Michael Scheuer: Obama Doesn’t Care ‘About Protecting This Country’
Michael Scheuer: Obama Doesn’t Care ‘About Protecting This Country’
Earlier this week, former CIA operative and torture apologist Michael Scheuer appeared on Fox News, where he told Glenn Beck (who nodded in agreement), “The only chance we have” to repair our national security apparatus “is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.” Yesterday, on Alan Colmes’ radio show, Scheuer made similar comments about the national security stance of the U.S., saying that he doesn’t believe that President Obama wants to protect the country “if it costs him votes”:
COLMES: You don’t think the President of the United States, Barack Obama, cares about protecting this country.
SCHEUER: No, I don’t. Because I don’t think he realizes what the world is like outside the United States. [...]
COLMES: You don’t think he wants to protect the country?
SCHEUER: I don’t think he can, sir. [...]
COLMES: He doesn’t want to protect the country?
SCHEUER: Not if it costs votes.
Listen here:
A number of progressive bloggers castigated Scheuer for his remarks on Beck’s show. The Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman, however, expressed disappointment in Scheuer’s comments and hoped that he was “being taken out of context,” citing his respect for Scheuer’s previous national security work. Unfortunately, it appears that Scheuer meant what he said.
- Comments
- 94
Rohrabacher: Gingrich Belongs In The ‘Hall Of Shame’ For His Fear-Mongering On Uighur Detainees
Rohrabacher: Gingrich Belongs In The ‘Hall Of Shame’ For His Fear-Mongering On Uighur Detainees
Last month in the Washington Examiner, former House speaker Newt Gingrich denounced President Obama’s supposed plot to “release trained terrorists currently held at Guantanamo Bay into American suburbs.” The men he was so afraid of are innocent Chinese Muslims known as Uighurs, who have since been released in Bermuda after spending seven years locked up in Guantanamo. According to 2008 State Department Human Rights report, these men faced “severe cultural and religious repression” at the hands of the Chinese government. In 2001, they stayed in a Uighur camp in Afghanistan and “were later turned in to the authorities by Pakistani villagers in return for an American bounty,” even though were never a security threat.
However, in his column, Gingrich said they posed a “paramount threat and “have been allied with and trained by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups.” In an interview with Fox News, Gingrich added that the United States should just send them back to China.
One of Gingrich’s Republican colleagues is now calling out his ignorance. At a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Human Rights on Tuesday, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said that Gingrich belongs in the “hall of shame” for fear-mongering about the Uighurs. He also said that the Bush administration unjustly detained these men at the bidding of the Chinese government in a “pathetic” attempt to gain the country’s support for the Iraq war:
The Bush administration…held Uighurs in Guantanamo as terrorists, and they did this, I believe, to appease the Chinese government in a pathetic attempt to gain its support at the beginning of the war against Iraq, and also to ensure China’s continued purchase of U.S. treasuries. Many, if not all, the negative allegations against the Uighurs, can be traced by to Communist Chinese intelligence, whose purpose is to snuff out a legitimate independence movement that challenges the Communist party bosses in Beijing. [...]
In the hall of shame, of course, is our former speaker, Newt Gingrich. His positioning on this should be of no surprise — and is of no surprise — to those of who, during Newt’s leadership, were dismayed by his active support for Clinton-era trade policies with Communist China.
Watch it:
Through their translator, the Uighurs have expressed dismay at Gingrich’s ignorant remarks. “How could he speak in such major media with nothing based in fact?” related the translator. As many human rights experts noted, the Uighurs would likely have been tortured if returned to China, as Gingrich had hoped.
Transcript: More »
Bush insinuates that he disagrees with Obama’s plan to close Gitmo.
Bush insinuates that he disagrees with Obama’s plan to close Gitmo.
In a speech to the Manufacturing and Business Association in Erie, PA last night, President Bush insinuated that he disagreed with President Obama’s plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and try some of the detainees in U.S. courts. “I’ll just tell you that there are people at Gitmo that will kill American people at a drop of a hat and I don’t believe that — persuasion isn’t going to work. Therapy isn’t going to cause terrorists to change their mind,” Bush said. But in June 2006, Bush endorsed a course of action quite similar to Obama’s current plan:
BUSH: I’d like to end Guantanamo. I’d like it to be over with. One of the things we will do is we’ll send people back to their home countries. [...] There are some who need to be tried in U.S. courts. They’re cold-blooded killers. They will murder somebody if they’re let out on the street. And yet, we believe there’s a — there ought to be a way forward in a court of law.
Further, as Jake Tapper notes, Bush’s remark that “therapy” won’t help rehabilitate some of the detainees is surprising given the fact that Bush himself sent approximately 120 former Guantanamo detainees to a Saudi-based counseling center for rehabilitation. 60 Minutes recently reported on the success of the Saudi program.
Intel officials ‘scrutinizing threats from the far right just as carefully as those from Islamic extremists.’
Intel officials ‘scrutinizing threats from the far right just as carefully as those from Islamic extremists.’
After the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leaked a report warning of the threat of right-wing extremists, mainstream conservatives went into a frenzy, demanding that Secretary Janet Napolitano be fired. According to Newsweek, some local intelligence “fusion” centers ceased their operations monitoring right-wing extremists because of the conservative outcry. Now, after a series of murders by far-right extremists, intelligence officials admit they are taking the threat seriously:
They may talk about it less in public now, but law-enforcment and intel officials tell NEWSWEEK they’re quietly scrutinizing threats from the far right just as carefully as those from Islamic extremists.
Even after last week’s shooting by a white supremacist at the Holocaust Museum, conservatives stood by their criticism of the DHS report — despite the fact that the report specifically warned about white supremacist and anti-Semitic extremists.
CIA Director says Cheney sounds like he is ‘wishing that this country would be attacked again.’
CIA Director says Cheney sounds like he is ‘wishing that this country would be attacked again.’
In her profile of CIA Director Leon Panetta in this week’s New Yorker, Jane Mayer reports that Panetta believes former Vice President Dick Cheney’s criticism of the Obama administration’s approach to terrorism almost suggests “he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again”:
Panetta, pouring a cup of coffee, responded to Cheney’s speech with surprising candor. “I think he smells some blood in the water on the national-security issue,” he told me. “It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that’s dangerous politics.”
The language Cheney has chosen to use has suggested he is anticipating another attack. In a CNN interview earlier this year, he explicitly fear-mongered that Obama is “making some choices” that “raise the risk..of another attack.” And in an interview with Politico, Cheney “warned that there is a ‘high probability‘ that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed.”
Cantor Falsely Claims There Are No ‘Judicial Precedents’ For The Prosecution Of Suspected Terrorists On U.S. Soil
Cantor Falsely Claims There Are No ‘Judicial Precedents’ For The Prosecution Of Suspected Terrorists On U.S. Soil
Today, Guantanamo detainee Ahmed Ghailani was transferred to New York to face trial for the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. Discussing his case last month, President Obama said that, “after over a decade, it is time to finally see that justice is served, and that is what we intend to do.” Attorney General Eric Holder has noted that the Justice Department “has a long history of securely detaining and successfully prosecuting terror suspects through the criminal justice system.”
The right wing, however, has seized the opportunity to launch baseless, fearmongering attacks, with House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) leading the way:
This is the first step in the Democrats’ plan to import terrorists into America. Without a plan to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, the Administration has made the decision to begin transferring these terrorists into the United States…Do they plan to give them the same legal rights as the American people?
Similarly, on MSNBC today, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) said that the transfer was “counterintuitive” because there are “no judicial precedents for the conviction of someone like this”:
CANTOR: Well, you know, Norah, it’s just counterintuitive. Why in the world would somebody be so focused on the rights of a terrorist instead of keeping Americans safe? There are so many unanswered questions about bringing these detainees on to U.S. soil. We have no judicial precedents for the conviction of someone like this. It is just wrong for us to be bringing these detainees here given the current situation and the unanswered questions. We ought to be putting the safety of American citizens first.
Watch it:
However, the Justice Department today put out a lengthy fact sheet listing nine of major international and domestic terrorism cases that just the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York alone has successfully prosecuted since the 1990s. The release also responded to right-wing criticisms that U.S. prisons can’t handle terrorists:
There are currently 216 inmates in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody who have a history of/or nexus to international terrorism. Sixty seven of these individuals were extradited to the United States for prosecution, while 149 were not extradited. Seventy two of these individuals are U.S. citizens (45 of them born in the United States, 27 of them naturalized). The “Supermax” facility in Florence, Colo. (ADX Florence), which is BOP’s most secure facility, houses 33 of these international terrorists. There has never been an escape from ADX Florence, and BOP has housed some of these international terrorists since the early 1990s.
In fact, NBC’s Pete Williams said that Ghailani’s transfer “makes sense, because other defendants in the embassy bombings were tried and convicted” in New York.
Ingraham and O’Reilly joke that MSNBC and liberal blogs are responsible for attack on Army recruiting center.
Ingraham and O’Reilly joke that MSNBC and liberal blogs are responsible for attack on Army recruiting center.
Yesterday, “[a] 23-year-old man upset about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan opened fire from his truck at two soldiers standing outside a military recruiting station here on Monday morning, killing one private and wounding another.” In response, conservative talker Laura Ingraham suggested that websites and news outlets that have been critical of the war in Iraq were responsible for the obviously horrible attack. Her guest Bill O’Reilly seemed to agree with her tongue-in-cheek reasoning:
INGRAHAM: Are we now going to look at the websites that he frequented to see if he was on some of the crazy left-wing anti-war websites, Win Without War, George Soros-funded websites, DailyKos, all the crazies. … The way they are reporting on the George Tiller murder, all of talk radio was responsible for that. … Did he frequent MSNBC, did he like to watch it? [...]
O’REILLY: Since they have been unrelenting in describing their country as a torture nation, I’m sure that set this muslim guy off to kill one and wound another of our military and I’m sure that’s NBC’s fault. Look, the absurdity of this is beyond the pale.
Listen to a compilation here:
These commentators weren’t criticizing O’Reilly and groups like Operation Rescue simply because they are opposed to abortion. Many right-wing activists used words like “murderer” and “killer” when they criticized Tiller’s abortion practices. O’Reilly, in particular, sent his producers to ambush Tiller and said that anyone who didn’t “stop” Tiller would have “blood on their hands.”
Cheney Blames Richard Clarke For 9/11: ‘He Missed It’
Cheney Blames Richard Clarke For 9/11: ‘He Missed It’
Writing in Sunday’s Washington Post, Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism chief under Presidents Clinton and Bush, slammed Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice for invoking what he called “the White House 9/11 trauma defense” — namely, the shock of 9/11 was so great as to justify all and any actions taken in the name of national defense. Clarke called the decisions on interrogations, detentions, and Iraq were all “wrong,” and the White House panic proved that Cheney and company had simply been ignoring the warning signs:
Cheney’s admission that 9/11 caused him to reassess the threats to the nation only underscores how, for months, top officials had ignored warnings from the CIA and the NSC staff that urgent action was needed to preempt a major al-Qaeda attack.
Speaking at the National Press Club today, Cheney struck back at Clarke. When asked about Clarke’s argument, Cheney — once again — invoked the “burning ashes” of 9/11 and the victims who leaped to their deaths from the World Trade Center. Then, quite succinctly, Cheney pinned the entire blame for 9/11 on Clarke:
CHENEY: You know, Dick Clarke. Dick Clarke, who was the head of the counterrorism program in the run-up to 9/11. He obviously missed it. The fact is that we did what we felt we had to do, and if I had to do it all over again, I would do exactly the same thing.
Watch it:
When the moderator reminded Cheney that Clarke had repeatedly warned the administration about al Qaeda’s determination to attack the U.S., Cheney snarkily replied, “That’s not my recollection, but I haven’t read his book.”
In fact, it was Cheney who “missed” the warning signs, not Clarke. New York Times reporter Philip Shenon’s book, “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation,” reprinted some of Clarke’s emphatic e-mails warning the Bush administration of the al Qaeda threat throughout 2001:
“Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (May 3)
“Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot” (May 23)
“Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (May 26)
“Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (June 23)
“Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (June 25)
“Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (June 30)
“Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays” (July 2)
Similarly, Time Magazine reported in 2002 that Clarke had an extensive plan to “roll back” al Qaeda — a plan that languished for months, ignored by senior Bush officials:
Clarke, using a Powerpoint presentation, outlined his thinking to Rice. … In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, “Response to al Qaeda: Roll back.” … The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush.
Cheney needs to check his “recollections” before blaming former employees for the single most devastating attack in American history.
Cheney: Concern About Torture Is ‘Contrived Indignation And Phony Moralizing’
Cheney: Concern About Torture Is ‘Contrived Indignation And Phony Moralizing’
Today, Vice President Cheney gave a speech at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute in response to President Obama’s speech on human rights. Cheney launched an aggressive defense of the Bush administration’s torture program by saying that it was necessary after the 9/11 terrorist attacks:
In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations.
In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do.
Cheney also criticized critics of the Bush administration’s program, calling it “feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.” He then claimed that these critics are attacking intelligence officers for trying to “avenge the dead of 9/11″ through torture:
I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.” Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. … We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.
Watch it:
Cheney has set up a straw man. Critics are not upset at intelligence officers for trying to “avenge the dead of 9/11″ by “rough[ing] up some terrorists.” People are upset at top Bush administration officials for authorizing human rights violations in order to pursue a political agenda.
As the 2008 Senate Armed Services Committee report made clear, interrogators at Gitmo were under “pressure” to produce evidence of ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, even though they were ultimately unsuccesful. “The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link…there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results,” said former U.S. Army psychiatrist Maj. Charles Burney.
In his attempt to justify torture because of the constraints the Bush administration was facing after 2001, Cheney referenced 9/11 25 times. “Iraq” was mentioned just twice.
When Cheney claims that he is speaking for the “little guys,” just keep in mind how popular he really is. Matt Yglesias has put together this helpful comparison:
When will the right wing insist the NYC synagogue bombers are ‘too dangerous’ for U.S. prisons?
When will the right wing insist the NYC synagogue bombers are ‘too dangerous’ for U.S. prisons?
Last night, “an elaborate sting operation” resulted in the arrest of four men accused of plotting to bomb a synagogue and shoot down airplanes. The New York City Police Commissioner said the four men “stated that they wanted to commit jihad,” and said the men were part of a “homegrown terrorism” movement. Given conservatives’ recent hysterical declarations that U.S. prisons are unfit to handle terrorist suspects, Hilzoy challenges the right wing’s talking points in regards to the imprisonment of these “homegrown” terrorists:
This raises the difficult question: what should we do with these would-be terrorists while they await trial? And if they are convicted, what then? I assume that if it’s too dangerous to move people at Guantanamo to the United States, it must be much too dangerous to allow these jihadists to run loose in our prisons. After all, they might provide financing for other jihadists from their supermax cells, or radicalize other prisoners, or use special Terrorist Mind Control Techniques to create a whole army of brainwashed convicts under their complete control.
Steele: We Need Guns To Defend Ourselves Against ‘Terrorists’ Coming To ‘Our Communities’
Steele: We Need Guns To Defend Ourselves Against ‘Terrorists’ Coming To ‘Our Communities’
Today, RNC Chairman Michael Steele spoke at the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) “Celebration of American Values” Leadership Forum. During his speech today, Steele criticized Barack Obama’s potential Supreme Court nominee, saying the President is “looking to put Doctor Phil on the Court.”
Steele also played to his NRA audience by fear-mongering that Democrats may take away Americans’ guns. He claimed that those guns are more necessary than ever since Guantanamo detainees may soon be in the United States and the public will have to defend itself:
It is ironic, to say the least, that at the same time Democrats in Congress are threatening to deny Americans their second amendment right to own a firearm and defend their families and homes, they are considering bringing terrorists like 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other Al Qaeda detainees to our communities once the President follows through on his campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay.
Since Obama announced that he was shutting down the Guantanamo Bay prison, conservatives have been warning that terrorists will soon be “living in your backyard.” “We don’t want these terrorists in our neighborhoods,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said yesterday on Fox News. “We don’t want them in our jails.” (Of couse, Guantanamo detainees transferred to the U.S. for trials would actually be housed in federal prisons, where dozens of dangerous terrorists are already held. In fact, the U.S. has already successfully prosecuted 145 terrorism cases in federal court, a sharp contrast to the series of debacles in Guantanamo prosecutions.)
Even though Steele was the only candidate running for the RNC chairmanship who didn’t own a gun, he has happily picked up the gun industry’s talking points touted by conservatives like Glenn Beck and Chuck Norris. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has said that the American people should be armed and ready to “fight back” on “this issue of the energy tax.”
Just two years ago, Steele came out forcefully against assault weapons, saying that they were “overkill.” “If you want to talk about gun control, that’s where you need to start,” said Steele. “We’ve got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it’s about how we enforce the law.” However, a few months ago he changed his mind and said that a ban on assault weapons was just the first step in the Obama administration’s plan “repeal the 2nd Amendment.”
Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter to speak at ‘anti-Islamist’ conference.
Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter to speak at ‘anti-Islamist’ conference.
The Washington Independent’s Dave Weigel notes that on May 19, a coalition of conservative legal groups will be hosting a conference titled, “Libel Lawfare: Silencing Criticism of Radical Islam.” Here’s a description of the event:
Islamists have launched a two-pronged effort to suppress free discourse on such subjects as Islam, radical Islam, terrorism, and terrorist funding:
* By filing predatory lawsuits.
* By passing “hate speech” and defamation laws.Victims of these “lawfare” attacks have included the famous and the obscure, politicians, journalists, analysts and plain citizens. This inhibition has great consequences, for when discussion of Islam and terrorism are limited, radical Islam is empowered and Western civilization is imperiled.
Issues to be discussed on May 19 include: A close analysis of Islamist methods; the possible need for legislation to protect free speech on these topics; a comparison of the situation in Europe and the United States; and ways to prevent the United Nations from curtailing discussion of Islam.
Speakers include Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, and…Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), who will be giving the opening speech.
FEMA removes ‘scary’ 9/11 coloring book from its website.
FEMA removes ‘scary’ 9/11 coloring book from its website.
The Smoking Gun reports that FEMA has “removed a children’s coloring book from its web site following criticism over its inclusion of drawings of the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. The coloring book, titled ‘A Scary Thing Happened,’ is geared towards helping kids ‘cope with disasters.’” A picture of the book’s cover:
The book was originally created in 2003 for the Freeborn County Crisis Response Team in Minnesota by Marlys Jentoft, a grandmother of 10, who said she didn’t realize the 9/11 images would be controversial. “I feel like it was happening in the world and kids saw it,” she said. “It is life.” Other “scary” images in the book include floods, fire, and tornadoes, and Gawker points out that one page asks children to “Draw a picture of yourself before the disaster.”
Other 9/11 image from the coloring book below: More »
RedState editor: Obama is trying to goad terrorists into attacking the United States ASAP.
RedState editor: Obama is trying to goad terrorists into attacking the United States ASAP.
Since President Obama decided to release the Bush-era OLC memos outlining the administration’s torture program, conservatives have been trying to argue that the disclosures make the country less safe. Today, RedState Editor-in-Chief Erick Erickson takes the meme a step further, arguing that Obama wants to make the country less safe. In fact, Obama is hoping for a terrorist attack sooner rather than later so he can blame it all on the Bush administration:
We know, because Joe Biden told us, that the Obama administration expects us to get attacked again domestically. [...]
The best strategy would look something like taking a band-aid off quickly. Get the pain over fast. And if an attack happens quickly enough into the new administration, they can blame Bush.
So the Obama administration is working hard to release all the memos on interrogations, change all the policies Bush implemented, and clear out the old as fast as possible. Never mind that if it were done slowly over time, our terrorist enemies might not be so incited to attack.
If your working premise is that they are going to attack anyway, get them incited quickly, get it over with, and blame Bush. There is no other justification for so quickly making us less safe.
On Twitter, Erickson added, “Hilarious to watch the lefties explode over this. … Truth hurts I guess.”
DHS Report: After Obama’s Election, Right-Wing Extremists ‘May Be Gaining New Recruits’
DHS Report: After Obama’s Election, Right-Wing Extremists ‘May Be Gaining New Recruits’
Throughout the presidential campaign, the public saw extreme right-wing rhetoric on display at several McCain rallies, with some yelling “kill him” about President Obama — and others even calling him a “terrorist.”
The extreme right — those who are “hate-oriented,” “mainly antigovernment,” or those dedicated to a “single issue” — is a legitimate threat that law enforcement must deal with, according to a new assessment from the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. The report, which was coordinated with the FBI and is being given to federal, state, and local law enforcement, warns:
[R]ightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
Most extremists have made “rhetorical” statements and have “stopp[ed] short of calls for violent action,” but since the 2008 election, right-wing extremists are “reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.” Some highlights from the report:
Anti-immgration: “Rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.”
Recruiting returning vets: “Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.”
Gun-related violence: “Heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms … may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.”
If the “uncertain economy” and a “perceived rising influence of other countries” continues, “rightwing extremism is likely to grow in strength,” the report adds. “[L]one wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”
The DHS under President Bush was apparently more reluctant to make such assessments about the right. According to CQ, a 2005 report outlining terrorist threats “does not mention anti-government groups, white supremacists and other radical right-wing movements.” Bush’s report did, however, list the threat of left-wing groups such as the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front. And a 2001 report from the Energy Department examined “Left-Wing Extremism: The Current Threat.”
Conservative bloggers — such Michelle Malkin and Newsbusters — are up in arms over the report. A DHS official responded to the right’s criticism, noting that DHS did an assessment of left-wing extremism in January. “This is nothing unusual. … This is about awareness,” the official said.
Hume: The Bush Administration Didn’t Really Blame Clinton For 9/11
Hume: The Bush Administration Didn’t Really Blame Clinton For 9/11
Last week on Hannity, former Florida governor Jeb Bush implored Obama to stop criticizing his brother’s legacy. “If I had one humble criticism of President Obama, it would be to stop this notion of somehow framing everything in the context of, ‘Everything was bad before I got here,’” said Bush.
Today the panelists on Fox News Sunday discussed these comments, and whether Obama is out of bounds by invoking his predecessor’s failed policies. Even Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that it’s normal for presidents to blame current problems on their predecessors. “The Democrats blamed Herbert Hoover for everything for about 20 years, and the Republicans blamed Jimmy Carter for everything for quite awhile,” said Kristol.
When NPR news analyst Juan Williams then pointed out that President Bush and his administration officials also often blamed the Clinton administration for their problems, Fox News’s Brit Hume jumped in and said, “There was very little of that”:
WILLIAMS: This is just politics. That’s what you do. You blame your predecessor and you do it for as long as possible because it buys you time. And even after 9/11, all the Bush administration officials were pointing out, “Hey, what about that Bill Clinton? Why didn’t he do a better job with getting the terrorists when he had the opportunity?”
HUME: There was very little of that.
WILLIAMS: Well, it was around. In fact, I think Bill Clinton got into it with you [Wallace] about just that point.
HUME: Yeah, but Chris doesn’t represent the Bush administration.
WALLACE: I don’t remember that exchange. (LAUGHTER)
Watch it:
In fact, in a September 2006 interview with the New York Post editorial board, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice received considerable attention for placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of President Clinton:
Nobody organized this country or the international community to fight the terrorist threat that was upon us until 9/11. … We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida. For instance, big pieces were missing, like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren’t going to get Afghanistan.
In a speech on Aug. 30, 2005, Bush said that three out of his four predecessors — excluding his father — didn’t respond sufficiently to crises, which emboldened terrorists and led to 9/11:
They looked at our response after the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy. … After September the 11th, 2001, we’ve taught the terrorists a very different lesson: America will not run in defeat and we will not forget our responsibilities.
On the domestic front, Bush and his advisers also repeatedly said that they “inherited a recession” from Clinton.
Transcript: More »
Gibbs calls Cheney ‘the next most popular member of the Republican cabal’ after Limbaugh.
Gibbs calls Cheney ‘the next most popular member of the Republican cabal’ after Limbaugh.
Yesterday on CNN, former Vice President Cheney said Obama was making Americans less safe. Today, when CNN’s Ed Henry asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs for his reaction to Cheney’s criticisms, Gibbs said that CNN invited Cheney because “Rush Limbaugh was busy,” and called Cheney “the next most popular member of the Republican cabal.” Addressing Cheney’s critique, Gibbs pointed out that under Obama, terrorist suspects “would finally be brought to justice,” unlike under Cheney’s regime:
I think the American people will, in this administration, see those actors brought to the swift and certain justice that was not brought to them in the previous administration.
Watch it:
Henry also asked for Gibbs’ reaction to Cheney’s criticisms of Obama’s handling of the economic crisis. “I think not taking economic advice from Dick Cheney would be maybe the best possible outcome of yesterday’s interview,” Gibbs said.
Fleischer Defends Iraq Invasion: After 9/11, ‘How Could We Take A Chance’ That Saddam Might ‘Strike Again’?
Fleischer Defends Iraq Invasion: After 9/11, ‘How Could We Take A Chance’ That Saddam Might ‘Strike Again’?
Yesterday on MSNBC, former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was back to defend President Bush’s legacy. One of the flack’s favorite subjects is the Iraq war. Last month, he went on CNN and said that Saddam Hussein — not the Bush administration — was actually “the big liar.” Yesterday he dragged out a long-recycled talking point: Saddam was behind 9/11. He also claimed that President Obama owes Bush a big “thank you”:
FLEISCHER: It was in part because of Iraq and large part because of the economy that Barack Obama won. Having said that, I also think Barack Obama should say thank you every day that he inherited a world without Saddam Hussein in it. The one thing people are going to remember the most is that he kept us safe. [...]
But after September 11th, having been being hit once, how could we take a chance that Saddam Hussein might not strike again? We got a report saying al Qaeda is determined to attack the United States. Well, that’s not a surprise. Of course, they are. It doesn’t say where, it doesn’t say when, it doesn’t say how. So, if you get a report like that, what do you do?
Watch it:
Let’s go over it again: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Of course, Bush and his ilk tried to convince the public that there was a connection in order to push for the invasion of Iraq.
In the past year, Bush administration officials have continued to defend this lie. As recently as December, Bush said that he stood behind his decision to push this discredited connection in order to go to war, even if the facts were wrong. Condoleezza Rice argued in July, “In the post 9/11 environment, you couldn’t let a threat to international peace and stability like that [Saddam] Hussein] remain.” Vice President Cheney is refusing to even admit that they were ever wrong, saying in March 2008, “Now, was that a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Seems to me pretty clear that there was.”
Over at the Wonk Room, Matt Duss looks at “the massive success of George W. Bush’s presidency” in Fleischer’s world, writing, “So Bush deserves no blame for the attack that occurred in the first year of his presidency, but he deserves full credit for the fact that no more attacks occurred for the rest of his presidency. I find this argument to be an insult to snake oil.”
(HT: Wayne Schneider and TP Zoo)
Attack on Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan rouses anger against militants.
Attack on Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan rouses anger against militants.
On Tuesday in Lahore, Pakistan, terrorists waged a brazen attack in broad daylight against members of the Sri Lankan cricket team. The attack has roused Pakistani anger against the militants. “Cricket is so popular here,” said Imran Khan, a former Pakistani cricket legend-turned-politician. “The militants want to gather public support for their campaign. By attacking cricket, they only lose support and isolate themselves.” On The Wonk Room, Dr. Awab Alvi — a popular Pakistani political blogger based in Karachi — offers his perspective:
Barack Obama has naturally condemned this tragic event but the US needs to realize that the lawlessness in Pakistan cannot be quenched by the mere use of force. It must stand to be one of the biggest blunders of the Bush administration when on Nov 3rd the then-President Gen. Pervaiz Musharraf, an ally of George W. Bush, deliberately destroyed the judiciary. […]
The American forces must now continue to engage with the Pakistan Army to help empower them to cleanse the trouble spots in Pakistan, while pressure needs to be applied upon the elected government to improve and empower the independence of Judiciary in Pakistan. It is only when a society feels the security of a free and fair society will it have the will to shun terrorism and bring into accountability the perpetrators, for now the corrupt and ruthless have a far stronger hand as compared to the weak and downtrodden.
A new Center for American Progress report questions the now-frequent U.S.-led Predator strikes inside Pakistan. “While these strikes may bear some meaningful short- and medium-term successes, as a long-term strategy their value is less clear,” writes Colin Cookman.
Government lawyer reveals that CIA destroyed 92 interrogation tapes.
Government lawyer reveals that CIA destroyed 92 interrogation tapes.
In December 2007, the New York Times reported that the CIA “destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody” in 2005. The tapes reportedly showed detainees being subjected to “severe interrogation techniques.” Now, in a letter to federal district Judge Alvin Hellerstein dated March 2, government lawyers reveal that nearly 100 such tapes were destroyed:
“The CIA can now identify the number of videotapes that were destroyed,” said the letter by Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin. “Ninety two videotapes were destroyed.”
The tapes became a contentious issue in the trial of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, after prosecutors initially claimed no such recordings existed, then acknowledged two videotapes and one audiotape had been made.
The letter, dated March 2 to Judge Alvin Hellerstein, says the CIA is now gathering more details for the lawsuit, including a list of the destroyed records, any secondary accounts that describe the destroyed contents, and the identities of those who may have viewed or possessed the recordings before they were destroyed.
The letter was filed as part of the government’s response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in response to the December 2007 New York Times report. Former CIA director Michael Hayden previously defended the destruction of the tapes, saying it was “done in line with the law.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll