Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) commented soon after the attempted bombing of an airplane over Detroit that the Obama administration needed to do a better job at connecting the dots regarding terror threats from Yemen:
“People have got to start connecting the dots here and maybe this is the thing that will connect the dots for the Obama administration.”
Think Progress immediately went into attack mode. Not against al-Qaeda or the officials who failed to prevent this near-disaster, but against Hoekstra for “politicizing” the issue. And the left-wing blogosphere responded to the Think Progress whistle, attacking Hoekstra and dismissing the incident as a “joke’ and nothing to “fear.”
With each passing day, as more information about the threats from Yemen comes out, the wisdom of Hoekstra’s statement becomes more clear.
Here is what Maureen Dowd, no fan of Republicans herself, says today about the failure to connect the dots:
If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?
Dowd left off the list of disconnected dots that the CIA had received warnings about a Nigerian bomber meeting with al-Qaeda in Yemen, but failed to … connect the dots to this bomber who was Nigerian. Even Obama himself has been forced to acknowledge that there was a systemic breakdown and failure to piece the information together — just as Hoekstra had said.
Only because people like Hoekstra, the press, and now even columnists like Dowd, have pushed forward for the truth is the truth coming out.
The threat to national security arises not only from officials who fail to connect the dots, but from the people who do not want the dots connected if it will be damaging to this administration.
Pete Hoekstra deserves an apology from the people who politicized his statement. Somehow, I doubt we’ll be seeing that soon.
Update: Despite knowing all that we now do about the failures of this administration to connect the dots (by its own admission), we’re still getting commentary like this:
When you are dealing with the current GOP, you simply have to think of the most shamelessly cynical thing they could do or say, and realize that they will in fact do just that. They are completely unhindered by reality and show no allegiance to facts or recent history. They will say or do anything, they know they will not be held accountable by the media or their own party, and that the Democrats don’t have the balls to hit them head on. And when folks like Grayson do, our beltway betters get the vapors.
And it looks like Hoekstra is not waiting for an apology:
And I wonder what Nino must be thinking: Scalia Was Right About Releasing Gitmo Detainees
——————————————–
Related Posts:
About That “Firecracker”
Not So Scary Terror?
Terrorist Attacks Plane, Think Progress Attacks Pete Hoekstra
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Here's some food for thought. What prompted the President to authorize the Dec. 17th drone attack on Yemen?
Did he have intelligence suggesting an attack on the homeland may be imminent, and he felt the threat was so potentially dangerous that it required a pre-emptive response? Considering how concilliatory he's been toward the world's despots, tyrants, and dictators, I'm inclined to believe the answer to that question is probably yes.
If true, why weren't we warned? Even more disturbing, why did he fly to a pacific island, over 5000 miles from D.C., just a week after the drone attack on Yemen without having confirmation the plot had been thwarted?
Why I've layed out is pure speculation on my part. It makes me ill to think the commander in chief would be so detached from reality that he'd continue his vacation plans under the circumstances I've described. But I'm sensing the Congressional hearings about this event could prove to be a political bombshell for Obama.
As I understand it, the CIA is prohibited from passing information to the FBI, thanks the Democrats in Congress.
I am sure AQ is quaking in their sandals over the upoming investigation that The One is going to launch.
But I'm sensing the Congressional hearings about this event could prove to be a political bombshell for Obama.
Not as long as his cronies are running Congress.
Just as "bad faith!" is an accusation often wielded in bad faith and context rarely helps statements "taken out of context," "partisanship!" is an accusation usually made with partisan intent.
Apparently Hoekstra is also being criticized by a Republican opponent in the Michigan gubernatorial primary.
Thanks for making my blog sisu your "Blog of the Day"!
I'm loving Instapundit's answer to Ed Morrissey's question Where is the national GOP in the Massachusetts special election":
Being disintermediated via the Internet, by all appearances . . . .
May the best man win!
Fair enough pointson the one hand. But here are some reasons, which are very different, why it would seem think progress went into what you call attack mode. Starting with accusing the House Majority Leader of "outrageous accusation: for things that he then later stated himself.
Hoekstra was also even criticized by some Republicans for over using the Christmas bombing attempt in his fundraising.
As for connecting the dots, nothing wrong with that comment by Hoekstra. But as far as dot connecting goes, why were these dots not connected?
We stil have too many different lists, and not enough, or effective, integration and coordination between agencies covering this.