To say that Newt Gingrich is upset with elites in both parties for their questioning Michele Bachmann’s investigation is understatement. In addition to Speaker Gingrich’s op-ed in Politico, Gingrich sat down for an interview with Politico’s Jim VandeHei to talk about national security. Within the first 15 seconds of his reply to the first question, Gingrich made clear that the elites in both parties are foolish for not taking this issue more seriously.
The intensity of the attack on Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) as well as Republican Reps. Trent Franks of Arizona, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Tom Rooney of Florida and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia is a reminder of how desperate our elites are to avoid this discussion. Yet consider this rush to silence questions in light of our history of unpleasant surprises during the Cold War.
Given all the painful things we learn about people every day and the surprises that shock even the experts (the head of the FBI anti-spy effort was a Russian spy, for example), you have to wonder why people would aggressively assert we shouldn’t ask about national security concerns.
If this nation isn’t willing to ask unpleasant questions, then this isn’t a nation serious about national security. Huma Abedin’s parents have extensive ties to Wahhabism and other forms of the Muslim Brotherhood. If she isn’t worthy of additional scrutiny when applying for a security clearance, then there’s no sense having security clearances.
This isn’t an accusation that Ms. Abedin is a terrorist plant. Nothing suggests that at this point. It’s simply saying that agencies and departments that handle raw intelligence reports should put in place safeguards to prevent sensitive information from falling into the wrong hands.
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned last week, “The West is asleep on this issue.” Islamist extremists, Blair asserted in an interview with The Telegraph, seek “supremacy, not coexistence.”
A young John F. Kennedy wrote “Why England Slept” to try to understand how the leadership of a nation could ignore, repress and reject warnings about Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.
A future JFK may write “Why Washington Slept” to explain our current period. The case of the National Security Five would be a good chapter on the desperation of the elites to avoid reality and their determination to smother any wake-up call, which might make them come to grips with Blair’s warning.
Michele Bachmann has endured a whithering barrage of insults from elites and political opportunists. In the end, she will be owed an apology for being right in raising the right questions.
Unfortunately, that apology won’t happen because the elites aren’t willing to admit that political correctness got the better of them. That apology won’t come from the politcal opportunists because they’re more interested in scoring cheap points than in doing what’s right for this nation.
The reaction to the National Security Five and their request for investigations by the inspectors general must be seen in this context of willful avoidance and denial.
In fact, there is a good deal in the Obama administration’s national security and foreign policy to ask about. One theme of the inspectors general letters is the administration’s courting of individuals viewed as leaders by the U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood. A recent terrorist finance trial produced 80 boxes of evidence related to the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood network in North America over the past 40 years.
Thankfully, Reps. Bachmann, Gohmert, Rooney, Westmoreland and Franks are willing to suffer the slings and arrows of taking this threat seriously.