Whitehouse: Some Critics 'Serving the Goals of al Qaeda'

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/wh-some-critics-serving-the-goals-of-al-qaeda.html

WH: Some Critics 'Serving the Goals of al Qaeda'*
February 09, 2010 7:16 AM

PrintRSSE-mailShare this blog entry with friendsFacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponMore
In an oped in USA Today, John Brennan -- Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism -- responds to critics of the Obama administration's counterterrorism policies by saying "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."

Brennan writes that, "Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill."

In the oped, titled "'We need no lectures': Administration disrupts terrorists’ plots, takes fight to them abroad," Brennan writes that politics "should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe."

The administration op-ed is in response to a USA Today editorial entitled "National security team fails to inspire confidence; Officials’ handling of Christmas Day attack looks like amateur hour."

Brennan provides a detailed defense of the administration's handling of failed Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab whom, he says, was "thoroughly interrogated and provided important information."

He suggests that many critics are hypocritical and clueless.

The most important breakthrough in the interrogation occurred "after Abdulmutallab was read his rights, which the FBI made standard policy under Michael Mukasey, President Bush's attorney general," he writes, noting that failed shoe bomber Richard Reid "was read his Miranda rights five minutes after being taken off a plane he tried to blow up. The same people who criticize the president today were silent back then."

Brennan said anyone who wants to change the policy would be casting aside lessons learned "in waging this war" on extremists.

"Terrorists such as Jose Padilla and Saleh al-Mari did not cooperate when transferred to military custody, which can harden one's determination to resist cooperation," he writes.

He calls it "naive to think that transferring Abdulmutallab to military custody would have caused an outpouring of information. There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical."

Moreover, Brennan says, hundreds of terrorists have been convicted in criminal courts while only three have been convicted in the military tribunal system.

The former CIA official also asserts that the Obama administration is doing a better job than the Bush administration did in taking the fight to al Qaeda. "This administration's efforts have disrupted dozens of terrorist plots against the homeland and been responsible for killing and capturing hundreds of hard-core terrorists, including senior leaders in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond — far more than in 2008."

"We need no lectures about the fact that this nation is at war," he says.

USA Today's editorial writers see it all a bit differently, of course, writing that though "the Obama administration's national security officials have struggled to assure the public that they know exactly what they're doing," they are so far "achieving the opposite, and they're needlessly adding some jitters in the process."

The editorial writers fault the Obama administration for announcing "last week that an attack by al-Qaeda is likely in the next three to six months. The warning is bound to frighten the public, with no obvious benefit beyond the ability to say 'I told you so.'"

They also refer to National Intelligence Director Admiral Dennis Blair (ret.) as having "had a 'Duh!' moment" for acknowledging that "authorities fumbled the initial questioning of Abdulmutallab by failing to call in the high-value interrogation group, which was created to question terrorism suspects. Refreshingly candid, yes, but not a statement that inspires confidence. Especially when the same day, at another Senate hearing, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified that the high-value unit was still in its 'formation stages' and that 'there was no time' to get it to Detroit."

USA Today's editorial writers say that when senior administration officials revealed Abdulmutallab's cooperation with authorities, "the news pretty much negate(d) earlier claims that no intelligence was lost when Abdulmutallab was prematurely read his rights."

- jpt

UPDATE: Missouri Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in response to the Brennan op-ed: "The only one making this political is the White House. The Administration must do better, because trying to pass the buck for their dangerous decisions and divulging sensitive information to al Qaeda is not an effective terror-fighting strategy."

*This post has been updated.

**inquisitor_bob**

Wow, interesting spin by the WH.

**Cane**

I agree with this line: many critics are hypocrites and clueless. On top of that, why the hell is Brennan reading the USA Today of all newspapers?!

The media is probably the best entity around when it comes to fear-mongering, spreading hate, misrepresentation, etc. And it too must be dealt with so I've got no problems when the Whitehouse has to come and clarify against blatant bs such as death panels and in this case, an oversimplification and hypocritical piece on the infamous X-Mas day bomber. Trolls can make a lucrative living and become seemingly powerful once they establish their name after all

I actually like that this administration is seemingly more open to the public than Clinton's and Bush's.

That doesn't mean writers shouldn't write opinionated articles that do little more than shock - we've all got to get our $$$ somehow. They just gotta be prepared if they get called out on.

**Kilkrazy**

THOUGHTCRIME.

**gorgon**

Fraz, were you all over this when Cheney and company used the same rhetoric?

**sebster**

gorgon wrote:Fraz, were you all over this when Cheney and company used the same rhetoric?

He's a footsoldier. The idea that it's only bad when the other side does it is how his brain works. This is no different to the number of GOP characters spouting off about how bad it is to use criminal methods to respond to terrorism, when they made no such criticism of Bush, and certainly never criticised Reagan for the same. It's what happens when a movement becomes intellectually bankrupt and starts to form argument purely on the most appealing one-liners.

Meanwhile, it was disappointing Brennan included that line. The rest of the article was well argued and quite handily dismissed the silly rhetoric surrounding the issue. Unfortunately, the whole media focus will likely be on that one line.

**dogma**

Sebster has the right of it.

**warpcrafter**

But, where would the military industrial complex be without something to justify, however shakily, their policy of fear-mongering?

**ShumaGorath**

warpcrafter wrote:But, where would the military industrial complex be without something to justify, however shakily, their policy of fear-mongering?

Selling missile to Taiwan.

**Orkeosaurus**

"Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill."

Not even the underpants bomber?!

**Frazzled**

sebster wrote:
gorgon wrote:Fraz, were you all over this when Cheney and company used the same rhetoric?

He's a footsoldier. The idea that it's only bad when the other side does it is how his brain works. This is no different to the number of GOP characters spouting off about how bad it is to use criminal methods to respond to terrorism, when they made no such criticism of Bush, and certainly never criticised Reagan for the same. It's what happens when a movement becomes intellectually bankrupt and starts to form argument purely on the most appealing one-liners.

Meanwhile, it was disappointing Brennan included that line. The rest of the article was well argued and quite handily dismissed the silly rhetoric surrounding the issue. Unfortunately, the whole media focus will likely be on that one line.

Mmm...love the insult. typical. When in doubt attack with personal insults. Goebbels would be proud.

At the time when these statements were being made by the Republicans I thought they were equally stupid.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Basically, it seems the author is wishing a British attitude to Terrorism. Which is simply 'don't be scared, just be aware'.

I kind of see where he comes from, as some media outlets prefer to sensationalise every story that comes there way, which of course makes Terror attacks etc that much more of a threat, even when, 9/11 apart, Al Qaeda operatives in the US and the UK seem really rather incompetent.

See, posted without taking political sides. It can be done!

**Mannahnin**

I think it’s an unnecessary and sensationalistic line. That said, if terrorists want to instill terror, than people who capitalize on and help spread disproportionate fear would indeed seem to be playing into the hands of terrorists.

**Frazzled**

What happened to those who disagree are patriots too?

**Mannahnin**

They absolutely can be. And in the case of this article, I think he may have been wrong to say it. I just meant that in a more general sense, increasing the fear level is not the best response to terrorism.

**Nurglitch**

Wait a second, what if I want to be scared?

**Frazzled**

Note the key phrase "politically motivated criticism" Its right out of the Cheney playbook.

Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

**Mannahnin**

There are definitely ways in which this administration is frustratingly like the last one.

And yet you get nutjobs running around yelling about socialism and revolution and such.

**ShumaGorath**

Amusingly, by the definition of terrorism the news agencies that make a conscious effort to frighten the American population are terrorists.

**Tyyr**

ShumaGorath wrote:Amusingly, by the definition of terrorism the news agencies that make a conscious effort to frighten the American population are terrorists.

...ok, that's funny.

**Yad**

ShumaGorath wrote:Amusingly, by the definition of terrorism the news agencies that make a conscious effort to frighten the American population are terrorists.

And there's the rub. How many times have we seen members of the Republican caucus getting in front of a camera and 'telling' us how dangerous it is to try these people on American soil? Cognitive dissonance at it's best. i.e., we can't let the terrorists be held on American soil, prosecuted by the American ciminal justice system, etc. While completely igonring the decades of us successfully doing just that. Idiots.

-Yad

**Frazzled**

Thats a blindingly separate issue. Put them onshore and some judge in some dumpwater berg will say they have rights.

Can't be interrogated for information.
Could potentially be set free.

You're seeing now that the Obama administration, which scoffed at bush, is having to do the same thing as Bush for the same reasons (Holder should stilll be terminated).

**ShumaGorath**

Can't be interrogated for information.
Could potentially be set free.

Yeah, it's so terrible when a jury finds that we captured a civilian, tortured them for information, and then realized that they never did anything because they might set them free. Thank god we have such scions of justice as yourself thinking ahead and making sure that no matter the reason or circumstances behind a suspects capture that they get tortured and then imprisoned forever in a country that we don't even have formal relations with.

You're seeing now that the Obama administration, which scoffed at bush, is having to do the same thing as Bush for the same reasons (Holder should stilll be terminated).

And here I thought that it was because all the states were too frightened of big mean muslim terrorists to allow them to stay in their prison system along side the serial killers and domestic terrorists.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Can't be interrogated for information.
Could potentially be set free.

Yeah, it's so terrible when a jury finds that we captured a civilian, tortured them for information, and then realized that they never did anything because they might set them free. Thank god we have such scions of justice as yourself thinking ahead and making sure that no matter the reason or circumstances behind a suspects capture that they get tortured and then imprisoned forever in a country that we don't even have formal relations with.

You're seeing now that the Obama administration, which scoffed at bush, is having to do the same thing as Bush for the same reasons (Holder should stilll be terminated).

And here I thought that it was because all the states were too frightened of big mean muslim terrorists to allow them to stay in their prison system along side the serial killers and domestic terrorists.

You mean like the Yemeni released from Gitmo now heading up Yemen's terrorism operations right? RIGHT?

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Can't be interrogated for information.
Could potentially be set free.

Yeah, it's so terrible when a jury finds that we captured a civilian, tortured them for information, and then realized that they never did anything because they might set them free. Thank god we have such scions of justice as yourself thinking ahead and making sure that no matter the reason or circumstances behind a suspects capture that they get tortured and then imprisoned forever in a country that we don't even have formal relations with.

You're seeing now that the Obama administration, which scoffed at bush, is having to do the same thing as Bush for the same reasons (Holder should stilll be terminated).

And here I thought that it was because all the states were too frightened of big mean muslim terrorists to allow them to stay in their prison system along side the serial killers and domestic terrorists.

You mean like the Yemeni released from Gitmo now heading up Yemen's terrorism operations right? RIGHT?

*shrugs* your willing to imprison and torture innocent civilians indefinitely in order to prevent a handful from slipping through the cracks. I am not. More people die from lightning then from terrorism in this country, and I really just don't care. Oddly enough, I have both the moral high ground and I'm apparently the only one that realizes that TORTURING SOMEONE FOR HALF A DECADE WILL CAUSE THEM TO TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST YOU EVEN IF THEY WERE INNOCENT. It's as if the torture issue, as has been stated by the intelligence community and our military leaders, hurts us far more than it helps by doing the recruiting job of Al Queda for them.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Can't be interrogated for information.
Could potentially be set free.

Yeah, it's so terrible when a jury finds that we captured a civilian, tortured them for information, and then realized that they never did anything because they might set them free. Thank god we have such scions of justice as yourself thinking ahead and making sure that no matter the reason or circumstances behind a suspects capture that they get tortured and then imprisoned forever in a country that we don't even have formal relations with.

You're seeing now that the Obama administration, which scoffed at bush, is having to do the same thing as Bush for the same reasons (Holder should stilll be terminated).

And here I thought that it was because all the states were too frightened of big mean muslim terrorists to allow them to stay in their prison system along side the serial killers and domestic terrorists.

You mean like the Yemeni released from Gitmo now heading up Yemen's terrorism operations right? RIGHT?

*shrugs* your willing to imprison and torture innocent civilians indefinitely in order to prevent a handful from slipping through the cracks. I am not. More people die from lightning then from terrorism in this country, and I really just don't care. Oddly enough, I have both the moral high ground and I'm apparently the only one that realizes that TORTURING SOMEONE FOR HALF A DECADE WILL CAUSE THEM TO TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST YOU EVEN IF THEY WERE INNOCENT. It's as if the torture issue, as has been stated by the intelligence community and our military leaders, hurts us far more than it helps by doing the recruiting job of Al Queda for them.

No you've got it all wrong. Lets restate.
US citizens priority all other considerations rescinded.
If they show up with a bomb in their pants they go to the military, the light of day never to be seen again.

EDIT. Here's the part where you rant and rave and feel morally superior. Why don't you call the Whitehouse and invite the underwear bomber to your house to stay during trial. How about KSM? You can float the bail. I'm sure he's innocent and would not have given up more information on potential terrorist attacks that could be in progress now.

**ShumaGorath**

No you've got it all wrong. Lets restate.
US citizens priority all other considerations rescinded.
If they show up with a bomb in their pants they go to the military, the light of day never to be seen again.

Weren't a majority of those detained in guantanamo detained on charges of suspicion, and not actual offenses?

No you've got it all wrong. Lets restate.
US citizens priority all other considerations rescinded.

And that is why people are flying planes into our buildings.

If they show up with a bomb in their pants they go to the military, the light of day never to be seen again.

Funny how thats never what actually happens though. Your lack of respect for the concepts of human rights, the magna carta, and simple morality are stunning sometimes.

**Frazzled**

Terrorists don't have rights. US citizens have rights.

they were flying planes into the trade centers before we did anything bucko. I know your memory span is short but they started this by killing us.

**ShumaGorath**

Terrorists don't have rights. US citizens have rights.

Terrorists are not terrorists until proven guilty of the crime of terrorism. Thats the whole crux of the issue, you just want to black bag anyone on any suspicion and I don't want to live in the soviet union.

they were flying planes into the trade centers before we did anything bucko.

Yes, I'm sure overthrowing several democratic governments in the region and playing pinball with the soviets in their countries is nothing.

I know your memory span is short but they started this by killing us.

Hardly.

**Yad**

Frazzled wrote:Thats a blindingly separate issue. Put them onshore and some judge in some dumpwater berg will say they have rights.

Can't be interrogated for information.
Could potentially be set free.

You're seeing now that the Obama administration, which scoffed at bush, is having to do the same thing as Bush for the same reasons (Holder should stilll be terminated).

Take a bow Frazzled, you've made my point about Cognitive Dissonance. And holy crap, do you really think that they don't have rights? Do you honestly believe that a human being, no matter how dispicable his/her actions may be, do not have certain inalienable rights?! Rights aren't given, they are recognized. Oh, and by 'inteorrogated' you mean tortured right? Geneva Conventions anyone, anyone?. Yes, of cource they could potentially be set free. Do you have any freaking concept as to how our judicial system works? The Rule of Law is not something you can ignore when it's inconvenient. Nobody is above the law, not Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Obama, Holder...nobody. It's high time that they and you remember this. Way to crap on 100+ years of jurisprudence.

Also, I'd say it's a lot more people than just the Obama administration that is scoffing at the nightmare that was the Bush administration. Perhaps everyone that voted for Obama? More cognitive dissonance. You see this nonsence all the time on T.V and the intertubes. That is, how does a tea-bagger/neo-con/republican maintain that the majority of Americans don't want Health Care reform and health insurance reform when it is the majority that voted the current administration into power (along with the House and Senate).

You see it in the stimulus as well. Republicans talk ad nauseum about how this was a job-killing bill. Every one of the knuckledheads voted against it. Then you see folks like Cantor, Boehner, and company locally lauding the stimulus as supplying much needed funds to promote job growth. They'll never say this in a national forum, but then again, all politics is local. Cognitive Dissonance.

Furthermore, the Obama administration doesn't have to do the same things as Bush. Holder should be enforcing the Law, independent of influence from the current administration. To put another way, Holder and the DoJ must follow RAW. Sure they can set priority as to what gets the most attention (Dems --> Civil Rights, Reps --> ? what did the they do ?), but ultimately they have to follow the law.

Woof, got a little side-tracked there, sorry about that. It's just the opinion/stance you're voicing has so many underlying problems.

-Yad