We need a champion of counter-terrorism heading FBI, unlike Comey
Counter terrorism sign

We need a champion of counter-terrorism heading FBI, unlike Comey

Posted May 10, 2017 10:55 AM by Daniel Horowitz Counter terrorism sign
whitemay | Getty Images
    • Font Size
    • A
    • A
    • A


As the Trump administration looks for a new FBI director, the entire political world will be focused on the potential nominee’s relationship to the Russia scandal or Hillary’s email scandal. But there is more to life than Russia or even Hillary Clinton. The most consequential crisis facing this country is the growing homeland security problem, with some Islamic communities cultivating a climate of home-grown terror similar to what is happening in Europe. The FBI director serves as the lead government official in combatting terrorism here at home. We need a champion to counter Islamic terror on our shores, something we lacked in James Comey, despite his much-vaunted reputation.

In many respects, James Comey was the John Roberts of law enforcement. He was a tortured soul who seemed to intuitively understand the truth, but in his calculating desire to be “above politics,” he wound up twisting the truth for purely political considerations. He literally gave an indictment of Hillary Clinton on national television, and then his follow-up actions were completely divorced from his rhetoric. Even after new information revealed that she destroyed hardware and lied to Congress, Comey refused to investigate further. He granted immunity to the very subjects of the investigation and allowed Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to be in the room during his interview of Hillary, even after these discoveries. He clearly never intended to find the truth, even though he knew what happened. And even after he admitted it was unprecedented to grant such wide immunity in exchange for nothing, he refused to comment further.

Comey acted the same way toward his most solemn job of keeping America safe. In rhetoric, he recognized the danger of home-grown terror and articulately made the case before Congress. Then, due of course to political considerations, his actions were completely divorced from the implications of his rhetoric, and he remained willfully blind to the Sharia radicalism at home.

Comey consistently went before congressional committees and warned of the rampant problem of home-grown Islamic terrorists and the lack of vetting for refugees … and then proceeded to oppose the policies needed to combat them. He refused to deny entry to ISIS fighters returning home and refused to support a refugee moratorium. Patrick Poole observed last fall how Comey, during a Senate hearing, warned of a “terrorist diaspora” in America “like we’ve never seen before.” But then he consistently held onto the view that this very diaspora returning from Syria should be allowed to return home!  Poole also observed how Comey walked back his estimates regarding the number of domestic ISIS fighters in time for the 2014 midterm elections. Political considerations beget political considerations — policy outcomes be darned. 

Just last Wednesday, Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that there were 2,000-plus “violent extremist investigations” under way and about 300 of them were refugees! As Mark Krikorian points out, refugees therefore represent 15 percent of the investigations and well beyond their share of the population. Yet rather than giving voice to the president’s (supposed) immigration policies, Comey has consistently opposed even modest limitations on refugee intake and any moratorium on immigration from the Middle East.

At least 40 young Somalis have been investigated for terrorism in the Minneapolis area since 2008, and some of them were convicted earlier this month. But the problem runs much deeper than a few dozen individuals. What sort of climate of neighbors, friends, family, and religious community leaders cultivates the mentality that leads to involvement in terrorism?

Last year, U.S. Attorney Andrew Lugar warned that there is “a terror-recruiting problem in Minnesota” among the Somali youth and that it does not stem from overseas but “may be their best friend right here in town.” Similarly, a federal judge warned earlier this month, “This community needs to understand there is a jihadist cell in this community. Its tentacles spread out.”

We need an FBI director who actually understands this reality and is willing to ignore political correctness and confront the truth.

I have no idea what the final motivation was for the firing of James Comey. I’m tired of getting caught between the intellectual dishonesty of both political parties when it comes to the scandals with Hillary, Trump, and Russia. But what is clear is that Comey himself was the most political man around because he actually recognized the security threats to this nation and still remained willfully blind about its threat doctrine and how to counter it.

If the president truly wants to distract from the “Russia issue,” he should choose a new director and make it all about counter-terrorism and homeland security. He must also fire the deputy director, Andrew McCabe, who is a liberal hack who failed to disclose his wife’s ties to the Clinton network and Terry McAuliffe. Trump should appoint a director and deputy director who not only have a distinguished reputation in law enforcement but who actually understand the threat doctrine of Islamism and how Islamist terrorists infiltrate the West with that doctrine. They must understand the Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia doctrine, and the threat of the Hijra – conquest through immigration.

Imagine if Trump were to pick a man like Andy McCarthy. He’d wipe the Russia issue off the map and bring the focus back to Islamic terror, exactly where it needs to be. It would be a win for Trump and, more importantly, a win for all Americans.  

Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.