White House says critics helping al-qaeda

#1

utvolpj

Bandwagon Mod
Staff member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
93,769
Likes
65,428
#1
I didn't search but I'm sure this same thread was started just a few years ago. The more things change...

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."

WH: Some Critics 'Serving the Goals of al Qaeda'* - Political Punch
 
#2
#2
Wow is this the same crowd who complained about this during W's administration? That pesky double standard thing just keeps popping up in the most unusual places...
 
#5
#5
still waiting for VolinMN to post his scare tactics pic again
 
#6
#6
VolinMN isn't overly leftist. Seems practical, but liberal, to me.

I'm awaiting the Glenn Beck / Hannity / Palin retort from the booted UF Law student.
 
#7
#7
I think the idea that "politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda" is true, regardless of who's in office.

It seems logical to me that it serves their interests to see any sort of fissure in our system.
 
#10
#10
Sort of like Harry Reid saying our troops basically lost in Iraq?

I assume you're talking about what he said in 2007. Certainly he shouldn't have said that publicly. No question.


Also, Iraq ≠ al-Qaeda.
 
#16
#16
You're quite welcome, Mr. Taking a Discussion About al-Qaeda And Bring Up Iraq.

Ummm...fear mongering and pointless rhetoric covers more ground than just "al Qaeda". And when Reid made the comment it covered the fact we were fighting an insurgency based mainly of al Qaeda in Iraq.

To help you with the point, it's hypocritical for this side who did the same thing a couple of years ago on the all encompassing war on terror (man-made disaster for the PC crowd) to start using the same line that was mocked then...
 
#17
#17
They're just trying to clean up Bush's mess, don'tcha know.
 
#18
#18
Oh there you go....you just had to bring up Bush in an al Qaeda thread...ughhhh.

Bush ≠ al Qaeda!
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
Once again, loose and imprecise language dooms this entrie "story" (posted originally by Drudge, of course) as well as the majority of posts in this thread.

The criticism of Bush was that he was using terrorism as an excuse to launch and perpetuate a war with a country not nearly as related ot terrorism against the US as was being claimed at the time. The argument was that, in doing so, he gave the actual terrorists more to work with in terms of brewing hate against the US.

The story above is given the - extremely misleading -headline " White House says critics helping Al-qaeda."

But if you read the quote, he is saying that whipping people up into a frenzy by bashing the Obama administration's handling of the war on terror plays into the hands of the terrorists and their goal of causing our citizens to worry all the time, even though chances of the citizen being involved in an attack are extremely remote.

There is nothing wrong with telling the American people not to stop living their lives because of this. That is what is meant by fear-mongering.

Now, you might disagree with that. And that's fine. You might want alarms going off constantly. Okay, I get that. But the rights continuous deliberate misstatement of what has been said by the WH and its officials so as to spin up contrived outrage is just getting so old. They need to find a new ploy.
 
Last edited:
#22
#22
Now, you might disagree with that. And that's fine. You might want alarms going off constantly. Okay, I get that. But the rights continuous deliberate misstatement of what has been said by the WH and its officials so as to spin up contrived outrage is just getting so old. They need to find a new ploy.

So now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's getting old? "Mission Accomplished", "No War for Oil", "Bush lied, People died", anyone?
 
#23
#23
I want to know when the expiration date for "Blame Bush" is. Pretty much all of the evils in this country somehow trace back to Bush and is all-powerful reach.
 
#24
#24
I read Brennan's op-ed.

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."

But he said the most important breakthrough in the interrogation occurred "after Abdulmutallab was read his rights."

So we're not to be naive to think a military process would result in spilling the beans so to speak but we are to believe that by magically reading the guy his rights THIS caused him to sing like a canary?? I think the GOP response is justified with the "voice" of the WH policy sounding like this. I'd be embarrassed to defend this...
 

VN Store



Back
Top