Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (77358)	2/9/2010 1:26:20 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

White House: Top GOP leaders didn't object to reading Abdulmutallab his rights By: Byron York Chief Political Correspondent beltway-confidential 02/07/10 11:42 AM EST UPDATE: All GOP officials lawmakers deny Brennan's charge; see details here. Top Obama counterterrorism official John Brennan is blasting Republican lawmakers, accusing them of hypocrisy and of making a "political football" of the administration's decision to grant full American constitutional rights to accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Appearing on "Meet the Press," Brennan said that on Christmas night, just hours after Abdulmutallab tried to blow up Northwest Airlines flight 253, Brennan called top Republican lawmakers, telling them that Abdulmutallab was in FBI custody. "None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point," Brennan said. "They didn't say, Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be Mirandized?" Here is Brennan's full statement, beginning with a question from NBC's David Gregory: <<< GREGORY: When you briefed some Republicans about how he was going to be treated, were they on board with the administration's decision? BRENNAN: On Christmas night, I called a number of senior members of Congress. I spoke to Senators McConnell and Bond, I spoke to Representatives Boehner and Hoekstra. I explained to them that he was in FBI custody, that Mr. Abdulmutallab was in fact talking, that he was cooperating at that point. They knew that in FBI custody means that there's a process that you follow, as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of a magistrate. None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point. They didn't say, Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be Mirandized? They were very appreciative of the information. We told them we would keep them informed, and that's what we did. So there's been quite a bit of an outcry after the fact, where again, I'm just very concerned on behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government, that politicians continue to make this a political football and are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes. >>> I'm trying to get reaction from some of the lawmakers who were contacted, but it's not clear how strong Brennan's point is. He says he told the Republicans that Abdulmutallab "was cooperating at that point," which suggests that Brennan called the lawmakers before Abdulmutallab stopped talking. It is not clear whether he then re-called them to say that, after a 50-minute interrogation, Abdulmutallab was no longer cooperating. It also appears that Brennan relied on the lawmakers to surmise that Abdulmutallab had been given the Miranda warning, since they were told that he was in FBI custody. And it's not clear whether the lawmakers knew there was no high-value detainee interrogation group to question Abdulmutallab. (Even the Director of National Intelligence didn't know that when he testified at a recent Senate hearing.) Nevertheless, Brennan seems angry about Republican criticisms of the handling of Abdulmutallab. What is less clear is just what the administration told the lawmakers about it. UPDATE: Sen. Bond responds, saying Brennan "never told" him of the plan to Mirandize Abdulmutallab. Bond's entire statement: <<< Brennan never told me any of plans to Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber -- if he had I would have told him the administration was making a mistake. The truth is that the administration did not even consult our intelligence chiefs, as DNI Blair testified, so it's absurd to try to blame Congressional leaders for this dangerous decision that gave terrorists a five week head start to cover their tracks. >>> washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (77358)	2/9/2010 2:26:59 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Marist: 57% of Independents Disapprove of Obama, 29% Approve By: Jim Geraghty The Campaign Spot Now these are some lousy numbers for President Obama from Marist: <<< Fewer registered voters nationwide -- 44 percent -- currently approve of President Barack Obama’s job performance than disapprove -- 47 percent. When Marist last asked about the president’s approval rating in December, 46 percent thought well of Obama’s job performance while 44 percent gave him low marks . . . For the first time since taking office, a majority of Independents -- 57 percent -- disapproves of how he is doing in the role. 29 percent approve, and 14 percent are unsure. >>> This number jumped out at me: <<< "In fact, [among independents] a majority -- 52 percent -- have an unfavorable view of Mr. Obama compared with 43 percent two months ago." >>> Keep in mind, this isn't job approval, i.e., how do you think Obama is performing his duties. This is essentially, "Do you approve of him as a person?" Obama usually garners significantly higher numbers in this category. In other words, independents aren't just disappointed with how Obama is as president; they're starting to not like him. Clearly, this calls for a long, heavily hyped, nationally televised speech. campaignspot.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (77358)	2/9/2010 2:36:15 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Obama's Latest Gallup Numbers Seem Somewhat Late Bushian By: Jim Geraghty The Campaign Spot According to the latest Gallup poll, President Obama is underwater -- higher disapproval than approval -- in six of nine categories. He's at a 48/49 split on terrorism, a 36/60 split on health care, 36/61 split on the economy, and 32/64 split on the deficit. Among independents, his approval is at 35 percent on Iran, 24 percent on health care, 29 percent on the economy, 24 percent on the deficit. Somehow, this doesn't seem surprising. campaignspot.nationalreview.com