It was not too long ago that Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer took to the USA Today op-ed page to accuse Obamacare opponents of being "un-American," and today President Obama's top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan lashes out on that same page at critics of the White House: "too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe."
"Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda," Brennan concludes.
Who are those in Washington "misrepresenting the facts" and serving "the goals of al Qaeda"? Brennan doesn't say. He does attack those who think that Abdulmutallab shouldn't have been Mirandized. Does that mean Sen. Evan Bayh, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and Time columnist Joe Klein are guilty of sedition, or do non-Republicans get a pass? If Brennan wants to accuse Americans of aiding the enemy, he should name names.
Brennan also writes that calls to try terrorists only in military tribinals "lack foundation"--to make his point he cites the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in federal court. But there are very real concerns--the trial of Moussaoui is a perfect example--about giving enemy combatants civilian trials.
According to the Washington Post, Brennan's "nonpartisan credentials give his words weight at a time when Republicans are seeking to use the Abdulmutallab case as evidence that Obama and the Democrats are soft on national security." But isn't it more likely that Brennan's accusation that critics are serving "the goals of al Qaeda" has tarnished his reputation beyond repair? Who in the White House thought it was a good idea to have Brennan publish a nasty, hackish, partisan attack on the loyalty of White House critics in USA Today? Can you imagine the blowback if someone in the Bush administration, like Stephen Hadley, had accused Bush's critics of serving "the goals of al Qaeda"?