PDA

View Full Version : Obama WH: Some Critics 'Serving the Goals of al Qaeda'


petegz28
02-09-2010, 08:26 AM
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."

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

petegz28
02-09-2010, 08:28 AM
So if you are critical of the mistakes and failures of this Admin. on the national security front, then you are stupid and hypocritical.

Yet these same people spent 7 of the last 8 years doing to the previous Admin. just what they are whining about now.


LMAO you really can't make this shit up.

Royal Fanatic
02-09-2010, 08:28 AM
It sounds like we are one step closer to declaring that ciriticism of this government is treason.

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 08:31 AM
When anyone critized Bush the Republicans screamed they were unamerican. The lesson learned is....You don't critize the President in a time of war, unless its a Democratic President.

Brennan is not a political appointee. He has served under many presidents. His integrity and motives are beyond reproach.

We need to take the Israeli approach and just live our lifes and not let security concerns run our lifes. We are going to have another terriost attack. It's gonna happen. We can't stop suicide bombers. C4 is too easy to obtain and build a bomb from. You add in someone who is willing to die and kill others? It's gonna happen.

Royal Fanatic
02-09-2010, 08:33 AM
I remember that, and I thought it was pretty disgusting at the time when the Republicans did that. It's disgusting when either party does it.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 08:34 AM
Brennan is not a political appointee.



John Brennan -- Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

Bearcat2005
02-09-2010, 08:35 AM
Your either with us or against us?

bkkcoh
02-09-2010, 08:35 AM
Isn't it amazing that some of the democratic talking points almost parrots what the Iranian leadership and some of the leaders within AQ say?

Who seems to be more in lock step?

Mr. Kotter
02-09-2010, 08:39 AM
Your either with us or against us?

That was my immediate thought....

it's okay when OUR guy says stuff like this, even if we maligned and ridiculed YOUR guy for saying, basically, the same thing.

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 08:39 AM
John Brennan -- Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and CounterterrorismDon't even try to call him political.....From wiki

CEO of The Analysis Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Analysis_Corporation)
Chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_National_Security_Alliance) (INSA)
Interim director, National Counterterrorism Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Counterterrorism_Center)<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-NCC_7-0>[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O._Brennan#cite_note-NCC-7)</SUP>
Director, Terrorist Threat Integration Center
Deputy Executive Director, CIA
Chief of Staff to Director of Central Intelligence, CIA
Chief of Station, Middle East, CIA (1996 - 1999)
Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, CIA
Deputy Director, Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis, CIA
Daily Intelligence Briefer at the White House, CIA
Deputy Division Chief, Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis, CIA
Chief of Analysis, DCI's Counterterrorism Center, CIA
Middle East Specialist and Terrorism Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA
Political Officer, U.S. Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Department of State
Career Trainee, Directorate of Operations, CIA.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 08:44 AM
Don't even try to call him political.....From wiki

CEO of The Analysis Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Analysis_Corporation)
Chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_National_Security_Alliance) (INSA)
Interim director, National Counterterrorism Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Counterterrorism_Center)<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-NCC_7-0>[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O._Brennan#cite_note-NCC-7)</SUP>
Director, Terrorist Threat Integration Center
Deputy Executive Director, CIA
Chief of Staff to Director of Central Intelligence, CIA
Chief of Station, Middle East, CIA (1996 - 1999)
Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, CIA
Deputy Director, Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis, CIA
Daily Intelligence Briefer at the White House, CIA
Deputy Division Chief, Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis, CIA
Chief of Analysis, DCI's Counterterrorism Center, CIA
Middle East Specialist and Terrorism Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA
Political Officer, U.S. Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Department of State
Career Trainee, Directorate of Operations, CIA.

John Brennan -- Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

Mr. Kotter
02-09-2010, 08:45 AM
Don't even try to call him political.....From wiki

CEO of The Analysis Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Analysis_Corporation)
Chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_National_Security_Alliance) (INSA)
Interim director, National Counterterrorism Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Counterterrorism_Center)<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-NCC_7-0>[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O._Brennan#cite_note-NCC-7)</SUP>
Director, Terrorist Threat Integration Center
Deputy Executive Director, CIA
Chief of Staff to Director of Central Intelligence, CIA
Chief of Station, Middle East, CIA (1996 - 1999)
Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, CIA
Deputy Director, Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis, CIA
Daily Intelligence Briefer at the White House, CIA
Deputy Division Chief, Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis, CIA
Chief of Analysis, DCI's Counterterrorism Center, CIA
Middle East Specialist and Terrorism Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA
Political Officer, U.S. Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Department of State
Career Trainee, Directorate of Operations, CIA.


None of that refutes that this statement is largely, as Bearcat2005 pointed out....a "either you're for us, or against us" sort of statement?

Where is the outrage that we saw when the Bush administration talked like that?

petegz28
02-09-2010, 08:45 AM
Isn't Brennan the same guy who stayed on the ski slopes when he heard about the X-mas Day bombing attempt?

Royal Fanatic
02-09-2010, 08:45 AM
I don't think it really matters how extensive or bipartisan his background is. If he was appointed to a position in the administration, he is a political appointee. If he says that critics of the administration are serving the goals of al Qaeda, then he is saying that shouldn't have the right to criticize our government.

It's wrong when a Republican does it, it's wrong when a Democrat does it, and it's wrong when anyone who is a part of government does it.

Bearcat2005
02-09-2010, 08:46 AM
That was my immediate thought....

it's okay when OUR guy says stuff like this, even if we maligned and ridiculed YOUR guy for saying, basically, the same thing.

Hypocrisy as usual. When things like this are done, I cannot help but to look at your sig.

Donger
02-09-2010, 08:46 AM
Wasn't Bush's "with us or against us" comment referring to other countries, not other Americans?

petegz28
02-09-2010, 08:48 AM
And once again, they come out with this "we have done more than Bush" crap. One day Obama says we have to stop this scorecard mentality. The next his people come out with that exact mentality.

Bearcat2005
02-09-2010, 08:48 AM
I don't think it really matters how extensive or bipartisan his background is. If he was appointed to a position in the administration, he is a political appointee. If he says that critics of the administration are serving the goals of al Qaeda, then he is saying that shouldn't have the right to criticize our government.

It's wrong when a Republican does it, it's wrong when a Democrat does it, and it's wrong when anyone who is a part of government does it.

Some people don't understand that. Isn't the FED chair supposed to be a non-political appointment too? lol give me a break.

Bearcat2005
02-09-2010, 08:50 AM
Wasn't Bush's "with us or against us" comment referring to other countries, not other Americans?

Yes, however that cavalier attitude was displayed on the hill.

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 08:52 AM
It's totally wrong for the Republicans to run around yelling the sky is falling, terriost are going to blow up malls, supermarkets etc and scaring the hell out of people. For what reason? Political gain.

They know as well as anyone that the individual bomber is coming to America and we won't be able to stop every single one.

We do every single thing we can to nip them in the bud, find out about them but we go on with our lifes and not live in fear. I know this first hand. I was late to catch a bus that ended up getting blown up by a suiicide bomber in Jerusalem. 5 mintues late.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 08:53 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NJxmpTMGhU0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NJxmpTMGhU0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Donger
02-09-2010, 08:53 AM
Yes, however that cavalier attitude was displayed on the hill.

Huh?

petegz28
02-09-2010, 08:53 AM
It's totally wrong for the Republicans to run around yelling the sky is falling, terriost are going to blow up malls, supermarkets etc and scaring the hell out of people. For what reason? Political gain.

They know as well as anyone that the individual bomber is coming to America and we won't be able to stop every single one.

We do every single thing we can to nip them in the bud, find out about them but we go on with out lifes and not live in fear.

Meanwhile the "system worked" before it didn't! ROFL

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 08:55 AM
Meanwhile the "system worked" before it didn't! ROFLWhat system are you laughing about?

Bearcat2005
02-09-2010, 08:55 AM
Huh?

Seriously....

HonestChieffan
02-09-2010, 08:55 AM
It's the American peoples fault.

This may be a new admin tactic.

You are all guilty.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 08:56 AM
What system are you laughing about?

WOW! How quickly they forget. Does Dec. 25th ring a bell? Janet Napolitano??? Any of that register with you?

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 08:58 AM
WOW! How quickly they forget. Does Dec. 25th ring a bell? Janet Napolitano??? Any of that register with you?That system that was at fault was not a partisan political system. Same policies under Bush that are under Obama were in place.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 08:59 AM
That system that was at fault was not a partisan political system. Same policies under Bush that are under Obama were in place.

Ah, back to blame Bush. I see.

HonestChieffan
02-09-2010, 09:10 AM
That system that was at fault was not a partisan political system. Same policies under Bush that are under Obama were in place.

BRC. You know better.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:15 AM
That system that was at fault was not a partisan political system. Same policies under Bush that are under Obama were in place.

LMAO....ok

Royal Fanatic
02-09-2010, 09:16 AM
That system that was at fault was not a partisan political system. Same policies under Bush that are under Obama were in place.
Do you really believe that?

The Obama administration repeatedly tries to downplay the idea that terrorism is a threat to the point where they won't even use the word any more. Janet Napolitano insists upon using the word "man-made disaster" instead.

That doesn't sound like the same policies to me. Treating enemy combatants as civilian criminals, giving them the same civil rights as American citizens, and trying them in New York city sure doesn't sound like the same policies either.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:17 AM
Obama disallows the phrase "war on terror"

Obama calls the X-mas Day Bomber an "isolated extremist"


But yea, everything is the same as under Bush.

HonestChieffan
02-09-2010, 09:19 AM
How soon we forget the great wonder and joy of the new administrations efforts to take down the evil Bush policies....and the appointment of her excellency Miss Janet...

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=40258

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 09:34 AM
The war on terror is a war on returning veterans, political dissenters, people who believe in the constitution. They must quell dissent and disarm the citizenry to keep the war machine going.

Royal Fanatic
02-09-2010, 09:39 AM
The war on terror is a war on returning veterans, political dissenters, people who believe in the constitution. They must quell dissent and disarm the citizenry to keep the war machine going.

Really? I thought it was a war against a bunch of pissed-off Muslims who killed thousands of our citizens at the World Trade Center.

Or are you one of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who think our government was behind it all? That wouldn't surprise me, given the amount of nonsense in your post.

fan4ever
02-09-2010, 09:42 AM
[QUOTE=BigRedChief;6518478]When anyone critized Bush the Republicans screamed they were unamerican. QUOTE]

Yeah, that really stemmed the flow of criticism towards Bush; and certainly it wasn't the mainstream media who declared criticizing Republicans was unAmerican...if anything the other way around.:rolleyes:

wild1
02-09-2010, 09:57 AM
It's funny to watch people switch sides and play the role of the hypocrite - and realizing this, trying to excuse it by saying that others were doing the same thing in the past (as if that makes it ok, you were out of order in the past, so we'll be out of order now and pretend it's intellectually honest)

HonestChieffan
02-09-2010, 09:57 AM
The war on terror is a war on returning veterans, political dissenters, people who believe in the constitution. They must quell dissent and disarm the citizenry to keep the war machine going.

Clown is so appropriate

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 10:02 AM
Do you really believe that?The obama administration hadn't changed the TSA search or flight rules. Whatever rules are in place were the same ones that Bush used. After the Christmas day attempted bombing they are different now.

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 10:02 AM
Ah, back to blame Bush. I see.WTF? I'm blaming the system, not Bush.

RINGLEADER
02-09-2010, 12:07 PM
When anyone critized Bush the Republicans screamed they were unamerican. The lesson learned is....You don't critize the President in a time of war, unless its a Democratic President.

Brennan is not a political appointee. He has served under many presidents. His integrity and motives are beyond reproach.

We need to take the Israeli approach and just live our lifes and not let security concerns run our lifes. We are going to have another terriost attack. It's gonna happen. We can't stop suicide bombers. C4 is too easy to obtain and build a bomb from. You add in someone who is willing to die and kill others? It's gonna happen.

I disagree completely. The only reason he's out there is because the White House pollsters see this as hurting Obama and his attempts to fundamentally remake America. The fact that Brennan is a willing participant just underscores how his bona fides are undercut.

More kindergarten time from the kids at the White House.

memyselfI
02-09-2010, 12:08 PM
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss.

bkkcoh
02-09-2010, 12:44 PM
The obama administration hadn't changed the TSA search or flight rules. Whatever rules are in place were the same ones that Bush used. After the Christmas day attempted bombing they are different now.

The question is, were they enforced equally across the board.

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 12:46 PM
The question is, were they enforced equally across the board.wellll thats wouldn't be a political issue either.

patteeu
02-09-2010, 03:56 PM
When anyone critized Bush the Republicans screamed they were unamerican. The lesson learned is....You don't critize the President in a time of war, unless its a Democratic President.

Hmmm. When was the lesson learned? Just in time for Obama's swearing in ceremony? How convenient.

Meanwhile, in response to these recent criticisms, it's delicious to hear the Obama administration defending itself by pointing to practices of the administration that they said had led the country in the wrong direction for all those years.

BTW, who was it who accused the WH of having policies that serve as "a recruitment bonanza for terrorists"? Oh yeah, it was John Brennan referring to the Bush administration last August.

patteeu
02-09-2010, 03:59 PM
Yes, however that cavalier attitude was displayed on the hill.

Maybe, but there's a huge difference between criticisms like "George W. Bush is a war criminal" and "Barack Obama shouldn't bring KSM to New York City for trial".