Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Death Threats Against Obama Vs Bush, Clinton  
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5797 times:

For months we've been hearing how he's had triple the death threats and so forth. Anyone remember who/where that information came from?

You compare:

http://www.examiner.com/x-9372-Feder...reats-against-Obama-up-400-percent

Quote:
With the spike in death threats against the current resident of the White House (up an alarming 400 percent compared with when Bush II was in office) and the rise in hate groups across the United States since this president took office,

with this:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...eater_than_under_Bush_Clinton.html

Quote:
U.S. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan dismissed published reports that the level of death threats against President Obama are four times greater than typical threat levels against recent presidents — claiming the current volume of threats is comparable to that under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

"It's not [a] 400 percent [increase]," Sullivan said during a heated exchange with Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who suggested the service needed additional agents to protect the first African-American president.

"I'm not sure where that number comes from," he said, adding that the number of threats against Obama "are the same level as it has been [against] the last two presidents."

I think we can take the head of the Secret Service as the authoritive source, and say that the story is permenantly and definitively debunked.

The question is, who put the story out, and propagated it to the point that everyone seemed to believe it until yesterday? And why?


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11357 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5783 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
I think we can take the head of the Secret Service as the authoritive source, and say that the story is permenantly and definitively debunked.

I'm not really sure we can read that into it. It would seem to me that the Secret Service would have good reason (and has in the past iirc) to operate a campaign of misinformation as a means to better secure the president.

I think it would be a better plan to go ask the Examiner and Eleanor Holmes Norton, and MSNBC, and Fox, and CNN what their source is that threats are up.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5757 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
I think we can take the head of the Secret Service as the authoritive source, and say that the story is permenantly and definitively debunked.

No you can't. It is not in their interest (or anyone else's, for that matter) for them to be forthright and honest about death threats against any president. Information is power, and I can see them believing that if they confirm a 400% increase there'll be panic in the streets and another 400% increase on top of that. I expect them to lie in the national interest -- it's not like they haven't done it before, and in this case there's probably some sound reasoning behind it.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5752 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 1):
I'm not really sure we can read that into it. It would seem to me that the Secret Service would have good reason (and has in the past iirc) to operate a campaign of misinformation as a means to better secure the president.

Are you saying that the Director of the Secret Service is lying to a congressional committee for political purposes?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5747 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 2):
I expect them to lie in the national interest -- it's not like they haven't done it before, and in this case there's probably some sound reasoning behind it.
You do realize you are accusing him of perjury.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 2):
It is not in their interest (or anyone else's, for that matter) for them to be forthright and honest about death threats against any president.
Sorry, but I don't buy that. Why do you think saying that threats have increased would make his life more difficult, if it's true or not?

Where are the sources for the "400% increase" number? I think it was simply made up so that the left can find more reason to hate those who don't like Obama. Propaganda, pure and simple.

[Edited 2009-12-04 08:33:23]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5733 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
Where are the sources for the "400% increase" number? I think it was simply made up so that the left can find more reason to hate those who don't like Obama. Propaganda, pure and simple

There's your answer right there. As to the rest, what in the world did you expect? That they would agree the number is inflated or that the Secret Service director is being honest while under oath? I must admit I'm mystified as to why anyone would want to inflate the numbers instead of depress them. Inflating them only invites others to hop aboard the wagon, depressing them would show futility in engaging.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8153 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5733 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
You do realize you are accusing him of perjury.

Officials in security positions lie in and out of hearings as a matter of course - when's the last time anyone was prosecuted for it?? It's accepted protocol in Washington - when the mikes are hot, you don't say what's actually known in any or accurate detail. What has been Sec. Clinton's answer to every drone-related question for the last eleven months?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
Why do you think saying that threats have increased would make his life more difficult, if it's true or not?

Because it would make groups or individuals targeting the president feel they are having a desired effect - much the same reason you don't hear the CIA publicly trotting out figures on terror activity regularly.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
Where are the sources for the "400% increase" number? I think it was simply made up so that the left can find more reason to hate those who don't like Obama. Propaganda, pure and simple.

Perhaps but until sources are named there's no saying one way or the other for certain.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5731 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 1):
It would seem to me that the Secret Service would have good reason (and has in the past iirc) to operate a campaign of misinformation as a means to better secure the president.

Negative , The natural tendency of any bureaucracy is to make it appear that they need more recourse's. If the head of SS would have simply said , we are over whelmed with all the white power republican threats on the president ... bam funding and anything else he needed to grow his department would be immediate. A bureaucrat is never going to say ... we are fine and all is well if it is isn't.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5726 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
Where are the sources for the "400% increase" number? I think it was simply made up so that the left can find more reason to hate those who don't like Obama. Propaganda, pure and simple.

It came from some guys book -- a former spook? Ronald Kessler I think. It wasn't made up by the left, the right, or the middle. The point is, I can't see the Director of the Secret Service being frank, honest and open -- even before a Congressional committee -- in public about something that is so fraught with the danger of copy-catism.

The story I read said he'd be more than happy to elaborate on the issue behind closed doors -- where in my opinion he could well tell the politicians that there has been a 400% spike -- or maybe only a 200% spike -- and god help any of you who leak this to anyone.


Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
You do realize you are accusing him of perjury.

Yup. Lot's of precedent for that at the highest levels, don't you think? All that number has to be is 399% and he's off the hook. I'm sure they can massage it that much.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
Sorry, but I don't buy that. Why do you think saying that threats have increased would make his life more difficult, if it's true or not?

You're missing the point. A long long time ago newspapers stopped reporting on bomb threats unless there was so much public disruption that they couldn't avoid it. Why? because they noticed that every time a bomb threat was reported, another bunch came in real quick.

It's always a balancing act in security, between what the public needs to know and is entitled to know; and what would simply inflame a situation and create more danger. I would put threats on a president's life in that category.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5707 times:

The whole amount of death threat thing was propaganda brought out in the WH crasher hearing as a way to drive home the point that the breach was pretty serious. It came from a black member of the committee and though I applaud her effort to show this act was serious and people that committed it idiots it was not needed. I doubt the 400% number is accurate. I think Obama may have more than other presidents but it's useless propaganda designed to further exploit the notion that he is failing because of his color and that the people that oppose him do only for racial reasons. Both of which is complete nonsense.

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5699 times:



Quoting Arrow (Reply 8):
You're missing the point. A long long time ago newspapers stopped reporting on bomb threats unless there was so much public disruption that they couldn't avoid it. Why? because they noticed that every time a bomb threat was reported, another bunch came in real quick.

Sorry, still don't buy it. That story about death threats has been around for the better part of a year, and nobody in the Service ever tried to tone it down. Seriously, I don't think they care a damn about whether people think the threat rate is the same as before or is 400% higher - it makes absolutely no difference to them.

Hence, it makes no sense for him to lie about it.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineFuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5661 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):

I think we can take the head of the Secret Service as the authoritive source, and say that the story is permenantly and definitively debunked.

Come on Man!!! You really see that as a credible source? I understand that he's the director, but people are already worried that Obama's security is in question, ESPECIALLY with the mishap with the couple walking into the W/H without so much as a second thought from the secret service. It's obvious that they need to do a lot of damage control after that incident.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
. I think Obama may have more than other presidents but it's useless propaganda designed to further exploit the notion that he is failing because of his color and that the people that oppose him do only for racial reason

Useless propaganda? What does death threats have to do with useless propaganda? You're suggesting that the increase in death threats have 100% to do with race, and that's ridiculous. No one said the huge increase (if there is any) had anything to do with race. But you want to make it seem like that because you want to make it seem like propaganda.



"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5649 times:



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 11):
Come on Man!!! You really see that as a credible source?

So what would you say if he came out and said ... " The threat is up 400%" ?..... something tells me that his statement would meet with much more credibility for you , suddenly he would be the esteemed director of the SS with irrefutable facts...



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5645 times:



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 11):
No one said the huge increase (if there is any) had anything to do with race.

Really?

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
and the rise in hate groups across the United States since this president took office,

Hate groups? What do you think when you think of hate groups? Swastica-carrying neo-nazis, KKK, white supremicy groups, and so forth. Racists, right?

Of all the people that sent in death threats against Bush, do you think that the media would have described them as "hate groups"?

This is the sort of subtle propaganda that has been common in the US for years.

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 11):
Come on Man!!! You really see that as a credible source? I understand that he's the director, but people are already worried that Obama's security is in question, ESPECIALLY with the mishap with the couple walking into the W/H without so much as a second thought from the secret service. It's obvious that they need to do a lot of damage control after that incident.

He was under oath, dude. People under oath very rarely lie at that level, in spite of what you say. They might obfuscate, say they don't remember, refuse to answer, and be otherwise vague.

But he said quite clearly that the 400% number had no basis in reality and that the real rate was similar to those of Bush and Clinton. No obfuscation there.

I think you simply want to believe that those evil righties are just gunning for Obama.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineFuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5628 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):

He was under oath, dude. People under oath very rarely lie at that level, in spite of what you say. They migh

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl  Please, Stop Ok. I didn't realize we lived in a perfect world where there is never any lying



"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5628 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 1):
the Examiner



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 11):
Come on Man!!! You really see that as a credible source?

Who in their right mind would take anything the Examiner says as fact? I'd sooner go with the Secret Service on this one.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineAvent From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5606 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
Where are the sources for the "400% increase" number? I think it was simply made up so that the left can find more reason to hate those who don't like Obama. Propaganda, pure and simple.

Well, since we're speculating and making things up, how about an alternative theory:

The numbers suggest a heightened level of discontent at the man-boy in the White House and hence he's being divisive and not the unifier he was hoped to be? This 'theory' would play to the RIght and the tea-party cranks, and help legitimize their own extremism.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11357 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5559 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
Are you saying that the Director of the Secret Service is lying to a congressional committee for political purposes?

I'm saying the director is lying (or more likely, misleading while on the record) but it's quite a leap of logic to think that he's doing it for political purposes. Why would it be political? You don't even know who he voted for.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5538 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 17):
I'm saying the director is lying (or more likely, misleading while on the record) but it's quite a leap of logic to think that he's doing it for political purposes. Why would it be political? You don't even know who he voted for.

I'm stunned at the cynicism shown here about the integrity and truthfulness under oath of the Secret Service, a unit with an honorable tradition of law enforcement. It's like calling a Marine a liar.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13115 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5535 times:

Common sense would suggest that it is reasonable to assume that there has been a significantly larger number in various levels of threats of violent assult or death upon President Obama due to his race.

It is possible that certain classes of threats have been upgraded to more severe ones, inflating certain ones substantually, perhaps the with 4 times the number of threats in large part due to the reclassification process. I would also suspect that the Secret Service and other policing authorities have been looking out for and collecting more numbers of the threats that are out there causing a much higher number. The Internet has also made is easier for one to anonomously place threats.

As to the '400%' number - if there were 4 of the most serious threats in the last 11 months vs. 1 as to the last 11 months of GWB, then you have a distorted number that can be abused.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19722 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5531 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):

He was under oath, dude. People under oath very rarely lie at that level, in spite of what you say.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

I actually agree with you on your OP. But this one statement is a pretty good one, you have to admit.

Nixon, Clinton, several Bush staffers, etc. etc. etc...


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5524 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):
I actually agree with you on your OP. But this one statement is a pretty good one, you have to admit.

Nixon, Clinton, several Bush staffers, etc. etc. etc...

ONE...MORE...TIME

The Director of the Secret Service is NOT a political appointee. He is an officer that has worked his way up through the ranks of the Secret Service over 25 years.

http://www.secretservice.gov/director.shtml

Do not confuse such a man with the common scum of politicians and their minions.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5511 times:

And this is a story, how Charles? What is the point of it? To say Obama hasn't been threatened?

Slow news day, I guess.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5486 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
It's like calling a Marine a liar.

And Haditha is an invention of Jihadists?


User currently offlineAvent From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5483 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
I'm stunned at the cynicism shown here about the integrity and truthfulness under oath of the Secret Service, a unit with an honorable tradition of law enforcement. It's like calling a Marine a liar.

But it's OK for the rightwing to call the marines' commander in chief a liar - as far as religious beliefs and country of origin are concerned.


25 RFields5421 : You guys do realize that the FBI and the Secret Service have different definitions of what constitutes a "death threat" against the President. For the
26 D L X : So, why would you think he would by lying for political gain then?
27 Dreadnought : That's the question I've been asking you and others who seem to scoff at his testimony.
28 Windy95 : Yes it was..
29 Avent : Not for personal political gain, but there may be a gain none-the-less. I could envision a scenario where nutcases are more riled up if they think a
30 Dreadnought : I just don't see the logic in that. I don't see how the knowledge that there are (just making up numbers here) 40 threats per day rather than 10 woul
31 Avent : Well I only offer it as an opinion based on a sense that culturally, people can develop mob mentalities and take on behaviours that they would not ot
32 D L X : No, it's really not the question you've been asking. Maybe it's the one you intended to ask, but it's not what you asked. This is what you asked To w
33 Post contains links Mir : NYTimes article on the subject from today: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/us/06threat.html?pagewanted=1&hpw According to the article, the threat ra
34 Baroque : Surprised then to learn that LtGen James Mattis is a Jihadi.
35 DocLightning : So I'm sorry, but I haven't seen the evidence that Obama has been getting 400% of the death threats that Bush did. I have seen evidence that he's gett
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Obama Vs. Veterans posted Tue Mar 17 2009 21:01:42 by Dreadnought
Aussie Journalist Gets Death Threats From Japan posted Wed Aug 22 2007 02:33:10 by Aaron747
New Threats Against America posted Tue Sep 12 2006 13:12:16 by NWDC10
Bush-Clinton Tsunami Relief Fund posted Thu Mar 31 2005 06:36:55 by TACAA320
Decision Made On The Newdow Vs. Bush Case posted Sat Jan 15 2005 03:15:22 by StowAway
Gepardt Vs Bush posted Tue Oct 26 2004 16:19:46 by FDXmech
Kerry Vs. Bush, Round 2 Official Thread posted Sat Oct 9 2004 02:36:12 by Ual747
Kerry Vs. Bush. Vote Now :-) posted Wed Sep 29 2004 14:48:55 by NUAir
Kerry Vs. Bush: Restriction On Thread Number! posted Mon Sep 6 2004 09:50:25 by Andreas
Bush Vs. Bush - Debate Showdown posted Mon Aug 23 2004 20:21:46 by Mir
Obama Defending Bush On Illegal Wiretapping posted Wed Apr 8 2009 11:27:09 by PPVRA
Obama Vs. Veterans posted Tue Mar 17 2009 21:01:42 by Dreadnought
Aussie Journalist Gets Death Threats From Japan posted Wed Aug 22 2007 02:33:10 by Aaron747
New Threats Against America posted Tue Sep 12 2006 13:12:16 by NWDC10
Bush-Clinton Tsunami Relief Fund posted Thu Mar 31 2005 06:36:55 by TACAA320
Decision Made On The Newdow Vs. Bush Case posted Sat Jan 15 2005 03:15:22 by StowAway
Gepardt Vs Bush posted Tue Oct 26 2004 16:19:46 by FDXmech
Kerry Vs. Bush, Round 2 Official Thread posted Sat Oct 9 2004 02:36:12 by Ual747