After multiple delays, President Barack Obama finally delivered his highly anticipated 12 minute speech on the Christmas Lap Bomber incident, providing very little specific detail but conceding that “shortcomings occurred.”
Though he provided little insight beyond what had already been leaked about the security failures ahead of the failed bombing, President Obama declared that they were the result of “systemic failure across organizations” and that he would order additional corrective steps.
The speech came with the release of a report on the incident, which National Security Adviser James Jones predicted that many Americans would find “shocking.” Yet the report was, again, largely in keeping with what we already knew, concluding that the assorted US spy agencies had ample data on Abdulmutallab and simply failed to “connect the dots,” a phrase which seems to have gained considerable currency among officials in describing this failure.
But as to what President Obama intends to do, again, the statements were very broad-brush and couched in bureaucratic language. He vowed to “strengthen criteria” for various watchlists and cautioned Americans that it was not a time for partisanship, but a “time for citizenship.”
Other officials are expected to speak about this later in the evening, and it will be interesting to see if they provide any details or insight about what the speech will actually mean in practice.
SWOON!! What a politician! Such an unfaltering ability to say nothing of consequence! Brilliant. My hero.
SHOCKING: Bureaucracies do as bureaucracies do. They are not well-oiled (efficient, effective) machines built to solve well-defined problems but animal pens trying to interprete the ouija board of the real world by looking at it through long cardboard tubes (while everyone is tyring to get his pension scheme lined up). All the utter stupidity about the über-spy-agencies hoovering up data on one end and spitting out well-formatted PDFs detailing the threat level on the other are just B.S. oozing out of Hollywood fantasies and Control Freaks' brains. Attempts to create such a monster will only result in cancerous "Fatherland Security Departments" and citizens being thrown into the thresher of paranoid law enforcement and an amok justice system. Even the Sicherheitsdienst der SS could not avoid Heydrich's assassination. Though they they delighted in erasing the village in which it happened afterwards.
How convenient that "the assorted US spy agencies had ample data on Abdulmutallab and simply failed to connect the dots,” almost as convenient as all the dots that 'our' government failed to connect prior to 9-11. Cui bono? Who gains?
Want to disable and flush the American constitution down the toilet? Want to create a police state? Want to invade Afghanistan in order to secure an oil pipeline for Unocal? Want to conquer Iraq in order to have a staging base to do Israel's will agaiinst Iran? Want to start yet another war against little brown people, this time in Yemen? Why, just neglect to connect the dots. How simple. How easy. How passive. Just neglect to connect the dots. "Oops! We failed to connect the dots. So sorry."
In any functioning civilization, hundreds or thousands would have lost their government jobs after 9-11 and thousands of others would have been severely reprimanded. Yet no one–NO ONE–not a one of the people or agencies which failed on such a colossal scale that day suffered the least inconvenience. "Oh! They just failed to connect the dots. Could happen to anyone, don't you see. Nobody to blame! It came as a complete surprise."
And in 60 years no one thought to put in on-site missile defenses at the Pentagon, even though it is ground zero of America's world-wide military force. Oops! The admirals and generals were so busy reading Ann Landers and Miss Manners they didn't have time in a busy day to turn to the connect-the-dots page of the newspaper.
As to terrorist activity, Fletcher Prouty said it best in the context of the JFK assassination: There's always someone wanting to assassinate a leader; that fact is a constant. All government has to do is turn its eyes away for a brief moment and the assassination will occur. ("Turn its eyes away" is an expression adult human beings use; it is the adult analogue to the baby-talk phrase "failed to connect the dots.")
In the same manner as Col. Prouty's analysis, given the monstrous worldwide interference with the lives of people, governments and countries–nay, whole regions and continents–by the CIA (in all of its shape-shifting forms) there must surely be a long line of assassin/terrorist/bomber applicants waiting to get a little payback for the death and destruction of their children/wives/homes/cities/countries at the hands of murderous Yanqui psychotics. That fact is a given. All government has to do in order to create yet more fear in depraved American society is to simply. . .not connect the dots.
And Mr. Obama, playing Rochester to General Petraeus' Jack Benny (like little George Bush playing Mortimer Snerd to Dick Cheney) gets to stand up and say ONE MORE TIME, "There ain't nobody here but us chickens. There ain't nobody here at all. So quiet yourself and quit your fuss. There ain't nobody here but us. We chickens trying to sleep but you butt in. . . ." (aside his advisors) "Easy pickings! Ain't nobody here but us chickens!" (muted off-camera laughter all around the podium). Exeunt omnes.
And the American people out standing in their fields get to say one more time, "B-a-a-a-a! How many bags full?"
Get rid of all the overhead and bureau's Homeland Security, TSA etc. Let people be responsible for their own defense. The airlines should have absolute authority on who boards their craft. Same for the railroads and bus lines. I like the idea of armed and trained pilots and every sane looking passenger can be given a baseball bat. He would have to return it to the carrier when he gets off. I like to carry a heavy walking stick with me when I walk through many different neighborhoods. I think it helps ward off trouble. The same principle with armed passengers with baseball bats.
The problem with watch lists ….
To me, this affair shows the problem with massive watch lists. Too many names on the watch list means too many hits and too many false positives. Of course, the beaurcrats can scream later that the name was already on the watch list. But, when there are so many names and so many hits, people naturally start paying attention.
So, when a known terrorist who's suspected of planning an attack goes onto a watch list, he's just one of a million names. When his name pops up, its just one of a million others. What you'd want of course is for everyone to immediately react when this guy's name pops up. But, since the watch lists are so huge and there are so many false hits that it doesn't get the reaction it deserves.
Too many names on watch lists means the watch lists become routine and no one cares all that much. Congratulations, you're my 1000 false hit on the watch list, please stand over here.
And so, what's the answer they propose …. expand the watch lists. Guaranteed to make the bureaucrats look good, since when everyone is on the watch lists, they can always bray after an attack that the name was on the watch list and it was someone elses mistake. The true goal of every beaurocrat. Meanwhile, out in the field, the people who have to actually try to watch for terrorist get to deal with a situation where lots and lots of people come up on the watch lists every day. Which means it becomes routine. Which means it won't work.
typo in paragraph 1 …. obviously should have said 'people stop paying attention'.
Wouldn't the first line of defense be whoever gave this guy a visa to come here?
no our first line of defense is afghanistan…. or that is the central front.
but wouldn't our first line of defense be near the central front?
i think the main problem is that this watch list is way to small, if we put every person in the world on the watch list then we will all know who to watch and be afraid of…. everyone