Republicans Have No Business Pointing Fingers, Do They?

DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen:

In general, we are facing the consequences of the Bush administration's failures to deal with al Qaeda. The Republicans have no business in pointing fingers at the Obama administration on terrorism and national security."


The Obama administration has been much more aggressive about going after al Qaeda than the Bush administration, which turned its focus from al Qaeda to Iraq..."  [The Administration has] been on the offense in places where the Bush administration had taken its eye off the ball.

Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. Seems pretty reasonable though. And the far right sure has politicized this attack attempt, mighty quick.

As Steve Benen of Washington Monthly points out: 

Bush/Cheney released the terrorist plotters into.."art therapy rehabilitation" b) failed.. to keep America and its allies safe from terrorism during the former administration's eight years; c) the same Republican lawmakers whining now also voted against funding for the Transportation Safety Administration, including money for screening operations and explosives detection systems; and d) that Obama has succeeded on counter-terrorism fronts that Bush/Cheney only talked about.

But that's not the real issue here. The real issue is the crass politicization of this issue, with, of course, an assist (as almost always) from the crack expert counter terrorism unit over at the Washington Post.

More Expert Anti-Terrorism Advice: Quick, Who Said This?

(Update below)
What Far Right, Zealous, anti-Obama Ideologue, and on what random blog, wrote the following:

By staying in Hawaii, the president has sent the message that the situation really isn’t all that serious, that things can proceed just fine until he’s back. And isn’t it that kind of reasoning that emboldens our never-vacationing enemies into thinking Christmas Day is the perfect time for them to strike?

That is, that because some random terrorist (who should never have made it into the U.S.) -- who of course claims allegiance to and apparently had some ties to al-Qi'da, tried to blow up an airplane -- our President is sending the wrong message by staying In Hawaii. In other words, let's go nutso whenver al-Qi'da does something, so that they know they can really get us into a tizzy even by failed attempts.  Or, um, perhaps we should send the message that they can't throw us into a tizzy?

That is, so long as Obama is not needed in Washington to help orchestrate any strategies or thwart any attacks -- a pretty big stretch if one was to make it. But that's not what this zealous anti Obama site is saying. This site is just saying that Obama, taking it in stride in a way that has no negative practical or strategic ramifications for us, is "sending them" the wrong message. 

Where did this person writing on this site get their anti terrorist training, anyway?  Because it looks like they could use a refresher course.

So what site was this?  The Washington Post, and Jo-Ann Armao.

Let's check out her reasoning again:

By staying in Hawaii...isn’t it that kind of reasoning that emboldens our never-vacationing enemies into thinking Christmas Day is the perfect time for them to strike?

So what Christmas day would they strike? Christmas day tomorrow?   Wouldn't that be an argument for staying in Washington next Christmas day, next year? (To the extent Obama being in Washington is even relevant.) Maybe our President should never travel oveseas, either?  The argument that by him staying in Hawaii we are not taking terrorism "seriously," as opposed to not sending al-Qi'da the message that they can have even more of an effect on us than they need to, is really pretty weak.

Terrorism is a tough topic.  A lot of people have ideas on it, but few have any idea what they are talking about.  Jo-Ann Armao is one of those people. And not suprisingly, she writes for the Washington Post.

Update: Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald offers a more scathing indictment of Armao's counter terrorism "expertise,"but essentially makes the same points:

Scampering back to Washington -- "hotfooted" or otherwise -- would have been the worst possible thing that Obama could have done. It would have created a climate of frenzy and panic and thus helped to terrorize the country even more -- which, one might want to recall, is the goal, by definition, of Terrorists. The fact that Obama doesn't hysterically run around like some sort of frightened chicken with his head cut off every time Al Qaeda sneezes -- or swagger to the nearest camera to beat his chest and play the role of protective daddy-cowboy -- is one of the things I like best about him. As for Armao's "point" about how Janet Napolitano probably took it easy because the "boss was away" -- and her belief that Terrorists will strike more on holidays if Obama isn't affixed to his chair in the Oval Office, as though he's the Supreme Airport Screener: those are so self-evidently dumb it's hard to believe they found their way even into something written by one of Fred Hiatt's editorial writers.

That last point may seem a little harsh. But seriously, whatever one may think of Napolitano's responses, she ought to be ready to just vomit over the inanity of Armao's suggesting that the head of Homeland Security Secretary "took it easy" because the "boss was away." 
We all make mistakes, and write dumb things. But how did this get past Armao's editors? Oh, right. It was the Washington Post.  Your one stop crack team counter-terrorism unit.

MI Rep. Pete Hoekstra Versus MI. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Terrorism, and Health Care

Who wins this debate?

Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra, on funding for the latest technologies in airport screenings:

Voted Nay.

Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra, after the foiled Christmas day airline bombing attempt by a Nigerian whose famous father warned the U.S. Embassy about a month beforehand, now:

Says the U.S. needs to...put into place the latest technology for dealing with it.

But was this a one time slip up, a quick change of heart, or was the vote against "the latest technology for dealing with it" cast for other reasons, while working otherwise to get it applied? 

Here is Hoekstra versus Hoekstra again, accusing House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi of "outrageous accusations," which he has made himself both before and, most notably, since, accusing the CIA himself of outright lying.

Here is Hoekstra in a Detroit Free Press Op ed on the same issue of more effectively combatting terrorism:

On the one hand, the Obama administration claims it will protect our nation from terrorists, but is pursuing CIA officers who used approved interrogation techniques against al Qaeda terrorists.

But this is false information that Hoesktra is representing to his Michigan constituents, and to the American public:

Despite demands from civil libertarian and human rights organizations for a much broader investigation....Attorney General Eric Holder explicitly did not approve such an investigation and opted instead to appoint a special investigator to look only at CIA interrogations that might have gone beyond the techniques approved by the Office of Legal Counsel under Bush. The Washington Post reported this quite clearly:

...The sources said an inquiry would apply only to activities by interrogators, working in bad faith, that fell outside the “four corners” of the legal memos. Some incidents that might go beyond interrogation techniques that were permitted involve detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are described in the secret 2004 CIA inspector general report, set for release Aug. 31.

We're all in agreement that we need to do a more effective job.

But first we need to have correct information.

Promoting erroneous information just further undermines legitimate debate, discussion, and understanding of the actual issues and choices, and increasingly leads to bad policies and politics.

Here's a classic example of bad policies after months of heated public "debate" where misinformation ran rampant -- much of it, sad to say, promulgated by Hoekstra's political party.

Hoekstra himself proselytized and blatantly attacked on that issue --health care --himself:

Democrats want to take away your freedoms!

We don't like the bill either, among, for other reasons, its seeming intrusiveness, mandates, and big government, overly complicated, paperwork excessive nature while at the same time probably only adding more to the real root of the problem.  But is shouting "Democrats want to take away  your freedoms" helping on the matter?

How to Worsen the Battle Against Terrorism

Q: What is you wanted to make the war on terror worse, and you were famous, what would you say?

A:  Something that would make this effort to combat terrorism more -- to Muslims, at least -- like it was a battle against Muslims.

Why would this be one of the most foolish things we could do? Because it is imperative that the Muslim world understand that this is not against Muslims, that it is not impugning Islam (the world's second most popular religion) but is against radical extremist, terrorism, which is far different from the vast majority of Islam.

This is probably the single most critical thing to accomplish to help mitigate and  lessen this problem long term, rather than infalme and broaden it.  In a word, the most important thing we can do, is further marginalize extremist elements, and have Muslims understand that this is not a battle against them. The worst thing we can do is anything helps to convey the opposite.

So what did talk show host Mike Gallagher do? The opposite, of course:

We should anybody who is a known Muslim and put them in a separate line. Call it the VIP line! Treat them with respect!

Did Gallagher take lessons in how to inflame  and provoke and make insanity directed against innocents and the "west" just ever so slightly less insane (still insane, just effecting their view a slight bit in the opposite way that we need to) to a lot of otherwise reasonable people who feel they are being targeted now?
 
Or is he just a natural. 
 
As practical as this idea might sound to some, if you are a Christian, traveling in either your own country, or abroad, and it turns out that some really radical, fringe, lunatic element of the "Christian Faith" which has nothing to do with you, were to be crazy terrorists, how would you feel then to be singled out in your own special "respect line" which is a double check, for terrorism. (Obviously, not something normally associated with "respect.").You'd feel like you were being singled out (and you would be) and that it was your religion that was being impugned. 
 
That is not good, and undermines what we need to accomplish.
 
It is, thus, is a terrible idea.  
 
Most experts in this field, happen to agree. Gallagher, on the other hand, a "guest" on Fox, is no expert.