About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Perino falsely claims Obama administration admitted it "bungled" Abdulmutallab interrogation

February 12, 2010 9:20 am ET — 46 Comments

On Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Dana Perino falsely claimed that the Obama administration admitted that it "bungled" the interrogation and Mirandizing of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab following his arrest because "they had to do a review." In fact, the "review" the administration conducted following Abdulmutallab's attempted attack on a Northwest Airlines flight focused on intelligence and national security measure failures prior to the incident and was not focused on Abdulmutallab's detention and interrogation. 

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Perino claims interrogation was "bungled" by the "administration's own admission" because it had to "do a review"

From the February 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Yesterday, Robert Gibbs, who stepped into your shoes at the White House -- stepped into your high heels --

PERINO: They're tight.

DOOCY: Stop it. He actually stood up for John Brennan. Here's a little snippet of that.

GIBBS [video clip]: I know this: John is there each and every day working in his office to try to do everything he can to keep the American people safe. And I would suggest, whether it's to Senator Bond or others on Capitol Hill, that these are decisions best left to people that have an understanding of counterterrorism, experience in counterterrorism and law enforcement rather than to politicians on Capitol Hill.

DOOCY: Well then, this past week, it all got started when he wrote that lecture, essentially, in USA Today. And he said of his critics, "We don't need lectures," and then he went on to say, "politically motivated criticism and uninformed fearmongering only serves the goals of Al Qaeda." Makes it sound like if you criticize the administration, you're helping Al Qaeda.

PERINO: But also remember, he didn't just write an opinion-editorial in the USA Today; he was responding to the USA Today being critical of the administration's handling of the Abdulmutallab situation. I think there's a lot of room for criticism there. I've written about it a lot with my former colleague Bill Burck on National Review Online. Ever since they Mirandized the underwear bomber after 50 minutes of questioning -- and by the administration's own admission, it was bungled. They had to do a review.

Review looked at security and intelligence failures prior to attempted attack, not the interrogation itself

Obama ordered two reviews of air security and announced immediate increased airline security measures. In a December 28 address following the incident, Obama ordered several actions to "protect the American people and to secure air travel," including a review of the watch list and airport security procedures. From his December 28 order:

Since I was first notified of this incident, I've ordered the following actions to be taken to protect the American people and to secure air travel.

First, I directed that we take immediate steps to ensure the safety of the traveling public. We made sure that all flights still in the air were secure and could land safely. We immediately enhanced screening and security procedures for all flights, domestic and international. We added federal air marshals to flights entering and leaving the United States. And we're working closely in this country, federal, state and local law enforcement, with our international partners.

Second, I've ordered two important reviews, because it's absolutely critical that we learn from this incident and take the necessary measures to prevent future acts of terrorism.

The first review involves our watch list system, which our government has had in place for many years to identify known and suspected terrorists so that we can prevent their entry into the United States. Apparently the suspect in the Christmas incident was in this system, but not on a watch list, such as the so-called no-fly list. So I have ordered a thorough review, not only of how information related to the subject was handled, but of the overall watch list system and how it can be strengthened.

The second review will examine all screening policies, technologies and procedures related to air travel. We need to determine just how the suspect was able to bring dangerous explosives aboard an aircraft and what additional steps we can take to thwart future attacks.

White House conducted security and intelligence review. The White House produced a security and intelligence review on January 7 and issued a statement along with it saying it reflected a review of the "terrorist watchlisting system" and "the need to look for ways to constantly improve and assist our CT [counterterrorism] analysts."

White House issued directive for "immediate actions" for intelligence and national security. On January 7, Obama issued a list of "immediate actions" for the "intelligence, homeland security, and law enforcement communities" to take "to enhance the security of the American people." The directive says the "actions are necessary given inherent systemic weakness and human errors revealed by the review." The directive addresses corrective actions for the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, the FBI/Terrorist Screening Center, the National Counterterrorism Center, the National Security Agency, and national security staff. Among other things, the directive orders DHS to "[a]ggressively pursue enhanced screening technology, protocols, and procedures, especially in regard to aviation and other transportation sectors, consistent with privacy rights and civil liberties; strengthen international partnerships and coordination on aviation security issues."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (February 12, 2010 9:30 am ET)
      10 1
      Dana Perino has been trained to lie and distort...easy, because it's also apparently part of her genetic make-up.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Major Tom (February 12, 2010 10:17 am ET)
      7  
      Has she done her homework yet and figured out what the big-deal was about the Cuban Missile Crisis? All those facts and history... It's hard for a conservative.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jediknight65 (February 12, 2010 10:21 am ET)
        4 1
        someone how the new story will be how jfk did nothing to diffuse the crisis and how it was all ronald reagan from the shadows
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jediknight65 (February 12, 2010 10:17 am ET)
      5  
      hey its bush barbie swinging and missing again!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by scanlontodd9871 (February 12, 2010 11:27 am ET)
      4  
      If I remember correctly was John Brennan part of the Cheney/Bush team on intelligence? I really thought that I read that somewhere. Now they are going after him like he just stepped into this position. What a fing joke these people are starting to sound.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (February 12, 2010 11:33 am ET)
      4  
      Damn. She's turning out to be a real POS. I shouldn't be surprised but when she was press secretary it always seemed like she knew she was lying so I thought maybe she'd not stoop to this level after.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (February 12, 2010 11:50 am ET)
      4  
      Only in the mind of a rabid right-winger could it be assumed that a president and the AG actually follow the law is somehow considered a bungling.

      Sadly, elected Democrats don't have balls of steel or is it fury? For if they did, they would be fighting this garbage and doing their able best to call these morons out on their lies and propaganda, to show just how pathetic these Cluster Fox clowns really are!!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wesley (February 12, 2010 5:29 pm ET)
          5
        -- a president and the AG actually follow the law -- captfoster

        The War Room at Salon.com has a nice column about the issue:

        -- What a lot of people don't understand...is that the right at issue is about self-incrimination. In short, if you've already given the goverment all it needs to convict you by, say, trying to blow yourself up in front of a plane full of witnesses, then the police can talk to you indefinitely without ever Mirandizing you. --

        That's the case with Reid and Abdul...Miranda rights were not necessary in either incident.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (February 12, 2010 7:52 pm ET)
          4  
          Nope. Abdulmutallab stopped talking. Then he was given the Miranda warning. Just because you don't get immunity from the evidence they've already collected doesn't mean they don't have to tell you that other stuff, including the fact that you have the right to a lawyer.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 13, 2010 11:45 am ET)
            1  
            Not to mention, police will keep talking to you sometimes after they Mirandize you. It just means once you have invoked the right to counsel, they can't use anything you say after that against you. They can still press you to answer questions. It happens all the time. If they want to know something about a future attack or where to find someone, they will continue to ask. They will still use your information. Just not against you at trial.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by bludog1 (February 12, 2010 11:53 am ET)
      1 7
      President Obama’s Speech On The Christmas Day Nigerian Underwear Bomber 1-7-10

      "This afternoon my counterterrorism and homeland security adviser, John Brennan, will discuss his review into our terrorist watchlist system; how our government failed to connect the dots in a way that would have prevented a known terrorist from boarding a plane for America and the steps we’re going to take to prevent that from happening again.

      "As president, I have a solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people, and when the system fails, it is my responsibility."

      Now let's see: 1) our government failed to connect the dots in a way that would have prevented a known terrorist from boarding a plane for America; and 2) -- well the president said it better than I can summarize.

      Any questions, or just more hyperventilating?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by null1fy (February 12, 2010 11:56 am ET)
          9
        Well, I pretty much summed that up and they posted pictures of a chihuahua barking.

        I guess when you run out of arguments you REALLY run out of arguments.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jediknight65 (February 12, 2010 12:01 pm ET)
          3 1
          you and your neo con kind have no trouble making stuff up......thats what fox news is for. 24/7 bullcrap. but that doesn't matter to gutless chickenhawks like you, because you make stuff up. like birtherisim. you wanna support a bunch of bigots and racists, have fun. but dont try to cloak it in something else when your too scared to admit to yourself what you are
          Report Abuse
          • Author by null1fy (February 12, 2010 12:48 pm ET)
              8
            How did birthers and fox news get thrown into this? When you run out of arguments, WATCH OUT FOR THE BOOGEYMAN!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jediknight65 (February 12, 2010 1:12 pm ET)
              3  
              it got into this because they are people that you are indirectly supporting. thats how. your defending people that defended bush to no end and are now birthers and racists and make their appearances on fox news to spew their hate and their lies. and your defending them. look in a mirror if you wanna see a boogeyman
              Report Abuse
              • Author by null1fy (February 12, 2010 1:15 pm ET)
                  7
                Dumb. I'm not indirectly supporting anyone. Unlike your typical loony left, I have no hidden agenda. I have nothing to hide.

                Good one with the boogeyman comment! Man I wish I thought of that. Oh wait, I did.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by jediknight65 (February 12, 2010 1:22 pm ET)
                  3 1
                  your defending these clowns. thats indirect support. if you don't agree with them. then raise the issue to have rush limbaugh fired and everyone at fox news fired.

                  yeah ill hold my breath on that one
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (February 12, 2010 1:33 pm ET)
                      6
                    Now you're becoming unhinged. So unless we all call for firing Limbaugh and everyone at Fox means we support them? Wow, loony left is a moderate description.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by jediknight65 (February 12, 2010 1:46 pm ET)
                      3 1
                      well when all i see here are defenses of these people and their lies, how else is there a way to describe it?

                      fine i back up a bit. can one of you guys at least say....hey this is a pack of lies and i disagree....

                      again ill hold my breath on that ever happening.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mari2jj (February 13, 2010 4:34 pm ET)
                        2  
                        No one needs to hyperventilate. This woman told an outright lie. All this discussion of side matters apparently is an attempt to dodge that fact. Both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were tried in a US court. Both were Marandized as the constitution requires for those arrested on U S soil. Perhaps all this palaver from Perino is an attempt to dodge that fact. The unfactual thing (lie) that both she and Newt tell is that the perp had a round trip ticket. He did not and that fact has been in the news all the time. Newt has admitted his honest mistake publicly. I suggest you avoid holding your breath till Perino does. She is either willfully telling her whopper or she refuses to check after being confronted. But even worse than that is her constant whine about how it was handled when the results of this administration's handling of this guy has produced a lot of factual and actionable intel. So stand back, you pack of wolves and give this administration some credit. Not likely to happen but it is a FAIR idea for a change. As Republicans, we do NOT need to exaggerate stuff like this. Makes us look like racists or stupids.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by DellDolly (February 13, 2010 7:07 pm ET)
                          1  
                          Actually, Republicans DO need to exaggerate stuff like this - if they don't, they have no chance to win elections and keep their supporters.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by jediknight65 (February 12, 2010 1:51 pm ET)
                      4 1
                      im simply sick to death of lies being of lies being told by people like perino, and the rest of the fox three ring circus and having people to come here and defend them.

                      they incite hatred and spread lies. how can anyone with a conscience actually defend these people? how can you rationalize defending them.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by pongotwistleton (February 12, 2010 2:03 pm ET)
                        1 5
                        im simply sick to death of lies being of lies being told by people like perino, and the rest of the fox three ring circus and having people to come here and defend them.

                        Relax dips**t, nobody's forcing you to read the comments here. If they get your panties in such a bunch, maybe you should find another hobby
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by jediknight65 (February 12, 2010 2:25 pm ET)
                          3  
                          how intelligent a response. did you think that one up all by yourself?

                          you are right in that im not being forced. but i would to come here once and see someone like mag, or seahwaks, or dick's evil twin, come and say hey these are lies these people are telling and its wrong.

                          you wanna defend people like bush and perino, be my guest. have fun. but stop trying to defend these people like they are some beacon of truth when they are not
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by mari2jj (February 13, 2010 4:36 pm ET)
                          2  
                          Nothing like a NICE intellectual response to someone's post. Poor thing, you probably grew up without being taught any manners.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by peace4all (February 12, 2010 2:38 pm ET)
                      3  
                      you have to forgive some of the posters here. they are kind of not used to having to deal with the out right lies and uninformed opinions you guys post. give him some time. he will adjust. it's just kind of shocking at first when wingnuts post things that are so obviously false.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by jediknight65 (February 12, 2010 2:46 pm ET)
                        3  
                        i shouldn't have to adjust. if the republicans, neo cons, tea baggers, fox news and rush defenders, all actually told the truth, there would be no need for this site. they should be doing the adjusting and calling out these liars for what they are
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by peace4all (February 12, 2010 3:51 pm ET)
                          3  
                          don't get me wrong, i agree with you. it's just there is no point getting angry with the wingnuts here. i don't even respond to them anymore really unless i am just making fun of them. there is no need to try and refute what they say. none of it is true and most of the time they know it.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by my4cents (February 12, 2010 10:58 pm ET)
                      2  
                      If, frequently, you defend them in some form or other, YES.
                      Feel free to heap your disgust on the word liberal.
                      Report Abuse
        • Author by bludog1 (February 12, 2010 12:19 pm ET)
            4
          it is interesting how some on this board appear to be incapable of serious, factual conversation. The seem, as the National Guard general said relating to Katrina, stuck on stupid!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jediknight65 (February 12, 2010 2:26 pm ET)
            2  
            and how anyone at fox news is soooo much more capable of intelligent conversation when all they do is lie 24/7
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 12, 2010 7:02 pm ET)
            2  
            it is interesting how some on this board appear to be incapable of serious, factual conversation.
            I know. The con apologists that rear their ugly heads here are pathetic.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (February 12, 2010 12:31 pm ET)
          3  
          When you post a cogent argument, we'll reply with a cogent argument. Until then... YAP! YAP!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by jediknight65 (February 12, 2010 11:58 am ET)
        3  
        yeah just one. what was your point? he was admitting that the fact the terrorist got on the plane was a mistake.

        the article is about botchign the interrogation, which didnt happen because they guy talked....alot. so how is that screwed up?

        oh wait is it because he actually had a lawyer and was charged as a criminal and not tortured? is that the problem you have?

        come on. your the one hyperventilating here given that you brought up something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by benjr (February 12, 2010 1:02 pm ET)
        3  
        What you quoted has nothing to do with the Abdulmutallab interrogation. That was what Perino was dishonestly saying the administration admitted to screwing up. What you're quoting is President Obama admitting that the intelligence community did not do a good job in preventing Abdulmutallab from getting on the plane in the first place. You just used a quote from President Obama about a totally different aspect of this story to try to prove something completely different. Well done.

        Any questions, or just more hyperventilating?


        I have a question. Do you bother reading the articles before you post, or do you just make the article up and run with it?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (February 12, 2010 1:22 pm ET)
        3  
        I have a question. What does that have to do with whether or not President Obama said we bungled the interrogation of Abdulmutallub?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mari2jj (February 13, 2010 4:43 pm ET)
          1  
          He did not say they bungled the interrogation of Abdulmutallub. End of discussion. He commented ONLY about the problem that the guy was NOT on the watch list so he could have been stopped from flying. In fact Obama has spoken of the immense amount of actionable intel they have gotten from their LEGAL interrogation of this guy.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (February 12, 2010 2:14 pm ET)
        3 1
        Did you READ the headline before you posted, imbecile? I guess not. If you had, you'd know that the topic isn't the failure to prevent this guy getting on a jet, but rather the interrogation of him after he was detained.

        This is not rocket science, but you're confused?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by whatIthink (February 12, 2010 3:31 pm ET)
        3  
        You do realize that you just proved MMFAs point, don't you? In that quote from the President, he did say a review was to be conducted about what lead up to the events, but it says nothing about the interroragation needing to be reviewed, which, if you remember, was the point of this post.

        See, Perino said:

        "Ever since they Mirandized the underwear bomber after 50 minutes of questioning -- and by the administration's own admission, it was bungled."

        Even what you posted, contradicts her.

        Sheesh, reading comprehension isn't really a very strong point for righties, is it?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dr. engine (February 12, 2010 12:05 pm ET)
      3  
      "Makes it sound like if you criticize the administration, you're helping Al Qaeda."

      Well, that should sound familiar Doocy, considering you and Kilmeade, and E.D. Hill, and Hannity and O'Reilly, and Hume, and every other right-leaning personality on your network did that EXACT, VERY THING from about, oh, 2001 until roughly...January 20, 2009.

      He has to be joking. It's not possible for him to be this unaware of his own tactics.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by peets101 (February 13, 2010 1:31 pm ET)
         
      Perino is an idiot for suggesting that a "review" means "failure". A well-run organization is constantly reviewing its policies and procedures. I own a contracting company. We review every single project, large or small, to see what works and what doesn't work.
      Report Abuse
The Fox Effect
Media Matters Connect

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.