More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it. Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on alert, There were times when the White House was really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' We often lost the argument.
compared to previous threat reporting, these intelligence reports have provided a level of detail that is very specific.
The intelligence that we've received over the past several weeks is ... a series of general non-specific threats against the United States.
Anybody that's spent any time combating terrorists ... will tell you that being old doesn't necessarily mean being irrelevant, ... Good intelligence can be appropriate, no matter how old it is.
are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan.
to date, there is no specific intelligence that tells us or indicates to us that the convention itself would be subject to an attack.
Yeah, we weren't certain, ... Still, in the context of everything else (intelligence chatter and a terror attack in Saudi Arabia), we could not set it aside and dismiss it as not credible.
The quality of this intelligence, based on multiple reporting streams in multiple locations, is rarely seen and is alarming in both the amount and specificity of the information,