Commentary Magazine


Topic: Debra Burlingame

Flotsam and Jetsam

A nostalgic George W. Bush moment for the left. Nicholas Kristof: “Mr. Obama is presiding over an incoherent, contradictory and apparently failing Sudan policy. There is a growing risk that Sudan will be the site of the world’s bloodiest war in 2011, and perhaps a new round of genocide as well. This isn’t America’s fault, but neither are we using all of our leverage to avert it. … Regular readers know I was not a fan of President George W. Bush. But one of his signal accomplishments, against all odds, was a 2005 peace agreement that ended the last round of that war.”

A stirring story about Iraq. And a reminder of how thoroughly lacking in understanding and empathy this president is when it comes to the reasons so many sacrificed so much.

A “perfect description of the pro-mosque left” from James Taranto: “Oikophobia is fear of the familiar: ‘the disposition, in any conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us’, and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours.’ … Yet the oiks’ vision of themselves as an intellectual aristocracy violates the first American principle ever articulated: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ … This cannot be reconciled with the elitist notion that most men are economically insecure bitter clinging intolerant bigots who need to be governed by an educated elite. Marxism Lite is not only false; it is, according to the American creed, self-evidently false. That is why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting.” Did we put an “oik” in the White House?

An angry mob – in Obama’s home state: “Sixty-five percent (65%) of Likely Voters in Illinois are at least somewhat angry at the current policies of the federal government, according to a new Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey. That finding matches the level measured nationally, and includes 41% who are Very Angry at the government’s policies.” Who’s funding them, I wonder?

A “bit”? “Democrats are undercutting their campaign message by condemning Republican economic policies while calling for the extension of Bush-era tax cuts. ‘It’s hard to say the Republican economic policies were bad, [and] then continue them,’ Paul Begala, Democratic strategist and former advisor to President Clinton, told The Hill. ‘That is a bit of a mixed message.'”

A forceful objection from Debra Burlingame to Mayor Bloomberg’s claim that 9/11 families support the Ground Zero mosque: “Mr. Bloomberg has now crossed the line from merely supporting the mosque to participating in a public campaign aimed at silencing its critics. He has improperly invoked private conversations of 9/11 family board members who, unfortunately, are all too aware of his power, both as chair of the foundation which will memorialize their loved ones and as mayor of a city where that memorial will be built. He is recklessly wreaking havoc among families, running from media event to radio interview to photo op to Comedy Central gagfest, shamelessly hawking this narrative that we, those whose family members were the true victims of religious intolerance, must also carry the burden of proving we’re not intolerant. He’s a disgrace.”

A sober take from Mara Liasson: “I think there is a lot of gloom and doom among Democrats. And their hope now is that individual races with candidates who have a lot of money and have good get-out-the-vote operations can somehow survive what is looking to be a really big anti-Democratic wave in November.” And from Liasson and Juan Williams on the midterms: “LIASSON: But the fact is it is a referendum. WILLIAMS: If it’s a referendum on Obama, the Democrats lose.” Yup. Big time.

A nostalgic George W. Bush moment for the left. Nicholas Kristof: “Mr. Obama is presiding over an incoherent, contradictory and apparently failing Sudan policy. There is a growing risk that Sudan will be the site of the world’s bloodiest war in 2011, and perhaps a new round of genocide as well. This isn’t America’s fault, but neither are we using all of our leverage to avert it. … Regular readers know I was not a fan of President George W. Bush. But one of his signal accomplishments, against all odds, was a 2005 peace agreement that ended the last round of that war.”

A stirring story about Iraq. And a reminder of how thoroughly lacking in understanding and empathy this president is when it comes to the reasons so many sacrificed so much.

A “perfect description of the pro-mosque left” from James Taranto: “Oikophobia is fear of the familiar: ‘the disposition, in any conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us’, and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours.’ … Yet the oiks’ vision of themselves as an intellectual aristocracy violates the first American principle ever articulated: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ … This cannot be reconciled with the elitist notion that most men are economically insecure bitter clinging intolerant bigots who need to be governed by an educated elite. Marxism Lite is not only false; it is, according to the American creed, self-evidently false. That is why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting.” Did we put an “oik” in the White House?

An angry mob – in Obama’s home state: “Sixty-five percent (65%) of Likely Voters in Illinois are at least somewhat angry at the current policies of the federal government, according to a new Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey. That finding matches the level measured nationally, and includes 41% who are Very Angry at the government’s policies.” Who’s funding them, I wonder?

A “bit”? “Democrats are undercutting their campaign message by condemning Republican economic policies while calling for the extension of Bush-era tax cuts. ‘It’s hard to say the Republican economic policies were bad, [and] then continue them,’ Paul Begala, Democratic strategist and former advisor to President Clinton, told The Hill. ‘That is a bit of a mixed message.'”

A forceful objection from Debra Burlingame to Mayor Bloomberg’s claim that 9/11 families support the Ground Zero mosque: “Mr. Bloomberg has now crossed the line from merely supporting the mosque to participating in a public campaign aimed at silencing its critics. He has improperly invoked private conversations of 9/11 family board members who, unfortunately, are all too aware of his power, both as chair of the foundation which will memorialize their loved ones and as mayor of a city where that memorial will be built. He is recklessly wreaking havoc among families, running from media event to radio interview to photo op to Comedy Central gagfest, shamelessly hawking this narrative that we, those whose family members were the true victims of religious intolerance, must also carry the burden of proving we’re not intolerant. He’s a disgrace.”

A sober take from Mara Liasson: “I think there is a lot of gloom and doom among Democrats. And their hope now is that individual races with candidates who have a lot of money and have good get-out-the-vote operations can somehow survive what is looking to be a really big anti-Democratic wave in November.” And from Liasson and Juan Williams on the midterms: “LIASSON: But the fact is it is a referendum. WILLIAMS: If it’s a referendum on Obama, the Democrats lose.” Yup. Big time.

Read Less

The Ultimate Culture War: the Left vs. the War on Terror

Talk about the culture wars. On the one hand, you have Obama pitching that a mega-mosque on “hallowed ground” (his words) is a matter of “religious freedom” and, on the other, you have a huge majority of Americans who correctly see that this isn’t about “religious freedom” but rather about the defense of our civilization, empathy for the loved (and still grieving) ones of our 3,000 dead, and the prevention of a propaganda coup for the radical Islamists.

A smart reader points out that Obama is up to his old straw-man arguments. Quoting Obama’s Friday night statement, he observes, “‘I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.’ Big Duh! Nobody is saying otherwise.” Obama resorts to this sort of bait-and-switch argument because to articulate his rationale — he is more concerned with giving offense to the Muslim World than about providing them with a propaganda triumph — would expose the gulf between his views and those of his fellow citizens.

Conservatives have understandably gone ballistic. Sarah Palin once again gets to the heart of the matter, asking:

Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3,000 people?

Please tell us your position.

We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade.

If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive “cross-cultural engagement” and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven’t they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite?

In Obama we see exactly the same passive resignation in the face of Islamic extremism — he either supports the mosque or “won’t say” (if you buy the excuse that he was only offering legal analysis) — which is paving the road to doom in Europe. In another context, we can recognize how European elites have sent up the white flag, surrendering their societies without a shot:

An official from one of Germany’s four political foundations [was asked] what he planned to do about the Muslim Brotherhood, which desires that European Muslims see themselves not as British, or French, or Dutch but “as radical Muslims seeking to impose sharia.” The official replied, “Well, we are a democracy. If the majority vote for Muslim law that is what we will have.”

Here, Obama seems bent on a similar approach. We have to give KSM a trial (and a platform) in the name of “respect for the rule of law” ( thought the law provides for military tribunals). We have to give an imam with troubling ties and offensive views on 9/11 (our fault, you see) his mosque on the very spot where 3,000 died in the name of Islam because to do otherwise would defeat the liberal ideal that we are in no position to make moral — or religious — distinctions, or to come up with any solution (eminent domain, anyone?) to avoid a gross insult to America and a victory for the jihadists.

In contrast to Obama is Debra Burlingame, who embodies and articulates the sentiments of ordinary Americans:

Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see. Since that dark day, Americans have been asked to bear the burden of defending those values, again and again and again. Now this president declares that the victims of  9/11 and their families must bear another burden. We must stand silent at the last place in America where 9/11 is still remembered with reverence or risk being called religious bigots.

Muslims have worshipped in New York without incident both before and after the attacks of 9/11. This controversy is not about religious freedom. 9/11 was more than a “deeply traumatic event,” it was an act of war. Building a 15-story mosque at Ground Zero is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah. Those who continue to target and kill American civilians and U.S. troops will see it as a symbol of their historic progress at the site of their most bloody victory.

How’s that for a front in the “culture wars”? Abortion, marriage, and the rest are piddling issues compared with the debate about whether and how we should defend our civilization. If nearly every reasoned step to defend ourselves against Islamic extremists flies in the face of liberal dogma, we are presented with a choice: take reasoned and legally defensible steps to defend ourselves (by cutting off the means by which radicals spread jihadism) or capitulate to the left’s dogma and let the consequences — and the American people — be damned. Obama has made his choice, and Americans should make theirs.

Talk about the culture wars. On the one hand, you have Obama pitching that a mega-mosque on “hallowed ground” (his words) is a matter of “religious freedom” and, on the other, you have a huge majority of Americans who correctly see that this isn’t about “religious freedom” but rather about the defense of our civilization, empathy for the loved (and still grieving) ones of our 3,000 dead, and the prevention of a propaganda coup for the radical Islamists.

A smart reader points out that Obama is up to his old straw-man arguments. Quoting Obama’s Friday night statement, he observes, “‘I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.’ Big Duh! Nobody is saying otherwise.” Obama resorts to this sort of bait-and-switch argument because to articulate his rationale — he is more concerned with giving offense to the Muslim World than about providing them with a propaganda triumph — would expose the gulf between his views and those of his fellow citizens.

Conservatives have understandably gone ballistic. Sarah Palin once again gets to the heart of the matter, asking:

Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3,000 people?

Please tell us your position.

We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade.

If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive “cross-cultural engagement” and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven’t they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite?

In Obama we see exactly the same passive resignation in the face of Islamic extremism — he either supports the mosque or “won’t say” (if you buy the excuse that he was only offering legal analysis) — which is paving the road to doom in Europe. In another context, we can recognize how European elites have sent up the white flag, surrendering their societies without a shot:

An official from one of Germany’s four political foundations [was asked] what he planned to do about the Muslim Brotherhood, which desires that European Muslims see themselves not as British, or French, or Dutch but “as radical Muslims seeking to impose sharia.” The official replied, “Well, we are a democracy. If the majority vote for Muslim law that is what we will have.”

Here, Obama seems bent on a similar approach. We have to give KSM a trial (and a platform) in the name of “respect for the rule of law” ( thought the law provides for military tribunals). We have to give an imam with troubling ties and offensive views on 9/11 (our fault, you see) his mosque on the very spot where 3,000 died in the name of Islam because to do otherwise would defeat the liberal ideal that we are in no position to make moral — or religious — distinctions, or to come up with any solution (eminent domain, anyone?) to avoid a gross insult to America and a victory for the jihadists.

In contrast to Obama is Debra Burlingame, who embodies and articulates the sentiments of ordinary Americans:

Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see. Since that dark day, Americans have been asked to bear the burden of defending those values, again and again and again. Now this president declares that the victims of  9/11 and their families must bear another burden. We must stand silent at the last place in America where 9/11 is still remembered with reverence or risk being called religious bigots.

Muslims have worshipped in New York without incident both before and after the attacks of 9/11. This controversy is not about religious freedom. 9/11 was more than a “deeply traumatic event,” it was an act of war. Building a 15-story mosque at Ground Zero is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah. Those who continue to target and kill American civilians and U.S. troops will see it as a symbol of their historic progress at the site of their most bloody victory.

How’s that for a front in the “culture wars”? Abortion, marriage, and the rest are piddling issues compared with the debate about whether and how we should defend our civilization. If nearly every reasoned step to defend ourselves against Islamic extremists flies in the face of liberal dogma, we are presented with a choice: take reasoned and legally defensible steps to defend ourselves (by cutting off the means by which radicals spread jihadism) or capitulate to the left’s dogma and let the consequences — and the American people — be damned. Obama has made his choice, and Americans should make theirs.

Read Less

Who Responds?

The person selected to respond to the State of the Union has a rough time. There is no competing with the pomp and excitement of the president in a prime-time appearance before Congress, the Supreme Court, the cabinet officials, and all the honored guests. Usually, the unlikely recipient of this “honor” gets awful reviews. (Think Tim Kaine’s odd-eye brow appearance and Bobby Jindal’s presidential buzz-halting performance.) So who should do the honors this year?

Bill Kristol recommends an ordinary American fed up with Obama’s agenda, maybe a doctor. There are lots of good possibilities. Perhaps Rep. Parker Griffith could do the honors, explaining why he couldn’t stomach a party that would behave so irresponsibly on health care. The Republicans might have a cancer survivor like Carly Fiorina explain why empowering bureaucrats to ration care is a bad idea. The Republicans might have Dick Cheney replay his face-off against Obama from earlier in the year, updating it for the subsequent dreadful decisions on KSM’s trial and the moving of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. Joining him could be Debra Burlingame and other 9/11 family members, talking about the lunacy of giving KSM a public forum to preach jihadism. Or the Republicans could have a bipartisan evening, inviting Rep. Bart Stupak to talk about abortion subsidies and Jane Hamsher to talk about paying for health-care “reform” on the backs of the middle class.

There are a lot of options because, frankly, Obama has made many, many bad calls. It will be up to the Republicans to see in 2010 if they can find effective spokespeople to make the case to the American people — who at least for now seem awfully receptive to each of the messages I suggested. In fact, Americans poll overwhelming in the GOP’s favor on all of these items. And that, no doubt, is why Republicans are looking forward to a successful 2010 election year.

The person selected to respond to the State of the Union has a rough time. There is no competing with the pomp and excitement of the president in a prime-time appearance before Congress, the Supreme Court, the cabinet officials, and all the honored guests. Usually, the unlikely recipient of this “honor” gets awful reviews. (Think Tim Kaine’s odd-eye brow appearance and Bobby Jindal’s presidential buzz-halting performance.) So who should do the honors this year?

Bill Kristol recommends an ordinary American fed up with Obama’s agenda, maybe a doctor. There are lots of good possibilities. Perhaps Rep. Parker Griffith could do the honors, explaining why he couldn’t stomach a party that would behave so irresponsibly on health care. The Republicans might have a cancer survivor like Carly Fiorina explain why empowering bureaucrats to ration care is a bad idea. The Republicans might have Dick Cheney replay his face-off against Obama from earlier in the year, updating it for the subsequent dreadful decisions on KSM’s trial and the moving of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. Joining him could be Debra Burlingame and other 9/11 family members, talking about the lunacy of giving KSM a public forum to preach jihadism. Or the Republicans could have a bipartisan evening, inviting Rep. Bart Stupak to talk about abortion subsidies and Jane Hamsher to talk about paying for health-care “reform” on the backs of the middle class.

There are a lot of options because, frankly, Obama has made many, many bad calls. It will be up to the Republicans to see in 2010 if they can find effective spokespeople to make the case to the American people — who at least for now seem awfully receptive to each of the messages I suggested. In fact, Americans poll overwhelming in the GOP’s favor on all of these items. And that, no doubt, is why Republicans are looking forward to a successful 2010 election year.

Read Less

Not Keeping America Safe

Liz Cheney and Debra Burlingame (board members of Keep America Safe), Eileen Trotta (the sister of Officer Louis Pepe, a former federal prison guard who was stabbed in the eye by an al-Qaeda terrorist 10 months before 9/11), and former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy held a conference call to discuss the decision to move Guantanamo detainees to the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois. Cheney was blunt, declaring that this was further evidence that the Obama administration was “dedicated to turning the clock back” to a failed pre-9/11 approach, which treated terrorism as a criminal-justice matter. Once here, she explained, the detainees will have “all the rights of U.S. citizens” and the opportunity to seek release onto U.S. soil. They will also have the freedom to plan and plot other terrorist activities, as well as to “radicalize the prison population.” She noted that the Obama team has “no stomach” for keeping in place restrictions on terrorists once they’re in U.S. facilities, pointing to the case of shoe bomber Richard Reid, who after a hunger strike and legal complaint got the restrictions on mail, media access, etc. lifted. (Burlingame later added that it was discovered that the 1993 World Trade Center bombers managed to send some 90 letters to terrorist networks, which used them as prime recruiting tools.)

I asked Cheney what the administration hoped to gain by this, since terrorists would still have to be indefinitely detained and we were simply going to have to re-create the Guantanamo facility on U.S. soil. She confessed that it was “impossible to get inside their heads,” but she emphasized that each and every action of the president should be assessed as to whether it would make Americans safer. She said there is simply “no way to argue” that this makes us safer. She deemed the argument that this will create jobs “disgraceful,” reminding those on the call that there was an overpopulation problem in U.S. prisons and that other prisoners could be moved and the Illinois facility enhanced if they wanted to boost local jobs. She reiterated that Guantanamo is both a “safe and just facility” and that there is “no legitimate justification” for moving them.

In response to a similar query from USA Today as to whether this was an administration effort to eliminate Guantanamo as a “recruiting tool,” Cheney said that the media should “challenge them to show evidence” that it was Guantanamo that was responsible for terror recruitment. Terrorists “are not attacking America because of the way they are detained” but, she explained, because of their hateful Islamic fundamentalist ideology. McCarthy added, “A pretext is not a cause.” It is Islamic ideology and signs of American weakness that, he noted, are what spur recruitment, according to terrorists (including the 1993 bombers) who have been debriefed.

I asked McCarthy what Congress could do. Congress has “remedies,” he noted, including the power to decline funding. Congress is also the “master of federal jurisdiction” and can use that power, for example in the KSM trial, to declare U.S. courts off-limits to enemy combatants. It is, he argues, incumbent on Congress to use “the power of the purse … but also to say in resolutions that this is not the way we want to go.”

This is a preview of the debate that will take place, both in Congress and in the 2010 elections. The question remains: do we want to move terrorists to U.S. soil and treat them as U.S. citizens, with all the attendant rights and security risks? The American people overwhelmingly have rejected this idea. But the Obami say they know better. We’ll see who wins the argument.

Liz Cheney and Debra Burlingame (board members of Keep America Safe), Eileen Trotta (the sister of Officer Louis Pepe, a former federal prison guard who was stabbed in the eye by an al-Qaeda terrorist 10 months before 9/11), and former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy held a conference call to discuss the decision to move Guantanamo detainees to the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois. Cheney was blunt, declaring that this was further evidence that the Obama administration was “dedicated to turning the clock back” to a failed pre-9/11 approach, which treated terrorism as a criminal-justice matter. Once here, she explained, the detainees will have “all the rights of U.S. citizens” and the opportunity to seek release onto U.S. soil. They will also have the freedom to plan and plot other terrorist activities, as well as to “radicalize the prison population.” She noted that the Obama team has “no stomach” for keeping in place restrictions on terrorists once they’re in U.S. facilities, pointing to the case of shoe bomber Richard Reid, who after a hunger strike and legal complaint got the restrictions on mail, media access, etc. lifted. (Burlingame later added that it was discovered that the 1993 World Trade Center bombers managed to send some 90 letters to terrorist networks, which used them as prime recruiting tools.)

I asked Cheney what the administration hoped to gain by this, since terrorists would still have to be indefinitely detained and we were simply going to have to re-create the Guantanamo facility on U.S. soil. She confessed that it was “impossible to get inside their heads,” but she emphasized that each and every action of the president should be assessed as to whether it would make Americans safer. She said there is simply “no way to argue” that this makes us safer. She deemed the argument that this will create jobs “disgraceful,” reminding those on the call that there was an overpopulation problem in U.S. prisons and that other prisoners could be moved and the Illinois facility enhanced if they wanted to boost local jobs. She reiterated that Guantanamo is both a “safe and just facility” and that there is “no legitimate justification” for moving them.

In response to a similar query from USA Today as to whether this was an administration effort to eliminate Guantanamo as a “recruiting tool,” Cheney said that the media should “challenge them to show evidence” that it was Guantanamo that was responsible for terror recruitment. Terrorists “are not attacking America because of the way they are detained” but, she explained, because of their hateful Islamic fundamentalist ideology. McCarthy added, “A pretext is not a cause.” It is Islamic ideology and signs of American weakness that, he noted, are what spur recruitment, according to terrorists (including the 1993 bombers) who have been debriefed.

I asked McCarthy what Congress could do. Congress has “remedies,” he noted, including the power to decline funding. Congress is also the “master of federal jurisdiction” and can use that power, for example in the KSM trial, to declare U.S. courts off-limits to enemy combatants. It is, he argues, incumbent on Congress to use “the power of the purse … but also to say in resolutions that this is not the way we want to go.”

This is a preview of the debate that will take place, both in Congress and in the 2010 elections. The question remains: do we want to move terrorists to U.S. soil and treat them as U.S. citizens, with all the attendant rights and security risks? The American people overwhelmingly have rejected this idea. But the Obami say they know better. We’ll see who wins the argument.

Read Less

New York Senate Race

You know things aren’t going well for Democrats when Blue States like New York, Illinois, and Connecticut become real pick-up opportunities for Republicans in 2010 Senate races. In New York, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand may be in trouble, either from a Democratic primary challenger or a Republican opponent. The chairman of the state’s Conservative party remarks: “Clearly she is unknown, that’s No. 1. No. 2, she has flipped on every given issue so I think she’s weakened herself upstate where initially that was her strength.” But there is something else as well — that “trial of the century.”

After all, she hasn’t opposed the administration’s gambit to try terrorists in the U.S. She and her fellow Democrats had the chance to block funds for terrorist trials and again to cut off funds for refurbishing Supermax prisons to house them here. But instead, the Democratic Senate enabled the Obama administration’s decision, one that is overwhelmingly unpopular. In the general election, Gillibrand may face Rudy Giuliani, who would make this a top issue. But what about New Yorker Debra Burlingame? No sign that she is yet interested in running. But she and her grassroots organization may make Gillibrand’s campaign dicey. Why is it that Gillibrand didn’t do what she could to block KSM’s trial? Well, she’ll need to answer that — if she makes it to the general election.

You know things aren’t going well for Democrats when Blue States like New York, Illinois, and Connecticut become real pick-up opportunities for Republicans in 2010 Senate races. In New York, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand may be in trouble, either from a Democratic primary challenger or a Republican opponent. The chairman of the state’s Conservative party remarks: “Clearly she is unknown, that’s No. 1. No. 2, she has flipped on every given issue so I think she’s weakened herself upstate where initially that was her strength.” But there is something else as well — that “trial of the century.”

After all, she hasn’t opposed the administration’s gambit to try terrorists in the U.S. She and her fellow Democrats had the chance to block funds for terrorist trials and again to cut off funds for refurbishing Supermax prisons to house them here. But instead, the Democratic Senate enabled the Obama administration’s decision, one that is overwhelmingly unpopular. In the general election, Gillibrand may face Rudy Giuliani, who would make this a top issue. But what about New Yorker Debra Burlingame? No sign that she is yet interested in running. But she and her grassroots organization may make Gillibrand’s campaign dicey. Why is it that Gillibrand didn’t do what she could to block KSM’s trial? Well, she’ll need to answer that — if she makes it to the general election.

Read Less

Courage, Mr. Holder?

Debra Burlingame, sister of the pilot of Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, and co-founder of Keep America Safe and 9/11 Never Forget U.S., eviscerates Attorney General Holder in an op-ed in the New York Daily News. Not surprising, she objects to KSM’s being given a civilian-court trial. But the gravamen of her complaint is Holder’s particularly galling defense of his incomprehensible decision, namely that critics are “afraid” to give KSM a trial. Burlingame lets Holder have it. A portion:

How dare this man, who didn’t have the decency to notify victims’ families of his decision to bring these monsters here, imply that we lack courage. Courage is carrying on after watching your loved ones die, in real time, knowing that they burned to death, were crushed to death, or jumped from 100 flights high. Courage is carrying on, even as we waited, in some cases years, for something of our loved ones to bury. More than 1,100 families still wait.

How dare the attorney general suggest that the firefighters who oppose this trial need to “man up” and let this avowed enemy of America mock their brother firefighters in the country’s most magisterial setting, a federal court.

Nor is she going to let his comment about the “trial of the century” go unaddressed: “Well, Mr. Attorney General, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has put you on notice. He’s going to give it to you. His trial will be lawyer-assisted jihad in the courtroom.”

Burlingame notes that more than 100,000 people immediately signed her group’s letter of protest to Holder (he apparently has not responded). I suspect she’ll have more before this is through.

Holder’s decision to afford KSM all the constitutional privileges of a criminal defendant was entirely unnecessary and will, I suspect, come back to haunt the administration if not reversed in some fashion. But as bad as the decision was, Holder’s roll-out and defense of it, as Burlingame points out, have been even worse.

Debra Burlingame, sister of the pilot of Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, and co-founder of Keep America Safe and 9/11 Never Forget U.S., eviscerates Attorney General Holder in an op-ed in the New York Daily News. Not surprising, she objects to KSM’s being given a civilian-court trial. But the gravamen of her complaint is Holder’s particularly galling defense of his incomprehensible decision, namely that critics are “afraid” to give KSM a trial. Burlingame lets Holder have it. A portion:

How dare this man, who didn’t have the decency to notify victims’ families of his decision to bring these monsters here, imply that we lack courage. Courage is carrying on after watching your loved ones die, in real time, knowing that they burned to death, were crushed to death, or jumped from 100 flights high. Courage is carrying on, even as we waited, in some cases years, for something of our loved ones to bury. More than 1,100 families still wait.

How dare the attorney general suggest that the firefighters who oppose this trial need to “man up” and let this avowed enemy of America mock their brother firefighters in the country’s most magisterial setting, a federal court.

Nor is she going to let his comment about the “trial of the century” go unaddressed: “Well, Mr. Attorney General, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has put you on notice. He’s going to give it to you. His trial will be lawyer-assisted jihad in the courtroom.”

Burlingame notes that more than 100,000 people immediately signed her group’s letter of protest to Holder (he apparently has not responded). I suspect she’ll have more before this is through.

Holder’s decision to afford KSM all the constitutional privileges of a criminal defendant was entirely unnecessary and will, I suspect, come back to haunt the administration if not reversed in some fashion. But as bad as the decision was, Holder’s roll-out and defense of it, as Burlingame points out, have been even worse.

Read Less

Getting Ready to Make a Fuss

Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.); Debra Burlingame, co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America; and Andrew C. McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and prosecutor in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial, among others, will be holding a press conference tomorrow to release details of their December 5 rally. They explain:

The Coalition formed to fight the decision of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to try the 9/11 co-conspirators in New York City’s federal court, effectively giving war criminals the same rights as American citizens while endangering the safety of all New Yorkers. Two weeks ago, we sent a letter signed by 300 family members of 9/11 victims to the President, Attorney General and Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking them to reverse course. The letter has now been signed by over 120,000 Americans and is posted at http://www.keepamericasafe.com.

Like the Tea Parties, this seems to have the potential to motivate ordinarily nonpolitical Americans to protest a decision that remains simply incomprehensible. The administration somehow imagined that by releasing news of its decision on a Friday when the president was out of the country, a cheesy PR move unbefitting a decision of this gravity, that it might avoid unleashing a firestorm. It seems they have misjudged, as they have so many other things, the American people.

Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.); Debra Burlingame, co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America; and Andrew C. McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and prosecutor in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial, among others, will be holding a press conference tomorrow to release details of their December 5 rally. They explain:

The Coalition formed to fight the decision of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to try the 9/11 co-conspirators in New York City’s federal court, effectively giving war criminals the same rights as American citizens while endangering the safety of all New Yorkers. Two weeks ago, we sent a letter signed by 300 family members of 9/11 victims to the President, Attorney General and Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking them to reverse course. The letter has now been signed by over 120,000 Americans and is posted at http://www.keepamericasafe.com.

Like the Tea Parties, this seems to have the potential to motivate ordinarily nonpolitical Americans to protest a decision that remains simply incomprehensible. The administration somehow imagined that by releasing news of its decision on a Friday when the president was out of the country, a cheesy PR move unbefitting a decision of this gravity, that it might avoid unleashing a firestorm. It seems they have misjudged, as they have so many other things, the American people.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.