Homeland Insecurity Advisor John Brennan

Getting pummelled for his incompetence and partisanship ... when you can't argue the facts, attack the messenger, which is what the White House and its lackeys do ...


Brennan Embarrasses Himself [Rory Cooper]

Earlier this weekend, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin told Chris Wallace in a Fox News interview that the Obama administration’s position on dissent is that detractors should “sit down and shut up.” The Huffington Post crowd immediately jumped on the statement, saying it couldn’t be supported.

Well, 24 hours later, White House homeland-security adviser John Brennan put this argument to rest by publishing a blog in USA Today that not only tells Americans to sit down and shut up but also accuses them of “serv[ing] the goals of al-Qaeda” if they question the president’s national-security strategy — as if two-sided political discourse is al-Qaeda’s ultimate goal.

In fewer than 400 words, Brennan embarrasses himself with half-truths, selective omissions, and name-calling hysteria. But more importantly, he identifies one of the major problems facing the Obama White House: They lack a credible leader on homeland security that the American people fully trust. This problem clearly began when DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano came out days after Christmas saying “the system worked.”

Keep reading this post . . .


Brennan Must Go [Victor Davis Hanson]

I wrote my Corner posting on John Brennan, Richard Clarke, et al. and the Obama's Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde attitude about criticizing government anti-terrorism protocols before Brennan's surreal op-ed in today's USA Today. If one were to take his highly partisan August 6 speech lambasting the Bush war on terror (replete with a rambling, obsequious paean to his new boss) with his present attack on those he thinks are too partisan in their criticism of this president, one could only conclude that Brennan has gone beyond hypocrisy and is seriously confused — and probably has no business serving as the country's top anti-terrorism adviser.

Here's Brennan in August 2009: "The fight against terrorists and violent extremists has been returned to its right and proper place: no longer defining — indeed, distorting — our entire national security and foreign policy, but rather serving as a vital part of those larger policies." And here's Brennan in February 2010: "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."

I think characterizing seven years of successful anti-terrorism policy as "distorting . . . our entire national security and foreign policy" qualifies as "politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering." It is time for Brennan to gracefully bow out and let federal counterterrorism be conducted by people who don't alternately and mercurially damn and praise presidents for careerist and partisan purposes or suggest that legitimate worries about Mirandizing the Christmas Day bomber and trying in civilian court the architect of 9/11 a few thousand yards from the scene of his mass-murdering somehow "serve the goals of al-Qaeda."

The brighter minds in the Obama administration will soon grasp that whatever transient gratification the attack-dog Brennan brings them in the debate over civilian/military trials is far outweighed by the damage he does to the necessary sense of nonpartisan vigilance (which he more or less cast off in his very first speech on the job).


100-Foot-Tall Terrorists [Shannen Coffin]

One of the more foolish observations made by John Brennan in his USA Today piece is that "terrorists are not 100-feet tall." He suggests that policies that pre-dated the Obama administration were grounded in little more than "fear-mongering." Omar Abdulmuttalab was a slight 23-year-old Nigerian. He intended to kill more than 100 innocents and nearly got away with it. He was backed by a network that has declared its intention to send dozens if not hundreds more slight, little Abdulmuttalabs into the United States to kill innocents. And the administration's response made it more difficult to understand that network.

Terrorists don't need to be 100-feet tall to inflict significant damage on our country. Perhaps they don't "deserve the abject fear they seek to instill," but they do deserve a fully committed response from the federal government. John Brennan has become more a part of the political messaging response team at the White House, rather than a 24/7 protector of the homeland. His remarkably thin-skinned response to serious, principled criticisms of Obama's anti-terrorism policies show him unfit for his current position.

Besides, if terrrorists were 100-feet tall, this administration would only tell the world not to jump to any conclusions about giants.


Sen. Bond: Brennan 'Needs to Go' [Robert Costa]

After a long career of straight-faced service, John Brennan, President Obama’s deputy national-security adviser, has started to snarl. In a USA Today op-ed, he rants about how “politically-motivated criticism” of the administration’s handling of the failed Christmas Day bombing serves “the goals of al-Qaeda.” You don’t get it, he fumes: My critics are “naïve,” “fear-mongering,” and “absurd.” Sen. Kit Bond (R., Mo.), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, tells National Review Online that Brennan’s op-ed is “baffling” and part of a “political mess at the White House” that “puts our country at risk.”

Bond says that Brennan “needs to go,” and is no longer “credible.” Brennan’s recent “troubling decisions,” he adds, “have destroyed my confidence in him.” Firing Brennan, he says, “would be part” of fixing Obama’s national-security woes, though not enough. “A drastic change in policy is needed,” he says. “Our problem now is that we have to wonder whether we can trust [Brennan] after he has been a mouthpiece for the political arm that I thought only came out of the White House press office.”

“It is hard to trust anyone in the White House right now,” Bond says. “The national-security team has become a bench of political spokespeople. It doesn’t speak well of the individuals, but let’s remember that these continued attacks must be coming from the top, from the president himself, to try and deflect the mistakes they made in giving Miranda rights to the Christmas Day bomber.”


Re: Brennan Must Go [Marc Thiessen]

Lost in the debate over Brennan’s comments is that he’s not just lashing out at critics on the right. As I point out here, his column today was written in response to criticism from the editorial board of USA Today, which declared the Obama administration’s handling of the Abdulmutallab case “amateur hour.” Also criticizing the administration is the editorial page of the Washington Post, which declared the handling of Abdulmutallab’s interrogation “myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous.”

Are these two liberal newspapers engaged in “fear-mongering” in service to the “goals of al-Qaeda”?

When Dick Cheney, the Washington Post, and USA Today all agree, that’s about as close as you get to consensus here in Washington, D.C.


The (False) Gospel According to John [Dana M. Perino and Bill Burck]

In response to today’s excoriating editorial by the usually Obama-friendly USA Today editorial board about the administration’s bungled handling of Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, haughtily writes that “we need no lectures” from critics in the media, the Congress, and the public. We were among the first to call out the administration on treating Abdulmutallab like a criminal rather than an enemy combatant, so we assume some of Brennan’s anger may be directed at us.

Let us respond to some of his points:

Immediately after the failed Christmas Day attack, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thoroughly interrogated and provided important information.

The administration has spent the past two weeks telling anyone who will listen, including our enemies overseas (whom Abdulmutallab apparently is flipping on), that Abdulmutallab’s family convinced him to start cooperating six weeks after he was Mirandized. Indeed, this is when Brennan himself writes that “[t]he most important breakthrough occurred.” How, then, could Abdulmutallab have been “thoroughly interrogated” immediately after he was arrested if “the most important breakthrough” came six weeks later, and only after his family intervened? This glaring contradiction goes unaddressed.

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.

Well, someone isn’t telling the American public the truth. Either the heads of the intelligence community lied to Congress several weeks ago when they all testified, under oath, they were not consulted, or Brennan is fibbing now. We hope it’s the latter, because the former is a potentially criminal offense. No one is going to jail for lying to the public.

The most important breakthrough occurred after Abdulmutallab was read his rights, a long-standing FBI policy that was reaffirmed under Michael Mukasey, President Bush's attorney general.

This is only the policy if the FBI is placed in charge of the arrest and interrogation. This is circular reasoning at its best — we Mirandized Abdulmutallab because we had to under FBI policy because we called in the FBI. Hmm. We would hope for better from the White House’s top expert on counterterrorism.

Keep reading this post . . .


Rep. Peter King: Brennan the ‘Egomaniac’ [Robert Costa]

“An egomaniac” — that’s how Rep. Peter King of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, describes John Brennan, President Obama’s deputy national-security adviser, after reading Brennan’s op-ed in USA Today that says criticism of the administration’s handling of the failed Christmas Day bombing serves the “goals of al-Qaeda.” It is “the most mindless, self-serving, and irresponsible statement that a homeland-security adviser can make,” King says.

“This is another case of John Brennan not knowing what he is talking about,” King tells National Review Online. “Brennan is trying to be cute by saying that on Christmas Day he briefed Republicans and Democrats. Leave aside the fact that he didn’t brief me, but he didn’t tell anybody anything that day other than the bare facts that were pretty much known to the public. He said that [Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab] was in FBI custody. Now he’s claiming that that means he told people that [Abdulmutallab] was receiving Miranda rights and no one objected. If that’s what Brennan considers being honest and forthright, then we know that John Brennan is not being honest and forthright.”

King adds that on Christmas night, Brennan built an “iron curtain of secrecy” around the handling of Abdulmutallab and “kept information” from members of Congress. President Obama, he notes, is “encouraging Brennan” and giving him “much leeway” to make political statements