Podesta Calls On McConnell To Apologize For Denigrating FBI Interrogation Of Abdulmuttalab
Podesta Calls On McConnell To Apologize For Denigrating FBI Interrogation Of Abdulmuttalab
Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) besmirched the reputation of FBI agents who interrogated terrorist Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab after he was arrested. “He was given a 50 minute interrogation, probably Larry King has interrogated people longer and better than that,” McConnell said on Fox News.
This morning on ABC’s This Week, Center for American Progress Action Fund President and CEO John Podesta noted that intelligence agents have skillfully secured the cooperation of Abdulmuttalab’s family. Because his family was assured that Abdulmuttalab was not being tortured, they worked with the FBI to convince the terrorist to talk. Abdulmuttalab then provided intelligence, some of which was apparently used to capture terrorists in Malaysia.
“I think you can huff and puff as former Governor Palin likes to do, but the proof’s in the pudding — he’s talking, they’ve gotten actionable intelligence, they’re acting on it,” Podesta said. When conservative pundit Peggy Noonan complained that the administration shouldn’t have told the public that Abdulmuttalab was cooperating, Podesta suggested disclosure may not have been necessary if political leaders like McConnell weren’t criticizing intelligence agents:
PODESTA: Maybe if all those politicians stopped attacking the FBI – Mitch McConnell likened the FBI to a Larry King interview – maybe if they stopped with the politics –
RUTH MARCUS: Now that’s cruel.
PODESTA: Well, no, I think he owes the FBI an apology. But if they’d stop with the politics, maybe they wouldn’t have to respond.
Watch it:
Later, Podesta defended the FBI: “I tend to listen to the professionals, and other people tend to listen to Governor Palin.”
He also referenced Sen. Richard Shelby’s (R-AL) “blanket hold” on Obama’s 70 executive nominees — two of whom include the head of the State Department intelligence official and the Homeland Security intelligence official. “What gives here?” Podesta asked. “Are these people serious or are they just playing politics?
JOHN BRENNAN: On Christmas night, I called a number of-- senior members of Congress. I spoke to Senators McConnell and Bond. I spoke to Representative Boehner and Hoekstra. I explained to them that he was in F.B.I. custody. That Mr. Abdulmutallab was in fact talking. That he was cooperating at that point. They knew that in F.B.I. custody means that there's a process then you follow as far as mirandizing and presenting him in front of the magistrate. None of those individuals raised any concerns with me, at that point. They didn't say, "Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be mirandized?" They were very appreciative of the information. We told them we'd keep them informed. And that's what we did. So, there's been-- quite a bit of an outcry after the fact. Where again, I'm just very concerned on behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football. And are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes.
- Comments
- 58
McConnell Claims Larry King Is ‘Better’ Than U.S. Interrogators At Questioning Terrorists
McConnell Claims Larry King Is ‘Better’ Than U.S. Interrogators At Questioning Terrorists
Ever since Nigerian Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab’s failed attempt to blow up a U.S. airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day, Republicans and conservatives have been attacking and politicizing the Obama administration’s response. Many have been whining that Abdulmutallab had not been properly interrogated and that valuable information has been lost. In an attempt to bash the Obama administration, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) today denigrated U.S. counterterrorism officials:
MCCONNELL: This was a person who was trying to blow a plane out of the air from Nigeria. It’s clearly a case for the military and for our intelligence people, not for the U.S. court system. What happened? He was given a 50 minute interrogation, probably Larry King has interrogated people longer and better than that. After which he was assigned a lawyer who told him to shut up. That is not the way to deal with someone in the war on terror.
Watch it:
It seems McConnell would rather try to score political points by undermining the work American counterterror officials are doing in the field, particularly in Abdulmutallab’s case, where key information has actually been gleaned. In fact, reports surfaced this week that Abdulmutallab “has been cooperating for days” with the FBI. But this isn’t the first time a Republican has tried to attack the administration by insulting U.S. agents. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that getting information from Abdulmutallab was “blind luck.”
According to the Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman, former FBI interrogator Jack Cloonan, who has interrogated al Qaeda members, said “What would you expect from Mitch McConnell? … They just don’t know what they’re talking about. They really don’t“:
“People keep talking about Mirandizing as if it’s a preventive measure, getting someone to shut up, but most critics have never been in position [to] have to Mirandize one,” Cloonan said. “It’s to keep pristine information you’ve already gotten and to have a prosecutable case. It’s not the end of an interview. … They’re gonna get all kinds of information from this guy.”
In fact, Abdulmutallab’s family members convinced him to provide information to U.S. authorities, an outcome that resulted from U.S. counterterror agents working in Africa “to gain an understanding of the subject.” “The intelligence gained has been disseminated throughout the intelligence community,” a senior administration official said. “The best way to get him to talk was working with his family.”
Thanks To Obama’s Rejection Of Torture, Abdulmuttalab Has Been Providing Intel On Al Qaeda
Thanks To Obama’s Rejection Of Torture, Abdulmuttalab Has Been Providing Intel On Al Qaeda
President Obama’s counter-terrorism approach — especially his decision to publicly reject torture — received a huge vindication yesterday with the news that the FBI has been working with the family of the failed Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouq Abdulmuttalab, and that “Abdulmuttalab has been cooperating with authorities and sharing intelligence since last Thursday”:
The agents and key family members arrived in back in the US on January 17th. The family members met with officials from the Justice Department and the FBI to plan a way forward.
“One of the principal reasons why his family came back is because they had complete trust in the US system of justice and believed that Umar Farouq would be treated fairly and appropriately,” the senior official said. “And that they would be as well.”
The FBI and Abdulmuttalab’s family approached the subject and “gained his cooperation. He has been cooperating for days,” the official said.
A key point here is that there is very little chance that Abdulmuttalab’s family would have agreed to cooperate with the U.S. government in getting Abdulmuttalab to talk if they suspected that he was in any danger of being tortured. This is a clear example of how President Obama’s bringing U.S. counter-terrorism practices back within the rule of law is making Americans safer.
A federal official told the New York Times that “the intelligence gained has been disseminated throughout the intelligence community,” and “the best way to get him to talk was working with his family.”
ABC also reported that “Abdulmuttalab was talking to FBI agents on Saturday, at the same time Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, issued the Republican response to the president’s weekly address, decrying Abdulmuttalab’s presence in the criminal justice system.”
It’s ironic that that Abdulmuttalab was providing information at the very moment conservatives were hyperventilating about the administration’s terrorism approach. The case also indicates that Obama’s decision to try the terrorist in criminal court has not served to cut off any information the U.S. could glean from Abdulmuttalab, as many critics have claimed. As CAP’s Ken Gude recently wrote, “The facts are clear: Criminal courts are a far tougher and more reliable forum for prosecuting terrorists than military commissions”:
The record of recent terrorism investigations demonstrates that interviews with terrorists who have attorneys have produced “an intelligence goldmine.”
False assumptions are driving the debate about the tools available to fight terrorism. President Obama needs to cut through the noise and use the tough and proven criminal justice system as a vital weapon in the fight against Al Qaeda.
Fortunately, it seems the president is doing just that.
Rep. Frank Wolf claims trying terror suspects in civilian courts would be treating them better than our military.
Rep. Frank Wolf claims trying terror suspects in civilian courts would be treating them better than our military.
In recent days, there has been an “uproar” among right-wing pundits and politicians who have objected to trying terrorism suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other alleged co-conspirators in civilian courts in New York City. One of the most outrageous objections against the New York City trials came today during an exchange between Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and MSNBC’s David Shuster. After being asked whether it was hypocritical to be against the NYC trials while saying nothing about 119 terrorism suspects who were tried in civilian courts during the Bush administration, Wolf deflected and claimed that giving terror suspects civilian trials is equivalent to “treating them better than you’re treating a young American serviceman or woman”:
WOLF: What we believe is it’s inappropriate to try them in New York City or major metropolitan areas. You’re basically giving them a forum. Secondly, you’re endangering the area. Thirdly, you’re treating them better than a young American serviceman or woman who serves in the military.
Watch it:
Krauthammer On Abdulmutallab: ‘The Guy Is Nigerian,’ So You ‘Have To Assume’ He Wasn’t ‘Acting Alone’
Krauthammer On Abdulmutallab: ‘The Guy Is Nigerian,’ So You ‘Have To Assume’ He Wasn’t ‘Acting Alone’
Today’s Fox News Sunday panel looked at Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to hold terrorist trials in federal courts rather than military commissions. The discussion quickly shifted to Holder himself, and whether he should be fired. NPR’s Juan Williams argued that Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer were lobbing “unjustified” attacks on Holder since the Bush administration repeatedly tried terrorists in civilian courts.
Krauthammer then cited the case of the failed Christmas Day bombing by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, saying that the Obama administration should have assumed that he “has people who are working with him” because he’s Nigerian:
KRAUTHAMMER: You arrest a guy who’s got a bomb in his underpants. You know, it’s likely he didn’t do it at home in his kitchen. … The guy is Nigerian. You’ve got to assume — you have to assume that he has people who are working with him.
WILLIAMS: Because he’s a Nigerian?
KRAUTHAMMER: Why do you assume otherwise? It makes no sense at all. You capture a terrorist and in almost all of our plots there are groups of terrorists. [...]
WILLIAMS: We have made such progress in terms of breaking down al Qaeda and getting them in terms of the structure to malfunction that there are now more lone wolves now and it’s tougher to capture and know the extent of knowledge they have at any one moment. There was no evidence, on the face of it on that day, had come from an al Qaeda training camp.
When Williams asked whether Holder should be held “accountable for all intelligence failures, including intelligence failures by the British and everybody else who didn’t understand what Abdulmutallab was up to,” Kristol smirked and shrugged his shoulders. Watch it:
On Jan. 5, President Obama admitted that there were “human and systemic failures that almost cost nearly 300 lives” on Christmas Day. He added that it “was not a failure to collect intelligence; it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.” Unlike what Kristol was trying to argue, it was not solely the fault of “incompetence” by Holder.
Transcript: More »
Will Obama Recess-Appoint Former TSA Nominee Erroll Southers?
Will Obama Recess-Appoint Former TSA Nominee Erroll Southers?
On Wednesday, Transportation Security Administration head nominee Erroll Southers withdrew himself from the nomination. Southers withdrew due to fierce opposition from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who placed a hold on Southers over the nominee’s support for unionization rights.
Last night, Southers appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show to explain why he decided to withdraw. He explained that he “felt like he was on his heels constantly” during his confirmation battle and didn’t feel like he would be able to convince DeMint to lift his hold. Maddow asked him if he would consider re-submitting himself for the nomination if President Obama decided to appoint him with a recess appointment, which would allow Obama to get around congressional obstructionism. Southers responded that he would:
MADDOW: There are a lot of people in the country who look at the politics of your nomination and want this administration to have fought for you, to have made an example of Jim DeMint for dismissing national security in favor of this no-win dog-and- pony show about unions, to have recess-appointed you if need be, to have made a fist-pounding speech about it to ward off any other obstructionist shenanigans like that. that. If the administration hypothetically had second thoughts and decided to renominate you and handle it like that, would you do it? Would you try it again? [...]
SOUTHERS: Yes, I would do it. I’m committed to the mission. I tried to convince Senator DeMint it was about the mission.
Watch it:
Reflecting on his confirmation fight, Southers told Maddow, “We need to address the threat that’s facing this country. The politics need to be aside. And as you mentioned earlier, I am apolitical. This is about terrorism and not about politics.”
Inhofe: ‘I believe in racial and ethnic profiling’ because ‘all terrorists are Muslims or Middle Easterners.’
Inhofe: ‘I believe in racial and ethnic profiling’ because ‘all terrorists are Muslims or Middle Easterners.’
Since the Fort Hood shootings and the failed Christmas Day terror attack, some on the right have called for more racial and ethnic “profiling” and “discrimination,” saying that the Obama administration is more interested in “protecting the rights of terrorists” than “protecting the lives of Americans.” Today during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing looking into the Fort Hood rampage, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) became perhaps the most powerful proponent of outright ethnic profiling, saying it’s “by and large true” that “all terrorists are Muslims or Middle Easterners”:
INHOFE: I’m, for one — I know it’s not politically correct to say it — I believe in racial and ethnic profiling. I think if you’re looking at people getting on an airplane and you have X amount of resources to get into it, you get at the targets, and not my wife. And I just think it’s something that should be looked into. The statement that’s made, it’s probably 90 percent true with some exceptions like the Murrah federal office building in my state, Oklahoma. Those people, they were not Muslims, they were not Middle Easterners. But when you hear that not all Middle Easterners or Muslims between the age of 20 and 35 are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims or Middle Easterners between the age of 20 and 35, that’s by and large true.
Watch it:
In addition to being an affront to civil rights, ethic profiling is ineffective. Inhofe says he is worried about limited resources, but ethnic profiling actually wastes law enforcement resources by chasing false targets. Moreover, many terrorists — including “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, al Qaeda recruit Adam Pearlman, and “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski — don’t fit Inhofe’s profile. As former Bush Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told NPR last month, the recent Christmas Day bombing attempt illustrated “the danger and the foolishness of profiling because people’s conception of what a potential terrorist looks like often doesn’t match reality.” (HT: Washington Independent)
The ‘facts’ of the Christmas Day plot are ‘clear’ — to everyone except John McCain.
The ‘facts’ of the Christmas Day plot are ‘clear’ — to everyone except John McCain.
Today, the Senate Homeland Security Committee held a hearing on the failed Christmas Day bombing. One of the administration officials who testified was National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) asked whether anyone had been “held accountable” for the intelligence lapses, saying that the “facts” of what happened were “clear.” However, McCain’s summary distorted a couple of key facts. When Leiter tried to correct him, McCain became defensive and tried to accuse Leiter of avoiding his question:
McCAIN: I think everybody knows the facts of the Christmas bomber. A person buys a ticket with cash, one-way ticket. His father has already warned the CIA. The series of missteps have taken place, what were — led to this near tragedy. … It’s fairly clear the facts of what happened, isn’t it?
LEITER: Well, actually I think many of the facts are clear. I would correct the record on a couple of points. In fact, the fact is not that he bought a one-way ticket, he bought a round-trip ticket. The fact that he used cash, frankly, is in Africa, completely and utterly —
MCCAIN: That was in Copenhagen, not Africa.
LEITER: No, sir. I believe he bought —
MCCAIN: Did he have someone who facilitated — if you think — if you’re defending –
LEITER: No, sir –
MCCAIN: – that we shouldn’t have found — shouldn’t have been alerted to this individual, sir, then –
LEITER: Then I apologize.
Watch it:
Leiter didn’t need to apologize; he was just trying to get the correct facts on record. The accused Christmas Day bomber, Umar Abdulmutallab, did not have a one-way ticket, but rather paid $2,831 for a round-trip ticket from Nigeria to Detroit via Amsterdam. He “bought his ticket with cash in Ghana eight days before the flight departed Nigeria” — not in Copenhagen, as McCain claimed. (HT: TPMmuckraker)
Long-stalled TSA nominee Erroll Southers withdraws due to Republicans’ political opposition.
Long-stalled TSA nominee Erroll Southers withdraws due to Republicans’ political opposition.
Today, Erroll Southers, President Obama’s nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), announced that he was withdrawing from consideration because “his nomination had become a lightning rod for those with a political agenda.” Indeed, Southers’ most vocal opponent was Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who was blocking the highly qualified nominee “to prevent TSA workers from joining a labor union.” Following the failed Christmas Day bombing when it became increasingly clear how much the TSA needed a director, the right wing insisted on playing politics with Southers’ nomination. The White House said it “accepted Southers’ withdrawal with great sadness and continued to believe he would have made an excellent TSA administrator.” According to Foreign Policy, there are still 177 Obama nominees awaiting confirmation, and “dozens of those holds are directly affecting the agencies responsible for the United States’ security and foreign policy.”
Right Wing Mounts Witch Hunt To Smear TSA Nominee With Flailing, Off-Target Attacks
Right Wing Mounts Witch Hunt To Smear TSA Nominee With Flailing, Off-Target Attacks
“Republicans are stepping up their effort to block Erroll Southers from becoming head of the Transportation Security Administration,” Politico reports. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has been holding up Southers’ nomination in a political effort “to prevent TSA workers from joining a labor union.”
Southers, a counterterrorism expert, is currently working as a senior official for homeland security and intelligence for the police division of Los Angeles World Airports. He is also an associate director of the University of Southern California’s security studies program, has developed and implemented anti-terrorism measures for a variety of public institutions, and wrote a doctoral study on “Predictive Indicators of Homegrown Islamic Terror Cells.” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) said Southers is “more than qualified” to lead TSA.
Despite Southers’ impressive resume and qualifications, the right wing is intent on playing politics with his nomination. Conservative bloggers and activists have begun mounting a campaign to smear Southers with fallacious attacks. Some examples below:
Right-Wing Attack: “TSA nominee: Global Warming Deserves Parity With War on Terror.” The conservative blog Hot Air highlights Southers’ comment that terrorism “deserves to perhaps have some parity with global warming.” Blogger Ed Morrisey concludes that Southers’ view is “ludicrous.”
Reality: A Pentagon analysis concluded that the long-term security threat of global warming was greater than terrorism, and many security experts agree. The National Intelligence Council assessed the grave threat global warming poses. It could not only fuel further terrorism, but spur mass migration, refugees, poverty, environmental degradation, and pandemics. The CIA is now dedicating resources to analyzing the security implications of climate change.
Right-Wing Attack: “Obama TSA Nominee Erroll Southers Calls Pro-Life Advocates Terrorists in Video.” LifeNews attacks Southers for saying homegrown terrorist groups — particularly white supremacist groups — are “anti-government, in most cases anti-abortion, they are usually survivalist type in nature, identity oriented.” Gateway Pundit writes, “This kook rattled off every leftwing nut conspiracy in one interview.”
Reality: A Homeland Security report published last August warned right-wing extremists, “specifically the white supremacist and militia movements,” may “include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion.” Subsequently, the report was vindicated by acts of domestic terrorism by white supremacists and anti-abortion crusaders.
Right-Wing Attack: “TSA nominee in 2008: Alliances with Israel, France make us subject to terror attack.” The Washington Examiner’s David Freddoso takes issue with Southers’ observation the U.S. alliance with “countries that are seen by groups, by al Qaeda, as infidels” may subject us to greater risk of attack. “So Southers is a hack leftist and a fool,” the conservative blog Powerline writes.
Reality: Consider the words of Osama bin Laden. In 1996, the terrorist leader complained of the “iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance” and called for raising “the banner of Jihad against the American-Zionist alliance occupying the sanctities of Islam.” In 2008, he reiterated his hateful screed: “We shall continue the fight, Allah willing, against the Israelis and their allies.”
In their desperation to smear Southers, the right is grasping at straws.
GOP plans on reintroducing legislation to ban and deport immigrants from ‘terrorist’ countries.
GOP plans on reintroducing legislation to ban and deport immigrants from ‘terrorist’ countries.
This past week, Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-SC) announced his intention to update and reintroduce the Stop Terrorists Entry Program Act (STEP) that would prohibit “the admission of aliens from countries designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism as well as Yemen to the United States.” Barrett originally introduced the legislation back in 2003 and believes recent events have created an even greater need to “secure America” by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to ban immigrants from Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Yemen and Syria from ever stepping foot in the U.S.:
While President Obama may have declared an end to the War on Terror, it is clear our enemies did not get the message. Twice in the past two months, radical Islamic terrorists have attacked our nation and the Administration has failed to adapt its national security and immigration policies to counter the renewed resolve of those who seek to harm our citizens…In light of these unfortunate facts, I intend to introduce legislation that will enhance our national security through common sense changes to our current immigration laws. The STEP Act of 2010 bars the admission of aliens from countries designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism [...]
However, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) points out that neither alleged Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan nor Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who has been charged with trying to detonate a bomb on a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas Day, would’ve been “affected in the slightest” by Barrett’s proposed bill. NIAC has launched a national campaign against the bill, which it describes as “offensive to American principles, harmful to US interests,” and discriminatory. Barrett is currently running for governor of South Carolina and was recently criticized for missing more than one-third of all votes taken in 2009, “by far the highest number among all members.”
Liz Cheney Airs Hypocritical Attack Ad On Obama For Waiting ‘100 Hours’ To Respond To Terror Plot
Liz Cheney Airs Hypocritical Attack Ad On Obama For Waiting ‘100 Hours’ To Respond To Terror Plot
In their eagerness to place blame on President Obama for the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack, Republicans have argued that the president waited too long to talk publicly about the matter. Karl Rove began the assault by complaining that Obama waited “72 hours before” addressing the American public. RNC Chairman Michael Steele and former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani have piled on with a similar criticism.
Liz Cheney’s neoconservative political attack organization, Keep America Safe, is out with a new ad titled “100 hours.” Replete with images of Obama golfing, the ad — which imitates the TV show 24 — ends with the question, “How long did it take you to realize the system failed?”:
Of course, while Obama wasn’t speaking publicly about the terrorist incident, he was directing an immediate federal response.
Moreover, as Huffington Post’s Sam Stein documented, President Bush didn’t utter a single word about shoe bomber Richard Reid’s terrorist attack for six days, whereupon he simply said that he was “grateful for the flight attendant’s response, as I’m sure the passengers on that airplane.”
On ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos confronted Cheney about her hypocritical attack. “As many Democrats and others have pointed out, President Bush waited I think six days before doing much about Richard Reid, the shoe bomber,” he noted. Cheney evaded the question entirely, pretending not to hear it. “The point of that ad,” she said, “was this notion that you cannot win a war if you’re treating it as sort of an inconvenient sidelight.” Watch it:
GOP Sen. Dick Lugar rebukes Cheney criticism of Obama as ‘unfair.’
GOP Sen. Dick Lugar rebukes Cheney criticism of Obama as ‘unfair.’
Republicans have sought to exploit the recent attempted terrorism attack on Christmas for political gain, using the incident to smear unions, call for ethnic profiling, rally voters around their political campaigns, and to deride President Obama as an “appeaser.” However, Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) has struck a different tone in analyzing the administration’s response to the attempted attack. In an interview set to air on Bloomberg this weekend, Lugar responded to attacks from the likes of former Vice President Cheney, who has crowed that Obama “is trying to pretend we are not at war” with a “low-key response.” Lugar forcefully said such such criticism is “unfair“:
“It’s unfair,” Lugar said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. “I think the president is focused.” [...] To the contrary, Obama has demonstrated “firmness” and “decisiveness,” Lugar, who represents Indiana, said. “That’s been the antidote to the criticism.”
Watch it:
While right-wing partisans have demanded executions of detainees and an increase in the use of the word “terrorism,” Lugar, a top senator on the Foreign Relations Committee, talked about a sustainable response to the threat of terrorism. As airline security improves, al Qaeda and other terrorists targeting the U.S. will seek other ways to attack, Lugar noted in the interview. “We have to see the comprehensive nature of this, how many countries have potentially failing governments or very weak governments in which al-Qaeda could.” “We ought to indicate that, as a matter of fact, that we support liberty,” Lugar said. “We support the building of institutions.”
Using Double Standard, Conservatives Absolve Bush For ‘Domestic Attacks’ On His Watch
Using Double Standard, Conservatives Absolve Bush For ‘Domestic Attacks’ On His Watch
As the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss has been pointing out, conservatives and hawks are falling all over themselves to hail the failed Christmas Day bombing as a “success.” “This was — this was an attack that didn’t succeed on the scale it was expected to but did succeed,” said Brit Hume on Fox News.
At the same time, conservatives seeking to exploit the attempted attack for political advantage have been contrasting Obama’s record on terrorism with President Bush’s, claiming that the last administration “had a 100 percent perfect track record.” On Fox News yesterday, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour declared that “after September 11, not one time did the terrorists who are trying to kill us and end our way of life, not one time were they able to attack the mainland United States.” Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani claimed on Good Morning America today that “We had no domestic attacks under Bush.” Watch it:
Ignoring the irony of Rudy “noun, a verb, and 9/11” Giuliani claiming there were “no domestic attacks under Bush,” the logic of the conservative claim that the failed Christmas Day attack represents a mar on Obama’s record while Bush’s post-9/11 record was spotless reveals a stunning double standard. As many, including ThinkProgress, have pointed out, Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab’s failed underwear bombing is nearly identical to Richard Reid’s failed shoe bombing in December 2001, but the conservatives attacking Obama for letting an attack occur on his watch don’t seem to count the shoe bombing as an attack on Bush’s watch.
This was perhaps best demonstrated by Las Vegas Journal Review publisher Sherman Frederick’s column claiming that “the two cases of domestic terrorism since 9/11″ both happened on Obama’s watch. The only way for this to be true is for Abdulmuttalab’s failed attack to count as a case of domestic terrorism while discounting Reid’s failed attack. Additionally, as Media Matters has repeatedly pointed out, several other domestic attacks did occur under Bush’s watch, such as the 2001 anthrax attacks and the 2002 attack against an El Al ticket counter at LAX.
Rove Backs Off His Criticism Of Counterterrorism Center, Perhaps Remembering Chief Is A Bush Holdover
Rove Backs Off His Criticism Of Counterterrorism Center, Perhaps Remembering Chief Is A Bush Holdover
In recent days, attention has been turning toward Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), in the failed Christmas Day bombing. Politico’s Laura Rozen wrote that it appears that “knives [are] out” for Leiter. On Tuesday, former Bush White House adviser Karl Rove also jumped on the NCTC during an appearance on Fox News, saying that the agency was “where the problem probably occurred”:
VAN SUSTEREN: But somebody had the job, Karl, to coordinate all this information into one center place. I cannot believe that after 9/11, we didn’t figure out that we have to have some sort of central resource –
ROVE: Well, we did. We did. [...]
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, who’s in charge of that?
ROVE: The counterterrorism center is where the problem probably occurred because, look, there are lots of — we know that the State Department passed on the information. We know the CIA received it. We know the counterterrorism center received it.
It was surprising that Rove pointed the finger at the NCTC, since Leiter served with him in the Bush administration. Leiter became NCTC director in 2007, and then was retained by the Obama administration. But maybe Rove forgot these details and remembered them only after his Fox News appearance, because today during another Fox interview, he tried to shift blame away from the NCTC:
ROVE: In fact, the biggest problem is not within the NCTC and the intelligence community — Look, I want to say one word of defense for them. There’s a lot of information flowing through there. It seems to me this should have been caught, but there is a lot of information flowing through there, and the expectation that human beings are going to be perfect 100 percent of the time or that the system of computers and algorithms of detection software is going to be perfect 100 percent of the time is just wrong.
In both interviews, Rove insisted that the real problem was with the Obama administration, who decided to “treat the Christmas Day bomber as a criminal defendant” (just like the Bush administration did with the shoe bomber). Watch the two clips:
Today, the White House defended Leiter against a New York Daily News article that Leiter “did not cut short his ski vacation after the underwear bomber nearly blew up an airliner on Christmas Day.” National Security Council Chief of Staff Denis McDonough disputed the Daily News’ story, saying that Leiter was “intimately involved in all aspects of the nation’s response to the attempted terrorist attack” and took “six days of annual leave” after the event.
Today in his speech on the attack, Obama made clear that he wasn’t interested in playing the blame game. “Ultimately, the buck stops with me. … When the system fails, it is my responsibility,” he said.
Transcript: More »
Ridge Defends Napolitano From Right-Wing Attacks: The Criticisms Are ‘Misplaced’
Ridge Defends Napolitano From Right-Wing Attacks: The Criticisms Are ‘Misplaced’
Since the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack, conservatives have been attacking the Obama administration for failing to “connect the dots,” with many calling specifically for the resignation of Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. They have criticized her for initially telling CNN that “the system worked,” even though they dishonestly took her quote out of context to do so.
Appearing on Fox News Tuesday, RNC chairman Michael Steele said, “I agree with the Republican leadership that’s called for [Napolitano's] resignation.” Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, tweeted, “Secretary Janet Napolitano should resign, saying ‘the system worked,’ undermines the confidence of Americans.” And yesterday, a group of prominent conservative activists sent Napolitano a letter demanding her resignation.
But a former head of the Department of Homeland Security said much of this criticism is “misplaced.” Tom Ridge, who served under President Bush, defended Napolitano, explaining that blame for the incident does not rest solely on her shoulders:
RIDGE: [Neither the] Secretary of Homeland Security, nor can the department, act on anything until they get the information. … And the Department of Homeland Security could not have revoked the visa. The Department of Homeland Security could not have put this name on the National Counterterrorism Center. … So while there is obviously some criticism pointed in the department’s direction and at the Secretary, I think by and large it is misplaced.
Watch it:
Ridge certainly knows more about how DHS operates than many of Napolitano’s critics. A preliminary review suggested that a “systemic failure” is to blame for allowing suspected bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board the plane with explosives, President Obama said last month. And White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday that a comprehensive review to be released later today will cite holes in airport security and problems sharing information between intelligence agencies — not a specific person or agency.
Last month, Ridge also defended Napolitano against the right-wing attacks on her initial statement, saying, “I don’t think any right-thinking person actually believed that Secretary Napolitano thought the system worked.” “I think what she was referring to was that after the incident occurred, there are certain procedures and protocols to put in place,” Ride said. “That worked smoothly.”
Transcript: More »
Gingrich: Hoekstra’s Campaign Got A ‘Boost’ From Failed Airline Bomber
Gingrich: Hoekstra’s Campaign Got A ‘Boost’ From Failed Airline Bomber
Just hours after Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s failed attempt to blow up a U.S. airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), who is running for governor in Michigan, began politicizing the event. Hoekstra baselessly claimed President Obama had not paid enough attention to Yemen — the base of Abdulmutallab’s radical affiliations — and even tried to raise campaign funds off the incident.
Last night on Fox News, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the failed terror attack was good for Hoekstra, even adding that it was “probably” the reason the leading Democratic candidate for Michigan governor dropped out of the race:
GINGRICH: In Michigan, I think Pete Hoekstra is putting together such a good campaign and has gotten such a boost out of having been intelligence committee chairman now with the attempted attack on Detroit that Pete really is becoming a dominant figure in the state.
I think that was part of why Lt. Governor Cherry probably dropped out. He’s faced with a president who clearly couldn’t have defended Detroit. We were lucky that the terrorist didn’t know how to set off the bomb or we would have had a huge disaster.
Watch it:
Republicans have no shame in playing politics with terrorism and have a habit of leading on that terror attacks and serious national security crises are good for their side, a point exemplified by a comment from Charlie Black, top aide to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ), during the 2008 presidential campaign:
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an “unfortunate event,” says Black. “But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who’s ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.” As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” says Black.
To Justify Hypocritical Attacks, Rudy Giuliani Claims The Shoe Bomber’s Attempted Attack Happened Before 9/11
To Justify Hypocritical Attacks, Rudy Giuliani Claims The Shoe Bomber’s Attempted Attack Happened Before 9/11
Last month, conservatives attempted to politicize the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas day by complaining that President Obama waited three days before publicly addressing it. “The President waits 72 hours before we hear from him, and it’s over 72 hours from the time of the incident to the time that the President spoke today,” said Karl Rove on Dec. 28, not noting that his old boss waited six days before commenting on the 2001 attempted shoe bombing.
But conservatives are now claiming that he waited 10 days to respond. On CNN’s Larry King Live last night, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani claimed that Obama responded “10 days too late“:
GIULIANI: I think the president has to make a major correction in the way he is dealing with terrorism because I think he has mishandled the situation. First of all, it was 10 days too late. This is something you react to immediately, not 10 days later after your vacation. The president of the United States, when there is a potential massive attack on this country, which is what this guy was going to do, should have been on top of this immediately, not 10 days later, 11 days later, 12 days later.
When King pointed out that “President Bush took six days once in a similar incident,” Giuliani responded that “six days is less than 10″ and that he believed “that six days was before the September 11th attack.” King then clarified that “Bush waited six days on the shoe bomber,” to which Giuliani responded, “that’s correct.” Watch it:
The attempted shoe bombing by Richard Reid took place three months after September 11 on December 22, 2001. President Bush didn’t say a single word about the incident until a press conference six days later, where he simply said that he was “grateful for the flight attendant’s response” and that “we’ve got to be aware that there are still enemies to the country.” In contrast, when President Obama first spoke about the Christmas Day plot on Dec. 28, he gave a lengthy statement in order to “update the American people on the attempted terrorist attack.”
Steele: Bush Was ‘Right’ To Wait Six Days To Respond To Shoe Bomber, But Obama Was Still Too Slow
Steele: Bush Was ‘Right’ To Wait Six Days To Respond To Shoe Bomber, But Obama Was Still Too Slow
Continuing his book tour, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele went on MSNBC’s Morning Joe today and criticized President Obama’s remarks yesterday on the failed Christmas Day attack. He hit Obama for delivering it “two weeks after the event,” saying it should have instead happened on Christmas Day.
However, just a few moments later, Steele said that President Bush made the right move in waiting six days before commenting on shoe bomber Richard Reid in 2001, because “you can’t afford to go much further without being very clear the direction the administration wants to go on this matter”:
STEELE: And that kind of approach that the administration has taken, where it was two weeks after the event before the President stands up there. If he had given that speech on Christmas Day — that he gave yesterday?
BRZEZINSKI: You know, it took six days for President Bush to respond to the Richard Reid shoe bomber. [...]
STEELE: I think the timing was right in the moment because you can’t afford to go much further without being very clear the direction the administration wants to go on this matter.
Watch it:
First of all, Steele is being disingenuous in making it seem like yesterday was the first time Obama commented on the attack. In fact, one of conservatives’ main criticisms was that President Obama waited 72 hours before publicly commenting on the incident (even though he had been actively consulting with his national security experts, who were speaking with the press). So Obama publicly spoke about the attack in under six days — which Steele deemed appropriate in Bush’s case.
Second, Steele said a President should not comment “without being very clear the direction the administration wants to go on this matter.” Obama’s speech yesterday was intended to report on the findings of the ongoing investigations by his counterterrorism and homeland security advisers — something that couldn’t have been done on Christmas Day.
Finally, when President Bush did eventually address the shoe bomber, it wasn’t with a “clear…direction” about where the administration was headed; he mentioned it only in passing, when he said that an American Airlines flight attendant “saw something amiss and responded.” “It’s an indication that the culture of America has shifted to one of alertness, and I’m grateful for the flight attendant’s response, as I’m sure the passengers on that airplane,” he added.
Transcript: More »
Conservatives Continue To Claim That Obama Refuses To Say The Words ‘Terror’ Or ‘Terrorism’
Conservatives Continue To Claim That Obama Refuses To Say The Words ‘Terror’ Or ‘Terrorism’
On Monday, ThinkProgress pointed out how conservatives like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) were complaining that President Obama and his administration are not “willing to use the word” terror — a claim that is refuted by Obama’s own statements and speeches. But the right-wing meme persists.
In response to Obama’s remarks yesterday on the Christmas Day plot, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) whined that “he still refuses to use the word ‘terrorism.’” Fox and Friends this morning featured two chyrons claiming that the administration avoids the word “terror”:
Asked on MSNBC this morning to defend the GOP’s rush to politicize the attempted terrorist attack, RNC Chairman Michael Steele said it was justified because President Obama “can’t call a thing what it is.” Steele then claimed that Obama denies that what America is dealing with “writ large is terrorism, a war on terror, and what we’re dealing with individually is a terrorist.” Watch it:
The conservatives’ semantic attack is all the more ridiculous considering that in Obama’s statement yesterday, he made eight references to terrorism, terrorists and counterterrorism.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll