President Obama faced "real threat, evolving quickly" on inauguration day (NYT Magazine)

[jefferson_dem]

Inside Obama’s War on Terrorism Sign in to Recommend
By PETER BAKER
Published: January 4, 2010

The evening before he was sworn into office, Barack Obama stepped out of Blair House, the government residence where he was staying across from the White House, and climbed into an armored limousine for the ride to a bipartisan dinner. Joining him in the back seat were John Brennan, his new counterterrorism adviser, and two foreign-policy advisers, Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert. The three men with the president-elect were out of breath, having rushed more than a mile from transition headquarters on foot after failing to find a taxi in Washington’s preinaugural madness. As the motorcade moved out, they updated Obama on gathering evidence of a major terrorist plot to attack his inauguration. After a weekend of round-the-clock analysis, the nation’s intelligence agencies were concerned that the threat was real, the men told him. A group of Somali extremists was reported to be coming across the border from Canada to detonate explosives as the new president took the oath of office. With more than a million onlookers viewing the ceremony from the National Mall and hundreds of millions more watching on television around the world, what could be a more devastating target?

“All the data points suggested there was a real threat evolving quickly that had an overseas component,” Juan Carlos Zarate, President George W. Bush’s deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism, told me in November. As the inauguration approached, signs of a plot “seemed to be growing in credibility and relevance.” Another senior Bush official involved in those tense events a year ago said last fall that protecting the new president was not enough. Even a failed attack would send a debilitating message to the world. “If something happens on the podium and there’s chaos,” this official told me, “that’s the first time you see the new president, and you really don’t want that.”

The threat seemed to weigh on Obama. He canceled a practice session to go over his inaugural address with aides at Blair House. David Axelrod, his senior adviser, later interpreted that as a sign that Obama was thinking about the suspected plot. “He seemed more subdued than he had been,” Axelrod told me not long ago. Obama had not yet taken office, and he was already being confronted with the threat that consumed his predecessor’s presidency. No matter how much he thought about terrorism as a senator or as a presidential candidate, it was another thing to face it as the person responsible for the nation’s security — and quite another thing again to know the threat was aimed directly at himself, his wife and their two daughters. “It’s not as if you don’t know what you’re getting into,” Axelrod said. “But when the reality comes and the baton is being passed and you’re now dealing with real terrorism threats, it’s a very sobering moment.”

There was little Obama could do but ask questions and rely on the people who had been fighting this fight for years. His advisers worked side by side with the outgoing administration. The two teams gathered in the Situation Room of the White House shortly before the inauguration to sift through what was known and to hash out what should be done about it. The final iteration of Bush’s team sat across the table from the brain trust of Obama’s administration — Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley and their colleagues on one side, Hillary Rodham Clinton, James Jones and their colleagues on the other.

Clinton immediately put her finger on the problem. According to participants, she asked, what should Obama do if he is in the middle of his inaugural address and a bomb goes off somewhere on the mall? “Is the Secret Service going to whisk him off the podium so the American people see their incoming president disappear in the middle of the inaugural address?” she asked. “I don’t think so.”

<SNIP>

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/magazine/17Terror-t.html

[WeDidIt]

1. This revelation might explain the "purple tunnel of doom" from the inauguration.

I recall people talking about entering that tunnel and because of some security issue, nobody being able to make it to the actual inauguration that way.

Edited to add a link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2009/01/three_days_after_the_inaugurat.html

[mopinko]

6. among other things.

i thought they were being babies to block off the mall so that people couldn't get to penn ave. guess this was why.
sure made for a mess.

[jpak]

2. extremeists...coming across the border from Canada...

And freepers slammed Napolitano when she mentioned this a while back.

idiots

[DevonRex]

10. Only idiot bigots would downplay this threat to the president.

And we all know Freepers are bigots. Par for the course.

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. Some of them probably hoped the threat WOULD play out

I am convinced there are a significant number of teabaggers and freepers who would be thrilled if our president was attacked. If he was killed they would rejoice and feel that their prayers were answered.

[toadzilla]

50. doesn't take much to be convinced

they're all pretty vocal about that being exactly the case.

[yourout]

33. Sure it wasn't these guys?

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mfXGemJryo&feature=related>

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue Owl]

4. Everyone knows the proper response to a terror attack

is to read a book about goats with a bunch of schoolchildren and pretend to look concerned.

[MadMaddie]

29. Don't forget about getting whisked off to an unknown location

and be out of contact for most of that day. No where was Junior to be found...

[LynneSin]

49. I thought it was to relax on your farm and clear brush....

but then I remembered that was the proper response for when a Cat5 Hurricane is about to hit a populated part of the mainland USA.

[DevonRex]

5. This sounds really frightening. And the Obamas looked calm

throughout.

[DevonRex]

7. Why the fuck would anybody unrec this?

I don't get it. :shrug:

[PearliePoo2]

8. and they are un-reccing big time

this went from 3 recs down to zero.
well, I'll rec it because it's alarming and frightening what was going on that we were unaware of.

[DevonRex]

9. Yep. Why wouldn't folks want to know that the Obamas (and DC)

faced a terrifying threat? And they handled it with dignity and didn't back down.

[Tippy]

11. K&R for Obama Supporters

These people who are doing the un-recommend are so intent on destroying Obama they will do anything and everything to keep others in the dark...

[GoCubsGo]

13. bump

What Tippy said...

[DevonRex]

16. Bump again and

what Tippy said. :)

[suzie]

34. +1

[impik]

22. Some people must be upset that the plot didn't work.

Idiots.

[Chulanowa]

38. 'Cause it mentions Obama

And the unrec function is like a freeper and closet-freeper holiday giveaway.

[Renew Deal]

55. Some like to pretend that terrorism isn't real and/or is manufactured

It must be nice to be in their fantasy world.

[high density]

12. great article

It is a great view of Obama's outlook and thought process in regards to terror, and how he has a slew of bad choices to choose from. It should also should put many fears about John Brennan to rest, if his performances on Sunday didn't already do so.

“There was a tendency on the part of some to view the world through that prism — you know, are you with us or against us, black and white, this global war on terror,” John Brennan told me a couple of months ago in his windowless, low-ceilinged, soundproof office in the West Wing, where mobile phones are banned. “It was almost all-consuming. It was the driving force for our foreign policies, that we were now engaged in this march on the global war on terror.” That attitude, Brennan went on to say, proved counterproductive. “This president recognizes that there’s still a very serious terrorist threat that we face from organizations like Al Qaeda,” he said. “But at the same time, what we have to do is make sure that we’re not pouring fuel on the flames by the things that we do.”
...

Brennan, unhappy, left government in 2005 and went on to write a proposed op-ed essay that he titled, “Mr. President, You’re Wrong on Iraq.”
...

“A lot of the knuckleheads I’ve been listening to out there on the network shows don’t know what they’re talking about,” (Brennan) told me after the Christmas Day attempt. Some Republicans, including Cheney, were blatantly mischaracterizing the record, he fumed. “When they say the administration’s not at war with Al Qaeda, that is just complete hogwash.” It was the angriest I had heard him during months of conversations. “What they’re doing is just playing into Al Qaeda’s strategic effort, which is to get us to battle among ourselves instead of focusing on them,” he said.

It is moments like these when Brennan’s disaffection from the last administration becomes evident. “I much prefer talking with someone who is interested in understanding the situation and responding to it appropriately,” Brennan told me.

[Pirate Smile]

15. Yes, it is. It's long and I guess it wasn't going to run for 2 weeks - at the 1 yr anniversary but

they decided to run it now because of the Christmas panties bomber.

NYT pushes mag story up two weeks; editor says 'urgency set in'

With John Brennan hitting four shows Sunday, some viewers may have been wishing to know a bit more about the top counterterrorism official and what the administration’s been doing about the terrorist threat this past year.

If so, they certainly benefited from the New York Times’ decision to push up the Web publication of Peter Baker’s 8,800-word magazine story — “Inside Obama’s War on Terrorism" — which focuses greatly on Brennan’s counterterrorism work and regular interaction with the president.

While the Times has increasingly run newsy magazine stories online a few days before they can be found in print, the decision to publish Baker’s piece two weeks ahead of the print schedule is a record.

The piece — opening with an insider anecdote about a possible terrorist threat surrounding last January's Inauguration — was scheduled to run around the one-year anniversary of Obama's taking office. But following the botched Christmas Day terrorist plot, Deputy Magazine Editor Megan Liberman said that “the urgency set in" to publish sooner.

“We just thought we should push the Web-first mantra as much as we could,” Liberman said.

Baker followed up with Brennan and other administration officials after Christmas and filed a draft — including post-Dec. 25 reporting and interviews from the past few months — on New Year’s Eve. The piece was edited more quickly than usual and ready to run on Sunday; by Monday, it led the site and started generating buzz.

-snip-
Posted by Michael Calderone 12:20 PM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0110/NYT_pushes_mag_story_up_two_weeks_editor_says_urgency_set_in.html?showall#

[Cha]

24. Thank you, highdensity..

"It is moments like these when Brennan’s disaffection from the last administration becomes evident. “I much prefer talking with someone who is interested in understanding the situation and responding to it appropriately,” Brennan told me."

[RFKHumphreyObama]

14. Susan Collins is being quite patronizing and stupid here

“The administration came in determined to undo a lot of the policies of the prior administration,” Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the top Republican on the homeland-security committee, told me, “but in fact is finding that many of those policies were better-thought-out than they realized — or that doing away with them is a far more complex task.”

More better thought out than they realized? Yes, they've worked so well haven't they?

:eyes:

[high density]

18. She is so painful to listen to

She really doesn't seem to ever think before she speaks. Yet people in my state, fellow Democrats even, keep voting for her with huge majorities. I don't get it.

[Nedsdag]

19. One phrase keeps her seat:

Pro-choice.

[Cha]

25. Disingenuous and Stupid..showing her knee jerk

colors..she should have thought out that claptrap a little better.

Sounds like she wanted to make some brownie points with the repukes..how she's do cheney?

[secondwind]

17. this place is lousy with trolls!! K&R

[Parker CA]

20. Great article and well worth the read. Some interesting bits burried in there about

all sorts of things over the past year. Brennan appears to be a very solid choice for his position, and one might consider whether he would have been a superior choice over Panetta for the CIA.

Thanks for linking this!

[CakeGrrl]

21. k/r to combat the trolls

[wildflower]

23. People remarked on how sober he was that day

And how sober his speech was. (I remember this from the network inauguration coverage.) I guess this was why, or partly why.

[Born_A_Truman]

32. I certainly noticed that...

just the weight of the office would be enough (economy collapse, war, etc) but now this sheds even more light on his demeanor.

[stlsaxman]

40. He had the face of a man who fully realized the meaning of the phrase: "Careful what you wish for......

[smiley_glad_hands]

26. K & R. eom

[me b zola]

27. K&R

[dalaigh lllama]

28. President Obama says he's not going to call it a "War on Terrorism" anymore

but still they title the article "Inside Obama's War on Terrorism." Oy!

[depakid]

30. Difficult to know what to believe anymore...

[L. Coyote]

48. Why trust this at all? Was Obama being manipulted by Bush?

This could have been a false flag operation as easily as not.

[KoKo]

52. That was my thought. Why should we trust what the Bush Admin.

was saying. It almost sounds like a threat against Obama to ruin the inauguration. And, how has Cheney behaved since. Notice how Cheney pops up before Obama makes any moves on his own. Remember how he called Obama "soft on terror" just before Obama gave the Oslo speech? And, how tough Obama came out in that speech to the surprise of many of us.

Hard not to read this and think that the Bushies were and maybe still are trying to influence policy their way. Inciting fear and causing confusion. And, so many of the Bush loyalists are still serving in all areas of government.

[usregimechange]

31. Gates was 6th in the line of succession = they were taking terrorism seriously from the get go

[Historic NY]

35. Maybe thats why the SCOTUS screwed up the swearing in...nervous Nellie syndrome.

[Hekate]

36. This is a good long read, and very meaty. Happy to KnR. nt

[Raine]

37. Maybe that explains why Deadeye Dick Cheney

was in a wheelchair to make himself a smaller target. Seriously there was something really weird about Cheney in that wheelchair and some joked at the time about him wanting to literally "lay-low".

[KoKo]

53. Lay Low? Struck me as though he was making a spectacle of himself, hogging attention

so much so that the Obama's had to walk down to see him off in the Limo. What if someone had thrown a bomb at the Obamas as they had to descend the Capitol Steps just to show respect for the wheeling Cheney.

[Raine]

56. Yeah, that's true. Cheney got lot's of attention

in that chair, he layed low in the sense that his head was below the others since he stayed seated. Cheney was in that chair for some reason other than his health. Anyway he looked like a fool sitting in that chair and wearing a ski jacket. x(

[geckosfeet]

39. A new mini-series is born. That reporter is sitting on a golden egg.

[mogster]

41. Same with Gordon Brown

A terror attack on the day of his inauguration, who runs this show?

[pjt7]

42. Insight into the Undwear Bomber

Why isn't the media reporting that Bush/Cheney released 2 Gutanamo detainees that are terrorizing that Country?

http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9951&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

[natrat]

43. pieces of shit will now try to scare us and distract from their scams, whatever

[scentopine]

44. its a virtual world of virtual promises and virtual results

if you think the timing of this is to temper reaction about the underpants bomber - you'd be right.

Symbolism is everything in politics. We elected a man who looks good on paper and that is good enough for most people.

So we cheer him own even as he uses a crow bar to widen the gap between rich and the reset of us.

[high density]

47. Put away the crowbar and get your mop out. NM

[scentopine]

58. Agree - lots to mop up after Obama finishes his term

torture
wall street
afghan war
health care
spying
tax cuts
outsourcing
republican outreach (how's that working out?)
and the growing disparity between rich and poor

I don't like the way he is handling the big issues.

On the chicken shit rhetoric and he shines and this makes centrists smile.

On the big issues, he has become patronizing and tone deaf.

I won't be supporting him although I was a local delegate and volunteer.

After 30 years - I finally realized the only ones who are happy are those paid by the dem party or profiting handsomely from insider connections to the party.

Everyone else is watching their net worth and job opportunities disappear. And although I am gainfully employed I refuse to be the smug democrat who tells everyone else to lift themselves up by their own combat boots. Tomorrow it could be me. These are terrible times., he made choices about how to respond to them, many of us are angry about his choices.

Our anger is not going away. Dems will take the risk that we don't matter to the party, well educated, hard working, working class.

Pretty soon dems will run out of rich people to tap.

With tea baggers gaining momentum it is astounding to me how arrogant the party is to liberals who are right to be angry and have been damn civil about it so far. The reaction could be much, much worse.

History will repeat itself. The right wing will be brilliant at blaming Obama and when it comes time for walking neighborhoods, canvasing and phone calls all of us who are being told to go away - we will be gone. We could have worked together if the compromise wasn't always with the right wingers in both parties.

The "centrists" are kissing all the right wing asses and shoving the liberals faces in it. This is going to back fire. Its hard to watch.

It's a textbook case of Obama pissing off his best customers.

[KittyWampus]

45. care to elaborate? Are you saying this is a bogus story told to distract us from something?

[kirby]

51. I am a bit skeptical...

While reading it, in the back of my mind, I am thinking that this is the exact type of scare scenario that the intelligence apparatus would use to personally scare the new President in order to further their agenda. After all, some people were concerned that the new President would have a stronger focus on domestic issues, but there is nothing like getting the President to be fearful for his families life to get his attention. But how can any of us really know?

[KoKo]

54. Yes....how can any of us know. Although we've seen "patterns"

in the past 15 years enough to be skeptical of much reporting. NYT's has had it's own share of stories designed to whip up fear and distort the truth. Any one remember Judith Miller?

[Generator]

57. Yep he's not officially president yet and

he has to rely and believe in what the Bushies are telling him. Scary shit. And I no longer know what to believe about anything when the word terror is used.