The politics of terror

Both the Obama administration and its Republican critics are to blame in the latest effort to politicize national security.

We all learned last weekend on NBC's “Meet the Press” that White House counter-terror adviser John Brennan consulted Republicans in Congress on Christmas Day when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was Mirandized just 50 minutes after being taken into custody. Brennan claims no one asked him whether or not Abdulmutallab was given the right to remain silent and the members he named — Sen. Kit Bond (R) of Missouri and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R) of Michigan — exploded. Hoekstra claims he will never speak to Brennan again unless the phone conversation is recorded, and both he and Bond are demanding that President Barack Obama fire Brennan.

Brennan, a 25-year veteran of the CIA, also stoked tensions with an op-ed in USA Today warning that critics of the Obama administration were serving "the goals of al Qaeda." The administration realized too late last year that it had allowed former Vice President Dick Cheney to play politics with national security and control the entire narrative, accusing Obama of dithering and refusing to admit we are at war and basically being a wimp who has failed the test of a commander in chief in the post-Sept. 11 era. The White House is pushing back hard against new criticism coming from GOP members as a result of learning the Cheney lesson the hard way.

“Politics should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe,” Brennan wrote.

We can all agree that Brennan, who has worked in five administrations for both parties, probably shouldn't be leading a political charge that should have been left to the press shop.

But Republicans should stop throwing political bombs and stick to criticizing Obama's terror policies, like civilian trials, interrogation tactics, the use of the High Value Interrogration Group (HIG) and the Mirandizing of terror suspects. According to The Wall Street Journal, Bond told the National Review that Brennan compromised intelligence by revealing that Abdulmutallab has been cooperating, and said such a revelation could "tip off terrorists in Yemen and put a bull’s-eye on the backs of Abdulmutallab’s family members."

Of course, the White House fired back : “Through his pathetic attack on a counter-terrorism professional like John Brennan, who has spent his lifetime protecting this country under multiple administrations, Sen. Bond sinks to new depths in his efforts to put politics over our national security.”

Does anyone feel safer? Or trust that either side can resist politicizing national security?


WHY DID SENATE DEMS DUMP A BIPARTISAN JOBS BILL? Ask A.B. returns Tuesday, Feb. 16. Please join my weekly video Q&A by sending your questions and comments to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Thank you.