Feinstein: TSA Molestation “Very Necessary,” Americans Need to Be “Sympathetic” To Groping

15 May

Senator Feinstein wants you to shut up and spread ’em.

Feinstein: The Gropings Will Continue

I’m always surprised at how my disdain for this woman continues to grow.

The government is milking this C.I.A. leak for all it’s worth.  It is serving many purposes:  Reiterating the terrorist threat, shaming Americans into continuing to put up with more TSA molestation, striking more fear into people who leak information or whistle-blow, and showing off the government’s amazing ability to thwart it’s own plots.

Feinstein says the public “hasn’t been sympathetic” to the poor TSA non-officers molesting us, and says she doesn’t mind the pat-downs. Other government officials do mind the groping, and have in fact described the procedures as molestation.  After speaking out about the thug agency,  the officials have found themselves further targeted by TSA bullies with even more aggressive pat-downs than before, leaving some of the officials with sore testicles.

I want to stress:  The government initially said there were NO plans for the bomb except that the attack was supposed to happen around the anniversary of Bin Laden’s death, May 2.  There was no exact date, no location chosen, no plane tickets purchased, and the government specifically said there was no risk of it being taken aboard a plane They also said we were never in any danger.

In a May 8th USA Today report, there was no mention of a double agent working for Saudi Arabia’s government.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday “The device did not appear to pose a threat to the public air service, but the plot itself indicates that these terrorists keep trying to devise more and more perverse and terrible ways to kill innocent people. And it’s a reminder of how we have to keep vigilant.”

Clinton spoke during a news conference in New Delhi with Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna.

The discovery of the device indicates al-Qaeda continues to focus on aviation targets, said Homeland Security’s Matt Chandler. The department has “no specific, credible information” about an active terrorist plot targeting the U.S., he added.

The incident reinforces the importance of full-body scanners, which detect non-metallic explosives, said Douglas Laird, an aviation security consultant. They are operating at 170 U.S. airports, but many foreign countries do not use them.

Obama learned of the plot in April and directed security officials to “take whatever steps necessary to guard against this type of attack,” said National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden.

At the time, administration officials repeatedly said they knew of no terrorist plots coinciding with the May 1 anniversary of bin Laden’s death.

He has known about the plot since April, but no one knows who the agent is?

They have continually brought up the issue that the device would not have been detected by a metal detectors at the airport, it “might” have been detected in the airports that actually have the machines, but they would work “only if the operator was alert,” and the only guaranteed way to find something like that is through the pat-downs.  I noticed in most articles they have already twisted the narrative, adding a Saudi Arabian double agent and more focus on the airliners that the “terrorists are still targeting”.  One article  saysUS Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday an Al-Qaeda plot to blow up a US-bound plane with an underwear bomb was proof of the ‘perverse and terrible’ lengths militants are willing to go to.”  It went on to mention a plane bombing again in the next sentence.  “US officials said Monday that Al-Qaeda’s branch in Yemen had planned to blow up the passenger plane near the first anniversary of Osama bin Laden‘s death on May 2.”  They hit you with that lie at the beginning of the article twice, but there was never a plane ticket.

Feinstein says the CIA agent “recovered” the bomb from the terrorists.


v.re·cov·ered, re·cov·er·ing, re·cov·ers

1. To get back; regain.
2. To restore (oneself) to a normal state: He recovered himself after a slip on the ice.
3. To compensate for: She recovered her losses.
4. To procure (usable substances, such as metal) from unusable substances, such as ore or waste.
5. To bring under observation again: “watching the comet since it was first recovered, first spotted since its 1910 visit” (Christian Science Monitor).

1. To regain a normal or usual condition, as of health.
2. To receive a favorable judgment in a lawsuit.
Wouldn’t the word “recover” imply that they once had it in their possession?  Even when the police “recover” a stolen car, they use that word because the vehicle was not always in the thief’s possession.  When they make a drug bust, they say something like confiscated, but they don’t say “recovered the drugs” do they?  (That’s an honest question; I am not sure.)  So did the CIA have someone else build the bomb, then give it to terrorists, then the terrorists gave it back to CIA?  Or did the terrorists build it, give it to the CIA, the CIA then gave it back to the terrorists, then the terrorists gave it back to the CIA?  Or did the CIA build it, give it to the terrorists, and then the terrorists gave it back? This sounds more like Keystone Kops playing a game of hot potato than an evil terrorist plot.  Of course I could be completely wrong about the use of the word “recover,” because I really don’t know for sure, so hopefully I’ll clarify that soon.

The Invisible Terrorist.

Panetta and Feinstein want to prosecute whoever leaked it, however I’m not 100% convinced the story wasn’t released on purpose.
An article on The Daily Beast titled “Leak About Al Qaeda Plot and Double Agent Helps CIA, Could Scare Terrorists” brings up an interesting spin.
“The agent stopped an al Qaeda plot to blow up an airplane and then handed the bomb over to the CIA, an act so daring, and John Le Carré-like, that people were dying to talk about it. Naturally, the secret got out—at first, in an Associated Press story that exposed the thwarted plot, and later in a Los Angeles Times piece that looked at the double agent.”
“It is rare, perhaps unprecedented, for the public to know about a double-agent operation in something close to real time,” says former CIA lawyer John Radsan, currently a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minn. “The leak may have been done as a boast by somebody who’s talking out of school. On the other hand, it’s possible that the officers running the operation leaked details to keep al Qaeda guessing. In that case, the official complaining that we hear about the leaks is a form of theater.” 

In other words, the leak was propagandafor the enemy.

“Most likely, though, it was somebody showing off, or blabbing about the operation, which involved Saudi intelligence services and took place in Yemen and the United Arab Emirates, rather than a deliberate leak by a U.S. government official. That kind of disclosure, as Radsan points out, “makes more sense in a Russian intelligence service than one in a democracy.”

I hope the author is not implying that it is propaganda just for the enemy.  It is most certainly propaganda for the American people for the reasons I listed above.   And is Rasdan suggesting the US actually has ethics that would keep it from manipulating the people?

“It is also not entirely shocking that the leak occurred: “Whenever you’ve got intelligence operations that involve multiple countries in disparate places, the risk of a leak is extremely high,” says Georgetown University’s Bruce Hoffman, author of Inside Terrorism.”

Feinstein says in the Fox News interview that only a few people knew about the operation.  Agencies privy to the information and involved in the operation include the DHS, FBI, CIA, and the TSA.  (Did I miss any?) Yes, that sounds like just a small amount of people.  (sarcasm)

Continued from The Daily Beast:

“Obama White House officials, however, “are probably not terribly upset about it,” says Clifford May, president of the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “It’s generally good publicity for them.” Indeed, administration officials have been adding details to the account:They have said, for example, that they’d been hearing “chatter” from the Yemen-based terrorist group, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, that made it sound as though they were planning another attack.”

“American officials also have defended their record, claiming they did not ask the AP reporters to hold off, as the reporters wrote in their piece, because the officials “wanted to schedule an announcement of the foiled plot,” according to the New York Times, but because they wanted to protect the agent. (Erin Madigan White, the AP’s media-relations manager, told me in an email that they had waited a bit and then published the story “after we were assured that security concerns had been satisfied.”)

Personally, I believe the AP reporter.

ABC Reports from AP:

AP: CIA thwarted new underwear bomb on plane plot

ABC reported from AP — WASHINGTON — The CIA thwarted an ambitious plot by al-Qaida’s affiliate in Yemen to destroy a U.S.-bound airliner using a bomb with a sophisticated new design around the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, The Associated Press has learned.

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security acknowledged the existence of the bomb late Monday, but there were no immediate plans to adjust security procedures at airports. Other officials, who were briefed on the operation, insisted on anonymity to discuss details of the plot, many of which the U.S. has not officially acknowledged.

The would-be suicide bomber, based in Yemen, had not yet picked a target or bought a plane ticket when the CIA stepped in and seized the bomb, officials said. It’s not immediately clear what happened to the alleged bomber.

The AP learned about the thwarted plot last week but agreed to White House and CIA requests not to publish it immediately because the sensitive intelligence operation was still under way. Once officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP decided to disclose the plot Monday despite requests from the Obama administration to wait for an official announcement Tuesday.

At one point in the original Fox interview (at the top of the post), Frankenstein says she hopes they can “candidly kill” the bomber.  What does that even mean?  And how do we know the US didn’t create this bomb, as they did in the Portland Christmas Tree “bombing plot” (that they helped plan and execute, and then “thwarted”)?  This is so ridiculous.  Please do not fall for their lies.


Edited May 16, 2012 12:54 am to add page break

%d bloggers like this: