Officials Warn Attempted Al Qaeda Attack Months Away.

[Danno 1,228]

Intelligence Officials Warn Attempted Al Qaeda Attack Months Away

The terrorist organization is deploying operatives to the United States to carry out new attacks from inside the country, CIA Director Leon Panetta told Congress

WASHINGTON -- Al Qaeda can be expected to attempt an attack on the United States in the next three to six months, senior U.S. intelligence officials told Congress Tuesday.

The terrorist organization is deploying operatives to the United States to carry out new attacks from inside the country, including "clean" recruits with a negligible trail of terrorist contacts, CIA Director Leon Panetta said. Al Qaeda is also inspiring homegrown extremists to trigger violence on their own, Panetta added.

The annual assessment of the nation's terror threats provided no startling new terror trends, but amplified growing concerns since the Christmas Day airline attack in Detroit that militants are growing harder to detect and moving more quickly in their plots.

"The biggest threat is not so much that we face an attack like 9/11. It is that Al Qaeda is adapting its methods in ways that oftentimes make it difficult to detect," Panetta told the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Al Qaeda is increasingly relying on new recruits with minimal training and simple devices to carry out attacks, the CIA chief said as part of the annual assessment of national threats provided to Congress by the top five U.S. intelligence officials.

Panetta also warned of the danger of extremists acting alone: "It's the lone-wolf strategy that I think we have to pay attention to as the main threat to this country," he said.

The hearing comes just over a month since a failed attempt to bring down an airliner in Detroit by a Nigerian suspect. And the assessment follows only a few months since U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hassan is accused of single-handedly attacking his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13.

Director of National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair described Hassan as homegrown extremist. He also said that Al Qaeda can be expected to continue and try to attack the United States until Osama bin Laden and his No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, are dead.

The U.S. still does not know the intended targets of suspected terrorist Najibullah Zazi, who was arrested in September and charged with plotting to attack New York City with homemade bombs, Blair said.

Blair warned as well of a growing cyber threat, saying computer-related attacks have become dynamic and malicious.

Obama has promised to make cyber security a priority in his administration, but the president's new budget asks for a decrease in funds for the Homeland Security Department's cybersecurity division.

The government's first quadrennial homeland security review states high consequence and large-scale cyberattacks could massively disable or hurt international financial, commercial and physical infrastructure.

The report, obtained by The Associated Press, said these types of cyberattacks could cripple the movement of people and goods around the world and bring vital social and economic programs to a halt.

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

I mean, who could be surprised??? Obama didnt even address National Security... must not be a priority right now. We still have a good 3-6 months right??

[scandal 951]

I mean, who could be surprised??? Obama didnt even address National Security... must not be a priority right now. We still have a good 3-6 months right??

Right, Obama will probably be the one committing the terrorist attack. His middle name is Hussein, after all.

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

Right, Obama will probably be the one committing the terrorist attack. His middle name is Hussein, after all.

Nope, Im not interested in what his first or middle name is.. my point was... He did NOT address National Security. I was listening to the State of the Union that night. I heard nothing other than by August bringing home the troops from Iraq, and the rest 69.59 minutes of his time was on other things. So if he aint worried about National Security, things must be pretty good around here. Come on, the younger generation is listening and he isnt doing the things we are looking for.

[scandal 951]

Nope, Im not interested in what his first or middle name is.. my point was... He did NOT address National Security. I was listening to the State of the Union that night. I heard nothing other than by August bringing home the troops from Iraq, and the rest 69.59 minutes of his time was on other things. So if he aint worried about National Security, things must be pretty good around here. Come on, the younger generation is listening and he isnt doing the things we are looking for.

Listen more carefully. From the transcript of Obama's first State of the Union:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/27/sot...ript/index.html

Now, throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. And we can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past.

I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future, for America and for the world.

(APPLAUSE)

That's the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives.

We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula.

And in the last year, hundreds of Al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed, far more than in 2008.

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

He didnt focus on squat when he was on vacation for Christmas... seemed like another day. And trying to say our unity has dissipated -is crack.

Anyways, Im going to bed so I can get up early for work. I shake my head at him, and I dont care what his name is or what color he is. Im not impressed.

Edited February 4, 2010 by ~PalmTreeGurl~

[scandal 951]

He didnt focus on squat when he was on vacation for Christmas... seemed like another day. And trying to say our unity has dissapated -is crack.

Tamara, you wrote:

my point was... He did NOT address National Security. I was listening to the State of the Union that night.

Do you concede that you were wrong and he most certainly DID address national security in his speech?

He clearly did, I quoted the relevant bits for you.

Now you want to change the topic to how he spent Christmas vacation. Nice deflection.

He was on vacation during Christmas. Presidents do take vacations, just like the rest of us. Abraham Lincoln did during the Civil War, FDR did during WWII, GWB did while we were at war in Iraq. Your point is what, exactly?

As to "unity has dissipated" ... do you remember the days immediately following 9/11? In which a United Congress, Democrats and Republicans, overwhelmingly supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the Patriot Act. Only ONE senator voted against the Patriot Act - Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.

Can you imagine in our current Washington climate that ANY bill could pass Congress with such a vote? Partisanship has definitely re-entered the national discourse, big time, since 9/11.

[Danno 1,228]

Well he did touch on it but a complaining voice might say: in a State of the Union Address he should have did just that, explained

- where we were in this effort, and

-what His basic efforts for the war is.

- what the struggles are and the objectives he hopes to reach in the near future.

I don't think a little bit better, detailed update "on the war"... would have been asking too much.

Need I post the vids of him speaking with such energy and commitment to the Afgan theater..... on the campaign trail?

[Ali G. 37]

Danno, now that interrogation of any sort is ruled out, we are in safe hands. Maybe harsh language will work, oh wait, you have to catch these guys first. Err can't do that anymore, as proactive interception of communications was ruled unconstitutional.

Then again, if by fluke they are caught, I have the best information extraction method know to man. Can you imagine something like 10 hours worth of Scandal's comments and opinions repeated over and over again. I'd have blood shooting out of my ears after 3 hours.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Booyah

[scandal 951]

Well he did touch on it but a complaining voice might say: in a State of the Union Address he should have did just that, explained

- where we were in this effort, and

-what His basic efforts for the war is.

- what the struggles are and the objectives he hopes to reach in the near future.

I don't think a little bit better, detailed update "on the war"... would have been asking too much.

Need I post the vids of him speaking with such energy and commitment to the Afgan theater..... on the campaign trail?

It was a 70 minute speech. Do you really wish he spoke LONGER ?

He did touch on all of the key issues we face as a nation, so clearly he can't give more than a few minutes attention to any one.

Here were the relevant comments regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq:

And in Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011 and our troops can begin to come home.

(APPLAUSE)

We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans, men and women alike. We're joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitment and who'll come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead, but I am absolutely confident we will succeed.

As we take the fight to Al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as president.

We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August.

(APPLAUSE)

We will support -- we will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity.

But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world -- they have to know that we -- that they have our respect, our gratitude, our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home.

(APPLAUSE)

That's why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades last year.

(APPLAUSE)

That's why we're building a 21st-century [Veterans Affairs]. And that's why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families.

[Danno 1,228]

I only think he hurts himself when his voice is void of the perfunctory rhetoric which comes with the job.

Should we have some attack... and God knows how easy it could be pulled off,

Obama, I think is going to take a serious hit for it.

[scandal 951]

I only think he hurts himself when his voice is void of the perfunctory rhetoric which comes with the job.

Should we have some attack... and God knows how easy it could be pulled off,

Obama, I think is going to take a serious hit for it.

If we have a serious attack, something like 9/11 or worse, the political outcome for Obama or anyone should be the least of our concerns.

We will be dealing (again!) with the death of countless innocents, the destruction of property, the fear of our citizens to live freely and go about their lives, the paralysis of our financial markets and economy and airways, and an economic cost that would be added to our current economic woes.

In short, not everything is about politics. Some things should really just be common sense to all of us: it is MANDATORY that our government use all the means at its disposal to protect our nation and prevent such an attack from happening. There is no greater duty that a government has to its people.

[Ali G. 37]

I only think he hurts himself when his voice is void of the perfunctory rhetoric which comes with the job.

Should we have some attack... and God knows how easy it could be pulled off,

Obama, I think is going to take a serious hit for it.

To be honest though, what can Obama do? Without Israeli style interrogation and proactive prevention, the US is going to suffer and hard. There is simply no other way to cut it. You cannot expect to have a society living by a code (constitution) written in 1778, to stay safe in 2010. Especially not when people can literally walk across the Mexican border, while we are focused on planes. If some uneducated person can cross the border, surely the terrorist will catch on to this and exploit it themselves. Then once they are here, fat chance in trying to find them, as that would be 'profiling'.

Therefore, either the United states learns from Israel quick-smart, or get ready for the attacks and next round of deaths. But hey, at least we will have our freedom right? Then again, what sort of freedom does one have when they can be killed or watch their family be killed at a moments notice? Time the laws reflect the world we live in, rather than 1778.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Booyah

[NancylovesAhmad 1]

Right, Obama will probably be the one committing the terrorist attack. His middle name is Hussein, after all.

That is the most prejudice and ignorant thing I have ever heard anyone say. So just because he has a Muslim middle name then that automatically means he is a terrorist??

[scandal 951]

That is the most prejudice and ignorant thing I have ever heard anyone say. So just because he has a Muslim middle name then that automatically means he is a terrorist??

You're new here, aren't you?

It's a little thing called sarcasm. I tend to use it a lot. Read the rest of my posts.