GregNews

Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security John Brennan blasts critics of the Obama administration for their handling of Christmas Day bomb plotter Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, saying among other things, doing so, “only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.” So much for dissension being “the highest form of patriotism.” These same hypocrites cried foul after any subtle insinuation of the same by the Bush administration, but now the shoebomb is on the other foot, I suppose.

Unfortunately for Obama, the critics are far more swift than Mr. Brennan.

Take, for example, the retort below by former Bush official, Mark Thiessen. (Thiessen recently authored an excellent summation of waterboarding, intelligence gathering, etc., and the myriad of plot we’ve prevented since 9-11, titled “Courting Disaster,” and I highly recommend it).

The fact is the Obama administration — and Brennan in particular — are on the defensive over the mishandling of Abdulmutallab, and with good reason. So they are flailing about, lashing out at their detractors and coming up with a series of confused, contradictory, and demonstrably false excuses for their egregious string of errors.

This weekend, for example, Brennan claimed on Meet the Press that he informed key Republican members of Congress that the Christmas bomber was in FBI custody, and said “They knew that ‘in FBI custody’ means that there’s a process then you follow as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of a magistrate. None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point.”

He forgot to mention that in August 2009 the Obama administration had informed Congress and the press that terrorists questioned by the FBI, as part of its High-Value Interrogation Group, would not automatically be Mirandized. According to the Washington Post, “Interrogators will not necessarily read detainees their rights before questioning, instead making that decision on a case-by-case basis, officials said. … ‘It’s not going to, certainly, be automatic in any regard that they are going to be Mirandized,’ one official said, referring to the practice of reading defendants their rights. ‘Nor will it be automatic that they are not Mirandized.’” Whoops.

This is only the first of many whoppers Brennan has told since the scandal broke. In his USA Today op-ed, writes: “Would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid was read his Miranda rights five minutes after being taken off a plane he tried to blow up. The same people who criticize the president today were silent back then.” He fails to mention that Reid was captured just a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, when they system of military commissions was not yet up and running, and the authority to hold terrorists captured inside the U.S. as enemy combatants had not yet been affirmed. (And, by the way, since when is “we’re doing the same thing as Bush” the mantra of the Obama administration anyway? Didn’t Bush leave them a big “mess” on detainees that Obama had to clean up? Forgive us for being confused)

Then Brennan writes: “There have been three convictions of terrorists in the military tribunal system since 9/11, and hundreds in the criminal justice system — including high-profile terrorists such as Reid and 9/11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui.” He fails explain why there have been only three convictions in the military tribunal system. The military commissions did not begin functioning until 2008 because of all the legal challenges from left-wing lawyers, including Eric Holder’s law firm, Covington & Burling (which, as I point out in Courting Disaster, donated about $1.2 million in free legal services to terrorist at Guantanamo Bay in 2007 alone). As for the argument that hundreds were convicted in the criminal justice system, it has been decimated by Andy McCarthy over at National Review Online. Apparently that number includes every junior extremist who got a parking ticket outside a radical mosque.

Brennan claims that reading terrorists Miranda rights was standard FBI policy under Michael Mukasey. But he neglects to mention that Mukasey forcefully affirmed the President’s wartime authority to detain terrorists captured in the United States — including U.S. citizens — as enemy combatants, both as Attorney General and as a federal judge.

Brennan claims that terrorists like Padilla and al-Marri “did not cooperate when transferred to military custody.” Release the interrogation reports and prove it. These are the same people who told us the CIA interrogation program did not work, until the declassified intelligence proved those claims to be completely wrong.

Brennan claims that “Immediately after the failed Christmas Day attack, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thoroughly interrogated and provided important information.” If he was so “thoroughly” interrogated during that 50 minutes of questioning, why are we questioning him again today after he broke his five weeks of silence? Either we got everything we needed (as the Administration conveniently argued when Abdulmutallab was not speaking), or he has more information (as the administration claims now that he is speaking). Seems that initial interrogation was not so “thorough” after all.

And why on earth are they telling us that he is talking, much less what he is talking about? By sharing this information with the press, they are also sharing it with al Qaeda. The surprisingly candid explanation came from White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton, who told reporters: “Ideally this information would not necessarily come out … but we made the determination that it was a good idea to make sure that people knew … that our methods here were working.” In other words, “ideally” we would not share with al Qaeda that Abdulmutallab was talking, but since we are under fire from critics for screwing this up we thought it was a “good idea” to share intelligence with the enemy.

And Brennan accuses his critics of being “politically motivated”?

WaPost columnist George Will covers the highlights of former Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s road to economic recovery. This is exactly the kind of fiscal agenda that would have ensured a victory for John McCain — already popular with moderates, he just needed to energize the Republican base. Will the moderates ever learn?

Ryan would eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains, dividends and death. The corporate income tax, the world’s second-highest, would be replaced by an 8.5 percent business consumption tax. Because this would be about half the average tax burden that other nations place on corporations, U.S. companies would instantly become more competitive — and more able and eager to hire.

Medicare and Social Security would be preserved for those currently receiving benefits or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today). Both programs would be made permanently solvent.

Universal access to affordable health care would be guaranteed by refundable tax credits ($2,300 for individuals, $5,700 for families) for purchasing portable coverage in any state. As persons younger than 55 became Medicare-eligible, they would receive payments averaging $11,000 a year, indexed to inflation and pegged to income, with low-income people receiving more support.

Ryan’s plan would fund medical savings accounts from which low-income people would pay minor out-of-pocket expenses. All Americans, regardless of income, would be allowed to establish MSAs — tax-preferred accounts for paying such expenses.

Ryan’s plan would allow workers younger than 55 the choice of investing more than one-third of their current Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts similar to the Thrift Savings Plan long available to, and immensely popular with, federal employees. This investment would be inheritable property, guaranteeing that individuals will never lose the ability to dispose of every dollar they put into these accounts.

Ryan would raise the retirement age. If, when Congress created Social Security in 1935, it had indexed the retirement age (then 65) to life expectancy, today the age would be in the mid-70s. The system was never intended to do what it is doing — subsidizing retirements that extend from one-third to one-half of retirees’ adult lives.

Compare Ryan’s lucid map to the Democrats’ impenetrable labyrinth of health-care legislation. Republicans are frequently criticized as “the party of no.” But because most new ideas are injurious, rejection is an important function in politics. It is, however, insufficient. Fortunately, Ryan, assisted by Republican Reps. Devin Nunes of California and Jeb Hensarling of Texas, has become a think tank, refuting the idea that Republicans lack ideas.

The only unrealistic portion of this plan is the second to last paragraph — raising the retirement age. While one can fully support such common sense, there is no way a candidate could ever win in Florida or Arizona proposing that to the retirees.

Here’s Charles Krauthammer on how the liberal masses have reacted to their lost Senate seat in Massachusetts:

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking “in the plain words of plain folks,” because the people are “suspicious of complexity.” Counseled Blow: “The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, ‘Mr. President, we’re down here.’”

A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are “a nation of dodos” that is “too dumb to thrive.”

Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself “for not explaining it (health care) more clearly to the American people.” The subject, he noted, was “complex.” The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.

On the contrary, after 29 healthcare speeches by The Great One, and perpetual 24-hour cable news puppets reciting the promises of socialized medicine, the American people understand enough — and they’re not too keen on waiting months for MRIs, CTs or specialists needed to fight life-threatening illnesses. That’s not “free” health care. That’s rationing.

“If you make less than $250,000 your taxes will not go up. Not one dime.” — Barack Obama.

Not one dime, that is, as long as you’re not married. If you’re married the ObamaCare bill would hit couples making as little as $25,000 each. From the Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON – Some married couples would pay thousands of dollars more for the same health insurance coverage as unmarried people living together, under the health insurance overhaul plan pending in Congress.

The built-in “marriage penalty” in both House and Senate healthcare bills has received scant attention. But for scores of low-income and middle-income couples, it could mean a hike of $2,000 or more in annual insurance premiums the moment they say “I do.”

… For an unmarried couple with income of $25,000 each, combined premiums would be capped at $3,076 per year, under the House bill. If the couple gets married, with a combined income of $50,000, their annual premium cap jumps to $5,160 — a “penalty” of $2,084.

Not exactly a “Down goes Frazier” or “The Giants win the pennant moment” — Martha Croakley Coakley was an awful, awful candidate from the get go. One gets the impression that in any state not so Uberliberal as Taxachusetts a trained monkey could have defeated her, no disrespect to Scott Brown.  Indeed, it underscores the imperial hubris of the Democrats, that they were arrogant enough to think they could without repercussions attempt to sell this charisma-lacking lousy candidate to the people of Massachusetts.

But don’t think the Chicago political machine will go down without a fight.

Mainstream media mouthpieces for the Democratic Party have previously and unabashedly announced their true feelings about Democracy with MSNBC’s Ed Schultz digging in, saying “if I could vote 20 times, that’s what I’d do.” (Ed says his critics are “nutjobs.”) Nutjobs they may be, but they don’t promote election fraud.

I’m sure we’ll have activist groups coming out of the woodwork to attempt to recount or commit lawfare to prevent Brown’s certification too. Then again, Coakley was so bad a candidate that Brown appears at least right now to be enough ahead that such a strategy wouldn’t be feasible.

Other Democrats (John Kerry) have indicated that they’ll purposely refuse or delay any election certification. Again, what lovers of Democracy are the Democratic Party leadership!

Best guffaw of the day: Barney Frank discovers a “constitutional crisis” via the 60-vote filibuster rule, a rule which Democrats have both championed and enjoyed but which Mr. Frank now finds unconstitutional. Enjoy that crow, Barney, try not to choke on it.

What’s next? Think the Democrats might try to get a fence-sitting Republican to switch parties?