White House says Pakistan Taliban behind NY bomb

WASHINGTON (AP) — Saying they obtained new evidence, senior White House officials said Sunday that the Pakistani Taliban were behind the failed Times Square bombing.

The attempt marks the first time the group has been able to launch an attack on U.S. soil. And while U.S. officials have downplayed the threat — citing the bomb’s lack of sophistication — the incident in Times Square and Christmas Day airline bomber indicate growing strength by overseas terrorist groups linked to al-Qaida even as the CIA says their operations are seriously degraded.

The finding also raises new questions about the U.S. relationship with Pakistan, which is widely known to have al-Qaida and other terrorist groups operating within its borders.

Concerning the Pakistani Taliban, Attorney General Eric Holder said: “We know that they helped facilitate it; we know that they helped direct it. And I suspect that we are going to come up with evidence which shows that they helped to finance it. They were intimately involved in this plot.”

John Brennan, the president’s homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, made similar remarks, linking the bomber to the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP.

Neither official said what the new evidence was.

Faisal Shahzad, a U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, is believed to have spent five months in Pakistan before returning to the United States in February and preparing his attack.

Shahzad has told investigators that he trained in the lawless tribal areas of Waziristan, where both al-Qaida and the Pakistani Taliban operate. He was arrested aboard an Emirates Airlines jet in New York just minutes before it was scheduled to take off for Dubai.

After the attack, U.S. officials said they were exploring potential links to terrorist groups overseas but said it was likely that Shahzad was acting alone and that it was an isolated incident.

Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, told NBC News that “at this point I have no information that it’s anything other than a one-off.” Gen. David Petraeus told The Associated Press that Shahzad apparently operated as a “lone wolf.”

Brennan on Sunday rejected suggestions that that the attempted bombing shows that terrorist groups overseas were gaining strength.

“They now are relegated to trying to do these unsophisticated attacks, showing that they have inept capabilities in training,” he said.

The link between an attack on U.S. soil and terrorist groups operating inside Pakistan opens up a new chapter in relations between the two countries. Until recently, administration officials have said they thought Islamabad was doing all it could.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Washington expects more cooperation from Pakistan in fighting terrorism and warned of “severe consequences” if an attack on U.S. soil were successful and traced back to the South Asian country.

Brennan said Islamabad was being very cooperative in the investigation but that the U.S. wants to know exactly who may have been helping Shahzad.

“There are a number of terrorist and militant groups operating in Pakistan,” he said. “And we need to make sure there’s no support being given to them by the Pakistani government.”

Pakistani army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, who last week said he doubted the Pakistani Taliban had anything to do with the failed bombing, declined to comment Sunday. He said representatives of the country’s civilian government should respond. They were not available for comment.

Brennan would not say whether Shahzad may be connected to fugitive al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, other than to acknowledge his Internet sermons are popular among extremist Muslims.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Pakistan has recently stepped up efforts to root out extremist militants.

“The Pakistanis have been doing so much more than 18 months or two years ago any of us would have expected,” Gates told reporters at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., this week.

He referred to Pakistani Army offensives, dating to spring 2009, against Taliban extremists in areas near the Afghan border, including in south Waziristan.

Gates said the Obama administration is sticking to its policy of offering to do as much training and other military activity inside Pakistan as the Pakistani government is willing to accept.

“It’s their country,” Gates said. “They remain in the driver’s seat, and they have their foot on the accelerator.”

Brennan spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union,” ”Fox News Sunday” and CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Holder spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and ABC’s “This Week.” Clinton’s interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” is set to air Sunday.


Associated Press writer Asif Shahzad in Islamabad contributed to this report.

  • Brian Brawdy

    Ever notice that when the government wants “greater flexibility” it usually brings greater restrictions on your personal rights?

  • patrick

    Ok. now Eric. Can you say “Islamic terrorism”?……I think you can, come on….say it….please

  • xyzpdq

    TDC is moderating my comments?

    • anniebanannie

      welcome to the club …it happens to all of us. over and over and over and over :)

    • patrick

      in your naughty words use $ for s and 1 (one) for l (L).

      • anniebanannie

        I’ve had posts that could be read in Sunday School and still get thrown into moderation…..although I’ve noticed it’s alot better lately.

  • xfiler93

    Hmm. wasnt white, middleaged,chrisitan conservative,or a tea party member?What is this world coming too?

  • xyzpdq

    “The attempt marks the first time the group has been able to launch an attack on U.S. soil.” Anne Flaherty

    The Taliban strike in 2001 was the precursor to the spread of Taliban offshoot groups. So, it is substantively inaccurate to say it their first launched attack. (hair splitting at is worst and most self serving)

    Second point, they were not “able to launch an attack on U.S. soil”, they attempted to attack. It’s a fine but relevant distinction. While it was only the incompetence of the terrorist, in combination with the ‘saw something, said something’ vendors in Times Square that protected the are from the attack, truth in reporting should not be sacrificed in favor of a more dramatic telling. By no means should homeland security or the Obama administration be given a pass on their part in the slip of security, however report the facts, truthfully.

    The inaccuracy of the that one sentence is reason enough that the article should have been more carefully and more professionally edited. That article is beneath TDC standards (I hope).

  • erick1740

    Can we say that this administration is incompetent now? Holder is embarrassing.

    • anniebanannie

      Why, yes you may,,,,,but you’re about 15 months behind on that statement. heh…I know you thought so long ago…

  • anniebanannie

    Why did the White House suddenly parade Holder and Brennan out yesterday to make these points? It was a scripted deal…..Somethings up.

    • rainmaker1145

      I’m getting tired of following annie around to say, “yep, you’re right, annie,” but you’re right.

      They have tried for 10 days to find a way to pin this on America and couldn’t find a way to blame us for terrorism so now there’s a “revelation”; it was a terrorist plot.

      • xyzpdq

        Reserving judgement until a reasonable investigation can be performed is prudent. It was reported on the day of the bombing, that Taliban in Pakistan was claiming “credit” for the attempt. It’s not as if that possibility was hidden from us.

        Our thirst for instant news is understandable, but the job of the government is to provide accurate information. That Holder made the news rounds after the preliminary investigation was performed is reasonable.

      • anniebanannie

        Ok, I’ll follow you around for a while! lol

        Somebody said something to me today that made me think …. just what, exactly, did that little weasel (the NYC SUV bomber ) tell the DOJ that made the DOJ jump into action to blame the unseeable, untouchable Taliban??? What kind of an incompetent justice department claims on a Friday to know nothing about him, and by Sunday they claim to know where his money came from, where he was trained, etc. Are they determining this by his word? and then broadcasting it to the world? Seems really strange to me. Why wouldn’t you take the information he gave you, keep it a secret and go after the names he gave you for even more information? … unless you’re trying to put an end to an investigation…