Patterico's Pontifications

2/5/2010

Bond vs the White House on the Christmas Day Bomber

Filed under: Obama,Terrorism — DRJ @ 2:57 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Senator Kit Bond and the White House are in a tiff over the Administration’s handling of the Christmas Day bomber:

“The ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., dismissed the White House’s call for him to apologize for alleging that the administration leaked information about Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab for political reasons.

“After telling me to keep my mouth shut, the White House discloses sensitive information in an effort to defend a dangerous and unpopular decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab and I’m supposed to apologize?” Sen. Bond said in a paper statement today.”

The back story is at the link. If Bond’s version is correct, then he should tell the folks at the White House the only thing he’s sorry about is that they talk too much.

— DRJ

18 Responses to “Bond vs the White House on the Christmas Day Bomber”

  1. More examples of the incompetence of the White House. They get caught passing out BS, and when called on it, act like kindergarteners caught stealing cookies.

    This is amateur hour beyond what we got with Clinton. The first year, Clinton’s staff of juvenile delinquints screwed up for the first six or eight months, but that’s nothing compared to this crowd.

    The Empty Suit(tm) and the Not Ready for Prime Time administration.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  2. Trying to mess with someone like Bond is playing with fire – he’s been around the block about one hundred times more compared to these pikers. Good luck with all that.

    Dmac (539341)

  3. I love how quickly it became a matter of discretion to read miranda rights to suspects. And how bond keeps on touting this line.

    imdw (216b56)

  4. Bond is absolutely correct. Gibbs and the Administration had been insisting that we had gotten all the actionable intelligence we were going to get out of the Panty Bomber in that “thorough” 50 minute interview so no mistakes in the initial handling or interrogation were made.

    A month later we find out the FBI convince members of the bomber’s family to come to the U.S. and that they helped to persuade the bomber into cooperating. Suddenly we are told we are getting good intelligence from the bomber and it is being shared around the world. Plus, Leon Panetta warns we expect renewed Al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. within the next three to six months. Is Panett’s warning tied to intelligence from the Panty Bomber? I question the timing! I say ot makes the assertion that the situation was handled correctly from the start completely false. Disclosing that he is cooperating as a result of his family puts his family at risk, but Obama desperately needed to blunt the criticism over the Keystone Cops appearance of initial detention handling.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  5. Disclosing that he is cooperating as a result of his family puts his family at risk

    The long term effect of this really can’t be measured, but there will be an effect. There will be other times we need someone’s confidential assistance.

    This isn’t the first time this president has taken the easy short term poll oriented road.

    and while imdw scoffs, it really is fucking appalling that our administration has not clearly delineated how to deal with various situations, whether to mirandize, where to send these terrorists, etc. It’s appalling. This should have been determined before inauguration.

    Not ready to lead.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  6. imdw, more trolling on your part. It is the Obama administration that has stated that it will use discretion to decide what circumstances will see a terrorist suspect treated as a criminal suspect versus a combatant detainee.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  7. read miranda rights to suspects.

    The pantybomber is not a US citizen – were you not aware of that fact, cupcake?

    Dmac (539341)

  8. imdw,

    During the Presidential campaign, Barack Obama laughed at the idea that terrorists would be given Miranda warnings and said they did not deserve Miranda rights.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  9. Obama has been a complete idiot on Miranda rights and trials in civilian courts versus military tribunals. He’s been all over the map and his lack of consistency has made a mockery of the process and lets people see the proposed KSM trial for what it is, just a show trial for the world and political purposes which will needlessly cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars if it goes forward.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  10. Obama has been a complete idiot on Miranda rights and trials in civilian courts versus military tribunals. He’s been all over the map and his lack of consistency has made a mockery of the process and lets people see the proposed KSM trial for what it is, just a show trial for the world and political purposes which will needlessly cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars if it goes forward.

    FTFY daleyrocks!

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  11. redc1c4 – Brevity is preferred. Thanks for the fix.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  12. de nada…. its all part of the free service. %-)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  13. Is anyone else suspicious that the WH leaked info about him talking after they took so much heat for not getting more out of him? And this was after Gibbs and others said that they got all the info they could before he lawyered up? And what attorney would let him say boo unless he had some deal?

    So which is it? Did he spill as much as he could the first day or is he is a font of information now?

    A lot of media people are very trusting of this WH to swallow this story whole. But then the WH has always looked at the media as a big fish that can be reeled in whenever necessary.

    MU789 (514c52)

  14. MU789 – See #4

    daleyrocks (718861)

  15. Has there ever been an administration that lies so often and
    so blatantly? Seems like at least half of Obuma’s statements
    are false.

    Krusher (ceb4ea)

  16. “The pantybomber is not a US citizen – were you not aware of that fact, cupcake?”

    Why does that matter? The right that miranda protects is in the 5th amendment. Which applies to “any person.” I mean, that is if you like to read the text.

    imdw (017d51)

  17. No doubt that’s exactly what the writers of that amendment meant – yeah, no question about it. You’re quite the mind reader.

    Poor cupcake. No date for this weekend?

    Dmac (539341)

  18. “No doubt that’s exactly what the writers of that amendment meant – yeah, no question about it. You’re quite the mind reader. ”

    They used the word “person.” What do YOU think they meant?

    “Poor cupcake. No date for this weekend?”

    cupcake? On a saturday morning? wat?

    imdw (78ece3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3258 secs.