I wrote about Christie's so-called national security cred for Salon this morning:
Governor Chris Christie seems to having something of a renaissance in the press these days. The influential Manchester Union Leader,the leading conservative newspaper in New Hampshire, endorsed him and he’s inched up a bit in the polls there, but a guy who was relegated to the kiddie table in the last presidential debate is suddenly getting more attention than his numbers would indicate is called for.
A little research shows that he started to get a bit more traction in the press after a specific event: the Paris terrorist attacks. One might wonder why that would be considering that he’s not exactly a foreign policy expert (not that any of the GOP candidates are except perhaps for Lindsey Graham who didn’t even make it to the kids table last time). Apparently, even though he’s really just another Governor with no military or diplomatic experience the fact that his state is next to New York where the 9/11 terrorist attacks took place and he was a federal prosecutor makes him a reassuring expert.
The prosecutor part of the story is interesting since he’s been fudging it a bit for years. Christie’s experience prior to being U.S. Attorney was as a corporate lawyer and major Bush bundler. He had very little political experience and none as a prosecutor before being appointed. (You may recall that
the Bush administration treated these jobs as purely political appointments so many of its nominees were hacks like Christie.) On the campaign trail and even in one of the early debates he claimed he was appointed by President Bush on September 10th 2001 and the impression he always gives is that his first day on the job was 9/11. But
the truth is that he didn’t actually become US Attorney for several weeks afterwards. It’s not terribly important but it shows a certain propensity to gild the lily.
In his stump speech he commonly makes the claim that he is particularly qualified on national security because he prosecuted terrorists. He says, “I’m the only person in this national conversation who has used the PATRIOT Act, signed off on it, convicted terrorists because of it” as if that makes him especially qualified on national security.
In August 2003 … the New York dailies breathlessly reported what one US official called an “incredible triumph in the war against terrorism,” the arrest of Hemant Lakhani, a supposed terrorist mastermind caught red-handed attempting to acquire a surface-to-air missile. Only later did the government admit that the “plot” consisted of an FBI informant begging Lakhani to find him a missile, while a Russian intelligence officer called up Lakhani and offered to sell him one.
This terrorist mastermind tried to pay the fake arms dealer with a personal check.
Lakhani was a 70 year old con artist who, as Reason put it, “gets sent to jail for buying a fake missile from a fake arms dealer to be delivered to a fake terrorist group at an airport Hilton.” Not that he didn’t think he was actually participating in a terrorist conspiracy. But the idea that he could have actually pulled one off is very far fetched. Not that Christie lost any sleep over it. He said:
“I’m not going to sit around and second guess it. What was done was done, and I think ultimately the jury decided that question…there are good people and bad people. Bad people do bad things. Bad people have to be punished. These are simple truths. Bad people must be punished. ..I don’t have a crystal ball and I don’t know, if this had fallen apart, what Hemant Lakhani would have done next.
That’s the kind of guy I want in federal prison, and so that’s where he’s going to go. And at the end, that’s the success of the Lakhani case.”
That pretty much sums up the level of sophistication Chris Christie brought to his job as a federal prosecutor.
[...]
Yesterday he demonstrated his unique understanding of national security at a gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition where he said: For the first time since 9/11 I think we’re going to have to confront the loss of American life on American soil to terrorist conduct. Now there’s many people today who are trying to speculate about what happened in San Bernardino, but let me tell you as a former prosecutor, from the time I began to watch the events unfold last night, I was convinced that was a terrorist attack.
And the president continues to wring his hands and say “we’ll see” but those folks dressed in tactical gear with semi-automatic weapons came there to do something. And let’s remember everybody. If a center for the developmentally disabled in San Bernardino California can be a target for a terrorist attack then every place in America is a target for a terrorist attack.
First of all, if San Bernardino is officially classified as terrorism it would hardly be the first time since 9/11. Setting aside the controversy about domestic terrorism for another day, we have certainly had other terrorist attacks perpetrated by Islamic extremists. The Boston bombing, the Ft Hood and Chattanooga Tennessee shootings are all examples. And needless to say, “folks dressed in tactical gear” as a sign of terrorist intent is daft and the idea that a workplace might be the target for gun violence is something we’ve known for a very long time. None of this should have been news to anyone.