates problems with intelligence. It sounds like we had a lot of good info on the dude and he still got onto a plane with a failed attempt at murder.

I'm kinda worried about the Yemen situation. This place is hot, but do we open up yet another front? I'd suggest not, but anyhing is possible.

Randolph was also pretty spot on with the reasons why they hate us. I believe Al Qaeda put out a document or something stating reasons why they attacked. I wish I could remember the book or website I read it from as its stuff everybody should read.


I disagree with the comment Tracy made about how Al Qaeda should realize they made a mistake with 9/11. If anyhing they are pleased with the results. They got a weakened United States which had to be a goal.

Yes, Bin Laden's stated goal is to weaken the US from the inside by draining its resources. He has an unlimited supply of suicide bombers that are far cheaper than drones, soldiers and vast amounts of military equipment.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

Hey, come on Tracy, blaming Obama for these security screw ups is ridiculous. We have had these problems in the last few administrations. It is the bureaucracy that is the problem. I have been to Washington and seen the incompetence and self centered administrators wallowing in politics. We spend billions on the CIA and they get conned by a Jordanian the same way Bush/CIA got conned by an Iraqi. What we need is a lean and mean security division that has its act together. Since Obama is releasing the report to the public, it sounds like he means business to get these jerks shaped up.

So Obama is not to blame for current security screwups, but Bush is to blame for previous security screwups? Do I have this right, randolph? After all that is what you just posted in the quote.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

So Obama is not to blame for current security screwups, but Bush is to blame for previous security screwups? Do I have this right, randolph? After all that is what you just posted in the quote.

OK, I guess I was not clear. Bush/Cheney "wanted" to believe Iraqi informers in order to justify invading Iraq. Also, Cheney was intimately involved with the Iraqi shenanigans. Also, Bush/Cheney avoided getting serious about Bin Laden because having him alive justified their continued "anti terrorist program" in Afghanistan. Certainly, as head of state, Obama is ultimately responsible for what goes on in his administration. I just think the two situations are very different. I think Obama is serious about getting Bin Laden and resolving the Afghanistan mess he inherited from Bush/Cheney. I don't think any president since FDR has the challenges Obama has. How to clean up the Middle East mess, the financial mess, the Palestine mess, the Iran problem, the N. Korea problem, the unemployment problem. All of these issues were escaberated by the Bush/Cheney administration.
As a new president I wish him well, for all of us sake. He needs all the help he can get. He doesn't need any more screwups in his administrations anti-terrorist efforts, that's for sure.

[randolph]

I just read an article by Tom Burghart on www.globalresearch.ca
Titled; "Who Would Benefit Politically from a Terrorist Incident on American Soil? The Strange Case of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab"
I am not into conspiracy theories but his article is interesting. Politically, the Republicans benefited enormously from 9/11. He presents the question who would now benefit politically from a successful terrorist attack on the US? Humm, it certainty isn't President Obama and the Democrats.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

I just read an article by Tom Burghart on www.globalresearch.ca
Titled; "Who Would Benefit Politically from a Terrorist Incident on American Soil? The Strange Case of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab"
I am not into conspiracy theories but his article is interesting. Politically, the Republicans benefited enormously from 9/11. He presents the question who would now benefit politically from a successful terrorist attack on the US? Humm, it certainty isn't President Obama and the Democrats.

"Who benefits politically" seems to imply some kind of sneaky underhanded thing. Why does it benefit republicans? For no other reason other than because they handled the problem. They didn't ignore the problem and they went on the offensive. The Bush administration also kept terrorism out of America from 9/11/01 on to the end of his terms. That's no small feat, as BO is finding out. He's already got the Fort Hood attack and the nearly successful xmas jet bombing under his belt.

BTW, why is Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, aka Underwear Bomber, not being tried as an enemy combatant? He's not a US citizen. In his indictment there's no mention of terrorism or Al Qaeda even though we know that he is a part of Al Qaeda and he was caught with a bomb in is pants on a jet.

BO today claimed full responsibility for the security failings. Great. Let the heads start rolling. National Counterterrorism Center director Michael Leiter was on a ski trip when the xmas bomber incident occurred. What did he do when he heard the news? Continued with his ski trip. Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano says the system works. She's turning that department into a joke. But BO says he's not firing anyone.

Plus all the other stuff like inflating the deficit by over $2 trillion, pushing for national health care that no one but the far left wants.

I'm seeing fewer and fewer people on here defending him. Let's just call it like it is. Can we all agree that BO is a failure?

[TracyCoxx]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01...y6068237.shtml

An aggregate of 21 Gallup and USA Today/ Gallup polls from 2009 show that 40 percent of Americans call themselves conservative, while 36 percent identify as moderate and 21 percent identify as liberal. In 2008, by contrast, moderates matched conservatives at 37 percent while 22 percent called themselves liberal.

So let me get this straight. National Health care is a liberal plan. So why is a representative government such as ours going full speed ahead for this plan when only 21% of the country is liberal?

They know they're doing something terribly wrong because they're putting this bill together behind closed doors. Here is Obama lying to us 8 times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMf6kW_1Nw

[jimnaseum]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The question I want to know: Why isn't Al Asiri being tried as an enemy combatant rather than as an American citizen, which he clearly is not?

Because the crime occured by an individual on American Soil.

What I want to know is if every criminal is given a lawyer, wht isn't every ill person given a doctor?