De Blasio’s hesitance may give critics more ammo
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s hesitance to call Saturday night’s bombing terrorism plays into the hands of critics who have framed him as too liberal and weak on public safety, a prominent Big Apple political observer said.
“I think there is a legitimate perception that he made an error,” said Doug Muzzio, former director of the Center for the Study of Innovation and Leadership in Government at Baruch College’s School of Public Affairs in Manhattan. “With bombing and terrorism, people are extremely concerned, anxious and everything else. And they want some tough, straight talk, and they don’t want hesitation.”
Speaking to media throughout Sunday, de Blasio clearly avoided calling the attacks terrorism, even as contemporaries like Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a fierce rival of de Blasio, didn’t shy away.
“A bomb exploding in New York is obviously an act of terrorism,” Cuomo said Sunday.
De Blasio, who was raised in Cambridge, finally used the T-word yesterday afternoon at a press availability to discuss details gleaned about suspect Ahmad Khan Rahami.
“Based on the information we have now, we have every reason to believe this was an act of terror,” de Blasio said.
Earlier yesterday in an appearance on television station NY1, de Blasio explained he was waiting for law enforcement’s nod before assigning the terror label.
“We have to be careful in these cases to know exactly what we’re dealing with,” de Blasio said. “And what we have to be careful about is until we know what something was or what the motivation was — sometimes the story changes quite a bit.”
Muzzio said the waffling doesn’t play well for the ultraliberal de Blasio, on whom union police officers turned their backs at an officer’s funeral because of his sympathy for the Black Lives Matter movement.
NYPD Deputy Commissioner John Miller said at yesterday’s press briefing, “Whether that’s an act of terrorism requires that you find out who did it, which is something we didn’t know at the early stages of yesterday, and then why they did it, in order to meet the statutory requirements. The basic definition of terrorism, on federal law side, is the use of fear, violence or intimidation — or the threat of — to achieve political or social change.”