And speaking to this point and the embassy closings -- the embassy closings were probably politically driven by the Republicans hammering on this Libyan ambassador 'scandal'. The White House now has to over-react on embassy security instead of allowing the embassies to assess their own situations and react, because to do otherwise would give Republicans ammunition in the next election. It's another tangible high cost of doing business because the public doesn't have a realistic assessment of the cost of the alternative.
Based on what? Except there's not really any need. The scandal has already died down. The polls show the public support the programs for the most part. There's no need to make some big show like shutting down embassies to rally support for the programs. My point is that the theory that the embassy closings were to rally support for the NSA programs based on vague claims of increased chatter is challenged by the fact that we have very clear evidence of increased AQAP activity that suggests something is going on. It's not just some nebulous unverifiable claim.
Exactly. It is a travesty that it happened on 9/11. The fact that it hasn't happened again is just the regular outcome you would expect out of a country with the most sophisticated and expensive defense in human history. The actions taken in foreign lands have only served to make the defense more expensive for 99% of Americans.
I already gave my rationale. It's just as "unsupportable" as yours. And yet...Saxby Chambliss made a point of doing exactly that as soon as possible. You may be right, you may be wrong. I just think it odd that the timing is so convenient. It's not like these embassies aren't constantly "under threat" anyhow. It just reeeeeeeeeks of manipulation. I mean, if you came up to me and excitedly delivered the news that "Al Queda in Yemen is actively plotting attacks against US forces in the Arab Peninsula OMGWTFBBQ", I'd probably respond in a very sarcastic manner.
Wait - what was your rationale? Mine is based on decades of history of the CIA/etc keeping phenomenally successful operations secret even when there was all sorts of benefit to leaking them. Sure - like I said, politicians will be politicians. But Saxby Chambliss doesn't run the NSA. The Obama admin has shown little to no concern about the legality of the programs or the need to defend them. But that's my point - the timing alone would be convenient and suspicious... if not for the fact that we *know* AQAP has dramatically increased and that they have successfully executed multiple high level operations the last few weeks.
Terrorism is about using force to coerce a political or social outcome. I don't know why the guy shot up the Sikh temple. I thought it was just because he hated them, is that not correct?
underwear bomber, Times Square bomber, Ft. Hood, Boston Marathon bombers we didn't stop any of them from reaching their targets
It behooves them to keep the populace convinced that a) terrorists! (OMG!) are still after them and b) that the NSA/etc and affiliated illegalities are actively protecting them. Nevermind that referencing long-secret clandestine operations, most of which were awful, is a pretty lousy way to make me feel better about the situation. But sure, you could be right. You could be wrong too. What? (I would venture to state that Major no doubt endorses this "lack of concern", being as he tends to blow off any outrage that might consume political capital to rectify.) You *know*? Well, in that case I guess I have to forfeit.
