That's what Sundays are in America, always have been for as long as I can remember. Sundays are when the original three TV networks have their news talk shows, Face the Nation, Meet the Press and...what the fuck is the other one? Une momento por favor...This Week. (Really? This Week.) Attorney General Loretta Lynch appeared on Meet the Press today. I don't know why she even bothered. She invoked the investigation exception to making information public on many questions and gave bland vaporings instead. It is frustrating to read it. Seriously, I don't think any public official serves the public well by going on a major news show and saying (s)he can't say anything. You can say that by email and politely decline until you can talk freely. First question:
Can you say definitively this morning they were both radicalized?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LORETTA LYNCH:
You know, I think I can't say definitively right now...I can say that that is the focus of our investigation.
...really a multifaceted approach. We've evolved a lot since 9/11...We have been watching this threat evolve for some time. We are now at a point where because we in fact have been successful at stopping a number of plots, a threat has evolved. We do see these lone-wolf actors. We do see these encouragements for troubled individuals to pick up a gun and act out of this ideology...We have to evolve as well, and we are.
It is entirely possible that these two attackers were radicalized...
For example, right now, people on the No-Fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane.
CHUCK TODD:
We are four days since the attack. What can you tell us this morning about the state of the investigation and what we know now?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LORETTA LYNCH:
(This is all part of her answer to the first question. I have broken the answer up so I can blast her.)
Well, this investigation is ongoing...
...we continue to work closely with our state and local counterparts...
Vaporing.
...So what I would say to people is, that this investigation, as it has already been stated, is a marathon and not a sprint.
No, ma'am. This investigation is not a marathon, it is a sprint.
...
CHUCK TODD:Can you say definitively this morning they were both radicalized?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LORETTA LYNCH:
You know, I think I can't say definitively right now...I can say that that is the focus of our investigation.
(Below are other answers, she gives similar non-answers whatever the question is.)
You know, our focus on the investigation is really wide-ranging.
CHUCK TODD:
What have you learned about her time in Saudi Arabia?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LORETTA LYNCH:
You know, I'm not able to go into a lot of specifics...
CHUCK TODD:
How cooperative has Pakistan been in this investigation so far?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LORETTA LYNCH:
So I can't really characterize any country...what I will say is that we often work with our local law enforcement counterparts, not just here, but overseas...
...
Everything that you've mentioned is part of that picture. At this point, it's just too early to say. And so what I would say is, I would caution people not to try and define either of these two individuals right now...
No ma'am, they're defined and the definition is correct. They were Muslim terrorists. Thank you.
...because we do not want to foreclose either any avenues of investigation, or any other issues or motivations.
The way we should read that is;
"We are going to make this investigation a marathon so that we put evolutionary time and distance between,
1.a.My and FBI Director James B. Coney's statement on November 19 that “We are not aware of any credible threat here of a Paris-type attack, and we have seen no connection at all between the Paris attackers and the United States."
1.b. President Obama's statement to Americans on November 25 that there was no holiday terrorism threat (see below), and
2. Islam's December 2 attack in San Bernardino.
...
You know, I can't speak to that fact of the investigation.
(Part of same answer):
What I will say is that this indicates the evolving nature of the threat that we are seeing. We have come from a time of the large-scale, planned, Al Qaeda-style attacks, to the encouragement of lone wolves: Fort Hood, Chattanooga. To the encouragement of people to act on their own.
I'm becoming a creationist. When politicians use any variation of the word "evolve," that means their previous views and statements were wrong. Here, it is not clear to me if her theory of evolution includes two branches, "Al Qaeda-style" and "lone wolves" or three, those two plus "encouragement of people to act on their own." Interestingly, Fort Hood was classified by the Obamas as "workplace violence," lol. It was not even part of the terrorism evolutionary tree. She is using the talking point of "lone wolves" from the president's remarks (below) recently.
...
(All one answer):
Pointing out the obvious: it is not he'pful for the top law enforcement official in the country to say "We have been watching this threat evolve for some time."
Check out the 1984-speak in the next sentence: "Because we have been successful," "a threat has evolved;" we got San Bernardino because they were successful! What's their definition of failure if San Bernardino demonstrates their success?! General Lynch, I told you that this was not a marathon, it was a sprint: you can stop your investigation now, law enforcement is responsible for San Bernardino.
It is clearer to me in this second expansion on her theory of evolution that she intends three branches, not two: 1-Al Qaeda. 2.-lone wolf, e.g. Fort Hood (previously workplace violence). 3.-"encouragement...troubled individuals...pick up gun...act out ideology. See, this is "multi-faceted," her own word, and they want to make this "multi-faceted," to distract from single-facetedness: The Answer is Islam. What do all three branches of her evolutionary tree have as common trunk? Islam.
CHUCK TODD:
When you and Director Comey, after Paris, said there was no credible threat, do those words mean anything anymore?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LORETTA LYNCH:
Well--
When you and Director Comey, after Paris, said there was no credible threat, do those words mean anything anymore?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LORETTA LYNCH:
Well--
Lolol.
Alright. Thank you, General Lynch for that entertaining session. Let us turn to POTUS his own self. This is what the president said November 25:
I just had a chance to meet with my national security team, including my secretary of homeland security, Jeh Johnson; my FBI director, Jim Comey; and my attorney general, Loretta Lynch, for a regular update on our security posture post-Paris and going into the holiday season.
...
And given the shocking images, I know that Americans have been asking each other where -- whether it's safe here, whether it's safe to fly or gather. I know that families have discussed their fears about the threat of terrorism around the dinner table, many for the first time since September 11th.
...
And it's understandable that people worry something similar could happen here.
...
First, we're going after ISIL wherever it hides.
...
Second, we continue to do everything possible to prevent attacks at home and abroad and to prevent foreign terrorist fighters from entering the United States or other nations.
...
And given the shocking images, I know that Americans have been asking each other where -- whether it's safe here, whether it's safe to fly or gather. I know that families have discussed their fears about the threat of terrorism around the dinner table, many for the first time since September 11th.
...
And it's understandable that people worry something similar could happen here.
...
First, we're going after ISIL wherever it hides.
...
Second, we continue to do everything possible to prevent attacks at home and abroad and to prevent foreign terrorist fighters from entering the United States or other nations.
The mail-order bride, Tasheen or whatever her name was, entered the U.S. from Pakistan on a mail-order bride fast-track.
...
We continue to improve upon our approaches as we speak. Right now, we know of no specific and credible intelligence indicating a plot on the homeland, and that is based on the latest information I just received in the situation room.
...
...our counter terrorism, intelligence, homeland security, and law enforcement professionals at every level...are continually monitoring threats at home and abroad...Their work has prevented attacks, their efforts have saved lives.
...
We continue to improve upon our approaches as we speak. Right now, we know of no specific and credible intelligence indicating a plot on the homeland, and that is based on the latest information I just received in the situation room.
...
...our counter terrorism, intelligence, homeland security, and law enforcement professionals at every level...are continually monitoring threats at home and abroad...Their work has prevented attacks, their efforts have saved lives.
See? You should thank us for San Bernardino. You're welcome.
...
...Americans should go about their usual Thanksgiving weekend activities. Spending time with family and friends, and celebrating our blessings.
The site of the San Bernardino massacre was an office meeting cum holiday party.
And this is what Obama said yesterday in his weekly radio address:
14 families...were doing what so many of us do this time of year—enjoying the holidays. Celebrating with each other. Rejoicing in the bonds of friendship and community that bind us together, as Americans.
...
...
...Americans should go about their usual Thanksgiving weekend activities. Spending time with family and friends, and celebrating our blessings.
The site of the San Bernardino massacre was an office meeting cum holiday party.
And this is what Obama said yesterday in his weekly radio address:
14 families...were doing what so many of us do this time of year—enjoying the holidays. Celebrating with each other. Rejoicing in the bonds of friendship and community that bind us together, as Americans.
...
(All one part):
It is entirely possible that these two attackers were radicalized...
That really is true. Really is. Really.
...to commit this act of terror.
"Act of terror," hmm. Why not "terrorism?" Well...because any killing of 14 people could be considered an "act of terror," but "terrorism" gives it an "ism," a cause, purpose, ideology, RELIGION, and...we don't want to go there.
(All one part):
And if so, it would underscore a threat we’ve been focused on for years...
Focus is like watching, only more intense. Rather than watching, focusing, really, really focusing, why don't we try something different from voyeurism. Why don't we ACT?! Like, kill ISIL supporters? Yes! like that. Like, outlaw support for, membership in, ISIL, like we do Nazis, throw them in prison? Yes! Yes!
—the danger of people succumbing to violent extremist ideologies.
Well, here he does use "ideologies"! He is improving.
We know that ISIL and other terrorist groups are actively encouraging people—around the world and in our country—to commit terrible acts of violence, often times as lone wolf actors. And even as we work to prevent attacks, all of us—government, law enforcement, communities, faith leaders—need to work together to prevent people from falling victim to these hateful ideologies.
...
It’s another tragic reminder that here in America it’s way too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun.
Dude, man, they had like 13 pipe bombs, c'mon.
...
It’s another tragic reminder that here in America it’s way too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun.
Dude, man, they had like 13 pipe bombs, c'mon.
For example, right now, people on the No-Fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane.
OMG! That really is insane.
If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun. And so I’m calling on Congress to close this loophole, now.
...
...we will not be terrorized.
...
...we will not be terrorized.
I don't think we are. I pay close attention to the people I'm close with, the normal people, my office-mates, kids, friends, no one has mentioned San Bernardino. They know about it, of course, but it isn't on their minds where they're "terrorized." In fact, for the first time in many months, I had a pretty extensive email exchange and a decent length phone conversation with one of my brothers, very politically attuned, right-wing Republican, too. Never came up. However, The New York Times asked their readers this week if they think about being the victim of a mass attack and the Times described the response they got as "overwhelming," I did not read enough to know, but I assume that most of that overwhelming response was, "Yes, I think about it!" I cannot vouch for the quality of the Times' survey question, I know enough about this generally to know that the way the question is asked can effect the kind of response you get. I did not see that problem with the Times' question because it included "if at all," like, "How much, if at all, do you think about being the victim of a mass shooting?" However, there is another problem: sometimes the question itself, regardless of phraseology, effects the answer, so: when pollsters ask "Who do you support for president now?" most people aren't even paying attention to the 2016 election (I have yet to see a single bumper sticker and I live in a state, Florida, with two candidates) but they are embarrassed to say that, they think that since they're being asked they should, they want to look like knowledgeable citizens so they pick something out of their asses and say, "I'm for Nixon."
We'll see what President Obama says tonight. It's at 7 pm Normal People Time I just saw, not 8.
