Tag: al-qaeda
Cutting Security Funding For Blue States, Trump Opens Door To Terror Attacks

Cutting Security Funding For Blue States, Trump Opens Door To Terror Attacks

President Donald Trump is proposing a cut to anti-terrorism funds being used to protect regions of the country that are among the biggest targets of international terrorism, including Washington, D.C.

The Homeland Security Grants program was created after the September 11, 2001, attacks to help states in the fight against terrorism. It is these funds that Trump is targeting.

Reuters reported on Thursday that 12 states led by Democratic officials are suing to block the cuts. Notices sent out by the Federal Emergency Management Agency indicate that the biggest cuts are coming for D.C. (70 percent), Illinois (69 percent), California (31 percent), and New Jersey (49 percent).

The administration also initially attempted to cut 77 percent of New York’s funding under the program—which is to say, the state most directly affected by the 9/11 attacks—but Trump reversed his decision after the states filed suit.

By contrast, states that Trump won in the 2024 election—such as Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Ohio—are slated to receive additional funding. Trump has often used the spending power of the federal government to target states led by Democrats, and he has increased this practice after Republicans shut down the federal government.

Washington is among the most obvious targets for international terrorism in the world. It is the seat of the U.S. government and the home to many federal agencies.

The city was targeted by al-Qaida on 9/11, when the group attacked the Pentagon and killed 184 people. United Airlines Flight 93 was also suspected to have been hijacked with the intent of crashing it into the U.S. Capitol building. The plan was averted by the passengers onboard, who stormed the cockpit. Instead of hitting its target, the plane crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

In addition to the proposed cuts, Trump has already made D.C. more vulnerable by ordering FBI agents tasked with anti-terrorism to instead focus on his pet issue, immigration. Harassing migrants, their families, and neighborhoods are a higher priority for the Trump administration than protecting the nation’s capital.

Similarly, other crime priorities, like investigating child predators and drug traffickers, have been put on the backburner in favor of devoting resources to anti-immigration operations.

The administration seems dead set on vindictively targeting blue states, even if it opens the nation up to more terrorist attacks.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Focused On 'Celebrities,' Trump Fumbled His Chance To Kill Zawahiri

Focused On 'Celebrities,' Trump Fumbled His Chance To Kill Zawahiri

Former President Donald Trump had the opportunity to eliminate Ayman al-Zawahiri, the 71-year-old leader of al-Qaeda, but he was more interested in terrorist figures whose names he recognized, according to a Tuesday Insider report.

Zawahiri was killed over the weekend by a drone strike in a U.S. counterterrorism operation in Kabul, Afghanistan, as President Joe Biden announced late Monday. The killing — which was met with praise across the board, including from world leaders — is the most crushing blow dealt to the al-Qaeda terrorist group since the 2011 killing of its founder, Osama Bin Laden.

However, Zawahiri's death would have come years earlier had then-President Trump not preferred to target terrorists with names he recognized, NBC News reported in 2020.

According to the report, intelligence officials briefed Trump many times on worrisome terrorist threats, primarily senior figures on the CIA’s hit list, including the notorious Zawahiri. However, Trump “was more interested in a young and less influential figure much farther down the list,” the report nodded.

“My team and I often struggled in persuading the president to recognize the most important threats,” wrote former CIA official Douglas London for Just Security.com in 2020.

"He would say, 'I've never heard of any of these people. What about Hamza bin Laden?'" one former official said, according to the report. "That was the only name he knew," the report added, quoting a Pentagon official.

“When it comes to intelligence, like with so much else, President Donald Trump likes big names. It’s this focus on celebrity, headlines, and immediate gratification — versus substance, impact, and consequences — that so often motivates him,” London wrote.

He added that Trump's “obsession in focusing resources against Osama bin Laden’s son Hamza is one example of the president’s preference for a ‘celebrity’ targeted killing versus prioritizing options that could prove better for U.S. security.”

Bin Laden’s youngest son, Hamza, was not planning any attacks when he was killed in a U.S. airstrike in 2018, NBC news disclosed, citing current and former officials familiar with the matter.

"Despite intelligence assessments showing the greater dangers posed by Zawahiri ... and the unlikelihood Hamza was in the immediate line of succession, the president thought differently," London said in his piece.

Trump’s insistence on scoring a celebrity kill cost intelligence officials the chance to track down the dangerous al-Zawahiri, allowing one of the United States’ most wanted terrorists to enjoy his reign of terror in the iddle east for two more years.

Biden said al-Zawahiri “carved a trail of murder and violence against American citizens, American service members, American diplomats, and American interests."

"This mission was carefully planned, rigorously minimized the risk of harm to other civilians, and one week ago, after being advised that the conditions were optimal, I gave the final approval to go get him, and the mission was a success," Biden said in televised remarks from the White House on Monday..

“Now justice has been delivered, and this terrorist leader is no more,” the president added. “No matter how long it takes, no matter where you hide, if you are a threat to our people, the United States will find you and take you out.”

Biden Serves Justice On Al Qaeda Chief --  And Republicans Complain

Biden Serves Justice On Al Qaeda Chief -- And Republicans Complain

House and Senate Republicans are mostly quiet about President Joe Biden having killed top al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri , a terrorist who was Osama bin-Laden’s second in command. Few gave him credit for taking out the terrorist, despite lauding Donald Trump when he took out Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Qasem Soleimani.

Ayman al-Zawahiri was “a mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks” who was “one of the most sought-after people by the U.S. for over two decades,” NBC News reports. Some Republicans offered praise to the men and women in the armed forces, some to the CIA, the agency Biden used to carry out the assassination. And some used the killing of the top al-Qaeda terrorist as an opportunity to attack the President.

Americans paying attention only to Fox News or Republicans on Capitol Hill would have a very different understanding of this critical moment in history.

Matthew Dowd, a former Republican who was a chief strategist on the George W. Bush 2004 presidential campaign, and became a Democrat after Donald Trump was elected, writes, “as I said at the time, too many in the news media were wrong about Biden’s withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Biden made right decision, and it was managed incredibly well.”

He adds, “we are still able to conduct operations against terrorists without having troops there.”

A few Republicans took to Twitter to recognize the moment, while ignoring President Biden’s achievement – or attacking him.

“We owe a debt of gratitude to the brave Americans who took out the terrorist, Al Zawahiri,” wrote House Minority Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy. “The Biden admin must provide Congress with a briefing as soon as possible to discuss the resurgence of Al Qaeda in the region following his disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.”

Retired reporter Dan Murphy responded: “There were over 1,000 terrorist attacks inside Afghanistan in the final year of our military involvement there. US servicemen and woman died there every year. But no longer.”

“Yawn,” he added, suggesting he was bored with the Republican leader’s remarks.

Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) posted one of the most critical responses.

“I’m so proud of our military and Intelligence Community for this successful mission. Al-Zawahiri was an evil man who has been brought to justice. But we did this in spite of @POTUS’ leadership, not because of it.”

“His surrender of Afghanistan continues to threaten our security,” he added, offering nothing to support the claim.

House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL) repeatedly praised “the members of our Intelligence Community” but not President Biden.

“This mission also serves as a reminder that al-Qaeda is not gone from Afghanistan as President Biden claimed following his disastrous withdrawal,” LaHood charged. “Rising threats from al-Qaeda and other terror orgs must be confronted by the Admin in consultation with Congress to keep America safe.”

Spelling the eradicated terrorist’s name wrong, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) offered this response: “Amman Al Zawhiri’s death is undoubtedly a win for the world. This truly evil man can do no more harm to anyone. God bless the USA!”

William F. Wechsler of the non-partisan think tank The Atlantic Council calls this “a sense of vindication for Biden and a moment of truth for the Taliban.”

“This is a particularly notable accomplishment for President Biden, who decided to withdraw remaining US forces and leave Afghanistan to the Taliban, relying only on ‘over the horizon’ counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda. This decision was criticized by many counterterrorism experts at the time, myself included. But with today’s news, Biden and his team, ably led by Liz Sherwood-Randall at the White House, will go to sleep tonight with a deep sense of vindication and take a well-deserved victory lap.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

American flag is unfurled at the Pentagon on the 19th anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

A Disturbing Decline, From 9/11 Unity To Pandemic Division

The 21st century in America has so far been bracketed by two terrible mass-casualty events. The first was the 9/11 attacks, 20 years ago today. The second is the COVID-19 pandemic. The radically different public response to these episodes reveals a lot about us, and much of it is not flattering.

The airline hijackings were the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history. They catalyzed a wave of fear and anger that permanently reshaped our foreign and domestic policies — or, rather, warped them.

The near-panic that gripped the nation back then is understandable. But it's plain today that our leaders, with broad public support, grossly overreacted. The consequences afflict us even now.

No one could have imagined on September 10, 2001, that an American president would authorize the use of torture against alleged enemies in secret prisons. Or that hundreds of American Muslims would be arrested and detained without charges for days, weeks or months. Or that hostility toward Muslims would grow widespread enough to require a new term: Islamophobia. Or that the government would soon be collecting millions of records of phone communications — many of them in violation of the law.

Worse yet, though, were the two protracted wars the United States launched after the 9/11 attacks. The invasion of Afghanistan was a legitimate response, because the terrorist group behind the attacks had been operating there. But after toppling the Taliban and routing al-Qaida, we stayed on in a foolish quest to remake the country — a quest given up only recently.

Then there was the invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein. He had nothing to do with the attacks, which didn't stop President George W. Bush and those around him from using 9/11 as a pretext for war. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. sacrificed more than 6,800 American lives and trillions of dollars. But the president who initiated them was rewarded with reelection.

All this came in response to attacks that cost fewer than 3,000 lives. This pandemic will kill more Americans than that in the next three days — on top of the 649,000 who have already died from COVID-19.

The risk to each of us is hundreds of times greater than the risk of being killed by terrorists ever was. But the spirit of unity that arose after 9/11 has been conspicuously absent in the face of the virus.

What accounts for the disparity? Americans may not be unique in finding it easier to rouse themselves against violent human enemies than against microbes that spread silently through the populace. Osama bin Laden was easy to hate. The pathogen, visible only under a microscope, doesn't stir the same primal fury.

The 9/11 attacks produced a pervasive alarm that vastly exceeded the real danger. The low mortality rate of COVID-19, by contrast, has been used to downplay the need for basic public health measures, such as vaccinations and face coverings.

Leaders matter, for better or worse. Bush used his bully pulpit to call for a "crusade" against "evil-doers," and soon was vowing action against an "axis of evil" consisting of North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. In hyping the threat of terrorism, he commanded broad support and little meaningful resistance.

President Donald Trump, however, used his office to minimize the risks posed by COVID-19 and undermine public health guidance from experts. In March 2020, he admitted to journalist Bob Woodward that he had deliberately downplayed the virus in the full knowledge of how dangerous it was.

Publicly, he compared it to the flu and repeatedly promised it would soon disappear. He refused to wear a mask in public, mocked the government's chief infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and held indoor rallies in packed arenas.

Trump declared war not on foreign enemies but on Democratic governors such as Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer. His credulous followers soon came to see the pandemic as a hoax cooked up to keep Trump from being reelected.

Perhaps the best explanation for the sharply contrasting public reactions is that the war on terrorism caused a negligible inconvenience to the vast majority of Americans. COVID-19 demanded significant changes in how we live — and millions of people not only refused to cooperate but celebrated their defiance.

The measures deemed necessary to fight terrorism exploited our eagerness to hate our enemies, which we had no trouble doing. Those required to combat COVID-19 required us to love our neighbors. Somehow, that's a much harder sell.

Follow Steve Chapman on Twitter @SteveChapman13 or at https://www.facebook.com/stevechapman13. To find out more about Steve Chapman and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World