Cruz Grills DHS's Johnson on Scrubbing Radical Islam from Intelligence Materials

6.30.2016 

 

News

 

 Trey Sanchez 

 

87

AddThis Sharing Buttons

17672

On Thursday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) grilled Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson over the "systematic scrubbing" of references to Islamic jihad from intelligence materials within the Obama administration. Throughout the tense exchange, Johnson appeared unconcerned and boiled it down to semantics.

"It makes no difference to me in terms of who we need to go after who is determined to attack our homeland," Johnson said.

The DHS chief said tying terrorist attacks to Islamic ideology only validates groups like ISIS in thinking they represent Islam as a whole.

Yet, Cruz argued, "When you erase references to radical jihad, it impacts the behavior of law enforcement and national security to respond to red flags and prevent terrorist attacks before they occur."

The senator compared the 9/11 commission report's use of Islamic references with newer documents pertaining to terror attacks during Obama's tenure. Cruz noted the use of "jihad" in the 9/11 report 126 times. Today, it's used zero times in intelligence reports. It's the same for "Muslim" or "Islam," now no longer acceptable terms to use when reporting on Muslim terrorists.

Here's one particularly tense exchange:

CRUZ: The Obama administration was aware [Nidal Hasan] was communicating with Anwar al-Awlaki, a known radical Islamic terrorist. The Obama administration was aware that Nidal Hasan had inquired of Anwar al-Awlaki the permissibility of waging jihad against his fellow soldiers. And yet, the administration did not act and Nidal Hasan walked through Ft. Hood in my home state of Texas, murdering 14 innocent souls yelling "Allahu akbar." Do you think it was a mistake not to respond to those red flags ahead of time and prevent the terrorist attack at Ft. Hood?

JOHNSON: I disagree with your factual predicate. Those are not the facts.

CRUZ: What do you disagree with?

JOHNSON: I disagree with your factual predicate in numerous respects.

CRUZ: What specifically do you disagree with, sir?

JOHNSON: In one minute I couldn't possibly answer your question.

CRUZ: Pick anything.

JOHNSON: It was wrong in a number of respects…

CRUZ: Pick one thing, sir!

[Johnson responded saying that it wasn't correct that the federal government saw the "red flags" Cruz mentioned.]

CRUZ: Is it true or false that the Obama administration knew before the attack that Nidal Hasan was communicating with Anwar al-Awlaki?

JOHNSON: How are you defining the "Obama administration," sir?

CRUZ: The Federal Bureau of Investigation.

JOHNSON: The entire Federal Bureau of Investigation? I can’t answer that question sitting here.

CRUZ: The answer is "yes" and it’s public record, sir.

Johnson remained unconvinced that Cruz was arguing anything other than labels, which until the end, he said didn't matter:

"I think our people are smart enough to identify somebody who is a violent extremist, who is self-radicalized, who is moving towards violence. When there are some warning signs, like somebody who sees somebody buying a gun, or training, or buying weapons of explosive material, everyday I see people connecting the dots across our law enforcement, Homeland Security intelligence communities.

"Are there lessons learned? Could we do a better job? The answer's probably 'yes.' But everyday I see this happening and I think we are doing a better job and I think that our people are smart enough to identify potential terrorist behavior, whether you call it Islamic, or extremist, or anything else.

"I think the labels, frankly, are less important, except where we need to build bridges to American Muslim communities and not vilify them so that they will help us help them. "

This video includes Johnson's above remarks: