# US thwarts Yemeni bomb plot



## QC (May 7, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17985709

Disruption of a plot similar to the "Underwear" plot has been disrupted. The IED has been seized and being examined.


----------



## TH15 (May 7, 2012)

Did they JUST seize the bomb or have they had it for some time? Because the fact that the media seemed to know about it before it went down is pretty insane to me. Trusting _them_ to keep their mouth shut? I'd take my chances with Lindsay Lohan coming out of rehab clean and sober before I'd trust the media the keep something like this under wraps..


----------



## IT101 (May 7, 2012)

Kudos to the fine folks who tracked that down and snagged it before it could be used, to a possibly devastating end.

It's frightening to know that they're using technology, or a simplicity from the stone age, that permits them to get this stuff on board without setting off alarms. So all those times I was required to travel in uniform and subsequently frisked (yes, my conspiracy theory side thinks they targeted me whilst in uni) were for naught when the "bad guys" can get away with this. Let's not make mention of the full body scanners...


----------



## QC (May 8, 2012)

It's pretty good they got it before Abdul had even bought a ticket.


----------



## Unstoppable (May 8, 2012)

just read this
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/w...volunteer-was-double-agent-officials-say.html

Interesting read.


----------



## JBS (May 10, 2012)

Whoever leaked this should be hung.

.02c


----------



## TH15 (May 10, 2012)

Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intel Committee.

A direct quote from him regarding the media being informed WEEKS before Congress was, "This whole thing doesn't pass the smell test." He doesn't seem too happy about it and I would be interested to see if there's anymore that will come out.

ETA: He very vaguely suggested the Obama administration leaked this to support their "politics."

I don't remember this many leaks under the previous Administration..


----------



## DA SWO (May 10, 2012)

TH15 said:


> Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intel Committee.
> 
> A direct quote from him regarding the media being informed WEEKS before Congress was, "This whole thing doesn't pass the smell test." He doesn't seem too happy about it and I would be interested to see if there's anymore that will come out.
> 
> ...


Bill Clinton didn't have this many leaks.


----------



## JBS (May 10, 2012)

It's sort of like the Bin Laden op. Of course, I don't know WTF I am talking about as I am not a high speed low drag politician, but does anyone think that the moment Bin Laden's takedown was announced, _*everyone*_ he was talking to using his tin can and string communication system within Pakistan and other nations would immediately burrow down and go into hiding and destroy other important pieces of data?

How much "actionable" intelligence gets turned to "actionable" history the moment it gets broadcast on the international media? Same thing with Mr. PETN britches. He hauled ass out of there anus puckered, but one has to wonder if he expected his African adventure to be on the international news the same week.


----------



## TH15 (May 10, 2012)

I mean, is it really _that_ hard to find the guy(s) leaking this stuff?!


----------



## Scotth (May 10, 2012)

TH15 said:


> I don't remember this many leaks under the previous Administration.


 
Exactly just don't ask Plame or Libby for their opinions of the previous administration strong ethical code against leaking classified material that suited there needs at the time.

One of the top 10 decisions made by Bush was not to commute Libby's conviction for the matter.

The administration got the news organization to hold the story for a couple weeks because maybe they were doing there jobs and running follow on ops?  If anything I view the whole holding the story for a couple weeks as a positive.  Every administration has leaks and you can't put the genie back in the bottle once it was leaked and they seemed to have gotten the most cooperation they could expect from a news organization.

As far as Roger's boo-hooing about not getting informed.  He runs an oversight committee for the House.  None of the alphabet soup agencies have to report to congress in real time for on-going ops.  They got informed prior to the story breaking.  The White House uses good news for there benefit and of course that is political but the actions of Mr Roger's are just as political.


----------



## TH15 (May 11, 2012)

Good points on the Plame part. I forgot about that.

However, are you really saying you're okay with the media knowing about this and just hoping they'll keep their mouth shut? And you're okay with the media knowing before Congress?

I actually follow Rogers quite closely. When it comes to national security he's probably one of the most non-partisan politicians. Put yourself in his position. You're Chairman of the House Intel Committee and you find out that the media was informed _weeks_ before you were? I know I'd be pretty pissed. It does make you wonder if there's something more to this story.

ETA: I believe Diane Feinstein of the Senate Intel Committee wasn't informed either. And I guess she's looking into this as well, so I don't necessarily think this should be made partisan.


----------



## Scotth (May 11, 2012)

TH15 said:


> Good points on the Plame part. I forgot about that.
> 
> However, are you really saying you're okay with the media knowing about this and just hoping they'll keep their mouth shut? And you're okay with the media knowing before Congress?
> 
> ...


 
I'm not OK with leaks but they happen with every administration and has less to do with politics and more about people wanting to feel important and show how "in the know" they are by talking to reporters.

I'm not dinging Rogers at all. I understand exactly what he is doing. The Obama Administration is trying to get some credit for a good win and it's Rogers job to tarnish that victory a little. If the roles were reversed the Democratic committee chair would be playing the same game trying to tarnish a Republican POTUS win. I don't think Rogers is a political hack trying to make a name for himself , god knows congress has plenty of those people on each side of the isle, I would agree with your assessment of Rogers for the most part.

The story leaked to the press a couple weeks early it wasn't released to the press. From what I understand it appears we continued to work the case more and in the process the story was released several weeks later. The terminology and framing are important here. You don't release a story to the press and think they will sit on it for a couple weeks only to have some other organization come along and scoop them. It was leaked and promises were probably made to get them to sit on the story.

Congress was informed before the story went public as they should. It was the same way when they got OBL. Nobody in congress was informed about the OBL mission until it was accomplished and the administration called both party leadership to tell them what happened prior to announcing the mission publicly. Congress has no operational input they are informed of what is going on so they can make informed budgeting decisions. It like the Libyan operation. If law makers were opposed to that operation they could have simply voted to block funding for the operation. Blocking funding for an operation is what brought Task Force Ranger home from Somalia in the 90's (it was never voted on but they had the votes so Clinton pulled the troops before he had to take a loss in Congress and Somalia).

At this point I'm perfectly OK with when congress was informed. It was a nice win for the administration but it will be forgotten in a months time. Not really much there IMHO.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 11, 2012)

Quite honestly I'm SICK TO DEATH of this partisan politics game with damn near everything that goes on with our foreign policy and such. Why, WHY, can't we all as Americans just sit back, smile and say "good job boys! way to keep us safe" rather than trying to make it some game where one side says the other is taking unfair credit or the other side is trying to use it to score political points. I'll be the first to say "good job CIA, keep up the good work!"


----------



## policemedic (May 11, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> I'll be the first to say "good job CIA, keep up the good work!"


 
I agree.

To my mind, congratulating those who actually accomplished a mission is appropriate, they obviously earned it.  The sitting POTUS? Not so much.  He's just the lucky guy that happened to be in office when real heroes did something important (regardless of his political affiliation).


----------

