1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Obama Admin: You're either with us, or with the terrorists

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by basso, Feb 9, 2010.

  1. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,403
    Likes Received:
    9,319
    Money quote:

    Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.

    [rquoter]Administration disrupts terrorists’ plots, takes fight to them abroad.

    By John Brennan
    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.

    Immediately after the failed Christmas Day attack, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thoroughly interrogated and provided important information. Senior counterterrorism officials from the White House, the intelligence community and the military were all actively discussing this case before he was Mirandized and supported the decision to charge him in criminal court.

    The most important breakthrough occurred after Abdulmutallab was read his rights, which the FBI made standard policy under Michael Mukasey, President Bush's attorney general. The critics who want the FBI to ignore this long-established practice also ignore the lessons we have learned in waging this war: 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.

    It's 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.

    Would-be 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.

    Cries to try terrorists only in military courts lack foundation. There have been three convictions of terrorists in the military tribunal system since 9/11, and hundreds in the criminal justice system — including high-profile terrorists such as Reid and 9/11 plotter Zacarius Moussaoui.

    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.

    Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda. Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill. They will, however, be dismantled and destroyed, by our military, our intelligence services and our law enforcement community. And the notion that America's counterterrorism professionals and America's system of justice are unable to handle these murderous miscreants is absurd.

    John Brennan is Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.[/rquoter]

    Byron York does a good job dismantling the various strawmen raised by the Brennan op-ed, but one wonders why it was apparently patriotic to criticize the management of the WOT during the Bush years, but treason to do so now?
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,790
    Likes Received:
    3,708
    First of all, Obama didn't say that, second of all as usual you missed the point. Brennan briefed these republican leaders on what tatics they would use, the republicans didn't have any concern when they were told of the plot after the guy was arrested.


    then after several days they questioned intelligence members and the adminstration in the media, after signing off on the tatics.

    lastly, brennan is defending the fbi and cia more than he is defending obama.
     
  3. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,810
    Likes Received:
    20,466
    This is an old tactic. You are right it's not what Obama or Brennan said. What they said is using fear as a political tool is serving Al Qaeda's purposes.

    That is something different than criticizing Obama's tactics. One criticize Obama's tactics without using fear as a political tool.

    Byron York and basso are misrepresenting the initial op-ed. It isn't surprising.
     
  4. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,403
    Likes Received:
    9,319
    ABC, misrepresentin' the presidebt:

    WH: Some Critics Serving the goals of al queda.

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

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

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

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

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

    He suggests that many critics are hypocritical and clueless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    - jpt

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

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    basso why are you being a traitor and not supporting the president in this time of war?

    NC
     
  6. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    48,989
    Likes Received:
    19,932
    Delete post, ban user for lying.
     
  7. Blake

    Blake Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    9,970
    Likes Received:
    3,005
    Kind of like how the W admin called the Iraq mistake "The War on Terror" even though SH had NOTHING TO DO with AQ???

    also, I'll raise you a, "You're either with us...or against us"
     
  8. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,790
    Likes Received:
    3,708
    where does the ABC op ed say the white house is saying you're either with us or against us

    why is the white house wrong to defend themselves?
     
  9. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    35,060
    Likes Received:
    15,236
    1. I don't think he accused anyone of being "with the terrorists."

    2. He didn't accuse anyone of treason.

    3. This is the same complaint the Bush White House made. It's about as dumb now as it was when Bush did it.
     
  10. BetterThanI

    BetterThanI Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,181
    Likes Received:
    381
    Using logic with basso is like putting out a fire with gasoline.

    [​IMG]
     
  11. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,136
    Likes Received:
    10,190
    Actually, under certain conditions, you can put out a fire with gasoline... it's just not advised.
     
  12. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,810
    Likes Received:
    20,466
    Actually ABC isn't misrepresenting either. You are again misrepresenting what ABC is claiming.

    You are 0 for 2.
     

Share This Page