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

















"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."
Maybe if Obummer bowed to Abdulmutallab he would say: "Ok, we're cool, I won't bomb anyone anymore."
and as for being rabid?
who are the lones pushing the birther bullcrap and support racists like rush limbaugh? loony left?
no its people who support the republicans like your doing right now.
Remember that South Park episode where humans from the future come to the past for a better life? (calm down, this is only an analogy) That's what the loony left wants out of us. To strip us of our freedom and humanity.
prove it if you have the stones
the only magical fairy world that exists is the one your living in.
you defend people who are blatantly racist against our president, you support people who say its fine to go to war and lie about the rational because the republicans played upon fears, you support people who would torture terrorists rather than try them as the criminals as they are and you support people who spy on their own countrymen just to ensure they can stay in power. and then give away tax cuts to rich people who have no interest in benefiting their country but only their own pockets.
the only loon here is yourself. your a coward and chickenhawk. if your so gung ho, pick up a rife and join the army and go fight.
prove your statemens if you have the stones. otherwise sit down and shut up
I will prove my statement with a single quote from Obummer:
"The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State governmentmustdo on your behalf."
I like how you say "sit down and shut up." That's pretty funny. What are YOU going to do about it if I don't? Punk.
and by your obvious disrespect to call the president by his name simply proves that you belong with the bigots and racists like limbaugh and darth cheney and the rest.
see here is the thing, your quoting a opinion given by a president who happens to have been a law professor. it is his own interpretation. there are many scholars who hold differing interpretations on the constitution.
like for example john ashcroft. even though the 4th amendment was explicitly violated with the domestic spying program, he said legally it was ok, based on bullcrap opinions by jay bybee and john yoo. hmm.
or alberto gonzales even....said that torture was ok, even though it is illegal by law and treaties that we signed again backed by bullcrap opinions from the brain trust of bybee and yoo.
there are two rights addded to the constitution specifically violated by people your defending. call me a punk all you want. but you know what. when i call you a gutless chickenhawk, its because its true and you have proved it more than once on this thread. so this time instead of telling you to....im going to ask you to sit down and shut up to be nice and try to help you avoid further embarrassment of yourself.
He has taken the role of Commander-in-Chief, not scholar. Unlike a scholar, his negative views towards the Constitution are actually harmful to our way of life.
He thinks the governement MUST protect us from ourselves! And rob the country of the principles on which it was founded.
i presented the fact that two previous AG's shredded the Constitution, and its principles, that you are holding so tightly.
and if i remember correctly, president obama isn't the one trying to inject god into every political argument there is.
if your so into freedom and everything, then you should be screaming for the repeal of "dont ask, dont tell" and gays should be allowed to openly serve in the military. that is freedom. not this braindead crap arguments about homosexuality being wrong because the bible said so, when there is supposed to be seperation of church and state. they are people and they have rights just like us. so let them do what they want.
I love it when people who voted for G-Dub twice now pretend as if the Constitution is all holy. It is except for when your in the fetal position crying yourself to sleep at night because the terrorists are coming, right? Then all rules and Constitutional laws go right out the window.
The enemy of my enemy isn't my friend.
For instance, I can take the words of your previous post and say that you said "I'm... defending... loony... people." Of course, that's not the context of what you're posting.
What is the context of Mr. Obama's quote? And, yes indeed, he did say it.
"Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of Government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers."
Is that said by some socialist, Communist, or Marxist? No.
It's a quote from a signer of the Declaration of Independence and defender of the Constitution.
"The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State governmentmustdo on your behalf."
Nothing damning here.
He isn't saying that the liberties as outlined in the Constituion are "bad." He's stating (correctly) that it guarantees negative liberties (freedom from) as opposed to positive liberties (freedom to). It's a littany of the state/government "shall not","will not", and etc as opposed to the citizen/individual "can," ,"may" and etc.
If you undestand the concept and still take issue with what he said please provide additional background. In the context you presented the quote it makes it seem as if you think he's saying that thes liberties are ... for lack of a better word...bad. That's not the case. These are common terms in political science/philosophy and even a neophytes should understand them.
This is fist year poli-sci stuff.
And you may want to go back to 10th grade English. I don't think analogy means what you think it does. Or else you completely missunderstood the South Park episode you are referring to. Perhaps you should watch the episode when Cartman becomes Glenn Beck. You might learn something about convinving simple minds to believe any amount of nonsense by cloaking it in the form of a question.
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!!
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.
"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?
I guess when you run out of arguments you REALLY run out of arguments.
Good one with the boogeyman comment! Man I wish I thought of that. Oh wait, I did.
yeah ill hold my breath on that one
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.
they incite hatred and spread lies. how can anyone with a conscience actually defend these people? how can you rationalize defending 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
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
Feel free to heap your disgust on the word liberal.
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.
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?
This is not rocket science, but you're confused?
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?
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.
/snark