This Is Rich: The Obama Administration Says Some Critics “Serving The Goals Of Al Qaeda”

by Melissa Clouthier | February 9, 2010 9:23 am

Update from Byron York[1]. Read the whole thing. He catches Brennan in not a few lies.

From the USA Today, an op-ed by John Brennan where he concludes[2]:

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.

I actually agree: Politics have no place in national security.

But this admonishment is nigh unto guffaw-worthy coming from an administration that got elected on the politically charged platform of closing Guantanemo, stopping “torture” (the military does not and never has tortured), and “gaining respect” in the world again–implying that President Bush diminished respect.

In fact, President Obama cannot stop blaming President Bush, who managed to keep America safe after 9/11.

A year ago, when President Obama gave his Egypt speech and then softened his stance to terrorism and used the language of appeasement, I wrote that he would pay an inordinately high political price should America get attacked.

Well, America has been attacked…and not just one time. And when America has been attacked, the administration has bumbled around both rhetorically and policy-wise. They don’t know what they’re doing. It’s obvious.

And the administration has used political theater to try to win points with the public and their greater audience the world, by bringing the Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial to New York City. The only problem is that no one wants the trial there, including the very liberal New Yorkers who voted for Obama. Oops! Wrong use of politics!

So, while the Obama administration is coming around to Bush-style terrorism approaches[3], they don’t want politics used against them. Well, the American people aren’t interested in fighting fair. They’re interested in their commander-in-chief having a spine.

When President Obama is perceived as weak, it doesn’t matter if every single policy is the same as the Bush administration–it’s not, but for the sake of argument. The American people won’t forgive harm in the face of weakness.

I submit that President Bush would have gotten more of a pass had another attack happened because people perceived that he was doing everything within his power to fight terrorism. And he didn’t wince when he talked about evil jihadists.

Jake Tapper has more[4].

  1. Byron York:
  2. John Brennan where he concludes:
  3. Bush-style terrorism approaches:
  4. has more:

Source URL: