As long as the first amendment stays in place people will be able to respond to articles in newspapers and other venues in the media. That is the way it should be.

However, if you’re going to gain space in a national rag then at least get your facts straight, don’t get caught lying multiple times.

USA Today ran an op-ed about the Obama administrations Christmas Day bomber mishandling of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab by providing the foreigner with “his” Miranda rights.

“Officials’ handling of Christmas Day attack looks like amateur hour.”

Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan replied:

“Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.”

No wonder Obama had a problem with SCOTUS and their recent 5-4 ruling protecting the First Amendment. They can’t accept any criticism, based on facts, when it comes out in a public forum.

Obama and his ilk claim, “We (they) need no lectures” and the USA Today is serving “the goals of al-Qaeda.”

Isn’t this backwards when you provide US Constitutional rights to a terrorist connected to al-Qaeda who was performing an act of terrorism in US territory?

First Brennan asserts that:

“Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thoroughly interrogated and provided important information.”

Then one sentence later Brennan admits:

“The most important breakthrough occurred after Abdulmutallab was read his rights.”

Brennan further asserts:

“Senior counterterrorism officials from the White House, the intelligence community and the military were all actively discussing this case before he was Mirandized and supported the decision to charge him in criminal court.”

Liar, liar, pants on fire! Brennan just got caught directly contradicting the sworn testimony of National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair and FBI Director Robert Mueller. Maybe an investigation is in order. Of course Mr. Blair told the truth in sworn testimony only to contradict himself after the folks at the White House slapped him around.

Brennan asserts:

“Would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid was read his Miranda rights five minutes after being taken off a plane he tried to blow up. The same people who criticize the president today were silent back then.”

As much as the Obama administration would like to change facts and change history the military detention system was not in place at the time of the Reid arrest.

Brennan continues:

“There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical.”

Yes, you read that fabrication correctly. In military custody, detainees are not read their Miranda rights and their lawyer’s purpose is to challenge his detention as an enemy combatant. Under civilian custody, the suspect is read his Miranda rights and his lawyer is there to make sure he does not say anything that will incriminate himself.

When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up a commercial airliner on Christmas day and was treated as a common criminal with US Constitutional rights the Washington Post, a liberal news media bastion, wrote:

UMAR FAROUK Abdulmutallab was nabbed in Detroit on board Northwest Flight 253 after trying unsuccessfully to ignite explosives sewn into his underwear. The Obama administration had three options: It could charge him in federal court. It could detain him as an enemy belligerent. Or it could hold him for prolonged questioning and later indict him, ensuring that nothing Mr. Abdulmutallab said during questioning was used against him in court.

It is now clear that the administration did not give serious thought to anything but Door No. 1. This was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

Mr. Brennan has the audacity of Obama and spins the facts to match what the administration wants the public to believe. Playing follow the leader in this case gets you caught in a lie. Indeed!