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.”

OK, so when I first read this, I thought it pretty incredulous. Considering the host of issues revolving around terrorism and this administration, I find this effort to stymie any criticism pretty shallow.

An example of hyprocracy would be:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is “lost.”

This little jewel- a huge piece of support to those in combat- stated this in April 2007. Now, this was especially memorable to me because I was in Iraq at the time. Most of us chuckled because, by this time, we already saw Reid and most Dems working to hurt us.

I don’t say this in jest, when you look at Brennan’s statement, “Politically motivated criticism” he describes exactly what has occurred this century. There has always been partisan bickering, there always will be, but it was 2000 and Al Gore’s loss that sent the left over the edge.

The only time the Dems were willing to put partisan issues aside was immediately after 9/11, because the American people would not stand for it. But that didn’t stand long. The vitriol of the 2004 campaign was numbing, to the point that you had a major news network and evening news anchor actually making stuff up.

When you look at Katrina and its aftermath, it is nothing but politically motivated criticism. Anyone who has actually looked at the facts would tell you that what was projected in the media and what was the reality of the situation were miles, if not leagues, apart. The Mayor and Governor- both Dems- own 90% of the fault of Katrina, yet they tried- and with huge media support- to lay it at Bush’s door. It was beyond intellectually dishonest.

And since we’re on the topic of intellectual dishonesty, let us return to Brennan’s statement. He said it is:

“[n]aive 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.”

For me, a couple things immediately jumped out. First was that somehow, there is little to no difference in interrogation techniques. This may be true from a technical perspective, however, when you- as a detainee- know that you are in a civilian legal process versus being a enemy combatant, then the fear factor is significantly diminished. I’m not talking about fear of being waterboarded, I’m talking about knowing what the future might hold. Secondly, we know that he supposedly starting talking after plea bargaining began. This should make anyone’s skin crawl- we’re negotiating with a terrorist to lesson his sentence should he provide us with information- something we would not have to do if he was in the military process.

The second thing that jumped out at me was this, “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.” Why in the hell are we then putting Khalid Sheik Muhammad into the federal system? If there is little difference, then why break with decades of precedence and apply OUR constitutional rights to a terrorist responsible for killing thousands? This statement demonstrates how shallow Eric Holder and the rest of the Obama administration are on the issue of terrorism.

We’ve been subjected to rhetoric describing how different Obama is from Bush, how he is so much better and how he is applying standards once again, yet whenever he gets into hot water on an issue, what does he do? ‘We’re doing the same thing as the Bush administration.’ So, is Obama a change or just Bush Dark?

There are legitimate concerns on how Obama is attending to the issue of terrorism. To call those criticisms unpatriotic or a boon to al-Qaeda is not only dishonest and transparent, but extremely ignorant.

Advertisements