Hypocrisy alert on Brennan smears

Talking Points Memo's Eric Kleefeld catches Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) reversing his position on smears designed to silence critics of the government's foreign policy.

During the Bush years, Lieberman repeatedly suggested that criticism of the President and his foreign policy aided Al Qaeda and endangered the country. However, after Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan smeared Republican critics of the President as "serv[ing] the goals of al-Qaeda," Lieberman said the following on MSNBC:

You can have a difference of opinion about how the Christmas-Day Bomber should have been treated without turning it into a political debate or suggesting that anybody who doesn't agree with the way the administration handled the Christmas-Day Bomber is somehow giving aid and comfort to al-Qaeda.

However, one could raise similar questions about TPM itself, which has raised no objections about Brennan's language despite criticizing previous attacks on dissent under President Bush (see, for instance, this Josh Marshall post back in 2003). It's sad how few people and organizations have a consistent perspective on this issue.

Update 2/12 11:25 AM: While I was drafting this post, Josh Marshall posted a tortured parsing of the difference between the words of Brennan and previous Republicans:

A lot of people are saying that John Brennan went too far by saying that "politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda." Given the past administration's habit of arguing that dissent or questioning of counter-terrorism policies played into the hands of the terrorists, the words may have been ill-chosen. But it is simply wrong to equate the two things. Indeed, it's the kind of distinction, regrettably, the daily press is seldom able to grasp, putting simple, structural equations above the substance of what is actually being said.

If you look at what Brennan actually said it was that sowing panic, telling people that the terrorists are far more powerful than they are and that our institutions are incapable of defending us against them just makes them seem more frightening than they are. That seems qualitatively different than trying to forbid any question of just how great the threat is or the means we're using to counter it. In both cases, in and out of power, the Republicans are about the political mobilization of fear.

Contrast that with the conclusion to Kleefeld's article:

We've contacted Lieberman's office for comment on how these situations might be different. They have not gotten back to us at this time.

More substantively, it's worth noting again that Brennan has made this point twice. Neither case is fully consistent with Marshall's parsing.

First, consider what Brennan said in July:

“A lot of the knuckleheads I’ve been listening to out there on the network shows don’t know what they’re talking about,” he told me after the Christmas Day attempt. Some Republicans, including Cheney, were blatantly mischaracterizing the record, he fumed. “When they say the administration’s not at war with Al Qaeda, that is just complete hogwash.” It was the angriest I had heard him during months of conversations. “What they’re doing is just playing into Al Qaeda’s strategic effort, which is to get us to battle among ourselves instead of focusing on them,” he said. [emphasis added]

The point Brennan is making is that any political controversy sparked by GOP criticism (i.e. "get[ting] us to battle among ourselves") necessarily detracts from the anti-Al Qaeda effort. Regardless of the substance of the dispute over the Christmas Day attack, his statement is a direct attack on dissent.

In the second case, while there was again a substantive dispute over anti-terrorism policy of the sort that Marshall notes, the reach of Brennan's statement about "[p]olitically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering" is much broader:

Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda. Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill. They will, however, be dismantled and destroyed, by our military, our intelligence services and our law enforcement community. And the notion that America's counterterrorism professionals and America's system of justice are unable to handle these murderous miscreants is absurd. [emphasis added]

Indeed, as I've argued, Brennan's words closely track those of John Ashcroft in his infamous testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee -- just switch the allegation from fear-mongering about the Al Qaeda threat to fear-mongering about the threat to civil liberties:

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

ASHCROFT: To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.

In short, Marshall's claims contradict Kleefeld's article and are unpersuasive on their own merits.

Comments

[David]

The Update shows Josh Marshall noting a distinction between those who are more bellicose than the current Administration and those who are less bellicose. I agree with Brendan that Marshall's distinction isn't particularly germane to Kleefeld. However, I want to discuss Marshall's distinction on its own.

Marshall concludes that those who are more bellicose than the current Administration are more harmful to our defense effort than those who are less bellicose. Let's illustrate his point by using American feelings toward Germany just prior to WW2.

There were America Firsters, who opposed war going to war against Germany, giving a variety of reasons and excuses. OTOH there were those who felt the US should immediately declare war. Which of these groups more undermined America's battle against Nazi Germany?

Marshall's argument would say that FDR's battle against the Nazis was undermined only by those who preached war, because they were sowing panic, telling people that the Nazis were far more powerful than they were and that our institutions were incapable of defending us against the Nazis, thus making them seem more frightening than they were.

I see the exact opposite. I think those who preached not going to war were the ones who more undermined our effort against the Nazis.

[IM]

It is always 1938 for some people. And Brendan isn't engaging Marshalls argument on the merits.

Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill.

That is the point. A point you don't even try to dispute.

And >i is tacky. Trying to define defiancy down?

[IM]

I wanted to write that "tortured parsing" is tacky, at least in this context.

[David]

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann now claim that Obama's comments helped al Qaeda. They explain:

"Obama's people put the story out [that Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the Nigerian terrorist who attempted to blow up a plane as it approached Detroit this past Christmas is talking to investigators and giving them much valuable information][in order] to counter accusations that their decision to try Mutallab in a civilian court and to permit him access to an attorney jeopardized efforts to interrogate him....

"While releasing this information may help Obama politically and certainly pushes back those of us who criticized him for handling the Mutallab case civilly, it provides al-Qaida with a timely warning that we are on to their plans and that Mutallab has explained to us what they have up their sleeves. In counter-terrorism, knowing your enemy's plans is key to thwarting them. And, if al-Qaida knows that we are prepared, they will, obviously, change their plans."

I'm not sure I agree with Morris and McGann because I'm not sure I believe the claim that we're now getting useful info from Mutallab. However, I do believe that the White House's public statements are for the purpose of political gain, rather than military or security gains.

[daniel rotter]

"...I'm not sure I believe the claim that we're now getting useful info from Mutallab."

Why don't you believe this claim, David?