Obama's Approach To Major Terror Threat Becomes More Clear

Washington Post:

President Obama will make his first visit to the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean on Tuesday morning, telling intelligence officials that their recent successes have proved how effectively multiple agencies can perform when they work in concert.

The White House has been charting a delicate course as it attempts to turn the page on Bush-era anti-terrorism policies. Even as Obama wages a war in Afghanistan that he has called critical to curbing terrorism, his administration is trying to defend itself from criticism by former vice president Richard B. Cheney and other Republicans for casting aside what they say are critical tools for protecting the United States.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[Whinger]

03:33 PM on 10/06/2009

President Obama needs to remember what diplomacy did for Neville Chamberlain!

Diplomacy never will persuade a mad rabid dog from doing what it will.

[tiredofthesameoldstuff]

12:12 AM on 10/07/2009

It's not about the rabid dogs. It's about winning over the rationalists who will clamp down on the radicals.

Bush created far more terrorists then any other president ever did. His actions caused moderates to turn away from him and not go after the radicals. Bush was the one who empowered Iran's fanatical clerics. Obama is making the Iranian radicals nervous because they are loosing steam.

[BethinIllinois]

01:57 PM on 10/06/2009

Did anyone actually read this piece of so-called news reporting? Anonymous sources throughout -- against the Post's own guidelines. It is so biased, so egregiously one-sided (sources" senior administration said," senior official pointed out, senior official said...) it's beyond description.

And here's the link to Greenwald: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

[cleveyucks]

12:33 PM on 10/06/2009

This is journalistic stenography coming directly from the white house to cover the fact that they are embracing the lawless and unconstitutional aspects of the Bush administration.

PLEASE read Glenn Greenwald's takedown of this atrocious piece of propoganda in Salon today.

[nicole473]

01:15 PM on 10/06/2009

Glenn Greenwald is not the messiah, nor is he more knowledgeable about national security than the White House.

Try posting a link next time, btw.

[Eartha]

09:15 AM on 10/07/2009

Link was posted right above, so it would have been a little redundant. I just finished reading, it was a great piece of journalism. Thanks, Bethin and Clevey.

[BeauRadley]

12:24 PM on 10/06/2009

I'll take Obama's approach to Georgie's "Ok You've covered your ass."

[Philclock]

11:03 AM on 10/06/2009

No change from Bush-Cheny, good move, if it works keep it.

[nicole473]

11:41 AM on 10/06/2009

Hardly.

Differences:

-TO*RTURE is now outlawed.
-SECRET_PRI*SONS are now outlawed.
-MANIPULATION of the public using_FEAR is no longer done.
-GUANTANAMO is in the process of being closed.

[nicole473]

11:44 AM on 10/06/2009

Oh, and I really should add that with Obama in charge, we are automatically quite a bit safer since the world h8s both us and him A LOT less than they did DUBYA.

[Tyler-Durden]

10:59 AM on 10/06/2009

1. a more subdued approach to arrests of suspected terrorists is a good idea. the public needs a break from the stress that the Bush admin thrived on. we don't need to be constantly panicked that a bomb could go off anywhere, anytime. Stupid crap like "terror alert levels" or "dirty bombs" are ridiculous things to tell the public. (a dirty bomb is exponentially more dangerous to the bomber, more difficult to create, and far less effective than most simpler, easier to obtain/make explosives - i.e. OK City bombing)
the govt should not be using fear to manipulate the public

2. the article touts the effectiveness of the Patriot Act powers enabling the govt to do things which some of us believe are unconstitutional, such as warrantless searches. while i still don't understand why it's so hard for a fed. agency to get a warrant, my primary concern is the FACT that the P.A. powers have been primarily used to monitor DRUG transactions, NOT TERRORISTS. they did a bait an' switch on us, and while i don't like drug dealers, that's not what the law was for, and there should be consequences for using it beyond its intent, or else it should be allowed to expire.

[dmbraddy]

10:22 AM on 10/06/2009

"Obama administration is increasingly confident that it has struck a balance between protecting civil liberties, honoring international law and safeguarding the country."

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18

I generally agree with the Obama administration's approach to counterterrorism. I just hope they do not become too enamored of their success to date. We cannot afford to become complacent.

However, in the balance between individual liberty and security I think losing our liberty is the greater risk. The Bush administration overreacted to 9/11 and we have sacrificed too much. Constant vigilance can minimize risks to our security, but there will always be a price to pay for liberty. I prefer to err on the side of freedom.

[pollyannish]

10:35 AM on 10/06/2009

co sign

[Tyler-Durden]

10:51 AM on 10/06/2009

enamored of their success? they busted one guy, and they didn't make a big deal of it to alarm the public. that's the point of the article. Obama's approach is apparently to let the public "chill out" so we can deal with domestic issues, rather than being constantly freaked about foreign issues.

[dmbraddy]

12:55 PM on 10/06/2009

"they busted one guy"

Incorrect. The first page of my Google search regarding arrests of terror suspects in the U.S., lists 7 since May.

[rigmoten]

10:20 AM on 10/06/2009

Obama is keeping us safe. The wingers are pulling their hair out.

[SizeMatters]

10:33 AM on 10/06/2009

don't forget to blame Bush for the first couple of years of O keeping us safe too

[wltdnfaded]

10:40 AM on 10/06/2009

Yeah, Tex the Talking Dog made us REAL safe 9/11/01, din't he?

[FeloniusMonk]

10:41 AM on 10/06/2009

Are you refering to President Che'ney and his sidekick Dubya?

[SpoxLogic]

10:10 AM on 10/06/2009

"But already, Obama's approach to the first major terrorist threat made public during his presidency is becoming more clear. "

And these people actually went to school to learn to be journalists?

It's clear, clearer, clearest. Where the hell did we get this more clear from? I've noticed other folks on TV also adding the more to words that don't use it. Sad, sad time for the English language.

[FeloniusMonk]

10:42 AM on 10/06/2009

Does the congative of an adjective apply when used as an adverb?

[LongTimeLiberal52]

10:49 AM on 10/06/2009

Couldn't agree MORE (pun intended), Spox.

It's no secret that proper language skills have been under assault for some time now - and, let's face it, that sustained attack grew exponentially under the previous Administration. When intelligence is denigrated as "elitist," bad grammar touted as "folksy charm," and cultural mediocrity celebrated as "genius," we can expect little else, even from our supposedly educated Fourth Estate.

That sad fact couldn't be clearer.

[msbeal]

08:34 AM on 10/07/2009

You betcha

[jennylynn]

10:08 AM on 10/06/2009

Did BO campaign on closing Gitmo this year? We have three more months. Where are they going?

[Haitians4Obama]

10:29 AM on 10/06/2009

I can't even be mad at you, you could not even help yourself.

So even if he does something else right (like avoid being bombed), since Gitmo is not gonna close in 3 months..you r not happy?

Did you vote for him?

[FeloniusMonk]

10:44 AM on 10/06/2009

Where is the funding he needed to do so? And the facilities he needed? Blocked by distorted claims from the right that again roused fear in the electorate. If California can hold Charlie Man son for all these years, we can hold some terr orists here in America. Frankly, Charlie scares most of us more than those middle easterners.

[chocolatecity]

11:43 AM on 10/06/2009

He should have given congress more detail. He should know they are a pandering bunch. I guess since all democrats and a good number of republicans wanted to close Gitmo, he thought they would have some guts and just give him the money to shut it down. Big mistake. You have to give congress clear plans that they can take home to their voters when questioned about it. Otherwise lies fill up the empty space of the missing details.

[Suzanne525]

01:00 PM on 10/06/2009

Exactly. The NIMBY mindset is silly. Maximum security is good enough for me. We have plenty of really dangerous criminals locked up on our soil already.

[THREEXMOM]

09:56 AM on 10/06/2009

Shouldn't the title of this article really be, "Obama's Continuation of Bush's Approach

to Major Terror Threats Is Working"?

[jennylynn]

10:07 AM on 10/06/2009

Yes. Thank you.

[gapanther]

10:57 AM on 10/06/2009

No it shouldn't and therefore it didn't.

[Pilotshark]

09:49 AM on 10/06/2009

Obama's Approach To Major Terror Threat Becomes More Clear

Well it seems to be working so my as well give it a change to work.