Meantime, the Daily Beast and Right Scoop misrepresent a CNN conversation on Trump executive order.
Wow. Talk about bizarre.
Over there at the Daily Beast liberal lapdog Matt Wilstein completely misrepresents the point I was making last night on CNN with Poppy Harlow.
To my amazement, so too does Right Scoop’s “SooperMexican.”
With all the craziness erupting over President Trump keeping his repeated campaign pledges to the American people — this time over the vetting of Syrian refugees — let’s take a moment to correct the record for Left and Right. With a “bravo” shout out to a gutsy President Trump.
Liberals are now going crazy, because Trump is insisting on momentarily halting the flow of immigrants from seven countries in the Middle East to establish better vetting procedures. Per CNN, the facts are thusly, as seen here in the text of his executive order. The order says this, in part, bold print supplied by me:
The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
Got that last sentence? Again, it says:
The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
My point on CNN? What happened in the aftermath of 9/11? Liberals were quick to jump on the Bush administration for not being “vigilant” when it came to believing in the possibility that the United States could be attacked by Islamic radicals — in that case by al-Qaida.
Case in point, which I cited on the air, is this 2012 gem in the New York Times by ex-Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald (who is now with Newsweek.) The headline:
The Deafness Before the Storm
In which Mr. Eichenwald says, among other things, the following, bold print supplied again by me:
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
… Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.
… In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.
In short? The liberal Times via Eichenwald was accusing President Bush 43 of being “deaf” to warnings of a potential for an attack on the United States by Islamic radicals and added for good measure that the Bush administration was guilty in spades of “significantly more negligence than has been disclosed” in the matter of not taking measures to prevent the 9/11 attack.
My point was simple. One can argue over what President Trump has done, but that he is taking warnings of a potential attack from an un-vetted Middle Eastern immigrant seriously, there can be no doubt.
In fact, by now Americans have become all too familiar with the hard fact that immigrants with Islamic radical ties have already been conducting attacks in this country when not caught planning them. Whether it was the Iranian-born U.S. citizen Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar plowing his car into a crowd at the University of North Carolina in 2006 or the Somali-born Ohio State student Abdul Razak Ali Artan attempting the same gambit in 2016 or Tashfeen Malik, the Pakistani via Saudi Arabia K1 “fiancé” visa holder who murdered 14 Californians at a San Bernardino Christmas Party, there is a lengthening list of those attracted to radical Islam who have tried successfully to enter the country — and then attack.
Across the ocean, back in April 2016, the Washington Post headlined this:
Tracing the path of four terrorists sent to Europe by the Islamic State
The Post’s story began as follows, bold print supplied:
SALZBURG, Austria — On a crisp morning last October, 198 migrants arrived on the Greek island of Leros, all of them seemingly desperate people seeking sanctuary in Europe. But hiding among them were four men with a very different agenda.
The four were posing as war-weary Syrians — all carrying doctored passports with false identities. And they were on a deadly mission for the Islamic State.
Two of the four would masquerade as migrants all the way to Paris. There, at 9:20 p.m. on Nov. 13, they would detonate suicide vests near the Stade de France sports complex, fulfilling their part in the worst attack on French soil since World War II.
Americans don’t even need the classified briefings President Trump is receiving to know two very stark facts. First, the United States and the West are being systematically targeted by Islamic radicals, with the latest gambit — as documented by the Washington Post — being to hide ISIS fighters among the Syrian refugees. And secondly, Americans have learned the hard way that there is something drastically wrong with the U.S. immigration system that has repeatedly allowed said Islamic radicals into this country un-vetted — with mayhem and mass murder all too frequently the result.
My point on CNN? In the aftermath of 9/11, as that New York Times article illustrated vividly (and it wasn’t alone, either), liberals were quick to accuse President Bush of knowing ahead of time that al-Qaida and bin Ladin were preparing an attack — and he was guilty of being “deaf” and displaying significant “negligence” in his response — opening the door to the horrific attacks.
There cannot be the slightest doubt that if there were an attack in the U.S. from another Islamic radical inside this country already — not to mention an attack coming from an ISIS fighter hiding amongst the Syrian refugee population — Trump opponents would be quick to accuse him — precisely as they accused President Bush — of being “deaf” to the warnings and “negligent” in his response when the entire world knew the U.S. was a target.
In fact, interestingly, over at Conservative Review, Daniel Horowitz has taken the time to separate the media fact from fiction swirling around the Trump executive order. He opens by effectively responding to all the bleats about the alleged “un-American” nature of what Trump has done by citing this statement by Supreme Court Justice James Iredell — in 1799. Said Justice Iredell in almost Trumpian language:
Any alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever risqué he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States.
Deliciously, also at Conservative Review, Amanda Carpenter notes this:
For all indignation from the Democrats over the so-called “Muslim ban” proposed by GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, one would think they’ve never supported such a thing. Wrong.
According to an investigative report from ABC News published in 2013, the Obama-Clinton State Department stopped processing Iraqi refugee requests for six months in 2011 after it was discovered that two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists, who had previously attacked US soldiers in Iraq and were trained in bomb making, entered the country as refugees and were living in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
Not to mention that CR’s Horowitz also headlined acerbically:
Just 14 years ago, Democrats supported cutting off visas from dangerous countries
All of this before you even get to the bottom line on the Trump order as noted in detail here at National Review by Andy McCarthy:
Trump’s Exclusion of Aliens from Specific Countries Is Legal
All of which goes to my point on CNN exactly. The hypocrisy from the Left here is so thick you could only cut it with a chainsaw.
What President Trump has done is not simply legal it is moral — his first duty is to protect American citizens and their safety. Period. Full stop. And politically? The president deserves the Profile in Courage award for his willingness to carry through with a central campaign promise that millions of Americans voted for when they supported him.
And again, the point I made on CNN is obvious or should be. The moment an attack from yet another un-vetted immigrant occurs inside the United States, his opponents — just as they did with President Bush — will be yelling that President Trump was “deaf” to the warnings we all know are out there not to mention that he was “negligent” to boot.
Bravo, Mr. President. Bravo.
And as to the Daily Beast and Right Scoop? Oh, please.