Obama critics serve the goals of al Qaeda?

[applecorped]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/wh-some-critics-serving-the-goals-of-al-qaeda.html

[Drudgewire]

"Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."


Oh, so you're either with us or against us. How original. :rolleyes:

[Cleon]

Oh, yay, it's John Ashcroft's BS all over again.

[ANTPogo]

This was crap when the Bush Administration pulled it, and it's still crap now that the Obama Administration is doing it.

The criticisms of Obama's handling of the Christmas bomber are stupid and ideologically motivated, but they aren't "serv[ing] the goals of al-Qaeda."

Sheesh.

[willhaven]

Oh, so you're either with us or against us. How original. :rolleyes:It's more about the hypocrisy of those criticizing the Abdulmutallab case not criticizing the Reid case right after 9/11.

They're pretending not to have faith in the same justice system that Bush relied on to try and convict the same kinds of terrorists. Now all of a sudden it's seen as a new dangerous trend when it's really the status quo.

It's politically motivated and it is baseless fear mongering. If one of Al Qaeda's goals is to cause discord and make us live in fear, it would help their goals to resort to partisan bickering for no reason.

Brennan's words may be a bit extreme, but given his position, I can see why he'd be upset at the constant grind defending their position on terrorism when it's the same as the previous administration.

[joobz]

It's more about the hypocrisy of those criticizing the Abdulmutallab case not criticizing the Reid case right after 9/11.

They're pretending not to have faith in the same justice system that Bush relied on to try and convict the same kinds of terrorists. Now all of a sudden it's seen as a new dangerous trend when it's really the status quo.

It's politically motivated and it is baseless fear mongering. If one of Al Qaeda's goals is to cause discord and make us live in fear, it would help their goals to resort to partisan bickering for no reason.

Brennan's words may be a bit extreme, but given his position, I can see why he'd be upset at the constant grind defending their position on terrorism when it's the same as the previous administration.
I agree that was his solid and well argued points. But then he finished off his argument with the "serve the goals of AQ" line, which was simply stupid and false.

As has been mentioned, it was false when Bush admin used it. It is false now. They should know better than to use that stupid line of sophistry.

[Freddy]

This was crap when the Bush Administration pulled it, and it's still crap now that the Obama Administration is doing it.

The criticisms of Obama's handling of the Christmas bomber are stupid and ideologically motivated, but they aren't "serv[ing] the goals of al-Qaeda."

Sheesh.

Agree completely with your first sentence. Not the rest, however. It is perfectly reasonable and legitimate to question the way the interrogation of the eunuch-bomber was handled, and the fact that people who absolutely should have been consulted were not.

It is not reasonable to say that Obama is purposely trying to lose to the terrorists, but debate about the proper way to handle suspects like this is not only okay, it is a healthy exercise in democracy. Sure, plenty of people on both sides are guilty of bad faith, but that does not mean that there aren't perfectly respectable arguments on both sides.

Also, one can draw a perfectly reasonable distinction between suspects that are American citizens and those who are not. One can consistently treat the former as criminals and the latter as war criminals. One could alternatively treat both classes as common criminals. I can think of decent arguments for each of those positions.

[Darat]

I have to say that I can't find fault with his statement that:

Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.

(Given the context from the article for what he means by "politically motivated criticism". )

Some of al-Qaeda's goals are to disrupt the USA, to make it react in ways contrary to its best interests and using terrorism and the threat of terrorism as a political football seems to me to help achieve that. Never mind how it can serve to hinder the USA from taking actions that would help safeguard the USA and its interests.

[applecorped]

Republicans for al Qaeda!!!!!!

:rolleyes:

[Sporanox]

It's not wrong to criticize the handling of firepants when the DNI admitted under testimony that the special presidential interrogation task force should have been deployed right away, then corrected himself later with a statement that the task force didn't exist yet. :rolleyes:

Brings a new meaning to "counterintelligence."

[Ziggurat]

It is false now. They should know better than to use that stupid line of sophistry.

You think that line rises to the level of sophistry? That's giving it too much credit.