home

President Obama's Press Conference on Failed Xmas Day Attack

Bump and Update: Here is the summary of the de-classified review. Here are the new security directives President Obama issued today.

Update: Overall theme: Here come the whole imaging body scanners. (Added: And, from Napolitano, here come the "behavior analysts," more cops and more dogs.)

President Obama's press conference is starting on the security review of the alleged attempted terror attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on Christmas Day.

You can watch live here.

I'll live blog for a bit, below the fold. [More...]

He starts with their conclusions and the steps we're going to take to prevent it from happening again. John Brennan and Janet Napolitano will also speak. He is going to summarize the findings.

The shortcomings occurred in three ways:

1. Although we had learned about AQAP and were recruiting people to attack "the homeland", they didn't follow up the intelligence threads.

2. The failure to connect the dots might have prevented us from uncovering Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's plot.

3. This led to shortcomings in the watch list, allowing him to board the plane.

We had the info scattered throughout the system to possibly uncover the plot. It was not a failure to collect the info, but a failure to put it together.

4 areas of new steps:

1. Intelligence agencies will assign clear lines of responsibility for following leads.

2. Intell. reports regarding threats to US will be distributed to more people.

3. Strengthen analystical process: How the info is processed.

4. Will strengthen watch list and no fly list.

[Uh-Oh: Here comes the whole imaging scanners. Metal detectors wouldn't do it. We're spending $1 billion on new systems. (Buy stock in these companies now.)]

The buck stops with him. He accepts blame.

Update: He's blaming al Qaeda as a singular entity. He says they attacked us on 9/11 and are still planning to attack us. But the al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 is not AQAP, which wasn't formed until the past couple of years and is an offshoot of al Qaeda. It's a different threat in my view. Does he want the American people to think Osama bin Laden is still behind all this?

He's done, 12 or 13 minutes. He doesn't take questions. Brennan and Napolitano are next.

Update: Brennan. He praises the CIA and intelligence agencies who have thwarted many attacks against us since 9/11, just not this one. (The delivery was priceless, he only left out the "Heckavajob".)

< Yemen: Abdulmutallab Got Explosives at Nigeria Airport | Scanning Companies See Stock Rise After Xmas Day Attack >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Scr*w the new machines (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 03:55:39 PM EST
    They can't even keep their security cameras working and connect the dots when daddy reports to the CIA.

    A billion dollars in scanners isn't going to change that. They'll just blow up something besides an airplane.

    And AQAP was flagged by security (none / 0) (#10)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:14:53 PM EST
    for being detained for further scrutiny, an interview, etc., per an NPR report today.

    It's just that it didn't happen until he already was on the plane heading here, so the scrutiny was scheduled upon his landing in Detroit.

    How much did we pay for that brilliant work?

    Parent

    Oy. (none / 0) (#23)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:56:41 PM EST
    And just for giggles, we can throw in the TSA camera not working at Newark, which they discovered after a security breach (which cost them major time before getting their sh*t together among other issues), the canines that didn't pass re-cert but were still working the Philly airport, and honey people, it was freakin' HONEY! . . . and they want to see my naked body as a result?! I think not.

    So far nobody has picked up on my hints they could drive me to CA, lol!~ I'm more afraid of our inept systems causing massive headache (must check mouth before entry)/waste of time/hours in the airport pre-flight, than I am of an underwear bomber. And to save everyone from another 'honey incident', I will be overnighting my wild yeast yogurt and sourdough starter instead of putting it in my luggage. The Dot will forgo her frozen kong for snacking and stress relief also. I think it would p*ss her off if security tried to exam it and I won't be there to protect them, lol!~  ;)

    Parent

    If you were planning to move in the summer (none / 0) (#34)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:26:26 PM EST
    you could probably talk me into driving you to CA.
    Ms Dot will have to share the back seat with my Oliver and my new furry baby Jackson!

    Parent
    More continuity with Bush Admin? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Mitch Guthman on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:26:10 PM EST
    Another aspect of the Obama Administration's continuity with the Bush Administration is its reliance on "magical thinking" and "security theater" in response to terrorist plots.  Neither of Obama's proposed responses (more air marshals and full-body scanners) addresses the threat of terrorists smuggling PETN onto airplanes.  Full body scanners cannot detect "putty explosives" such as PETN itself or other forms of "plastique" in which PETN is used, such as Semtex.  

    Air marshals might (or might not) be helpful in subduing hijackers but they are, obviously, not much of a deterrent to a suicide bomber because the terrorist's identity is disclosed only through the attempted detonation of the bomb (successful or unsuccessful) by which time any intervention by the air marshals would be moot.  

    Good analysis of the problem by Bruce Schneier at his blog http://www.schneier.com/blog/


    Adding two words: Box Cutters n/t (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:38:27 PM EST
    Seems so logical (none / 0) (#29)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:15:39 PM EST
    It's magical thinking: If we defend against what the terrorists did last time, we'll somehow defend against what they do one time. Of course this doesn't work. We take away guns and bombs, so the terrorists use box cutters. We take away box cutters and corkscrews, and the terrorists hide explosives in their shoes. We screen shoes, they use liquids. We limit liquids, they sew PETN into their underwear. We implement full-body scanners, and they're going to do something else. This is a stupid game; we should stop playing it.

    [snip]

    What we need is security that's effective even if we can't guess the next plot: intelligence, investigation and emergency response. Our foiling of the liquid bombers demonstrates this. They were arrested in London, before they got to the airport. It didn't matter if they were using liquids -- which they chose precisely because we weren't screening for them -- or solids or powders. It didn't matter if they were targeting airplanes or shopping malls or crowded movie theaters. They were arrested, and the plot was foiled. That's effective security.



    Parent
    Yet, the underwear bomber (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:26:42 PM EST
    shows that al Qaeda has not evolved or innovated much at all.  Same old bomb that cannot detonate onboard.  Same tactic of targeting airliners....in a suicidal attack.

    Same play--fullback up the middle.  But we don't seem to have figured out how to stop that play--until we do, they will keep trying it.

    It would appear al Qaeda is not all that strong or good at what it does....Just one guy--with a bomb that again does not detonate....

    At some point, one has to assume the terrorists will get more creative....and we should be ready for new, unexpected threats...but we are still having trouble with the basic, expected threats.

     

    Parent

    I think AlQ's Mission Accomplished whupped Bush's (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:34:36 PM EST
    ... too depressingly long ago and by trillions and trillions of dollars. Hate our freedoms, huh?

    What freedoms? And people are STILL pants-crappingly scared.

    Parent

    What's really disturbing is that the (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:24:38 PM EST
    new steps:


    1. Intelligence agencies will assign clear lines of responsibility for following leads.

    2. Intell. reports regarding threats to US will be distributed to more people.

    3. Strengthen analytical process: How the info is processed.

    4. Will strengthen watch list and no fly list.

    are actually, um, new steps.  As in, these are things they haven't been doing.

    Are you kidding me?

    There aren't already clear lines of responsibility?  "Oh, was I supposed to do that - I thought you were doing it.  Oops!"  And here I thought the government was a master at the flow chart and chain of command, but apparently, not so much.

    How many people are employed by Homeland Security/TSA and why are they keeping secrets from each other?  Maybe they could cut out the middle man and just blast e-mail them to all of us - that way we'd all know ahead of time.

    I guess "strengthen analytical process" is government-speak for the Seinfeld-ian, "they know how to gather the intelligence, they just don't know what to do with the intelligence."

    And I'm sure that strengthening the no fly/watch lists will mean more infants and 85-yr old ladies that share names with "terrorists" will be prevented from flying; I'd be curious to know how many people are on those lists now who don't pose a threat to anyone.

    It's like a freakin' Three Stooges marathon.

    Heckuva job, indeed.

    Okay, let's define "systemic failure" (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:38:43 PM EST
    and realize that then Obama ought to order systemic change.  Start over, reimagine how coordinated security ought to work, agencies communicating, etc.

    Instead, what Obama said today was that there was no single failure.  That means redefining the problem as multiple failures.  That means solving the problem by just asking everybody in the system to stop failing so much -- but it's still the same system.

    I consider this a serious conceptual concern.  I was glad to see him say that it was systemic failure, which is what it looked like to me -- that is, I had "hope" for "change."  But now I have to say that the solution does not match the problem.  As usual, it seems, Obama sticks with the status quo and just gives a stern lecture.

    More paternalism is not the answer; it will not make me safer.  I suppose his father-figure stuff is supposed to make us feel better.  But he just sent the agency heads to their quiet corners -- and then increased their allowances.

    Well, if they use the same template (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:47:41 PM EST
    for systemic security failure as they did to health care system failure...

    I'd complete that thought, but then I might have to slit my wrists...

    Parent

    Pres. Obama (none / 0) (#1)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 03:38:32 PM EST
    looks unrested.  Now, let me decipher his words.

    Translation here (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:20:17 PM EST
    from another blog.  This cracked me up:

    So the Intel was there before it was there after it was there but wasn't there when he thought it was there when it should of been there that's why he went golfing?


    Parent
    GBCW! (none / 0) (#37)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:34:31 PM EST
    Rocky Mountain BLOW.
    Hasta la vista, baby.

    Parent
    UGH. (none / 0) (#39)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:37:37 PM EST
    my comment is to this site's admins, not to you.  algorithms, and what not...
    See ya.

    Parent
    Awww, don't go Chi -- we've all been deleted at (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 06:05:31 PM EST
    ... some point, for NSFW language, topicality, thread length, general p!ssyness in the air.

    Repost an edit, if cached or cool off and come back.

    Parent

    Well he IS an upgrade from GWB, who went Fishin' (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:43:33 PM EST
    ... moments after getting the Preznit's Daily Briefing explicitly stating that Al Qaeda was going to strike inside the US.

    Xmas golfing in Hawaii after an explicit terra threat is, I dunno, just so much more soigné.  

    Parent

    Hmmm. (none / 0) (#19)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:45:00 PM EST
    Comment #3 is missing????
    My internet or this host's?

    Parent
    you, it's what you called Obama (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:46:00 PM EST
    You should know better.

    Parent
    With respect, (none / 0) (#22)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:48:42 PM EST
    on this site, I do know better.  Where's the comment?

    Parent
    Should we just keep refreshing this thread? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 03:38:47 PM EST
    I'm in and out of TL, attending to stuff, but will keep an eye on the live-blogging.

    And here's the link for the stream.

    yes, keep refreshing (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 03:50:11 PM EST
    Do you ever get out to the rural courthouses? (none / 0) (#9)
    by magster on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:08:59 PM EST
    They use these full body scanners at the courthouse in Castle Rock.  I had no idea my virtual nudity was on display every time I go there until the discussion of these scanners and what a waste.

    I won't quit going there, though, and I won't quit flying.  I just gotta lose my modesty and work on my "glutes" in the gym.

    Parent

    Imaging scanners? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Zorba on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 03:49:07 PM EST
    I guess this will certainly enrich Michael Chertoff, who has been flogging the use of such scanners- one of his big clients is a company that makes these scanners.  Link.

    Umama's bin Had: OBL, Mullah Omar still at large (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:01:56 PM EST
    But hang onto your sacs, Al Qaeda in Yemen ... there's a cool new sheriff in town, and not the one from Blazing Saddles.

    THIS one's not funny at all.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#8)
    by lilburro on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:03:23 PM EST
    observation Jeralyn:

    Update: He's blaming al Qaeda as a singular entity. He says they attacked us on 9/11 and are still planning to attack us. But the al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 is not AQAP, which wasn't formed until the past couple of years and is an offshoot of al Qaeda. It's a different threat in my view. Does he want the American people to think Osama bin Laden is still behind all this?

    Maybe we'll get to hear more at the SOTU?

    Makes sense; otherwise O's got nuthin for SOTU (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:19:26 PM EST
    ... what with his failure to lead on his marquee health care/insurance (that he was all prepared to take credit for.)

    Saber rattling, more terra terra terra might deflect from economy-suckage, too.

    Parent

    My guess is (none / 0) (#14)
    by lilburro on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:21:57 PM EST
    he doesn't want to talk about it but he has no choice.  But I want to know how our strategy and rhetoric change after this attack.

    Parent
    Brennan badly scripted, too (none / 0) (#11)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:18:10 PM EST
    as he asserts without qualification that our security forces our doing a heckuva job (almost those words, yikes) -- except in this one case.

    Oh, okay.  So except when they're not doing a heckuva job, they're doing a heckuva job.

    And now comes Napolitano, starting off by saying that she is going to talk about what has happened since the Xmas Day mess, doesn't want to talk about what happened before and on that day.  Oh, okay again.  

    {head desk} (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:58:56 PM EST
    and to think they actually had plenty of time to plan what they would say . . . .

    The buck stops with O, aka nobody gets canned.

    Parent

    Thanks Jeralyn. (none / 0) (#13)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:21:47 PM EST


    Good call on the scanners (and the stock tip!) (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:36:10 PM EST
    [Uh-Oh: Here comes the whole imaging scanners. Metal detectors wouldn't do it. We're spending $1 billion on new systems. (Buy stock in these companies now.)]

    Wall Street: It's Bullsh!t on AmeriCo

    L-3 and OSI Systems Inc. (OSIS) are the only two companies certified to make full-body scanners for the U.S. government.

    Following the Christmas Day bomb scare on a flight to Detroit from Amsterdam, lawmakers around the world are considering wider use of airport scanners that can detect objects or materials concealed under a person's clothing. This week, airports in Holland and Nigeria--through which the suspected terrorist passed undetected on his way to the U.S.--have opted to scan more passengers using the L-3 equipment. [WSJ article here]




    Notes to self: after buying body-scanner stock (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 04:48:23 PM EST
    ... and looking into thigh-master, Ab-Flex stocks, work on own thighs, abs.

    Scratch latter. Scr*w the personal privacy invaders; set me free, buy me dinner first or suffer, baby, suffer!

    I'm wondering if I can fly cargo (none / 0) (#25)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:01:47 PM EST
    with my dog. They don't pay close attention to cargo and I would fit in the great dane sized crate fairly well to curl up and nap cross country, blanket and all. The cargo area for animals is climate controlled and The Dot is much more fun the the TSA :)

    Parent
    Frankly I'd prefer going with the 4-legged ones (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:07:25 PM EST
    Or taking the train for short trips. I'm just not going to fly -- hell, even travel -- for awhile.

    Parent
    Climate controlled? (none / 0) (#28)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:14:26 PM EST
    I suppose it would have to be; otherwise, the poor pooches would freeze at high altitude....and then there is always the issue of whether to sedate the critters in transit....Cats can go in coach....

    Parent
    Cats in cabin . . . . (none / 0) (#30)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:20:10 PM EST
    not when you have 5! {grin}

    I'm shipping the cats out together ahead of time. They won't have to worry about getting to the airport several hours early and getting stuck on the tarmac. Me and the dog, not so lucky . . .

    Sedation is not allowed nor recommended. Pets will have some chamomile and lavender sewn into their cage padding. Me? I will be sedated . . .

    Parent

    Have you ever tried (none / 0) (#36)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:28:23 PM EST
    Bach Rescue Remedy?  

    I know people who swear by the stuff, and even use it on themselves!

    Parent

    Holy freakin' cr@p these post presser callers ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:03:32 PM EST
    ... are wild! Scared sh!tless! And dumb! And ARMED to the teeth, no doubt.

    Heads have to roll. Fire a bunch of people or the tentacles will come.

    Close the borders. Don't let ANYONE in. Why are Saudi Arabian screeners allowed to screen Saudis. It should be USA screeners -- everywhere in the world.

    Napolitano connects the dots (none / 0) (#32)
    by DFLer on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:23:32 PM EST
    Of course... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:58:31 PM EST
    Goldstein is behind this attack...he is behind every attack.  

    Oh...did I say Goldstein? I meant Osama.  Pardon me, its so hard to tell fact from fiction in these Orwellian times.  Double Plus Good!  Go get 'em Big Brother Obama!  Who needs rights and dignity and free unfetterred movement when there are bad guys on the loose?  

    Can't wait for Goldstein's grainy video response...nothing like a good ten minutes hate to forget the sorry state of affairs in the home of the sh*tting their pants.

    Orwell is so yesterday; Graham Greene's the oracle (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 06:37:21 PM EST
    ... now.

    Here's a great double bill for you, featuring IMO two of the BEST political baddies (and film plots evah): The Third Man with the incomparable Orson Welles as Harry Lime, and Our Man in Havana, with the incomparable Ernie Kovacs as General Segura.

    Don't want to spoil the film plots, or I'd explain why this DOES NOT veer off the topic! ;-)

    (However, Greene, "The Writers' Writer" and especially inspiring to the best writers of political thrillers, did have his centenary shortly after Orwell. Hmmmm.)

    Parent

    For those who missed the Q&A, (none / 0) (#46)
    by Makarov on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 07:08:36 PM EST
    there was one good question. Two, actually, from Helen Thomas. She asked:

    1. Were the screeners professionals or contractors (referring to either Amsterdam or Nigeria or both I'm not sure)

    2. What was the motivation behind AQAP's attack?

    Neither question was really answered. She repeated the second question twice. Brennan went on for a bit that AQ's goal is to "murder innocent civilians" and such but never answered the question.

    We've been "at war" with AQ for 10 years, and we're still no closer to an answer - Why are they attacking us?

    Well, I thought that (none / 0) (#47)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 08:45:11 PM EST
    President Obama was pretty center-right but I think we have not seen anything yet. That Republican criticism has gotten to him, it seems.   Moreover, I am amazed by some defenders, like Keith Olbermann, who counter Republican charges that Obama does not use the words terror enough or war enough, by counting up the many times that he does do so as compared with Bush, for example, as rebuttal rather point out the reasons why the argument is spurious.

    Well.. (none / 0) (#48)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 10:15:16 AM EST
    We've been "at war" with AQ for 10 years, and we're still no closer to an answer - Why are they attacking us?

    Well, in actuality, they (at least their spokesduded Osama) have not been shy about explaining it to us. It's just that we don't want to listen. They're royally pissed off at us for our Middle East policy especially w/r/t to Israel--justifiably so, even if you disapprove of their tactics which of course we all do. But the "reasons" and the "answer" are no mystery at all. What's truly a mystery is why, instead of seriuosly addressing those grievances, we respond with MORE of the same.

    This is what bin Laden has maintained all along: that he is fighting a defensive war, not a war of aggression, and there is merit in his argument - as anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Western meddling in the Middle East can readily tell you. This nonsense about al-Qaeda establishing a "worldwide Islamic caliphate" is a rather fanciful invention, created by "clash of civilization" types who need to rationalize their view of Islam as being somehow intrinsically aggressive. If bin Laden actually tried to recruit jihadists to the cause of somehow conquering the West, including the U.S., and subjecting it to sharia law, he would have far fewer recruits. No, he must present his jihad as a desperate battle against foreign invaders and occupiers - a role that we have done much to legitimate in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and throughout the world.

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/09/15/evil-speaks-are-we-listening/