Wash. Times editorial distorts Rosa Brooks' statement on Al Qaeda
SUMMARY: In an editorial discussing newly appointed Defense Department official Rosa Brooks, The Washington Times wrote that Brooks "has called al Qaeda 'little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs.' " In fact, Brooks used that phrase in 2007 to refer to the view of Al Qaeda in 2001 held by "most experts."
In an April 24 editorial titled, "A disaster for Defense," The Washington Times distorted a quote from Rosa Brooks, an incoming Defense Department official, as evidence that Brooks has "hard-left, rabidly ideological positions on defense matters." The Times claimed Brooks "has called al Qaeda 'little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs.' " In fact, Brooks used that phrase in a July 20, 2007, Los Angeles Times op-ed to refer to the view of Al Qaeda in 2001 held by "most experts." She further wrote that the group was "well financed and intermittently lethal" in 2001 and that, since then, it has become a "vast global threat."
From Brooks' July 20, 2007, LA Times op-ed (with the phrase the Times quoted in bold):
In 2001, administration stalwarts suggested that Osama bin Laden rivaled Hitler in the danger he posed to U.S. security and insisted that Al Qaeda's power was so great that nothing short of a "global war on terror" was required.
At that time, most experts say, this description of Al Qaeda simply wasn't true. It was little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs, well financed and intermittently lethal but relatively limited in their global and regional political pull. On 9/11, they got lucky -- but despite the unexpected success of their attack on the U.S., they did not pose an imminent mortal threat to the nation.
Today, things are different. Thanks to U.S. policies, Al Qaeda has become the vast global threat the administration imagined it to be in 2001. Our ham-handed detention and interrogation tactics and our ill-advised invasion of Iraq have alienated vast swathes of the Islamic world, fueling extremism and anti-Americanism. Today, Al Qaeda is no longer a single organization. Now it's a franchise, with new gangs of terrorists around the world proudly seizing the "Al Qaeda" affiliation.
From the April 24 Washington Times editorial:
A review of Ms. Brooks' published work reveals her hard-left, rabidly ideological positions on defense matters. She regularly referred to Mr. Bush as a war criminal, and argues that Bush-era policies on terrorism -- which prevented any major attacks on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001 -- made America less secure. Referring to Mr. Bush and former Vice President Richard Cheney, she wrote, "They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment." She has called al Qaeda "little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs" and wrongly predicted that the surge in Iraq was "a feckless plan" that would prove "too little, too late." Putting her in the policy shop "is like Lyndon Johnson making Jane Fonda a senior adviser on Vietnam," the former Pentagon adviser says. She frequently criticizes what she sees as a pro-Israel bias in U.S. policy.
The Washington Times loves to distort and take things out of context. That was the view most experts had on al qaeda in 2001. Even Bush must of felt that way since he ignored all warnings and vacationed for the summer of 2001.
I'm curious how the claim that America has a pro-Israel bias in policy is supposed to be some rabidly ideological statement. Isn't that pretty much clear from our actions?
I think the Washington Times is trying to suggest she is anti-semetic, doesn't support Israel and feels bad for the al qaeda terrorists.
the Washington Times got it about right. She did call them an obscure group of extremist thugs and then went on say how on 9/11 they just got lucky, and even after that they posed no imminent mortal threat to the nation, so I don't see any distortion of her views at all when read in their entirety.
James, she is not saying that about them and the state of al qeida today. It was a view she had about them in 2001. There is clearly a distortion.
I understand that completely, and the Wash Times never said she did either, they said she has called them that. And when you look at what else she said about them being lucky on 9/11 and still posing no imminent threat to the US, it's clear that she thinks that if not for Bush they still would be obscure. I am not arguing that Bush enflamed the situation, but they were most definitely an imminent threat after 9/11, and I disagree with saying they just got lucky on 9/11. That minimizes their attack and does indeed square with her calling them obscure.
Not "imminent threat", "imminent mortal threat". She wasn't saying that they didn't pose a risk to lives, it means that they weren't on the Hitler-esque level that the Bush administration claimed they were.
What's offensive about the idea that Al Qaeda was obscure at the time of 9/11?
"What's offensive about the idea that Al Qaeda was obscure at the time of 9/11?"
Nothing, I never said that.
Then what's the problem with the "lucky" quote? Our security and intelligence should have been good enough to prevent it. I'm not sure how that minimizes anything. If anything, I would think that it's more positive than suggesting that we lacked the capacity to thwart the attack.
I am not repeating it, I already explained my take on it. If it's not to your satisfaction, that's the breaks.
If the quote minimizes the threat, that's one thing. That's not necessarily a problem if they shouldn't have been able to pull off 9/11 anyway. What I don't understand is how it minimized the attack. That makes it sound as if it's trivialized or the loss of life is being downplayed in some way.
If you can't explain that, then you shouldn't have said it.
"That makes it sound as if it's trivialized or the loss of life is being downplayed in some way"
Thanks for explaining it further.
So how does the idea that they were lucky downplay the loss of life, exactly? You haven't explained that.
you are a mess. I never said that, you did. I just thanked you for exlpaining further what you meant.
I'm sorry, I forgot that you're not capable of explaining how you meant something different.
"If the quote minimizes the threat, that's one thing"
That's cool, I will go with that. Which invalidates this entire whine by mmfa against the Washington Times. Brooks' 9/11 lucky quote minimized the threat, so for her to be reported as saying 'little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs.'is completely consistent with that. Sometimes your penchant for arguing ties you up and is a big help. Thanks again.
I don't care. The article does suggest, at the very least, that she agrees with the experts she's talking about. It's still misleading to say that without explaining the context, in that she was talking about 2001.
I'm more taking issue with your suggestion that the "lucky" and "imminent mortal threat" comments are somehow unreasonable. If the editorial wants to criticize her for blaming Bush for making Al Qaeda a bigger threat, that's one thing. For them to act as if that quote is somehow radical is highly disingenuous.
James , the issue I have with the article is it makes Ms Brooks out to be an al qeida supporter. it is distorting her entire view on al qeada. She had the same feelings the US Govt had in 2001 under the Bush Admin.
I don't see the article makes her out be an al queda supporter at all, my god that never entered my mind. She minimized the threat by saying they got lucky, and she said even after that attack they weren't much of a serious threat until Bush aggravated them. Well they cemented their threat level on 9/11 as more than just some lucky thugs, they became an imminent threat from that day forward.
they just got lucky on 9/11.
Most of their luck came from a having a sitting president in 2001 who was more interested in vacationin', fishin', bikin', golfin', and clearin' brush than keeping our country safe.
anyone that pushes the notion that al queda just got lucky on 9/11 furthers the notion through that conclusion that they are not much of a threat, imminent, mortal or otherwise.
Sure they were "Lucky", even though they planned 9/11 very well it could have fallen apart at any moment. All military and terrorist plans rely on at least a little "luck". Rember there were several flags where people reported their suspicion about some of the terrorist in flight school, taking notes during flights, etc. If (big if) someone had acted on those suspicions then it is possible the whole event might have been prevented. Of course that didn't happen and we have to live with the ramifications of everything that has happened since.
And they weren't at that time, either. 19 guys with box cutters should have been stopped.
we had no systems in place to stop box cutters from coming on aircrafts then, why do you think we have revamped our entire security screening process at airports since then. al queda was very patient and prepared to do what they did. Look how they trained to fly airplanes at US flight schools. For anyone to suggest they were lucky is ridiculous. Luck implies that another attack probably could not happen again, well I got news for Ms. Brooks, it certainly can. people like her scare me.
Why do you keep mixing up the past and the present? Obviously Brooks would agree that an attack can happen, since her argument is that Al Qaeda is more of a threat than they were at the time.
Incidentally, "lucky" doesn't mean that there wasn't planning involved. All it means is that it shouldn't have worked.
she says they were nothing before, nothing during, nothing after and all because of Bush they are now something. I take issue with her saying they were nothing after because her minimizing them is purely political. She has no credibility, sorry.
She didn't say they were nothing. She said they were well-funded and intermittently lethal.
The idea that she miinimized the threat doesn't mean she doesn't think they pose a threat today. Your suggestion that she doesn't believe we can be attacked was unfair.
We had no system in place to stop box cutters? Are you high or something? You never walked through a metal detector prior to 9/11?
give me a break, they easily got through did they not? There wasn't near the scrutiny during screening there is now. The only way you post makes any sense is if you haven't flown since 9/11. Otherwise it's absurd.
I have flown before, during and since. I have always walked through a metal detector. The metal detector has always picked up things like box cutters.
Then, juist like now, it depends on the person workinmg the machine to see if they can figure out what it is.
Unless, you are completely stupid, you must know that even now, very few airports pass the tests for knives, guns, bombs etc.
So, unless you are really stupid, you can't possibly think that a box cutter couldn't get through now.
anyone that pushes that al queda just got lucky on 9/11 furthers the notion that they are not much of a threat
Brooks' argument is not that al-Qaeda was (even less is) no threat but that our response to 9/11 made al-Qaeda into something more than it otherwise was and would have been. There is, I expect even you would admit, a rather large gap between being a "mortal" threat and being "no" or even "not much of a" threat.
Still, thanks for that comment, especially the use of the word "are." It's now clear why you found no distortion in the Wash. Times article: an inability to distinguish between past and present tense.
I don't see any distortion of her views
Wow. The paper points to her citing the judgment of "most experts" from more than seven years ago without noting it referred to more than seven years ago and completely ignores the fact that the next paragraph began with "Today things are different" - and you see no distortion?
The statement "She has called al Qaeda 'little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs'" is a classic, an absolutely classic, example of quoting out of context. And you see no distortion?
The people on those late-night TV ad shows must love you.
All depends on what you mean by "threat" - everyone can be a "threat"
Hyping them into some sort of "super terrorist" is what the other side does.
9/11 was luck - You think that al Qaeda is a bigger threat than the Russians were ?
Countries with large standing armies, air force, navy, marines ??
Hell..........wingnuts with AK-47's are a "threat"
The right seems to forget that prior to 9/11 that was the view they all held about al Qaeda. Well those who'd heard al Qaeda. Most were blissfully ignorant.
nobody is denying that. it was our dismissal of al queda as nothing but obscure extremist thugs prior to 9/11 that aided in their attack, we were asleep at the wheel, of course we were. But to further dismiss them as saying they just got lucky on 9/11 continues to minimize them, and hardly creates an environment to more awake at the wheel. It was a irresponsible thing to say by Brooks.
I find it interesting that you think anyone's respect for American's safety is so fragile that the impact of such a huge loss of life would be diluted by the idea that Al Qaeda was lucky to succeed in their attack. As much as I disrespect Bush, I would never dream of saying that he would be less vigilant in protecting Americans because of some column in the L.A. Times.
I find it interesting that this woman, especially since she is now in our defense department, is more concerned with blaming Bush and "neocons" while playing polical gotcha with our national security, than realizing and communicating the very real threat of a terrorist organization such as al queda by dismissing their threats as nothing more than luck. For her sake, I hope their "luck" has run out.
It seems to me that when she says they're a global threat in 2007, that would suggest that she understands they're a real threat today. I guess you can relax.
Nice dodge of the point, by the way.
yes, but only because Bush made it that way. she is quite clear. She said they were lucky in 2001 and not much of a threat afterwards, but Bush strengthened them and made them a global threat. Of course she, nor anyone, can prove any of that except that we have not been attacked since, but because of her politics she makes that conclusion anyway.
"If the editorial wants to criticize her for blaming Bush for making Al Qaeda a bigger threat, that's one thing."