Feel threatened by religious radicals?

[DeBunkem]

The type that are trying to bomb our Constitution and the separation clause. At the latest teaBagger rally :

Tom Tancredo, a former Republican congressman from Denver in Colorado who ran for president in 2008, devoted most of his opening speech on Thursday night to illegal immigration. He said the fabric of US society had been eroded by the "cult of multiculturalism", "Islamification", and large numbers of immigrants who did not want to be Americans.

In his most incendiary comment, he invoked the segregationist methods of the southern states, saying that Obama had been elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country". Southern segregationist states used to prevent black people having the vote by setting them restrictively difficult qualification tests, a historical allusion lost on few of the delegates present.

Tancredo went on to call on delegates to launch a "counter-revolution" that would "pass on our culture based on Judeo-Christian principles. Whether people like it or not, that's who we are."

That remark received a standing ovation from the audience. ... More. . .http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/fe ... ted-states

Yes, even if he fizzled his underpants, whackos like the Xmas bomber are a concern. But note that the State Dept. (Hillary Clinton) was on to him and was going to revoked his visa and therefore grounded him. The Bush-infested CIA reinstated it! ONCE AGAIN it was the innocuous-sounding "failure to connect the dots" to blame. Anyone believe THAT?

Visa revocation procedures enabled Christmas Bomber plot[g2]
The Washington Times reports that airplane bomb suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutalla was allowed to keep his American visa due to miscommunication among federal agencies. In a speech in response to the failed bomb attempt, President Obama said that the failure to catch the bomber was not a lack of intelligence information, but, rather, gaps in agency communication. Although different agencies had information about Abdulmutalla, the pieces of information each agency had were not enough on their own to link him with an airline bombing plot.

Although the State Department has full authority to cancel visas without permission from other agencies, it did not have the information to cancel the visa. While intelligence agencies were aware of the potential threat Abdulmutalla posed to the United States, these agencies did not have the power to rescind the visa. Thus, President Obama not only recognized that interagency problems exist, but also declared that his administration is examining how to better share information.
<CUT>

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... tain-visa/

In typical obfuscatory style, the NYT does not mention that this was a deliberate intervention to get Umar on the plane.

From Washington’s Blog:

Government insisted Umar Fizzlepants be let in country
February 6, 2010 by disinter

Undersecretary for management at the State Department, Patrick F. Kennedy, told Congress that the State Department wanted to keep crotch bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab out of the U.S., but that intelligence agencies insisted that Abdulmutallab be let into the country.

Specifically, on January 27th, Kennedy told the House Committee on Homeland Security that intelligence agencies blocked revocation of Abdulmutallab’s visa because it would have foiled a “larger investigation� into Al Qaeda.

No, it would have foiled their false flag operation designed to scare the public into accepting full-body scanners that show their nude bodies to creepy TSA thugs. http://disinter.wordpress.com/2010/02/0 ... n-country/

[Wyvern]

Yes, even if he fizzled his underpants, whackos like the Xmas bomber are a concern. But note that the State Dept. (Hillary Clinton) was on to him and was going to revoked his visa and therefore grounded him. The Bush-infested CIA reinstated it! ONCE AGAIN it was the innocuous-sounding "failure to connect the dots" to blame. Anyone believe THAT?

Visa revocation procedures enabled Christmas Bomber plot[g2]
The Washington Times reports that airplane bomb suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutalla was allowed to keep his American visa due to miscommunication among federal agencies. In a speech in response to the failed bomb attempt, President Obama said that the failure to catch the bomber was not a lack of intelligence information, but, rather, gaps in agency communication. Although different agencies had information about Abdulmutalla, the pieces of information each agency had were not enough on their own to link him with an airline bombing plot.

Although the State Department has full authority to cancel visas without permission from other agencies, it did not have the information to cancel the visa. While intelligence agencies were aware of the potential threat Abdulmutalla posed to the United States, these agencies did not have the power to rescind the visa. Thus, President Obama not only recognized that interagency problems exist, but also declared that his administration is examining how to better share information.
<CUT>

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... tain-visa/

In typical obfuscatory style, the NYT does not mention that this was a deliberate intervention to get Umar on the plane.

From Washington’s Blog:

Government insisted Umar Fizzlepants be let in country
February 6, 2010 by disinter

Undersecretary for management at the State Department, Patrick F. Kennedy, told Congress that the State Department wanted to keep crotch bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab out of the U.S., but that intelligence agencies insisted that Abdulmutallab be let into the country.

Specifically, on January 27th, Kennedy told the House Committee on Homeland Security that intelligence agencies blocked revocation of Abdulmutallab’s visa because it would have foiled a “larger investigation� into Al Qaeda.

No, it would have foiled their false flag operation designed to scare the public into accepting full-body scanners that show their nude bodies to creepy TSA thugs. http://disinter.wordpress.com/2010/02/0 ... n-country/

Something's not making sense here, one source says the state department has authority to revoke visas without interference from outside agencies. Your other source says unnamed intelligence agencies blocked this revocation. On yet another hand you state the CIA reissued the visa even though they do not have the authority to do so and apparently the visa was never revoked in the first place. Instead of jumping straight to a conspiracy theory maybe you should look for a simpler explanation.

[DeBunkem]

The confusion is in the story coming out of the media, trying to imply that it was all an oversight when it was deliberate. When I first heard it on the radio, the intelligence agency involved told State that they had their eye on him and wanted him on the flight. You have to work to find the real facts.

[Wyvern]

The confusion is in the story coming out of the media, trying to imply that it was all an oversight when it was deliberate. When I first heard it on the radio, the intelligence agency involved told State that they had their eye on him and wanted him on the flight. You have to work to find the real facts.

No, the confusion comes from you providing three different sources which gave three different contradicting versions of what happened as regards visa issuance.

1. Washington times stated the state department has sole authority regarding issuing or revoking visas.

2. Disinter stated that an unnamed intelligence agency blocked the revocation of a visa which they have no authority to do.

3. You stated the CIA reinstated a visa that was not even revoked in the first place.

The version that makes the most sense is the one you gave in a later post where an intelligence agency involved in counter-terrorism operations convinced state to not revoke the visa in order to further an investigation.

If you could see past your bias you would see that the world is not filled with shadowy organizations doing nefarious deeds.

[DeBunkem]

I'm not sure we're debating, but one thing we both note is that the less publicised article makes clear what the NYT and certainly the other commercial media are not making clear...this was no "failure to connect the dots," as if it were a regrettable oversight. Conservatives do not like the fact that the perp is singing and providing valuable, actionable intelligence without Gitmo tactics.

[DeBunkem]

Specifically, on January 27th, [Patrick] Kennedy told the House Committee on Homeland Security that intelligence agencies blocked revocation of Abdulmutallab’s visa because it would have foiled a “larger investigation� into Al Qaeda.

No, it would have foiled their false flag operation designed to scare the public into accepting full-body scanners that show their nude bodies to creepy TSA thugs.

I'm sure the above has nothing to do with the below. After all, the NeoCon Don, Dick Cheney, was just trying to scare us by mentioning the "Shadow government" as a real entity. He's such a humorous raconteur, ain't he?

Kennedy won't seek re-election, marking end of era
By ANDREW MIGA and MICHELLE R. SMITH, Associated Press Writers Andrew Miga And Michelle R. Smith, Associated Press Writers
Fri Feb 12, 8:15 am ET

WASHINGTON – Rep. Patrick Kennedy's decision not to seek re-election will leave Washington without a Kennedy in political office for the first time in more than 60 years.

The Rhode Island Democrat's term ends early next year but he says in a television message viewed by The Associated Press on Thursday that his life is "taking a new direction" and he will not seek a ninth term. The video was provided to the AP by Kennedy's congressional office.

The 42-year-old son of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy does not give a reason for the decision but says it has been a difficult few years for many people and he mentions the death in August of his father.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100212/ap_ ... nedy/print

[DeBunkem]

Dupe

[DeBunkem]

Dupe