Archive for the ‘War on Terror’ Category
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 24, 2010
Yesterday, President Barack Obama accepted the resignation of General Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, for harshly critical remarks made by him and his aides against the President. The comments appear in the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine.
Although the President claimed he did not take the comments as a personal insult – and praised McChrystal as one of America’s finest soldiers – he said the resignation was in the best interest of national security.
And while the lamestream media is leaking all over itself, trying to contain its enthusiasm over what many are calling an historic display of leadership and strength exuded by Barack Obama, I am personally continuing to comb through Rolling Stone in an attempt to figure out what exactly he was supposed to have said that was bad enough to hasten his resignation.
I’ll grant you, it wasn’t the brightest move in the world for McChrystal to afford a leftist, anti-military, anti-war rag like Rolling Stone magazine access to him and his inner circle, but was resignation really necessary?
Of course, it didn’t take long for the historically proficient members of the press to insert their obligatory references to President Abraham Lincoln and General George McClellan, as well as President Harry Truman and General Douglas MacArthur. Both of those situations were similar to this one only in that it involved a Commander-In-Chief and a General; otherwise, not so much. McClellan was, at best, ineffective and grossly insubordinate. MacArthur spoke openly against the strategy of his Commander-In-Chief in a time of war – an absolute no-no.
McChrystal, on the other hand, was thoroughly compliant.
Many others have written on this matter far more eloquently than I, so I won’t bother going into detailed analysis of this event.
I will, however, say this – and it can hardly be denied: If General McChrystal and his aides had made identical comments with a Republican in the White House, he’d have become the darling of the lamestream media, would have become to go-to guy on every cable talk show, would have probably gotten a gig on MSNBC as the resident “military expert” and would have won the title of “maverick.” He might have even snagged a spot on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine … with hugs and kisses from the editorial staff.
He would have been the “soldier with a conscience,” the “free thinking warrior.”
The entire matter would have been portrayed as clear-cut evidence of incompetence at the top by military experts out in the field.
Posted in Afghanistan, War on Terror | Tagged: General Stanley McChrystal, War in Afghanistan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 4, 2010
At times, I still find myself surprised by some of the things I come across. For instance, did you know that Newsweek magazine is still around?
I thought they went the way of hoop skirts and coherent liberals. I couldn’t believe Newsweek still had a pulse. And it didn’t take long to discover that they are still as vapid as they ever were.
Take a recent article posted at their blog, “The Gaggle.”
The headline alone speaks for itself.
Does Killing Terrorists Actually Prevent Terrorism?
As tempting as it is to pull that plum off the tree and woof it down, the real fruit of the post in inside.
Chasing terrorists in Waziristan with missiles clearly is not going to end, or definitively win, the “War on Terrorism,” and whether we should think about a diplomatic rapprochement with these groups instead of fighting an endless war with them is a legitimate question. If the U.S. could avoid war with the Soviet Union, a.k.a. the “Evil Empire,” why not Al Qaeda or the Taliban?
To begin with, the headline asks the wrong question.
Killing terrorists clearly – definitionally – prevents terrorism. But it doesn’t prevent all terrorism. No one ever said it did. And the fact that all terrorists will not be eliminated by this country’s continuing efforts to wipe out as many of these thugs as possible doesn’t mean that it’s time to scrap that approach and invite Al Qaeda to lunch for a heaping helping of falafel and tea.
Should the police quit doing their job because there will always be criminals? Should law enforcement sit down and try to come to mutual understandings with child rapists and cold-blooded murderers?
We continue to fight the war – on all fronts – because we must. And that includes killing as many of the enemy as possible.
That’s because the only way to stop those who idealize and pray for death is to give them exactly what they want before they can take any innocents with them.
Second, the United States avoided direct war with the Soviet Union because the Reds did not crave death as do the followers of radical Islam. The USSR was not a suicidal regime. The Soviets truly wanted to expand their evil empire and sphere of influence. They were a genuine nation with borders, a constitution, a standing army and a leader. And they believed that an all out nuclear war with United States would result in mutually assured destruction. They certainly didn’t want that. They wanted to survive; not find ways to make it to the afterlife for a cabana full of virgins.
Third, whereas throughout all of human existence nations who have been defeated in war surrender to the victor, the current battle against Islamo-fascism is unlike any we have ever fought. There is no nation of Islamo-Fascist-Land with defined borders, a constitution and a standing uniformed army who will wave a white flag when handed a major military setback (like the killing of a terrorist leader). Islamo-facists exist in all countries. They live in caves as well as inner-cities. They exist in terrorist training camps and among us. They can be our neighbors or those charged to defend this country. They fight on the battlefield and shelter themselves in civilian neighborhoods. They target innocents and do not compromise. And because they don’t fear death – they revere it – they have an advantage no enemy of the United States has ever had.
That anyone can honestly ask the question, given the endless amount of examples of the nature of Islamo-terrorism, why Al Qaeda and the Taliban cannot be reasoned with is still astounding.
Posted in Liberalism, Media, Media Bias, Values, War on Terror | Tagged: terrorism, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 1, 2010
Ask a liberal this question: If a black man commits a crime, is he, by default, doing so in the name of his blackness? Assuming the criminal did not specifically designate the crime as such, is it fair, or accurate, to say it was a “black” crime, perpetrated in the name of being black?
If a woman commits a crime, is she, by default, doing so in the name of her sex? By virtue of the fact that she is a woman, does it mean that the wrongs she does are automatically assumed to be enacted in the name of her genetalia?
On both counts, it would be a ridiculous assumption … unless evidence supports the claim.
If, for instance, person A (a black man) walks into a convenience store, blows five people away and shouts, “I dole out this justice in the name of my black skin!” can one reasonably assume that the crime was committed in the name of his blackness? Certainly, in his mind, it was … hence, the proclaimation. And what if it is discovered through subsequent investigation that he possessed anti-white literature and posted frequently at militant black-power websites and blogs? Would it then be safe to assume he did so in the name of his blackness?
And what if, person B (a black man) walks into a convenience store, blows five people away and says absolutely nothing about skin color and makes no overt references to the melanin in his skin? Can one conclude the crime was also committed in the name of his skin color? And if ensuing investigations reveal a person who did not involve himself in racially charged activities and did not post at black power blogs, should we still infer he did what he did in the name of being black?
What does the evidence show?
(On a side note, I am vehemently opposed to hate-crime legislation and all the silly post-it-note classifications that liberals attach to crimes. The action is either a crime or it isn’t. The mother of a slain daughter will not feel any better knowing that her baby was murdered by a non-bigot. It’s a matter of values.)
In this country, the overwhelming vast majority of people are Christian.
Does that mean that crimes committed in this country by Christians are necessarily to be considered Christian crimes, even when perpetrator has made no mention of faith and has not referenced his or her faith in the undertaking of the act?
PBS’s Tavis Smiley, an intelligent man by all accounts – and a card-carrying, hard-core liberal – seems to be a tad confused on the matter.
During a recent television interview with Ayann Hirsi-Ali, a Somalian-born Dutch activist and politician who is openly critical of Islam, Smiley broke out his trusted “moral equivelancy” card in discussing the dangers and threats Americans face on a daily basis from radical Christians.
The exchange went like this:
AYANN HIRSI-ALI: The people who were engaged in terrorist activities look like you and me. They look like everyone else here. Major Nidal Hasan, the military guy who, in November, shot thirteen of his colleagues and injured thirty-two – he’s going to be on trial pretty soon, I think this week – (and) the young man, Faisal Shahzad, in Times square, who tried to blow innocent people that he doesn’t know up, these guys are acting on conviction. Somehow, the idea got into their minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the heaeafter.
SMILEY: But Christians do that every single day in this country.
AYANN HIRSI-ALI: Do they blow people up-
SMILEY: Yes, Christians, every day – people walk into post offices, they walk into schools … That’s what Columbine was. I mean, I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians — and I happen to be a Christian, that’s back to this notion of your idealizing Christianity in my mind, to my read — there are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country in which you live and work.
One can only find themselves detached from reality in this way if they are on the left. It is because of Smiley’s leftism that he can say such a thing … and absolutely believe it. (See Attorney General Eric Holder’s unwillingness to admit that radical Islam could be – I say, could be - a factor in recent domestic terrorist attacks and attempted attacks: “I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion.”)
To begin with, since the beginning of 2006, there have been two post office shootings in the United States, both of which occurred that year.
As horrible as these crimes were, neither of them – nor any of the nearly 40 post office incidents that have occured since 1986 in the United States – were done in the name of Jesus Christ.
School shootings, such as the murderous rampage at Columbine High School, were also not undertaken in the name of Jesus. Rather, these were perpetrated by those who wholly rejected the Christian faith.
The threat of terrorism that exists to the American people by Christians who do so in the name of Jesus Christ is nonexistent. The number of terrorist attacks that have taken place on American soil – or anywhere for that matter – in the name of Christianity is equally quantifiable.
John at the Verum Serum blog writes:
But even if a church-goer gets angry and shoots his landlord today, that’s not at all what Hirsi-Ali was talking about. She’s talking about religiously motivated violence. And when you get to this category, you can bring up the murder of Dr. Tiller, Dr. Slepian and Dr. Britton. Those murders are arguably religiously motivated. But that’s three incidents in 12 years, four if you include Eric Rudolph. And as already noted, that’s compared to three incidents of attempted mass murder (successful in once case) by jihadist in just the last six months.
Has it officially been ruled out that the Times Square bomber was jilted by a girlfriend? Or that he was dissatisfied with Barack Obama’s health care reform bill?
As talk show host Dennis Prager says: “Leftism deprives you of wisdom because it creates a world in which you cannot see clearly.”
Posted in terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Ayann Hirsi-Ali, christian terrorism, radical Islam, Tavis Smiley, terrorism | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 6, 2010
I already wrote, at length, about the President’s misguided and, frankly, infantile aspirations of a nuclear weapons free world in my piece “If We Could Just Get Rid of Those Blasted Nuclear Weapons…“
I won’t bother reiterating those arguments here.
I will, however, engage in a little head shaking – something that has become a habit since January 20, 2009 – at Barack Obama’s latest mystifying act as Commander In Chief.
With the eyes and ears of the entire world on him – including the enemies of the United States – the President has decided that his puerile, hacky-sack, dorm-room, raped-by-academia ambitions of a fuzzy-bunny-world trump the security of the country he is charged to preserve, protect and defend.
He has announced, inexplicably, that even if the United States is attacked biologically, chemically, or is crippled by a cyber-attack of some kind by a non-nuclear state that happens to be adhering to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, she will not retaliate with nuclear weapons.
That way, one of the banes of all leftism – the disproportionate response – can be avoided, and America will finally be respected and loved throughout the world.
So, in other words, as long as the bad guys are not using nukes – instead keeping their destruction confined to, say, chemical weapons (like VX gas, for instance) – the enemy can rest assured that the United States will never tap into its mushroom cloud makers. In the mind of Barack Obama, a million dead Americans as a result of a biological attack would not be enough to justify a nuclear response.
That sound you hear are the enmies of America shaking with fear.
Or maybe they’re just laughing.
From the New York Times:
President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.
But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.
This is pure insanity.
There are no words to adequately depict the contempt I have for this man in context of his role as leader of the free world. I’d venture to say that it is certainly equal (at the very least) to the level of disdain he shows for his country and Constitution. That he is actually in charge of defending the United States of America is dumbfounding.
In Obama’s world, if Iran launches a chemical or biological attack on the United States, then the option to use nuclear weapons as a response suddenly becomes an acceptible one because they “violated the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation”
Is this man serious?
(This is the same thinking that yields the belief that coercive and aggressive interrogation of enemy combatants is an unnecessary tactic, except in a ticking time-bomb scenario with millions of innocent lives hanging in the balance, as Senator John McCain has suggested. If the tactic is useful in that situation to extract critical information, then wouldn’t it be useful at any time?)
So, President Obama, who by default is conceding that nuclear weapons are, in fact, this nation’s most powerful deterrent, would be punishing Iran for going nuclear? Not for the biological attack itself? And if a nation that doesn’t have nuclear weapons orchestrates the same type of attack, our response will be a more measured, thoughtful, considerate one?
Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.
I suppose there is a long list of instances where the enemy has looked upon America and said, “Damn, those Yanks are right. We’ve got to give up our evil ambitions and embrace peace. Look at what they’re doing over there. We’ve been fools!”
It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.
Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.
White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.
This is extraordinary.
How in the world does this make the United States safer?
Mr. President, there is nothing to fear when the good guys have the weapons.
Now let’s say it all together … Liberals cannot be trusted with national security.
Posted in Foreign Policy, national security, Nuclear Weapons, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: new nuclear policy, Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, nuclear proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Prseident Obama, revamping American nuclear strategy | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 2, 2010
The news today is that the President of the United States is set to “rewrite” America’s policy on nuclear weapons sometime next week. What that really means is the President has decided a weaker America is a more lovable America.
The immediate objective is to reduce America’s nuclear arsenal while refraining from developing new systems. The ultimate objective is to do away with nuclear weapons altogether.
From the Times of London, via Fox News:
After a review of the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal that has involved, among others, the Pentagon, the Department of Energy and the intelligence services, as well as the White House, Obama is expected to reject the doctrine on nuclear weapons — the “nuclear posture” — adopted by George W. Bush, which included the possibility of the United States launching an attack on a non-nuclear state.
In January, I commented on this painfully asinine, immeasurably naïve and potentially catastrophic approach to national security.
Because this is such an important issue – and because the commentary is timely - it is definitely worth revisiting:
The screeching unclean masses say that war is not the answer, but sometimes it is the only answer. The socially conscious (and perpetually stoned) regale the world with chants of “give peace a chance,” but peace without victory only means the side of goodness has acquiesced for the time being. The President once said that the United States will extend its hand if the enemy is willing to unclench its fist – bend-overism at its best.
But such a gesture is not, and never can be, proffered from a position of strength, and the enemy knows it. The enemy exploits it.
Can there be anyone quite as naïve as a man – the most powerful man in the world, let’s say – thinking that a nuclear weapon-free world is not only something to aspire to, but something that is realistically attainable?
Liberals are almost adorable when they try to be serious. Unfortunately, the stakes are way too high for fun and games.
Why, first of all, is it at all desirable to do away with nuclear weapons given the realities of human existence? What, exactly, would such a feat accomplish? If the world is rid of them – which really means, if the West is rid of them – what then? Does the technology suddenly not exist?
That must be it.
Just like the “War on Terror” doesn’t seem so “George Bushy” if we simply call it an “Overseas Contingency Operation,” or Islamo-fascist terrorism don’t seem so pervasive if we call terrorists “isolated extremists,” the world will seem like a far better place if those nasty bombs are dismantled and filed away next to the aging surplus of pet rocks and mood rings.
Out of sight, out of mind wins the liberal day.
Regardless of the reasons, or the projected effects, or the feasibility, one of President Obama’s stated goals is to do away with all nuclear weapons. To children, dope smokers, tenured professors and MSNBC anchors, it all sounds so stone-cold groovy. No more nukes, baby! Whether or not the President will dispatch disciples to shove flowers into the rifle barrels of military personnel is unclear, but one thing is for certain: there are lots of fists that need unclenching, and lots of hugs just waiting to be shared.
And Obama is the man to make it happen.
To Obama and his dancing Obamacrats, this isn’t a values issue. It’s about the technology. Rather than focus on the ideologies and religious fanaticism that make these weapons a genuine threat to countries like the United States and Israel, the weapons themselves – along with the fact that the United States possesses so many of them - is really the problem.
Shall we all just pretend that such capabilities are make-believe? Will the world magically be safer when those blasted mushroom cloud making boom-booms go away? Is it reasonable to assume that the bad guys will then rethink what they’re doing when they see nations like the United States and Israel disarming?
The naivety and silliness of wishing to make the world a “nuclear weapon-free zone” cannot accurately be charted. Technology has not advanced that far. Childish wish-lists and theoretical gobbledygook contrived in the halls of academia have little to do with the real world.
Perhaps the better question is: why is it so desirable for the “good guys” to do away with them? What example are we trying to set? That the powerful shall not defend themselves? That only rogues, terrorists and despots shall have such weapons? This is akin to arguing with an anti-Second Amendment zealot who can never explain why weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens are a bad thing.
The fact is, nuclear weapons exist because they must exist.
(“What?” ask libs, confused, confounded.)
Deadbolts and car alarms must exist because some people steal. Pepper spray and mace must exist because some people assault the innocent. Police must exist because some people do bad things.
It’s really quite simple.
And if countries that wish to “lead by example” do away with the most powerful weapons in their arsenals, knowing that evil does exist, they are as stupid and careless as someone who leaves the door to his or her home swinging wide open when they go out.
The world is in no danger with free nations in possession of these – or any – weapons.
If, for example, in a Barack Obama world of fuzzy bunnies and swaying daisies, the United States and her allies were nuclear-weapon free, and a nuclear attack should take place in a city like New York or London or Tel-Aviv, then what? We should feel good that, at least, we stood by our principles?
In the real world, such cartoonish objectives aren’t rational, as Bammy is finding out.
Paul Richer of the Los Angeles Times writes:
President Obama’s ambitious plan to begin phasing out nuclear weapons has run up against powerful resistance from officials in the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies, posing a threat to one of his most important foreign policy initiatives.
Obama laid out his vision of a nuclear-free world in a speech in Prague, Czech Republic, last April, pledging that the U.S. would take dramatic steps to lead the way. Nine months later, the administration is locked in internal debate over a top-secret policy blueprint for shrinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal and reducing the role of such weapons in America’s military strategy and foreign policy.
The Pentagon has stressed the importance of continued U.S. deterrence, an objective Obama has said he agrees with. But a senior Defense official acknowledged in an interview that some officials are concerned that the administration may be going too far. He described the debate as “spirited. . . . I think we have every possible point of view in the world represented.”
What kind of deterrence is the President in favor of in a nuclear weapon-free world? Name calling? A threat not to have Obama’s hand extended to them? God forbid, sanctions?
The world shivers and shakes.
The government maintains an estimated 9,400 nuclear weapons, about 1,000 fewer than in 2002. But Obama believes that stepping up efforts to reduce the stockpile will give U.S. officials added credibility in their quest to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the cornerstone international arms-control pact.
The timing of the administration debate on the nuclear review is crucial, because a key international meeting on the treaty is planned for May in New York.
Also looming this year are other elements of Obama’s nuclear agenda, including renewal of an arms-reduction treaty with Russia and a push for Senate ratification of a global ban on nuclear testing.
The nonproliferation treaty has been weakened in recent years by the spread of nuclear technologies to countries such as North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. But nonnuclear countries are wary of intrusive new rules, arguing that though the United States preaches nuclear arms control to others, it has failed to live up to its own promises to disarm.
For Obama, the stakes are high. The difficulties posed by challenges in Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea and the Middle East underscore the need for progress on arms control.
Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in part because of expectations that he would make good on his pledge to reduce the nuclear threat.
Indeed, the threat in a world with nuclear weapons is in who has them – which means it isn’t about the weapons at all, but rather the values of those who seek to possess them. That means the United States (i.e., the President) must be able to summon, with crystal-clear clarity, the courage to make judgments and, without equivocation, openly name the evils that threaten us.
For those who came in after the credits, I’ll repeat … there is no threat whatsoever when the good guys – yes, we are the good guys – possess nuclear weapons.
It’s all about values, values, values.
In other news, liberals still cannot be trusted with national security.
Posted in leftism, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, national security, Nuclear Weapons, Obama Bonehead, Values, War on Terror | Tagged: arms control, Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, phasing out nuclear weapons | 6 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 10, 2010
Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump
Were you aware that the United States of America was intent on destroying the Japanese people during World War II because they were different? Did you know that America’s motivation in making war on the Japanese Empire in 1941 was rooted in the fact that “they” weren’t the same as “us?” Were you also aware that Americans hated the Japanese because they believed in different gods?
America’s fight with Japan in World War II evidently had nothing to do with the fact the Japanese had launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 2,400 people, or that they were a vicious and brutal empire hell bent on enslaving everyone in its path.
It’s because they were different and believed in different gods.
If these delectable morsels of American history have eluded you – if you are outraged at the con job American textbooks have been perpetrating for lo, these many moons – it may be worth your while to seek out competent, reliable historians to help set the record straight. It may be time to cast off the assembly-line, force-fed interpretations of what the Second World War was really all about and seek out those who will place the events of that tumultuous time in proper context. It’s time for the most steadfast, unfailing historical minds to shed light on the greatest, most wide-spread conflict the world has ever known.
It’s time to bring in Tom Hanks.
Indeed, for those of you looking to draw parallels between history and current events – for those of you trying to make sense of a topsy-turvy world rife with conflict – one need only pick the brain of Forrest Gump himself. What better person to put World War II – along with the conflicts of today – in proper perspective than Tom Hanks? After all, isn’t that why we ask entertainers what they think about world events? Because their insights help us to wrap our brains around complicated happenings we might not otherwise be able to understand? And who is more qualified – and believable – than Tom Hanks?
Thanks to him, using history as a guide, we can now begin to understand the reason why many Americans are so keen on destroying Islamo-fascists: because they’re different.
But what does Tom mean by “different”?
John Nolte at Big Hollywood writes:
…when it comes to leftist Hollywood, whenever Tinseltown and America meet, you have to brace yourself for it — and by “it” I mean the leftist sucker punch. Throughout, Hanks sounds perfectly reasonable, intelligent and even patriotic for a couple of thousand words. But of course that’s just the lure to get us on his side before we’re walloped with this left cross: [emphasis mine]
[Hanks] doesn’t see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a chance to ponder the sacrifices of our current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. “From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place,” Hanks says. “How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”
There’s no such thing as a definitive history. But what was once a passing interest for Hanks has become an obsession. He’s a man on a mission to make our back pages come alive, to keep overhauling the history we know and, in the process, get us to understand not just the past but the choices we make today.
No matter how many times you read this passage the context is clear. By “different” Hanks is clearly referring to race, culture and religion, not ideology.
To leftists, all ideologies are equal. To listen to Hanks is to take another ride on the moral equivalency train. One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, blah, blah, blah.
But a little history lesson is in order.
It was America – rooted in her Judeo-Christian value system – that saw fit to rebuild Japan after the war at tremendous expense. It was the United States that invested manpower and money to transform an axis nation allied with Adolf Hitler into a liberated world economic power.
After the war, the Japanese weren’t enslaved. They didn’t become subjects of America. And while the opportunities to “annihilate” Japan were certainly plentiful – and would have been easy – it didn’t happen.
Those “yellow, slant-eyed dogs” are America’s allies today.
Indeed, the Japanese are still ‘different from us” in many ways. The overwhelming vast majority of Japanese are Buddhists and Shintoists, for example. In the World According to Tom Hanks, I wonder what keeps America from annihilating them today?
One also wonders how similarly “moral” the Japanese would have been to their American subjects had Japan won the war? If their barbaric and inhumane actions all over the Far East prior to Pearl Harbor were any indication, it wouldn’t have been pretty.
And to answer Hanks’s question: No — annihilating people who are different sounds NOTHING like what’s going on today.
This country spends billions and billions of dollars on weapons designed to target the enemy and save the lives of people who are “different” — those who are not our enemy but still manage to look different, speak languages we don’t and worship in ways unfamiliar to us. The irony is that as Hanks spoke those slanderous words, the American Military remains in the middle of two conflicts that have cost us thousands of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars all towards the noble goal of liberating 50 million “different” people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we all know that had we practiced a more selfish and barbaric form of war the enemy would’ve been destroyed faster, American lives would’ve been saved, and the financial cost would not have been nearly as high.
But that’s not who we are.
Incidentally, in the name of fairness and accuracy, let me avoid the semantics.
The Imperialist Japanese were different than Americans. They slaughtered innocents by the tens of thousands – in China, Korea, Phillipines, etc – and believed themselves to be a master race, not unlike the Nazis. They were virtuosos of torture, and were determined to keep expanding their empire at any and all costs. They also demanded that while their evil empire continued to grow, America keep supplying them with resources like steel and coal.
Islamo-fascists are, too, different from Americans. Their value system is radically different than ours – and they have consistently unleashed their barbarism and brutality on innocents all across the world, murdering tens of thousands, including three thousand here on American soil. They are murderous thugs with no remorse and no intention of stopping until the entire world falls in line.
But not in the way Hanks means.
Poor Tom Hanks. Stupid is as stupid says.
Posted in History, Hollywood, War on Terror | Tagged: "yellow slant-eyed dogs", Islamo Fascists, Japanese, Pearl Harbor, Tom Hanks, War on Terror, World War II | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 13, 2010
The good guys are on the move in Afghanistan in what is being called “the largest operation since the start of the Afghanistan war.” Approximately 15,000 troops – including American, Afghan and NATO forces – kicked off a major assault against the Taliban in the town of Marjah yesterday.
In the early stages of the operation, reports are that all is going well.
From Fox News:
Punching their way through a line of insurgent defenses that included mines and homemade bombs, ground forces crossed a major canal Saturday into the town’s northern entrance.
Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, NATO commander of forces in southern Afghanistan, said Afghan and coalition troops, aided by 60 helicopters, made a “successful insertion” into Marjah without incurring any casualties.
“The operation went without a single hitch,” Carter said at a briefing in the provincial capital of Lashkar Gah.
At least 20 insurgents have been killed and 11 arrested so far in the offensive, said Gen. Sher Mohammad Zazai, the commander of Afghan forces in the region. Troops have recovered Kalashnikov rifles, heavy machine guns and grenades from those captured, he said.
There are somewhere around 1000 Taliban entrenched in the town of 80,000.
However, the biggest threat comes not from the Taliban, but from the mines and improvised explosive devices they’ve had time to hide along the town’s entry points.
“This may be the largest IED threat and largest minefield that NATO has ever faced,” said Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, commander of Marines in southern Afghanistan.
The operation is seen as a major test for the Afghan government and for President Obama’s strategy to surge troops into the country. If it goes according to plan, the Taliban will lose critical source of funding, the Afghan government will gain legitimacy and Obama can claim his first real victory in a war many believe the U.S. is losing.
This has nothing to do with Barack Obama and his victories. This is one of those instances when I don’t give a damn who is President, providing we are in there to win. This is about defeating the enemy. This what the Commander In Chief is charged to do.
It’s time to kick ass and take names.
Godspeed to our heroes.
Posted in Afghanistan, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan War, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 29, 2010
So, last night the White House taps the Justice Department on the shoulder and says, “You Know, J, I’ve been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that maybe we ought to take these 9/11 terror trials out of New York City and put them somewhere else. It might be the best thing for everyone. So, do me a favor, would you? Be a dear and look into possibly of getting us a new spot, okay? Thanks, hon!”
The New York Daily News reports:
The dramatic turnabout came hours after Mayor Bloomberg said he would “prefer that they did it elsewhere” and then spoke to Attorney General Eric Holder.
“It would be an inconvenience at the least, and probably that’s too mild a word for people that live in the neighborhood and businesses in the neighborhood,” Bloomberg told reporters.
“There are places that would be less expensive for the taxpayers and less disruptive for New York City.”
State and city leaders have increasingly railed against a plan to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Manhattan federal court since Holder proposed it last month.
Sen. Chuck Schumer said he was “pleased” that the administration is reconsidering the location of the trial.
Earlier in the day, Schumer spoke “with high-level members of the administration and urged them to find alternatives,” said the senator’s spokesman, Josh Vlasto.
It’s a shame the White House didn’t fully come to its senses and tell the Justice Department, “You Know, J, I’m fond of you and all – and you’ve done some great work for us in the past – but I really need to give this Khalid Shaikh Mohammed thing to the military boys. It’s really their gig. It’s a war thing, you know.”
Leaders have suggested other venues for the trial, such as the Military Academy at West Point or Stewart Air National Guard Base in upstate Newburgh.
Guantanamo Bay, I hear, has excellent facilities, including air conditioning, padded matresses, and toilets capable of flushing down entire books, if necessary.
Let us not forget that these terrorists already admitted their guilt and were more than prepared to accept their punishment. In fact, they asked for death. There was no problem whatsoever until the coddling hand of modern liberalism intervened. Now there are a whole lot of virgins up in heaven, sitting around, doing nothing.
This trial has no business being held in the very city that suffered the brunt of the damage on September 11, 2001 – nor does it have any business being held in Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas, the Ozarks, Pumpkinpussville, or any civilian venue in the United States.
It was certainly nice of Mayor Mike Bloomberg to take a breather from his war on cigarettes, fatty oils and salt to actually do something that makes sense.
But the real question is: Who’s going to host this farce now that the Big Apple is saying, “no”?
Maybe a deal can be struck with Senator Ben Nelson for an Omaha show trial.
Posted in Justice System, Mike Bloomberg, New York City, Obama Bonehead, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: 9/11 mastermind, Barack Obama, civilian trial for terrorists, Eric Holder, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Mike Bloomberg, New York City terror trials | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2010
From the “Fancy That” file …
The religion of peace is wrapping its ever-loving, all-inclusive arms around the dregs of American society and inviting them to blow up infidels. According to a new Senate report, it turns out that a number of ex-convicts who saw the light and converted to Islam while behind bars in American prisons have made the most out of their post-incarceration lives by going to Yemen and trying to become new Al Qaeda team members.
(But don’t think it necessarily has anything to do with Islam).
Richard Sisk of the New York Daily News writes:
The focus on ex-cons was part of an intensified effort by Al Qaeda to involve Americans who could more easily slip through security and pose a “significant threat” to carry out attacks in the U.S., said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
“These Americans are not necessarily of Arab or South Asian descent” but “include individuals who converted to Islam in prison,” Kerry said in a foreword to the report by his committee.
As many as 36 of the ex-cons, nearly half from New York, were believed to be in Yemen, and U.S. counterterror officials were on “heightened alert because of the potential threat from extremists carrying American passports,” the report said.
The FBI and CIA were also concerned about a separate group of fewer than 10 Americans without criminal records who went to Yemen, converted to Islam and married Yemeni women to be allowed to remain in the country.
The report quoted a U.S. official who described the smaller group as “blond-haired, blue eyed-types” who fit the profile of Americans wanted by Al Qaeda for terror missions.
So Al Qaeda is racially profiling?
Most interesting (and painfully typical of those who live in Leftsville) is this post from a blogger at the Daily News website called hjo4:
When you keep people disenfranchised, placing them in prison, the only (thing) that’s being done is that we’re creating Home grown terrorist. I often wondered what would America’s reaction be when her own citizens became suicide bombers, I guess we’ll find out.
So, according to hjo4, imprisoning people – which disenfranchises them – transforms these individuals into home-grown terrorists.
In short, we are to blame.
We keep people disenfranchised.
By coming down hard on larcenists, thieves and embezzlers, we alienate them. By laying down the law with child abusers, sexual deviants and violent miscreants, we make felons feel terrible about themselves. By throwing murderers and rapists behind bars, we shackle the souls within.
Where has the self-esteem inside our nation’s prisons gone?
This is one reason why the closing of Guantanamo Bay won’t be happening anytime soon, despite President Obama’s waffle-in-the-sky dreams of eradicating everything George W. Bush.
Real life has a way of intruding on the dreams of even the most idealistic water walkers.
But it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Islam. What about all of those abortion clinic bombers?
Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, national security, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: "conservative blog", al-Qaeda, ex-cons, ex-convicts, terrorism, Yemen | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 9, 2010
There are some things in this life that cannot – nay, must not – be allowed, in the name of human decency, to be heard in public. I’m not speaking of profanity or vulgarisms, which is (disgustingly) becoming more and more normalized with each passing year. I’m not talking about something as petrifying as Roseanne Barr singing “We Built This City” over the sound system at new Yankee Stadium. I’m not even referring to handing Yoko Ono a hot microphone within three miles of another human being.
This is something far more disturbing, far more chilling.
Putting aside First Amendment arguments – because this is not a Constitutional issue – I can only beseech the powers-that-be that they never again permit such a thing to be unleashed onto unsuspecting television viewers who may be eating, or innocent channel surfers who unsuspectingly fall victim to fate’s fickle hand by stumbling upon such an unpleasant moment.
Democrat strategist-extraordinaire James Carville – who genuinely scares my wife – is in favor of full body scans at airports. He is tremendously enthusiastic about it, so much so that he is ready to be scanned this very minute … right down to his unmentionables.
He said so.
On yesterday’s The Tony Kornheiser Show, in the name of national security, Carville offered his crotch.
From The Hill:
…Carville laid out, or unzipped, his vision for airport security. But the consummate talker couldn’t help sharing too much information.
“Let me buy a [security] card, then go and measure my penis, and let me get on the airplane,” he said.
Fortunately for travelers, and, one suspects, for T.S.A. agents, the scanners are designed to measure things like radiation and explosive levels — not private parts.
The word “penis” coming out of the mouth of James Carville is a phenomenon that no living human being in any corner of existence should ever, ever, ever, have to endure.
(Another bone-crunching shudder).
Some days, this blogging thing isn’t all sunshine and cupcakes. Some days are definitely tougher than others.
Posted in national security, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: "conservative blog", "measure my penis", airport security, James Carville, the Tony Kornheiser Show | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 9, 2010
Conservatism doesn’t suffer from a lack of articulate, eloquent spokespersons. Talk radio is rife with right-sided pundits and raconteurs who espouse the principles of limited government and personal responsibility in remarkably entertaining and informative ways. Some of America’s greatest thinkers are conservative opinion columnists, proffering the greatest and most effective arguments of our time in support of a strong national defense, lower taxes, decreased federal spending, and far less intrusion into our lives.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party (conservatism’s traditional home) is much like water from a faucet in a run down Brooklyn tenement – sometimes hot, sometimes cold; sometimes murky, sometime clear. There are times when someone actually steps up and makes the case for conservative values – like when Senator Lindsey Graham grilled Attorney General Eric Holder on why the 9/11 terror trials are being held in a civilian court instead of a military tribunal, or when Senators Jim DeMint and John Ensign (among others) openly called the constitutionality of ObamaCare into question. (It’s a shame that these are thought of as conservative values, instead of American values).
Then there are those times when even the most mild-mannered among conservatives feel like opening up a giant can of “Shut Your Damn Mouth” and pouring it down the throat of some misguided, wishy-washy, right-leaning yakkity-yakker until the larynx is rendered unusable – like when RNC Chairman, Michael Steele, took a page from the “How To Be Ineffective And Sound Like A Moonbat Songbook,” saying that he didn’t think Republicans could win in this year’s midterm elections.
Way to lead, Michael.
No wonder most Americans view talk radio hosts as the nation’s most influential conservatives, instead of – oh, I don’t know – politicians.
One of my favorite conservatives who “gets it” – and one who is quickly becoming a favorite of conservatives everywhere – is not a politician, if you can believe it. She is, however, the child of one.
These days there is hardly anyone who is as well-informed on the War Against Islamo-fascism (the correct name for the war), or as passionate about this country’s need to fight to win, as Liz Cheney. She has been very outspoken about the incompetency that defines the Obamacrat prosecution of the war.
On Thursday, Cheney spoke out again.
Robert Costa from National Review’s The Corner wrote:
“Over the course of the last year, President Obama has taken his eye off the ball and allowed America’s counterterrorism systems to erode,” says Cheney. “Brennan and Napolitano both said they were surprised to learn from the review released today that al-Qaeda in Yemen was operational. Napolitano went on to say she hadn’t realized previously that al-Qaeda might use an individual to attack us. Yet, in the past year, we’ve had three attacks on America from individuals with Yemeni connections — from the terrorist at the recruiting station in Little Rock to the terrorist at Ford Hood and now the Christmas Day bomber.” Thus, she says, “it is inexplicable that our nation’s top counterterrorism officials would be surprised by a method of attack we’ve repeatedly seen before.”
“The president says he’s using every tool at his disposal but he’s not,” says Cheney. “We can’t prevail against terrorists without intelligence. When President Obama treats terrorists like criminals, reads them their Miranda rights and allows them to lawyer up, he ensures we won’t get the intelligence we need.” In addition, Cheney says, “When the president stopped the enhanced-interrogation programs and revealed our tactics to our enemies, he significantly reduced our ability to successfully interrogate any senior al-Qaeda leaders. Intelligence is key. Let’s be clear: We’re not going to win this war through more intense airport screenings.”
Take a huge bravo out of petty cash.
She’s right, of course.
Something has to be done to get this administration out of Nobel Peace Prize mode and into adulthood.
They need to act like this is a war – a genuine, honest-to-goodness, let’s-destroy-the-enemy-until their carcasses-are-pulverized-into-a-fine-paste kind of war.
They need to act as if the enemy is really out there, plotting terror attacks against America - and not sitting across the aisle trying to keep health insurance “reform” from happening.
Perhaps someone ought to convince President Obama that the Christmas Day terrorist was an avid reader of National Review, listened incessantly to Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, was an anti-abortion advocate, believed that public displays of the Ten Commandments were fine, had a Sean Hannity coffee mug, and was wearing “I Love The Second Amendment” underwear when he whipped out his explosives on that plane.
You know … pretend he was a conservative.
That’ll get the old Waffle Man moving again.
Posted in politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: "conservative blog", al-Qaeda, Christmas day terrorist attack, Islamo-fascism, Keep America Safe, Liz Cheney, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 7, 2010
A bit of a follow-up to my piece yesterday, “Enough With The ‘Gitmo Is A Recruiting Tool’ Crap”…
According the AFP, Al Qaeda says that last week’s suicide bombing that killed seven at a CIA base in Afghanistan was retaliation for American drone missile strikes in Pakistan.
While I obviously applaud the President for carrying out those strikes (being the slobbering, war-mongering, gun-loving, kitten-kicking ruffian I am), I can’t help but wonder …
Now that Al Qaeda has been very specific in saying what the US has done to prompt them to take their “revenge,” what will Barack Obama do? How will he react?
Will he take a page from his “I Hate Gitmo” handbook and conclude that air strikes – like the existence of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility itself – are a powerful recruiting tool for Al Qaeda?
Makes sense, doesn’t it?
If a prison for enemy combatants in the Caribbean is enough to bring in new suicidal talent to Al Qaeda Re-Up Centers, certainly full-blown missile attacks would be at least as effective in attracting fresh blood. I would think American war planes dropping bombs anywhere is a good propaganda tool for enemies of the United States, no?
Maybe we should quit the whole “dropping bombs” thing, too.
There must be a way to keep the enemy in check while doing all we can to make them happy.
Man, it’s tough to be President, isn’t it?
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, national security, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, CIA base, closing Guantanamo Bay, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, terror attack of CIA Center | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 6, 2010
Yesterday, the President of the United States once again blamed the existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for boosting Al Qaeda recruitment.
It is a devastatingly idiotic contention that makes him – and this nation – look stupid and anemic.
At the risk of coming across as an aimless bomb thrower and smear merchant, I truly have to believe that Barack Obama and his senses are no longer on a first-name basis. Despite rumors to the contrary, his ability to dabble in coherence appears to be nonexistent, almost mythical.
I sincerely mean that.
To listen to him say anything anymore is both exasperating and frustrating. With each syllable that bounces out of his pie hole, he embarrasses himself and weakens my country. With the world watching – and with America’s enemies feeling as if they’ve been left the keys to daddy’s Porsche – Barack Obama continues to master the art of clueless charisma, showcasing his inability (or unwillingness) to grasp the real world, reprimanding his own country for the creation of terrorists elsewhere.
It’s not about the bad values or evil deeds of our enemies, because Lord knows if this country only gave in a little bit more, peace could actually become a reality.
No, it’s Gitmo’s fault – which translates into being George W. Bush’s fault – that the “underwear terrorist” was this close to carrying out his mission.
I assure you, I derive no great pleasure in saying that, as a Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama has earned a photograph next to the enty for “mortifying” in the Encyclopedia Do-Nothinga.
It’s as if the realities of terrorism have been annoyances to Obama, drawing attention away from his real work, temporarily derailing his Messianic train, throwing a monkey wrench into his Messianic machine, messing up his great Messianic plan. Such inconveniences, such pests these terrorists are.
As soon as he started talking yesterday, the stomach juices started gurgling in anger. My left eye began to jump.
How on Earth can the President look at his teleprompter with a straight face and effectively bend over like the noodleheaded wartime leader he is, grabbing his ankles for the throat-cutters and suicide bombers of radical Islam, and make the imbecilic claim that Gitmo’s existence is a “recruiting tool?”
This is an explanation I, for one, would love to hear.
Terrorist A: “Hold on, Mohammed. They’re going to be closing that Guantanamo Bay prison.”
Terrorist B: “Praise Allah. Do you think I can get my money back on these pipes, nails and fertilizer?”
Why the hell do liberals think they have the ability to transcend the space-time continuum and make terrorists see the evil of their ways and repent?
Wasn’t the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia a “recruiting tool” as well, according to Osama Bin Ladin?
How did that withdrawal work out for us?
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, Osama Bin Ladin issued a statement in which he specifically blamed the existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay for an increase in the number of recruits into the ranks of Al Qaeda. And let’s say that the Yemeni division of Al Qaeda came out with their own statement saying that because of Gitmo, they’re recruitment numbers are up eighty-seven percent in the last twelve months. And what if Al Jazeera hosted a round table of Al Qaeda terror cell representatives from sixteen nations, and among the resolutions agreed upon is one that says recruitment increases among aspiring terrorists are directly attributable to the existence of Guantanamo Bay? And what if a petition that read, “You are right, President Obama … Gitmo has been our greatest recruiting tool. Love, Al Qaeda” undersigned by twenty million terrorists were presented to the Commander-in-Chief, notarized and framed?
Even if all of those things actually happened – and even if Al Qaeda opened up a recruiting office in the heart of Times Square with posters all over the windows and doors saying, “Thank you, Gitmo!” – so what?
What difference should it make?
Does the United States now take its cues from the enemy?
Apparently so, because the sad reality is, the President of the United States is closing Gitmo because it agitates the terrorists.
And he is not kidding.
Welcome to “hope and change” national security.
what is with the big belt, Mrs. Obama?
One can only guess the Obamacratic response if, for instance, Al Qaeda claimed tomorrow that US battleships on the open seas are provoking them to murderous actions. Or that American aircraft carriers are making their otherwise disaffected males jump up to join the ranks of the terrorist class. What if they said they were angered because we don’t do enough in this country to make Ramadan more prominent? Or that MTV drives them to slaughter infidels? Will an emergency session of President Obama’s Cabinet be called to discuss “toning things down a bit” so we aren’t so provocative?
Does the United States now take into consideration that which may or may not offend those who are at war with her?
Seriously, since when does the President of the United States concern himself with the feelings, sensitivities and concerns of Al Qaeda? Since when does the President of the United States have the audacity to blame his own nation for the actions of those sworn to slaughter innocent Americans? Since when does this country acquiesce to the butchers who would slice the throats of our President’s daughters if given the chance?
Honestly, I don’t get it.
What happens once Gitmo closes? Does Al Qaeda finally calm down a bit? Like they did after American troops withdrew from Saudi Arabia?
And if Al Qaeda announced that NBA basketball caused recruitment to jump, would the President suspend play? If the terrorists said that Rachel Maddow was to blame for the boost in new recruits, would he move to have Rachel taken off the air? And what if Osama Bin Ladin said that Michelle Obama’s big black waist belts were to blame for Al Qaeda recruitment increases, would Bammy lay down the law and tell his wife she couldn’t wear them anymore?
On second thought …
One last question … if the closing of Guantanamo Bay was so critical to national security, as professed by Obamacrats across the board, shouldn’t it have been closed immediately?
As it stands now, it could be two years (or more) before it actually shuts down. That’s a long time to compromise the security of the country.
Posted in Afghanistan, Evil, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, leftism, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Al Qaeda recruitment tool, Barack Obama, closing Guantanamo Bay, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, terrorism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 30, 2009
I'm the President of the United States. See how I can bow?
If ever a President looked and sounded as detached, disconnected and disinterested in the events of the day as Barack Obama, I’m not aware of it. Jimmy Carter, for instance, never behaved as if the things he had to contend with were an annoyance, as Barack Obama does. He was simply an extraordinarily incompetent man who made appalling decisions. (And an anti-Semite to boot).
Bill Clinton, too, never made it seem like everything on his plate was as much of an inconvenience as Bammy does. While Slick Willie could charm the trousers off his frothing admirers, President Obama famously dismisses things in that eye-rolling, I’m-far-too-superior-for-this-kind-of-crap way that has become all too familiar. Obama always looks like he’d rather be talking about himself or nibbling on a waffle than tending to the real business of America.
For example, it was quite nice of the President to find the time, before hitting the links, to denounce the recent violence in Iran. For that, he gets a “credit where credit is due” sticker for his notebook. But he looked as if he had a thumbtack poking him in the roof of his mouth, or that he was wearing an over-starched pair of shorts. His apathy – body language, tone and overall demeanor – was as conspicuous as a piece of breakfast potato caught in Michael Moore’s beard. He didn’t even bother to wear a tie, looking as if he hastily grabbed the shirt Michelle had thrown over the top of the chair before he hit the podium.
Two days ago, in his initial statement after the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack, Barack Obama was as weak and pathetic as he has been at any time during his presidency. His response was, to say the least, frail and bungled; and in the aftermath of a terrorist attack that was essentially a success until the very last moment, seeing and hearing the leader of the free world sound as if the keystone cops wrote his remarks was feebleness at its finest. Within a half-hour of saying how “we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable,” he was teeing off at the Luana Hills Country Club.
Obama called the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack an “isolated incident.” His Homeland Security Chief said the “system worked.” Not once in his response did the President have the courage to identify radical Islam as the enemy. Never did the President use the word “terrorist.” Never did he summon the strength or show the necessary leadership in defining the evil that threatens America, as Ronald Reagan did when he called the “evil empire” exactly what it was.
These things matter.
It is simply not possible to develop a strategy against the enemy if one is not willing to identify it and understand it.
Oh yeah … yesterday, the President tried again, making another statement regarding the terror plot. Call it, “take two.” It was better than his first performance, but nothing more than a slice of “too little, too late.”
Leadership, thy name is Obama.
William McGurn, in a column published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, called “Obama Puts the Dis in Dissonance,” writes:
Here’s a timely New Year’s resolution the president might do well to deliver to his National Security Council: “When it comes to nasty regimes that brutalize their people, we will never again forget that the most powerful weapon in a president’s arsenal is a White House photo-op.”
The December headlines remind us that we have no shortage of these nasty regimes. In China, the government sentences Liu Xiaobo to 11 years in prison for writing a letter calling for legal and political reforms. In Iran, security forces fire on citizens marching in the streets. In Cuba, pro-government goons intimidate a group of wives, mothers and sisters of jailed dissidents—with President Raul Castro characterizing these bullies as “people willing to protect, at any price, the conquests of the revolution.”
In all these cases, the cry goes up: Where is the president of the United States?
For a man whose whole appeal has been wrapped in powerful imagery, President Obama appears strikingly obtuse about the symbolism of his own actions … With every statement not backed up by action, with every refusal to meet a leader such as the Dalai Lama, with every handshake for a Chavez, Mr. Obama is defining himself to foreign leaders who are sizing him up and have only one question in mind: How much can we get away with?
All of that overseas apologizing for America has had an effect. Each and every bow to a foreign head of state (e.g., the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan) has had an impact. All of that coddling of America’s enemies does matter. All of the nose-thumbing at friends and allies does make a difference.
The world does pay attention.
These are the snapshots of Obama’s first year that will be forever burned in the brains of people across the globe, friends and enemies alike.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Islam, leftism, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: attempted terrorist attack, Barack Obama, Northwest Flight 253, terrorism, weak foreign policy, weak presidency, William McGurn | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 29, 2009
Indeed, this is sad.
I’m not suggesting that anyone in the mainstream media would ever claim that it is in any way acceptable to blow up nearly three-hundred innocents in an airplane with a crotch bomb. I’m not saying that Western journalists would ever condone stuffing one’s shorts with a groin blaster for the purposes of detonating it on a commercial aircraft. After all, even those who live left of center have to acknowledge that a terrorist is a terrorist, right? (Unless, of course, he is a freedom fighter, a Muslim holy warrior, or a jihadist). There are some, however, who may not be so quick to refer to the “Ding-A-Ling-Bomber” as the cold-blooded killer he is without trying to understand what drove him to commit the terrorist act he was about 85% successful in executing on Christmas Day.
You see, in the minds of those charged with reporting the news, it’s too simplistic – too monolithic – to suggest that Islam played the prominent role in this man’s evil deed.
It’s a dangerous trend. Americans are guaranteed to hear words like “alleged” and “suspected” long before they hear “terrorist.”
Think back to the Fort Hood terror attack.
Recall how everything other than Islam was bandied about as the possible motivation behind the murder of thirteen innocents.
It’s no different this time.
It could have been anything that drove Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to his radical undertaking on Flight 253 four days ago.
Was he lonely, perhaps? Could this have been the trigger?
Jon Gambrell of the Associated Press says it appears that way:
Internet postings purportedly written by a Nigerian charged with trying to bomb a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day suggest a fervently religious and lonely young man who fantasized about becoming a Muslim holy warrior.
Throughout more than 300 posts, a user named “Farouk1986″ reflects on a growing alienation from his family, his shame over sexual urges and his hopes that a “great jihad” will take place across the world.
Those posts, beginning in 2005, show a teenager looking for a new life outside his boarding school and wealthy Nigerian family.
Most of all, they paint a portrait of someone who seems lost and needs someone to hear him.
After reading that, I can’t help but blame the non-Islamic portion of the planet for what Abdulmutallab did .
After all, it takes a village to build a terrorist.
Why couldn’t someone – anyone – take time out of his or her busy life to simply hear him? I’m sure he was a great guy otherwise. (Where’s Dr. Phil when you need him?)
If only there were more licensed therapists assigned to terror cells, perhaps through a central planning office, people like Abdulmutallab wouldn’t have felt so isolated, so alone, so prone to mass murdering people on a plane with an underwear bomb.
People think it’s all virgins and salvation, but it’s no picnic being a terrorist.
In another posting, Farouk1986 describes how alone he feels and acknowledges feeling lust, chastising himself for not lowering his gaze around unveiled women. At another point, he warns how “the hair of a woman can easily arouse a man.” He writes that he was considering getting married at 18, as his family “could help me financially.” Abdulmutallab’s father is a prominent Nigerian banker, but nothing apparently came of his marriage wishes.
No wonder he brought an underpants blaster onto an America-bound airplane. It all makes sense now.
I need to stop being so amazed at the level of inanity that exists in so many of the things I read.
Honestly, why in hell is this AP story necessary?
What is its purpose?
To make human excrement more palatable? To take us on a fascinating journey into the mind of a murderous thug? To tug on our heart strings?
And where is the word “terrorist” in this story?
Posted in Media Bias, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: airplane bomber, Northwest Flight 253, terrorism, terrorist attack, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, underwear bomber | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 29, 2009
CNN's Rick Sanchez
From the “If I Say It Enough, It Will Magically Become True” file …
Perhaps more germane than the age-old question, “How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie-roll center of a tootsie pop?” is the ever-perplexing, “How many times does one have to say something before it becomes true?”
Admittedly, it isn’t easy adding ingredients to the stew of conventional wisdom, but once they hit the pot, it is nearly impossible to flush them out.
These days, a compliant media complex is essential in giving credence to falsehoods, frauds and other fairy tales. (See “Global Warming.”)
Mike Bates at NewsBusters reports on a delicious quote from CNN’s Rick Sanchez illustrating this point. Sanchez was speaking with Octavia Nasr, CNN senior editor for Arab Affairs, about terrorism.
Nasr was commenting on how much of a “hot zone” the border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia is. She talked about how the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253 was a response to what terrorists believe is ongoing United States assistance to the Yemeni government in fighting Al Qaeda and the Houthis.
Rich Sanchez, in his most matter-of-fact demeanor, seized the opportunity to reinforce his “article of faith”:
SANCHEZ: And good, good, good, good, good, good. You see, this is a point that I’m trying to make, Octavia.
The terrorists weren’t in Iraq. We know that now. There was really a small band of them along with the mujahedeen which became al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as we know. But we have known for 10 years now that these really bad terrorists, the guys we really should have been going after a long time ago, are in Yemen. We knew that a long time ago.
So, the fact that we are now seemingly or the U.S. government seemingly now is putting an emphasis on there and that some of these folks are mad at us for putting an emphasis there, I can’t help but see that finally as the United States maybe going militarily in the right direction in this war on terror.
NASR: You’re right about al Qaeda being everywhere, Rick. It’s very true.
Let’s think about what Sanchez is saying here. (It is the default position of the vast majority of the mainstream media).
His claim is the nation of Iraq, headed by the murderous dictator, Saddam Hussein, was essentially a terrorist-free zone until the United States came along. Terrorism existed in every corner of the world except Iraq. Hussein was minding his own business, bothering no one, until the war mongers from the West swooped in to turn that nation into a terrorist breeding ground. Iraq was a wonderland of fuzzy bunnies, swaying daisies and frolicking kittens until Uncle Sam’s baby-killing machine came a-callin’. If not for the United States, the nation of Iraq would have been free to pursue a life of peace and religious fulfillment.
The problem with the Sanchez argument is … there is not a stitch of evidence anywhere to suggest that Iraq was not a terrorist state. The evidence is overwhelming that Iraq was a steadfast supporter of terrorist activity and a protector of terrorist groups.
Bates quotes from the Clinton State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism 1999 report:
Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the anti-regime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safehaven and support to various terrorist groups. . .
Iraq continued to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front(ALF), and the former head of the now defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft. Iraq provided bases, weapons, and protection to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. In 1999, MEK cadre based in Iraq assassinated or attempted to assassinate several high-ranking Iranian Government officials, including Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, Deputy Chief of Iran’s Joint Staff, who was killed in Tehran on 10 April.
Let’s not forget every Democrat who went on record declaring Hussein’s Iraq as a genuine threat:
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” -President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” – Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
The invasion happened because following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Iraq was considered, at the time, by almost everyone on both sides of the political aisle, to be the greatest threat to national security as well as to peace in the Middle East and around the world. There is simply no doubt that Saddam Hussein was linked to a host of terrorist organizations. His nation was an undeniable sponsor of terrorism. How could any of that be ignored?
This is not to say that he or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. No one has ever made such a claim. It was never the position of the Bush administration. But this was a country that violated seventeen UN resolutions. It was a country that had used weapons of mass destruction before. It was a country that repeatedly fired upon American military aircraft. It was a country that had already harbored known terrorists. On those grounds alone, an attack was completely justified.
Think of all things that didn’t work up to that point (the crown jewels of the liberal foreign policy playbook): negotiations, no-fly zones, UN sanctions, pat-a-cake, etc.
The United States no longer had the luxury of simply reacting to Saddam Hussein. Iraq was a nation deemed by both Republicans and Democrats to be a genuine threat – and rightly so. President Bush could not just sit idly by and wait. He warned Hussein. He gave Hussein opportunity after opportunity to comply with the UN resolutions. Hussein scoffed. America took action.
No Commander-In-Chief worth his weight in gold, with his nation at war, presented with the very same intelligence and evidence President Bush was, could do nothing.
President Bush was smart enough to realize that “safe haven” was not just an Afghani phenomenon.
Six years later, our success in Iraq has, indeed, made America safer.
(H/T to Weasel Zippers)
Posted in 9/11, Iraq, Media Bias, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: CNN, Iraqi War, Newsbusters, Rick Sanchez, Saddam Hussein, terrorism, terrorists, War in Iraq, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 28, 2009
It’s always an adventure of sorts to try and make some semblance of sense out of liberal thinking. Whether one finds himself (or herself) genuinely fascinated at the childlike cognitions that underlie liberal idealism, or aggravated at the disgustingly simplistic – and often destructive – “stage-one” notions that define modern liberal thought, it is often too tedious and far too bumper-stickery to be considered seriously substantive.
Unfortunately for this country and lovers of liberty, Democrats are in power.
Therefore, modern liberal thought must be taken seriously … for now.
Liberals, for instance, were dead wrong about the War in Iraq – on every level. From the moment they decided it was politically expedient for them to be opposed to it, the wrong side of history was theirs for the keeping – a trend for libs. Despite the overwhelming majority of Democrats voting in favor of military action against Iraq, opposition to the war became their “default” position once the invasion began. (Remember, Dems weren’t opposed to Bush because of the war. They were against the war because of Bush).
Indeed, libs still nosh on the dusty nuggets that fill up their ever-stale snack platters, blaming “Bush’s War” on everything from starving children in America’s inner cities to post nasal drip.
The fact is, Democrats don’t want to remember how the post-9/11 climate in America demanded a nation as terrorist-friendly as Iraq – with a ruthless dictator constantly violating Gulf War resolutions and firing on American war planes – be taken down for repeated failures to comply to the terms of those resolutions. To this day, Dems call the Iraqi War pointless, saying Bush should never have gone in. But had a terrorist attack on America been planned from the ever-accomodating confines of Hussein’s Iraq – or if training camps for terrorists had been allowed to thrive there (like under the Taliban in Afghanistan) - given the intelligence at the time, President Bush would have been hung from the village square for doing nothing – and rightfully so.
It’s likely “Bush’s War” will continue to be the beacon of blame for every malady that will befall America in the foreseeable future. One won’t be able to swing a dead mongoose without hitting an Obamacrat finding some way to blame the current state of affairs on “Bush’s War.” From unemployment to terrorist threats, from migraine headaches to anal fissures, it will all be Bush’s fault.
It’s how they think.
It’s their “default” position.
Take, for example, this commentary from Deputy White House Press Secretary, Bill Burton, traveling with the President in Hawaii, as he “recapped” the Sunday talk shows:
Robert Gibbs and Secretary Napolitano made clear that we are pressing ahead with securing our nation against threats and our aggressive posture in the war with al Qaeda. We are winding down a war in Iraq that took our eye off of the terrorists that attacked us, and have dramatically increased our resources in Afghanistan and Pakistan where those terrorists are.
Right on cue - the obligatory Iraq refrence.
So, if I am to understand … it was the Iraq War that led to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day? America’s eye was “off the ball” because of George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq? Conditions were such that if there was no invasion of Iraq, Abdulmutallab would never have been able to board that plane with explosive materials?
But it gets better.
On Sunday morning, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, “One thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked.” And yet, both she and Gibbs announced that the President has asked for all procedures and policies at the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security be reviewed. Bush-era policies will, in effect, need to be dissected with a fine-tooth comb … but somehow, the system worked?
How could it have worked when it took passengers and members of the flight crew to thwart the attempted attack? And if it really did work, why the need to suddenly “review” everything?
The terrorist Abdulmutallab got on the plane, didn’t he? What worked exactly?
What are these people talking about?
Do they ever pull their heads out long enough to observe the happenings of the real world?
Again, note the instinct to laud themselves and blame everyone else. “It worked” because we are living in the Messianic Age. Whatever went wrong must be the fault of the other guy – the previous guy. Otherwise, all went quite well … even though a review of Bush-era implementations will be necessary … even though it worked … even though it will have to be looked at … even though it went like clockwork … blah, blah, blah..
Napolitano was forced to do an about-face this morning, admitting that after further review of the painfully obvious, the system actually did not work, saying, “”Here, clearly, something went awry. We want to fix that problem.”
Nothing escapes her.
Meanwhile, expect the “Blame Bush” brigades to keep it up.
As [President Obama] said in West Point, we must put aside petty politics and recapture the unity that we had after 9/11.
Enough with the “unity” blather, okay? It is this administration that, at every turn, finds some way to place the blame for every blight and blemish on George W. Bush. No matter what the issue is, poor poor Obama constantly reminds the American people that he has been saddled with a host of inherited complications, so extensive and so problematic, that he may or may not be able to rectify them.
That’s how you get a B+. (Or an “A,” if you’re Arnold Schwarzenegger looking in).
Posted in terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: al-Qaeda, Janet Napolitano, Northwest Flight 253, Robert Gibbs, terrorism, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, War in Iraq | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 26, 2009
Not that this necessarily has anything whatsoever to do with religion. It could be that he had a nasty headache. Maybe he was suffering from painful rectal itch. Perhaps a particularly aggressive strain of head lice was causing him a great deal of discomfort. It could be his chick told him that she just wanted to be friends. Who knows what possibilities will be explored by the ever-vigilant mainstream media as they report on Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the man who yesterday brought “a powdery substance” onto a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight and tried to ignite it.
To be perfectly fair, yesterday’s incident is being called “an attempted terrorist attack” by Washington lawmakers and the White House.
Wonders never cease.
From Fox News:
An airline passenger, who claimed to have ties to Al Qaeda, was subdued Friday after he tried to ignite a powdery substance just before landing in Detroit, sources told FOX News.
Reflecting the severity of the incident, a number of lawmakers were tracked down on Christmas Day to be briefed on the incident. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., House Minority Leader John Boehner and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, were among them.
Collins, ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, released a written statement questioning how the passenger was allowed on board and what the TSA can do to prevent such an incident from reoccurring.
It should be noted that the concerns of the entire nation were put to rest when it was announced that West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller – Democrat - Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, will hold some hearings next month.
(That”ll show those powder igniters!)
Meanwhile, Congressman Peter King from New York says Mutallab was on a terrorist connections list.
From The Hill:
The suspect in an alleged attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas was on a list “indicating significant terrorist connections,” Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Friday.
King, the top Republican member of the House Homeland Security Committee, described the suspect in the attempted bombing of a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit as a 23-year-old Nigerian national with potential ties to al-Qaeda.
“He is a 23 year old Nigerian who is also – it’s been confirmed to me – while he was not on a no fly list, his name was on a list for having terrorist connections,” King said during an interview Christmas evening on CNN.
Keep in mind that just four days ago, the always-aggravating and never-interesting Congressman from Pennsylvania, John Murtha, said that he isn’t convinced that Al-Qaeda is a threat to this country.
An Obama administration official went on to say that he doesn’t believe yesterday’s incident was part of a “broader effort.”
Well, that’s a relief.
Thank God it isn’t a broader effort.
That would be … well, terrifying.
It’s much more reassuring – and far less menacing – when terrorist attacks occur as a continuous series of non-related “independent” incidents, perpetrated by individuals or small groups tied together only by their evil perceptions of the tenets of one religion.
One has to wonder how many “individual” incidents have to occur before the brainpans who run things in Washington are willing to call the murderous actions of all islamo-fascists hell-bent on our destruction part of a “broader effort.”
Posted in terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: attempted terrorist attack, Detroit, John Murtha, Northwest Airlines, Rep. Peter King, terrorism, terrorist attack, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 18, 2009
Terrorists are coming to Illinois – yet one more shining example of why national security needs to be left to the grown-ups.
I’ve yet to hear an explanation as to how the United States is better off having these murderous thugs on American soil instead of in an off-shore detention facility. I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument as to how creating government jobs to man the Thomson Correctional Center (i.e., taking money out of the economy through taxation just to redistribute it back to others in the form of paychecks) is a plus for Illinois. How does granting Constitutional rights to terrorists help America? How is this country more secure with these examples of human excrement under lock and key in the American Midwest?
The American electorate knew (or certainly should have known) exactly what they were getting when they voted President Obama into office last year. The preponderance of evidence indicating that Obama was, indeed, a hard-core leftist was hard to miss. And yet, 52.7% of us elected a man ill-equipped to run a bingo game, let alone prosecute the ongoing war against Islamo-facist terrorists.
Now, eleven months later, poll numbers are showing a whole lot of people suffering from good old fashioned buyer’s remorse.
The fact is, if the President of the United States hasn’t the courage to unambiguously identify that which is evil, and then stand up to it, the White House is without an adult at the helm.
As Eric at the great Vocal Minority blog often says, “Welcome to the future, suckers.”
An insight into the President’s “maturity” level in dealing with evil can be found by going back to the campaign (among other instances). In one of his most critical responses from the famed Saddleback Presidential Forum in August, 2008, when asked directly if he believed in the existence of evil, Obama responded that evil did exist and that it had to be confronted. (Notice his choice of words then – to confront evil rather than defeat it).
We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children.
Whereas his opponent, Senator John McCain, unmistakably identified the evil of Islamo-facist terrorism as the “transcendant challenge of the twenty-first century,” and said that it needed to be defeated rather than confronted, then-Senator Obama went on to say that evil had to be met with humility.
This is precisely why Democrats cannot be trusted or taken seriously on so many of the critical issues of our time – particularly the War on Terror (or whatever they call it now). They reflexively respond to critical realities with quixotic, romantic, feel-good, college-campus adolescent poppycock. They advocate childish solutions to adult real-world situations. Their perceptions are dangerously awry. To Obama, inner-city violence exists on the same plane as terrorism. This thinking, tragically, is common in liberal-land … and it’s infuriating.
It’s manifested itself in having five terrorists – including the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks – stand trial in a civilian court in New York City.
In a now infamous article penned by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in the Los Angeles Times last year, this thinking was taken a step further:
If most Muslims truly reject terrorism, why does it continue to flourish in Muslim lands? What these results indicate is that terrorism is much like other violent crime. Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of Americans’ general acceptance of murder or assault. Likewise, continued terrorist violence is not proof that Muslims tolerate it. Indeed, they are its primary victims.
Intellectual dishonesty and out-of-context assertions are aggravating.
“Terrorism is much like other violent crime?”
Is Mother Teresa much like Adolf Hitler because they breathed air, required water to live and were both homo sapiens? Yes, a rapist in St. Louis, for example, is an abysmal excuse for a human being. A murderer of innocents in Louisville is a horrible person and should be put to death (if applicable) … but neither of these pieces of human debris is a national security risk, are they?
The fact is, people in this country get up and rally openly against violent crime in the form of neighborhood watches all the time. Folks commonly gather in public places in America and openly take positions against what they perceive as injustices. If anyone can show me the last Muslim rally anywhere openly denouncing those who use Islam to justify terrorism and ghastly violence, I’d like to be directed to the article or video that reported on it.
Equally, police all over this country fight the good fight to keep streets on a daily basis, precisely because crime is something that must be kept under control as much as humanly possible. Does anyone claim the “threat” of violence in our cities is overrated?
We keep hearing from the left that only a small percentage of people in the Muslim world are sympathetic to the likes of Osama Bin Ladin.
So what? What does that mean exactly?
If the percentage were, say, two points higher, then the threat should be taken more seriously? How about six points higher? How about that big hole in Manhattan to illustrate what a small percentage of killers can sccomplish? That “small percentage” of people ultimately make up a huge grand total, don’t they? It’s certainly a number that eclipses the amount of violent criminals in the entire Western World.
And just think … 9/11 conspirators (i.e., enemy combatants) get to hide under the protections of our Constitution as they stand trial in civilian court not too far from that big hole in the ground.
Another thank you to President Obama.
If you believe the greatest threats to mankind include the liquefying icecaps of the northlands, gluttonous phramecutical companies, and national bankruptcy unless America spends an additional two trillion dollars (as Obama suggested), then saddle up the donkey, slap an “Obama is Love” bumper sticker on its backside and head for 2010.
I’ll stick with the grown-ups, thank you.
Posted in Dumb Liberals, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: detention center, Gitmo, Illinois, national security, Obama, terrorism, terrorists, Thomson Correctional facility, Thomson Illinois | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 11, 2009
What on earth has happened to Great Britain?
This is a serious question.
What are they thinking over there?
Has political correctness so impregnated itself into that nation’s value set that they have lost control of their sensibilities? Have they lost their ever-lovin’ minds?
To hear it from their elected officials, all across England, there are anxious Muslims teetering on the fence that separates good from evil, unsure of which path to take, draped in uncertainty, waiting to see what kind of language British politicians will use when referring to them. As they see it, there must be Muslims who grapple with trying to decide between raising their families in peace and blowing themselves up at pizza parlors based on how they’re referenced by English pols. Britainistan’s ministers are probably one or two uses of the word “jihadist” away from triggering a chain reaction of otherwise docile Muslims into a life of terrorist activity.
There might as well be a sign posted on the front doors of Parliament that reads, “Please Don’t Offend the Muslims” … which, by extension, translates into “Please Don’t Aggravate the Muslims and Make More Terrorists.”
In Great Britain, it is now prohibited for words and phrases deemed offensive to Muslims to be uttered in the halls of government. New politically correct phraseology will be implemented so that peace reigns.
Graeme Wilson, Deputy Political Editor with The Sun, writes:
MINISTERS have been BANNED from using words like Islamist and fundamentalist – in case they offend Muslims. An eight-page Whitehall guide lists words they should not use when talking about terrorism in public and gives politically correct alternatives.
They are told not to refer to Muslim extremism as it links Islam to violence. Instead, they are urged to talk about terrorism or violent extremism.
But they are not to mention who is responsible for the overwhelming vast majority of terrorist attacks across the globe, or which ideology is behind them?
The absurdity here is breathtaking.
Of course the phrase “Muslim extremism” links Islam to terrorism. That’s because those who participate in these terrorist attacks do so in the name of Islam!
Fundamentalist and Jihadi are also banned because they make an “explicit link” between Muslims and terror.
There is an explicit link between Muslims and terror.
Ministers should say criminals, murderers or thugs instead. Radicalisation must be called brainwashing and talking about moderate or radical Muslims is to be avoided as it “splits the community”.
Islamophobia is also out as it is received as “a slur that singles out Muslims”.
I don’t think I’ve read anything more ridiculous in all the time I’ve kept this blog.
If, for instance, I say I’m deeply offended because politicians are loathe to call Muslim extremists precisely what they are – that is, Muslim extremists – no one will care, because there is no threat that I will retaliate with an act of terrorism. It is precisely why Christians and Christianity can be attacked regularly by artists, pundits and other moral weaklings, because the threat of reprisal from even the most ardent believer in the name of Christianity is nil.
No one – repeat no one – believes all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathisizers. How many times does it have to be repeated? However, there are some Muslims who are terrorists – and the overwhelming vast majority of terrorism that takes place on earth is perpetrated by Muslims who admit to doing so in the name of their religion.
Why is this hard?
What if, during World War II, America sold war bonds to support the war effort against “Those Thugs West of Poland” or the “Criminals Over There“? What if the word “Nazi” had been banned so as not to antagonize all Germans?
The guidance was branded “daft” last night by a special adviser to ex-Communities Secretary Hazel Blears. Paul Richards said: “Unless you can describe what you’re up against, you’re never going to defeat it. Ministers need to be leading the debate on Islamic extremism and they can’t do that if they have one hand tied behind their back.”
Political correctness kills.
Ever hear of Ft. Hood?
Posted in Political Correctness, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: England bans extremist, England bans jihadist, extremist, Great Britain bans offensive Muslim words, no offending Muslims, offending Muslims, Political Correctness | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 6, 2009
Just when you think you’ve had your share of “You can’t make this stuff up” moments from one administration, Obamacrats turn around and top themselves. Considering the dizzying array of bungles and stumbles that Bammy and friends have regaled us with for nearly eleven electrifying months, this one is near the top of the hit parade. The words “competency” and “Obama” have, indeed, been the strangest of bedfellows since the beginning of the Messianic Age, but if this wasn’t about national security - and the lives of those serving in America’s armed forces - this would be pure comedy gold.
Back on October 8th, in a meeting with Obamacrat advisers (via video link from Kabul), General Stanley McChrystal finally got his chance to offer administration officials his reccomendations on what needed to be done in Afghanistan. It wasn’t the official National Security Council meeting with President Obama, mind you – that wasn’t scheduled until the next day – but a kind of “dress rehearsal,” to quote a phrase.
Anne E. Kornblut, Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post explain what happened next:
McChrystal began with the policy underlying his approach, established by the White House review hastily compiled in February that led to Obama’s March 27 strategy announcement and the deployment of nearly 22,000 new troops over the spring and summer.
In June, McChrystal noted, he had arrived in Afghanistan and set about fulfilling his assignment. His lean face, hovering on the screen at the end of the table, was replaced by a mission statement on a PowerPoint slide: “Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population.”
“Is that really what you think your mission is?” one of the participants asked.
On the face of it, it was impossible — the Taliban were part of the fabric of the Pashtun belt of southern Afghanistan, culturally if not ideologically supported by a significant part of the population. “We don’t need to do that,” (Defense Secretary Robert M.) Gates said, according to a participant. “That’s an open-ended, forever commitment.”
But that was precisely his mission, McChrystal responded, and it was enshrined in the Strategic Implementation Plan — the execution orders for the March strategy, written by the NSC staff.
“I wouldn’t say there was quite a ‘whoa’ moment,” a senior defense official said of the reaction around the table. “It was just sort of a recognition that, ‘Duh, that’s what, in effect, the commander understands he’s been told to do.’ Everybody said, ‘He’s right.’ ”
“It was clear that Stan took a very literal interpretation of the intent” of the NSC document, said (National Security Adviser James L.) Jones, who had signed the orders himself. “I’m not sure that in his position I wouldn’t have done the same thing, as a military commander.” But what McChrystal created in his assessment “was obviously something much bigger and more longer-lasting . . . than we had intended.”
So let’s get this straight … the general was given an assignment – “Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population” – and arrived in Afghanistan in June intent on meeting that goal. It was a mission crafted and assigned by this administration. It was laid out in the March Strategic Implementation Plan. It was authored by the staff of the National Security Council.
But the Obamacrats around the table that day apparently forgot that, or didn’t know, or didn’t care, or figured no one’s memory would stretch all the way back to March.
It was their mission statement, and yet, one of them actually had to ask the general, “Is that really what you think your mission is?”
Dumb, dumber, Obamacrats.
One of my favorite George Costanza lines, from the Seinfeld program, keeps popping up in my head: “People this stupid shouldn’t be allowed to live.”
And then, to top it all off, Jones somehow seems dumbfounded – even astounded – that a general in the United States military, charged with the task of formulating war plans and leading soldiers in battle, would actually follow the orders he was given, saying, “Stan took a very literal interpretation of the intent.”
What the hell was he supposed to take?
A vague interpretation of the intent?
A half-assed interpretation of the intent?
A lecture-hall and academia interpretation of the intent?
Do these people not know what the United States military does?
Isn’t James L. Jones a retired Marine Corps four-star general?
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan, Defeat the Taliban, General Stanley McChrystal, James L. Jones, Robert M. Gates, Secure the Population, Strategic Implementation Plan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 2, 2009
Maybe he was already tired
I’m sure they tried.
They were told to make it sound good.
It couldn’t have been easy – perhaps as difficult as any task these cadets will ever face as members of the United States military, including combat. It isn’t clear whether they were blatantly disobeying orders or were simply unable to beckon the fortitude needed to fake it.
In theory, cadets shouldn’t have to be reminded to greet their own Commander-in-Chief warmly, but they were.
Maybe this pre-speech prompting is standard procedure for every President who comes to speak at the United States Military Academy. If so, it is interesting to note that the cadets had no problem whatsoever responding eagerly to George W. Bush when he spoke there.
The fact is, the audience at last night’s Afghanistan-policy speech by President Obama was a touch on the quiet side.
One or two in the audience even dozed off.
In an opinion piece from Spiegel Online, Gabor Steingart writes:
Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.
One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama’s speech would be well-received.
Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.
One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.
The audience’s most enthusiastic responses came toward the end of the speech when the President (somehow) managed to shift focus away from himself and the obligatory blame-Bush-for-everything gabble and actually spoke of his own country in positive terms, brief as it was.
Otherwise, Obama’s “pre-surrender” strategy drew fairly apathetic feedback.
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan policy, Afghanistan speech, Obama's West Point speech | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 2, 2009
Last night at West Point, with his nation at war, the world saw a man whose heart just wasn’t in what he was doing. Instead of a call to arms, Barack Obama offered a reluctant nudge. Instead of sounding like a wartime leader, he came off as a tedious academic. Instead of rallying the world behind a noble cause, he sounded like he was doing his best to put them to sleep.
Perhaps he could have used some.
The potent orator who could exhilarate the masses with his command of the electronic cue card was nowhere to be found. Instead, the world was treated to what amounted to a college lecture given by a man who either had an exhausting day at the office or was in need of a better teleprompter. It was a night where trashing George W. Bush became reflexive. It was an occassion where the word “victory” was never summoned. It was a call to battle where the nature of the enemy was largely ignored. It was a lackluster talk where what is at stake for America was never explained. More negativity was projected at his own country than at her enemies. More time was spent talking about leaving Afghanistan than in crushing the enemy there. And of course, he used the words “I” and “me” so often, he prompted hate mail from the other lesser-used pronouns.
And it only took three months to put it all together.
There was the obligatory Obama self-congratulatory rhetoric, like reminding everyone that it was he who brought the war in Iraq to a “responsible end” – something only made possible by the Iraqi surge, which he not only opposed but failed to mention last night. Of course, had he mentioned the Iraqi surge, he would have had to acknowledge its success – which means he would have had to acknowledge George W. Bush’s success.
(Some things just aren’t done, even for the sake of national security).
The President also blamed the current situation in Afghanistan on the Iraqi war – “Bush’s war,” he would have said if he only could. He also high-fived himself for the ruminative three-plus months it took to arrive at last night’s decision. After all, he said, he hadn’t seen a single plan that called for troops to be deployed before 2010 anyway.
Well, that explains that.
Indeed, as projected, Obama announced the deployment of fewer troops than had been requested by General Stanley McCrhystal – 30,000 instead of 40,000. He also called on America’s allies to step up and, presumably, help America make up the difference by committing their own soldiers to the fight. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether or not already-hesitant allies will be willing to offer up troops considering that Obama also announced his plan to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011.
How’s that for a battle plan?
Nothing says “lack of commitment” quite like a withdrawal timetable.
Quite literally, the President spoke of the necessity to increase troop strength in Afghanistan only to follow in his next breath with the importance of withdrawing those same troops eighteen months later.
Consider that it will take several months to get troops into the pipeline and ramped up in Afghanistan. (It took five months in Iraq). That means that the “surge” will actually have about a year to do what it needs to do before withdrawal begins. And despite the President’s assurances that conditions on the ground will be taken into account before withdrawal actually kicks in, how realistic is it that we will be able to win the support and trust of Afghans if they believe we will start pulling out the following year? And what exactly is to keep our enemies from settling back into a “lay low and wait” position? They’ve nowhere else to go.
Keep in mind that the build-up to the 2012 presidential election will kick-off not too long after the proposed withdrawal from Afghanistan is slated to begin. What talking point could be better for a leftist candidate looking to win back his anti-war base?
I haven’t had the chance to check, but I wonder how many nations have won wars by announcing their withdrawal timetable before actually employing the war strategy.
Let me be clear, I agree with the President’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. In that respect, I back the Commander-in-Chief. I certainly back the troops. There is no question of that. Whether or not Obama’s decision actually maximizes the chances for American success is the real question.
After the first few minutes, it admittedly became a tough speech to watch.
It felt like school … and I kept sneaking out of class.
Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard said it best on Fox News last night: “I think it was one of the worst speeches I could imagine in support of the right policy decision.”
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, War on Terror | Tagged: Obama's Afghanistan policy, Obama's West Point speech | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 1, 2009
The President will finally share his Afghanistan strategy tonight in a speech from West Point. Much to the dismay of the anti-war left, Obama will not be announcing a withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Not immediately anyway.
By all accounts, the President will announce what will amount to a limited “surge” – anywhere from 30,000 to 35,000 additional troops on the ground. It will be a strategy dressed in limitations (because war strategies only work if there are pre-defined limits).
Paramount to Obama will be that in announcing the troop uptick, he sound nothing like George W. Bush.
It’s what the enemy is counting on.
I’ll rightfully save the bulk of my commentary on the matter until after he has finished speaking (so that I can pull quotes to eviscerate). There are, however, things to look out for tonight.
As a whole new batch of Americans prepare to go to war, how often do you think we will hear the word “victory” come out of the mouth of Barack Obama this evening? How will the Commander-in-Chief inspire his troops tonight as they get ready to march into battle? With the world watching, how exactly will he lead?
White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs said that tonight’s speech will “outline for the public … the cost of [Obama's] new strategy in Afghanistan and the limits on U.S. involvement there.”
“You will hear the president discuss clearly that this is not open-ended,” Gibbs said. “This is about what has to be done in order to ensure that the Afghans can assume the responsibility of securing their country.”
If this is any indication of what we can expect tonight from the President, it ain’t good.
Pray tell, how was President Obama, after only mere months of contemplation, able to decide that the war was not to be an open-ended one? That’s the kind of wartime leadership they sing about around the campfire.
Apparently, dithering begats clarity.
Here’s the reality of the situation … The moment Obama uses the phrase “exit strategy” or throws in the word “timetable,” understand that he has, for all intents and purposes, conceded Afghanistan. By using tonight’s West Point speech to make it known that America will be walking away based on some pre-determined set of limitations, without ever setting victory as the objective, and only after sending in less troops than his commanders in the field asked for, he will essentially be inviting the Taliban to hold back until the coast is clear.
Remember, the surge in Iraq was as much as psychological tactic as it was a military one.
If the American will to do what it takes to win has a shelf life, the patience of our enemies will prove to be as formidable a weapon as any we are up against on the battlefield.
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan, Obama's Afghanistan policy, Obama's West Point speech, War in Afghanistan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 28, 2009
Aside from those who may enjoy a hint of sadomasochism in their private lives, getting spanked from two directions is probably not something most people aspire to – not even the President of the United States (unless he is from Arkansas or Massachusetts).
Any president, obviously, expects to weather his share of open handed political slaps from the other team. It’s what politics are all about. But when a president’s own side starts promising a smack back in response to a policy decision, and it is in addition to the searing heat already coming from the opposition on the same issue, things are definitely getting hairy.
With President Obama already establishing brand new standards for lackadaisical wartime leadership, he is apparently ready to tell the world how the United States will proceed in Afghanistan. The scuttlebutt is he will announce that he is sending as many as 35,000 troops there early next year – less than the 40,000 General Stanley McChrystal requested.
And while Obama’s many months of glittering indecision has disgusted and angered conservatives (and others), the idea that he will send anyone else to Afghanistan is angering some liberals.
Stephen Clark of Fox News writes:
President Obama is days away from announcing a new Afghan strategy, but his immediate battle could come from liberals within his own party who are vowing to “spank” the president for committing tens of thousands of more troops to the eight-year conflict.
“I think there will be some disillusionment within his base,” said Paul Kawika Martin, political director for Peace Action, a grassroots organization, who added that thousands of activists are planning to protest following the president’s announcement.
“We’re going to spank him for sending more troops,” he told FoxNews.com, adding that they may also “thank him” if he announces a quick exit strategy.
The White House has said that the U.S. won’t be in Afghanistan for another eight or nine years. But that won’t satisfy liberals, Martin said.
Indeed, conservatives have criticized the President for his world-class dithering on this issue. They have hit Obama hard on his disinclination to use the word “victory.” They have excoriated him for failing to give the impression to his own troops – and the world at large – that he is determined to do what it takes to win. He has helped build an image of a weakened America throughout the world.
However, there can be little doubt that if the President asks for Republican support for this 35,000 troop surge, he will wind up getting it. They may question – with good reason – why Obama feels he has the expertise to second guess his own generals by sending in less troops than requested, but Republicans will have to support the move.
Couple those Republicans with the Dems who actually would be willing to support the measure, and the President will be left having to contend with the anti-war left who are promising to “spank” him for his decision.
I’d love someone to define that for me. (No illustrations needed).
Even though Obama’s announcement is sure to reawaken the anti-war movement, Martin said, the protests won’t be as intense as they were in the Bush era because the movement has been weakened by the economic recession — some organizations have shed up to 40 percent of staff in the past year, he said — and is distracted by the national health care debate. He also said many members of the movement voted for Obama and trust him more than the Bush administration.
“So you don’t have that same type of anger,” he said.
But without the support of congressional Democrats, Obama will find himself in the awkward position of relying on the support of Republicans who largely oppose his domestic agenda. And he may have to explain how he supports a troop surge in Afghanistan when he opposed one in Iraq two years ago.
The word “irony” comes to mind.
Remember, this is the “necessary war,” according to President Obama. It is so “necessary,” in fact, that Obama has decided to go McChrystal-light.
Bammy knows best.
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan policy, Obama, Obama dithering, War in Afghanistan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 25, 2009
Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota – who, by the way, is not up for election next year (as astutely pointed out by Rob at Say Anything) – says that if any of us don’t believe in our system (as he does), we might want to consider going elsewhere; a kind of twenty-first century variation of “America, love it or leave it.” Of course, he is referring to those of us who are enraged that enemy combatants who waged war on the United States are being tried in a civilian court in New York City. He is talking about those of us who despise the fact that terrorists captured on the battle field have been granted the Constitutional protection of American citizens. In his mind, American “civilian courts are well-suited to prosecute Al-Qaeda terrorists.”
Matt Cover of CNS News writes:
On Capitol Hill on Nov. 19, CNSNews.com asked Conrad: “We’re going to have a civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. If our troops–the evidence against him is going to be found in Afghanistan, there on the battlefield–if our troops need to enter a house and they think that there’s evidence there, should they have to establish probable cause and get a search warrant from a judge first?”
Conrad said: “You’re not being serious about these questions, are you?”
CNSNews.com: “[Yes], in a civilian trial. If I was on trial or you were on trial, that would have to be [done].”
Conrad responded, “We have tried terrorists in our courts and done so very successfully in the past and that is our system. So if people don’t believe in our system, maybe they ought to go somewhere else. I believe in America.”
There are two points to make here.
First, as Rob at Say Anything explains, the terrorists that have been tried in civilian court in the past, like Timothy McVeigh and the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, were apprehended “domestically by domestic law enforcement officials.” By contrast, the 9/11 co-conspirators who will stand trial in New York were captured by military forces on the field of battle or in the prosecution of war. Therefore, they were not subject to the guidelines and procedures of “civilian judicial standards.” It’s difficult to imagine that there will not a host of legal issues to contend with when those captured as enemy combatants are tried as civilians.
Second, this is a matter of national security. These “defendants,” with the same protections afforded American civilian criminals, will have access to intelligence that cannot be denied them. Thus, by definition, civilian courts are not well-suited to prosecuting war criminals.
Conrad also dismissed a question about the rights of terrorists captured on foreign battlefields and the rules of evidence in terms of a civilian court trial as not serious.
Talk show host Larry Elder pointed out on Monday (while substituting for Dennis Prager) that the “rules of evidence” in the 1993 World Trace Center bombing trials resulted in security compromises:
“You know, in the trial of the first bombing of the World Trade Center, and the trial of blind Sheikh, people don’t realize how much information was given to the bad guys because of those trials, because in a civilian trial you have a right to have everything the prosecution has.
And so, because of those two trials, Osama Bin Ladin found out he was an unindicted co-conspirator – that we were after his butt – and he moved from Sudan to Afghanistan because of that. Because of those trials, Al-Qaeda found out that we tracking their whereabouts via their cell phones. They stopped using their cell phones.”
Believing in America, Mr. Conrad, has nothing to do with having to accept asinine political plays that literally put the security of the nation at risk.
It’s about keeping America safe.
Posted in 9/11, Justice System, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: 9/11 mastermind, 9/11 trial, civilian trial, Kent Conrad, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, New York terrorists trial, terrorism, terrorist trial | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 25, 2009
From the “You’ve Got To Be Goddamn Kidding Me” file…
The cuckoo clock that is my transforming nation seems to be tolling its bell louder all the time – and I damn well don’t like it.
What the hell is happening to my country?
Whether it is the Commander-in-Chief’s modus operandi of weakening his own country through apologetic confessionals, or his determination to close a perfectly functioning terrorist detention facility so that America’s enemies will love her more, or his incapacity to come to a decision concerning his “war of necessity” in Afghanistan, or his conferring of Constitutional rights on enemy combatants who waged war on America, or his Army Chief of Staff who said that diversity among the troops is more vital than protecting innocent lives, or a media so raped of its ability to be objective by political correctness that it could not (or would not) call the Ft. Hood mass murder an Islamist terrorist attack, this country is on a dangerous path.
This reality manifests itself in what seems like a perpetual advance of negative stories from the mainstream media about the United States military. Ever since the New York Times turned military misconduct at Abu Grahib into the most deplorable and unspeakable human abuses ever committed, there has hardly been a positive word to be found about those who defend America, save for in the conservative media.
For a time, it even became fashionable among elected anti-Bushies to speak ill of this nation’s defenders. Recall that Senator Dick Durbin compared American treatment of prisoners at Abu Grahib to the Nazis and Pol Pot. Recall that Senator Ted Kennedy declared the Saddam Hussein torture chambers re-opened under new American management. Recall Congressman John Murtha called American Marines cold-blooded murderers.
Isn’t it curious how everyone seems to get the benefit of the doubt except the fighting men and women of the American military?
At one time, Congressional Medal of Honor winners would secure the front pages of newspapers across the country. Stories of valor and courage on the battle field were, in a long ago and far away age, headline makers. These were America’s heroes, cherished and revered. It was understood that a nation incapable – or unwilling – to pay tribute to its fighting men could never be worthy of the liberty it enjoyed.
These days, America’s warriors are regularly portrayed as broken and confused, weak and frightened. Tales about rising suicide rates and substance abuse among soldiers make up a good portion of the stories published about America’s military. Exposes on exhausted fighting men, declining morale, and misbehaving soldiers take up far more space than successes on the battle field.
It is sickening.
This disturbing anti-military trend – this ongoing impulse among the politically correct and the cowardly to cast America’s heroes in a negative light – is, sadly, gaining ghoulish momentum.
Last evening, the story of three Navy SEALS being brought up on assault charges in the case of the capture of Ahmed Hashim Abed – one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq – made my stomach turn. For those unaware, Abed was the ringleader behind the murder of four Blackwater USA security agents back in 2004. You’ll recall the grisly details of how the four were ambushed, murdered, and their bodies burned and dragged through the streets of Fallujah. Two of them were even hanged off a Euphrates River bridge for a photo op.
In September of this year, Navy SEALS captured the murderous vermin. Such a momentous and heroic event should have made headlines across the country, but the likelihood that even twenty percent of America knew about it is a generous estimate.
Now, three of those heroes – SO-2 Matthew McCabe, SO-2 Jonathan Keefe and SO-1 Julio Huertas – are facing court martial.
Because of a bloody lip.
Rowan Scarborough at Fox News writes:
The three, all members of the Navy’s elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral’s mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.
Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.
Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.
The poor little terrorist, responsible for the brutal murders of four men transporting supplies for a catering company (of all things), is apparently now having to deal with the terrifying memory of a bloody lip, not to mention the post-traumatic stress associated with the scar. Indeed, a bloody lip it may not be as appalling (or tortuous) as having Christina Aguilera music blaring, or having smoke blown in one’s face, or having the thermostat cranked low (or any of the other horrifying abuses some of Gitmo detainees were made to suffer through), but it is bad enough to have three of America’s most courageous fighting men ready to be arraigned on December 7th, with a court martial to follow in January.
United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.
What the Fort Hood massacre did was shine a much needed light on the twisted mentality that seems to be prevalent among the higher echelons of the American military these days (as well as government) – namely, a now lethal strain of political correctness that places more of an importance on showing the world that America is not anti-Muslim than in protecting the United States of America.
But this new predilection for convincing everyone that America really is a good nation full of good people, sensitive to Islam, is exasperating and wrong-headed. Much of the world, despite leftist cacklings to the contrary, wants to see a strong America. They look to America for leadership. They look to America to do what’s right. And when America is quick to accuse its own defenders of abusing terrorists in a time of war, with innocent lives hanging in the balance, in desperate and dangerous situations that are not even conceivable to most, for something as insignificant as a bloody lip, it not only creates international uneasiness, it emboldens the enemies of freedom everywhere.
Indeed, there may be more to come of this story, but I’m inclined to think not.
Hence, the court martial instead of the non-judical punishment (NJP) of an admiral’s mast.
The three accused Navy SEALS want their story told. They want all of the details of this heroic operation out in the open.
Good for them.
Still, questions come to mind …
How on earth can three American heroes be facing a court martial for giving a piece of walking fecal matter a bloody lip? Would it really take three of the most well-trained fighting men in the American military to do it? Wouldn’t one have been sufficient to the task? Even in his sleep? And who’s to say the “bloody lip” didn’t happen during Abed’s take down? Adrenalin does tend to run high in combat situations.
I thought we were in this thing to win.
If so, why the hell does it seem that there is so much effort, so much determination from so many sectors, to keep our side from doing their jobs?
For what it’s worth, I am with you one-hundred percent, Navy Seals.
Posted in Iraq, military, Moral Clarity, Political Correctness, War on Terror | Tagged: Ahmed Hashim Abed, Blackwater USA, court martial, Navy Seals, Objective Amber, Political Correctness, SO-2 Jonathan Keefe and SO-1 Julio Huertas, SO-2 Matthew McCabe, terrorism, three Navy Seals | 10 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 25, 2009
235 British troops have been killed in Afghanistan to date – 98 this year alone. Support for the war in Afghanistan continues to drop among Brits, and according to British Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth, the reason can be summed up in two words: Barack Obama.
In ten-plus months of stunning, history-book rewriting governance, it has become clear that unless one is a tyrant, a totalitarian or a terrorist, President Obama really isn’t all that interested in diplomacy. In fact, it’s quite unlikely that even an Obama patented classic groveling bow before Gordon Brown (or Sir Paul McCartney) could make things better between the two long-time allies.
While President Obama continued, even this week, to valiantly blame every thing wrong with America – including the war in Afghanistan – on eight years of George W. Bush, Ainsworth pointed his finger at Obama.
James Kirkup, Thomas Harding and Toby Harnden of the UK Telegraph write:
Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.
A “period of hiatus” in Washington – and a lack of clear direction – had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said.
Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.
The Defence Secretary’s blunt remarks about the US threaten to strain further a transatlantic relationship already under pressure over the British release of the Lockerbie bomber and Mr Obama’s decision to snub Mr Brown at the United Nations in September.
Some who have lauded Obama’s thoughtfulness and deliberateness in coming up with a plan of action for Afghanistan claim that those who criticize his “dithering” are ill-informed partisans hell-bent on finding fault with anything he does. Bammy supporters argue that additional troops would not have been available for deployment until January anyway (according to a “senior US defense official”) so the “dithering” issue is largely irrelevant and intellectually dishonest.
But it’s a silly argument.
Whether or not troops are ready to deploy today has nothing to do with whether or not a course of action can be devised. Troop availability today has no bearing on whether or not the Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces can formulate a war strategy.
The argument isn’t even logical.
For example, people regularly make plans and devise strategies for their futures by setting goals (buying a house, a car, saving for a child’s education, etc.), and almost always when the funds to make those goals a reality are not in hand.
Considering the speed with which the President embarked on his multi-trillion dollar spending sprees, it’s difficult to lend legitimacy to the “Obama is just being contemplative” argument. After all, the President is obviously more than willing to increase government spending to unprecedented levels without having the funds “in hand” to do so.
So, if troops were ready to deploy today, President Obama would have already come up with a plan?
Anyone who believes that, stand on his head.
All deployments take time to organize. All battle plans need preparation. Military commanders have already hinted that it could take several months to get new troops in the pipeline. But the plan must first exist.
There is nothing in waiting months and months to announce a strategy that bodes well for Obama on this score.
And if, for the sake of argument, Obama’s dithering actually was based on the fact that additional troops would not be available until January, wouldn’t he – or any of his dancing Obamacrats – have cited it endlessly it as a reason for the prolonged delay? Wouldn’t the mainstream media, ever quick to give the President the benefit of any doubt, have beaten that excuse to death by now?
Ten months in, and everything is still George W. Bush’s fault.
It isn’t as if Obama is averse to passing the buck … or bowing to it.
Next week, after more than three months of deliberation, the president is expected to announce that he will send around 34,000 more troops.
Mr Ainsworth, speaking to MPs at the defence committe in the House of Commons, welcomed that troop ‘surge’ decision, but lamented the time taken to reach it.
He said that the rising British death toll, the corruption of the Afghan government and the delay in Washington all hamper efforts to retain public backing for the deployment.
“We have suffered a lot of losses,” he said. “We have had a period of hiatus while McChrystal’s plan and his requested uplift has been looked at in the detail to which it has been looked at over a period of some months, and we have had the Afghan elections, which have been far from perfect let us say.
“All of those things have mitigated against our ability to show progress… put that on the other side of the scales when we are suffering the kind of losses that we are.”
The President is having a difficult time convincing anybody that he takes the war in Afghanistan seriously.
Ainsworth – the first British minister to publicly speak up against Obama’s turtle-paced approach to prosecuting the war - is clearly not happy.
A set of holiday DVDs presented in a festive gift case ought to put him straight.
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan policy, Afghanistan War, Afghanistan war strategy, Bob Ainsworth, General McChrystal, Obama, Obama dithering, Obama war decision | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 24, 2009
Kudos to Attorney General Eric Holder – and of course, the man really calling all the shots, President Barack Obama – for bringing the mastermind of the September 11th attacks (and four of his cohorts) to New York City to face a civilian jury of his non-peers. Congratulations to the walking unconscious who constitute America’s gurgling leftocracy for furnishing a forum from where the 9/11 five will spend the next who-knows-how-many-years spitting out their anti-American propaganda. And an extra special tip of the hat to Scott Fenstermaker, attorney for Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali (one of the 9/11 five), who appeared on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor last evening to prove to the prying eyes of the world that American justice is, indeed, blind, and that even terrorists can be innocent until proven guilty.
It was remarkable exchange.
Fenstermaker, for instance, was unwilling to say that the nearly three thousand people killed on September 11, 2001 were actually murdered.
O’Reilly: Now, if the anti-American stuff dominates the trial, which it has to on your side – the defense – don’t you think the 9/11 families are going to suffer hearing this kind of garbage?
Fenstermaker: Well, I don’t necessarily think the defense is going to be anti-American. I think it’s basically going to be a justification defense.
O’Reilly: A justification for murdering three thousand civilians? That’s a pretty tough nut.
Fenstermaker: Well, I think the jury decides whether they’ve murdered three thousand. First of all, I don’t think it’s three thousand people. I think it’s less than that. However many it is, I think the jury decides that.
O’Reilly: Do you think there’s any justification on earth to kill thousands of civilians who go to work in the morning? Is there anything to justify that?
Fenstermaker: I’m not the person who is going to be making that decision.
O’Reilly: You’re the lawyer. I mean, you’re going to be asked that question. Surely, you’re going to be prepared to answer it.
Fenstermaker: As I explained before, I’m actually not going to be representing my client -
O’Reilly: But you’re working on the team.
Fenstermaker: That’s right.
O’Reilly: I’ll ask it again. Is there any justification on this earth to murder thousands of innocent people?
Fenstermaker: Well, as I said, the trial is to determine whether they were murdered or not. And a jury’s going to decide that.
O’Reilly: Are you sitting here as a human being telling me the people on 9/11 weren’t murdered?
Fenstermaker: I’m telling you the jury’s going to decide that.
O’Reilly: I want to know what you think.
Fenstermaker: I’m not going to be a juror in that case.
O’Reilly: So, you’re not going to say one way or another whether you feel those people were murdered?
Fenstermaker: I’m not a juror. The jurors decide.
And for those who may have held even the slightest inkling of hope that the trial would not descend into an anti-American, propoganda-filled farce, I extend my deepest regrets:
O’Reilly: In the courtroom, we are going to hear Al-Qaeda propaganda, correct?
Fenstermaker: I wouldn’t say that’s the case. I’d say you’re going to hear a lot of propaganda. I wouldn’t necessarily say -
O’Reilly: Well, if they’re Al-Qaeda, what kind of propaganda? Are we going to hear Roman Catholic propaganda?
Fenstermaker: We’re going to hear a lot of United States government propaganda.
O’Reilly: So, the strategy is to attack the United States government foreign policy and the way they operate?
Fenstermaker: I wouldn’t say that. All I’m saying is you’re going to hear a lot of United States government propaganda.
O’Reilly: But I don’t understand what that means. If you’re on the team, and you’re shaping your defense, what are we going to hear? That the United States is bad?
Fenstermaker: Bad? I don’t know what bad means.
O’Reilly: You don’t know what bad means? We’re getting into Bill Clinton territory. We don’t know what “is” means.
O’Reilly: You’re okay with that?
Fenstermaker: What I’m okay with is that I think they’re going to put on their defense. The jurors are going to decide -
O’Reilly: You’re part of the defense.
Fenstermaker: As I’ve explained, I’m not going to be part of the defense at the trial.
O’Reilly: I don’t care about that. You’re shaping the defense. You just got back from Guanatanamo. You know these guys -
Fenstermaker: I know one of them.
O’Reilly: All right, you know one of them. Re we going to hear that they’re justified in killing three-thousand American civilians because the country – the USA – is a vile country? Are we going to hear that?
Fenstermaker: I think that the number of people was actually less than three-thousand.
Fenstermaker went on to say that he was not only honored to be part of the defense team, but that he would be quite satisfied to see the 9/11 five walk away scot-free, as long as the trial was a fair one.
After O’Reilly asked him whether or not he cared that people hated him for being part of the terrorist’s defense team, Fenstermaker replied, “I’m honored that they hate me … I’m honored because the people who hate me hate the rule of law.”
Another round of applause for the Bammy Bunch is in order.
Without them, this “The Constitution is For Everyone” bag-o-fun would not be possible.
And just think, this is only the beginning.
Posted in 9/11, Justice System, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: 9/11 mastermind, 9/11 terrorists, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, New York City terrorist trial, Scott Fenstermaker, terrorist trial, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 24, 2009
Nidal Malik Hasan, terrorist
In all of their self-serving delusional grandeur, the mainstream media remains dogmatically determined to cite reasons other than Nidal Malik Hasan’s religion for the November 5th terrorist attack that killed thirteen at Fort Hood.
Believe it or not, they may have actually hit upon one, thanks to New York Times columnist Robert Wright .
It’s American conservatism.
In a piece published on Saturday, Wright blamed Hasan’s shooting spree on being “pushed over the edge by his perception of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.” (both of which were initiated by a Republican president).
And while Wright cedes that Hasan also “drew inspiration” from radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, now in Yemen, the Fort Hood shooting was, according to him, “an example of Islamist terrorism being spread partly by the war on terrorism — or, actually, by two wars on terrorism, in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
He went on to say that “Fort Hood is the biggest data point we have — the most lethal Islamist terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. It’s only one piece of evidence, but it’s a salient piece, and it supports the liberal, not the conservative, war-on-terrorism paradigm.” (Not that thousands of Islamic terrorist attacks all over the world over the course of many years are especially salient in understanding Hasan’s motivations, mind you).
In fact, Wright believes that Hasan’s actions are mostly the result of a noxious combination of conservative war-mongering and bats flapping around in his belfry:
It’s true that Major Hasan was unbalanced and alienated — and, by my lights, crazy. But what kind of people did conservatives think were susceptible to the terrorism meme?
These may be the two most asinine lines I’ve yet come across on the Hasan matter.
What is he talking about?
Hasan was isolated because he chose to be. Strange as it may seem to Wright, Hasan’s radical Islamic yammerings probably didn’t appeal to too many of his fellow soldiers. Talking jihad is not a great little ice-breaker.
Note how Wright initially classifies Hasan as “unbalanced and alienated.” By Wright’s reckoning, Hasan is crazy. Yet, in the next sentence, he appears to explain away the bulk of, if not all, Islamic terrorists, by suggesting that anyone “susceptible” to jihad must be, by default, “unbalanced and alienated.” In other words, terrorists, while bad, are prone to be frail mental flowers teetering on the edge of self-control, driven over the cliff by outside forces – in this case, two Muslim-erradicating wars waged by George W. Bush.
Seriously, this is how liberals think.
America – or rather, conservative America, with its propensity toward hawkish, unnuanced solutions to the most complex problems of the human condition – is to blame (at least in part) for driving Hasan to kill. Safe to say, if the United States were not involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, people like Hasan, while still unbalanced, would probably have never been pushed to blow away innocents.
If not for America, so the thinking goes, recruiting numbers at suicide-bombing re-up centers would plummet. (It’s one of the reasons President Obama gave for closing Guantanamo Bay, you’ll recall – because of its function as an Al-Qaeda recruiting tool). By such logic, America shouldn’t bother fighting against terrorists at all, thus ensuring zero recruitment among the murdering class. Only the unhinged and easily-provoked are “susceptible to the terrorism meme.”
How would such an approach work in the civilian world, I wonder, in dealing with criminals such as serial rapists? Or child molesters? Or murderers? Would societal conditions improve or deteriorate if law enforcement officials decided to stop being so “aggressive” in pursuing evil-doers? Does it make sense for law enforcement to back off for fear of creating more rapists? Or bank robbers?
Or are common criminals not as “crazy” or as easily provoked as jihadists?
Central to the debate over Afghanistan is the question of whether terrorists need a “safe haven” from which to threaten America. If so, it is said, then we must work to keep every acre of Afghanistan (and Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, etc.) out of the hands of groups like the Taliban. If not — if terrorists can orchestrate a 9/11 about as easily from apartments in Germany as from camps in Afghanistan — then maybe never-ending war isn’t essential.
However you come out on that argument, the case of Nidal Hasan shows one thing for sure: Homegrown American terrorists don’t need a safe haven. All they need is a place to buy a gun.
Liberals are funny when they try to think things through.
Take a moment to ask yourself this …
How many homegrown Islamist terrorist attacks have there been on American soil over the years?
Perhaps a better question is … how many homegrown Islamist terrorist attacks have there been on American soil over the course of time that did not involve a United States Army Officer (who most likely would not have had not too many problems acquiring a firearm anyway)?
It is precisely because America is not a safe haven that so many terrorist attacks have been thwarted over the years.
And why is it not a safe haven?
Because of the presence (both overtly and covertly) of those men and women charged with the task of defending the United States against all foes, foreign and domestic.
In short, it’s just not very feasible for terrorists to train and prepare for 9/11 style attacks in the United States (or in most free nations, for that matter) the same way they would be able to do in nations sympathetic to their cause. Obviously, preparations can be undertaken to varying degrees in almost any location, as evidenced by the number of stateside plots that have been squashed in recent years; but the notion that one can hatch, and train for, terrorist attacks with the same ease – and with the same scope – from “apartments in Germany” as they can from Taliban-protected camps in Afghanistan is ridiculous.
Just because one believes that terrorism can potentially spring from almost everywhere does not mean nothing should be done anywhere.
This is about values, not the ability to acquire a gun.
This is about having the courage to label evil, not the willingness to protect diversity at the expense of innocent lives.
Presumably, in Wright’s world, if those external forces that so played havoc with Hasan would just back off and stop doing whatever they’re doing to provoke the susceptibly unhinged who have yet to snap, terrorism would drop like President Obama’s approval numbers.
Posted in Dumb Liberals, Evil, Foreign Policy, religion, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Fort Hood, Nidal Malik Hasan, radical Islam, terrorism, terrorist attack | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 23, 2009
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Oh, those nutty terrorists.
Leave it to barbarous murderers who have utter disdain for the United States to take advantage of the American system of justice for their own benefit. Leave it to vermin who target innocents through acts of war to milk the American Constitution for the very rights they abhor. Leave it to those who laughed and applauded when the Twin Towers came crashing down to squeeze the American legal system by using a civilian courtroom as a showcase for their repugnant rhetoric – and do so only blocks from where those towers once stood. And leave it to American leftists to afford these remorseless war-makers Constitutional rights in the first place so all of this can happen.
To the Eric Holders and Barack Obamas of the world, this circus-to-be will demonstrate to our fellow citizens-of-the-world what American fairness is really all about. Our openness will inspire. Our transparency will impress.
It isn’t hard to imagine a cave hidden somewhere in the treacherous mountains of northern Afghanistan where would-be terrorists are sitting around having conversations such as this:
Terrorist 1: “Man, that American legal system is really wonderful, isn’t it, Mohammed?”
Terrorist 2: “Damn straight, Ali.”
Terrorist 1: “They are leading by example, Mohammed.”
Terrorist 2: “We should all get along. America is showing us how.”
Terrorist 1: “It was that last apology Obama made for America that really got to me.”
Terrorist 2: “Yes. me, too.”
As first glance, to go from wanting to die to pleading “not guilty” may seem like quite a leap - even for Muslim terrorists - but that’s precisely what’s happened.
And it really shouldn’t have surprised anyone.
According to the attorney of one of the “defendants,” the five terrorists slated to stand trial in New York for the September 11th attacks will not deny their involvement. Rather, they want to take the opportunity to “explain what happened and why they did it.”
The first thought that came to mind, of course, was, “Thank God! Now we can finally get the bottom of all this. This ought to shed some much needed light on that whole 9/11 thing.”
Such a relief!
Karen Matthews of the Associated Press writes:
[Ali Abd al-Aziz] Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain “their assessment of American foreign policy,” Fenstermaker said.
“Their assessment is negative,” he said.
I think we can all take a “No, really?” out of petty cash.
Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try the men in a New York City civilian courthouse have warned that the trial would provide the defendants with a propaganda platform.
Critics of Holder’s decision — mostly Republicans — argued the trial will give Mohammed and his co-defendants a world stage to spout hateful rhetoric. Holder said such concerns are misplaced, and any pronouncements by the suspects would only make them look worse.
“I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is,” Holder told the committee. “I’m not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial — and no one else needs to be, either.”
They were all minding their own businesses, planting sunflowers, harvesting radishes, exchanging falafel recipes, playing soccer, performing innocent nondescript clitoridectomies on their female young when war-mongering, Israel-loving America came swooping in with her implements of death to slaughter as many Muslims as possible.
Something like that.
Posted in 9/11, Justice System, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: 9/11 mastermind, 9/11 terrorists, 9/11 trial, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, Eric Holder, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, New York City trial, not guilty plea, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 21, 2009
So, the FBI knew.
But the Army didn’t?
Perhaps my thinking is a bit unrefined, and I’m willing to concede that I am no authority on the finer points of national security, but I don’t find it particularly unreasonable to ask why the hell the Federal Bureau of Investigation didn’t bother notifying the United States Army that Ft. Hood mass-murderer Major Nidal Malik Hasan was in contact with radical imam Anwar al-Aulaqi through a series of e-mails prior to the murderous terrorist attack there. In fact, I find it absolutely remarkable that correspondence between a US Army Major and a radical Muslim cleric – as many as nineteen e-mails – wasn’t deemed at all noteworthy enough by the FBI to bring to the Army’s attention.
Call me crazy, but it seems like it might have been something worth mentioning.
What the hell is going on?
Carrie Johnson, Spencer S. Hsu and Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post write:
In the months before the deadly shootings at Fort Hood, Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan intensified his communications with a radical Yemeni American cleric and began to discuss surreptitious financial transfers and other steps that could translate his thoughts into action, according to two sources briefed on a collection of secret e-mails between the two.
The e-mails were obtained by an FBI-led task force in San Diego between late last year and June but were not forwarded to the military, according to government and congressional sources. Some were sent to the FBI’s Washington field office, triggering an assessment into whether they raised national security concerns, but those intercepted later were not, the sources said.
“He [Hasan] clearly became more radicalized toward the end, and was having discussions related to the transfer of money and finances . . .,” said the source, who spoke at length in part because he was concerned the public accounting of the events has been incomplete. “It became very clear toward the end of those e-mails he was interested in taking action.”
The kicker in all of this – with the mainstream media still reluctant to use the “t” word to describe the Ft. Hood attack – is that even Democrat Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is now having to face reality.
Levin told reporters after a briefing from Pentagon staff members that “there are some who are reluctant to call it terrorism, but there is significant evidence that it is.”
Have migraines been ruled out yet?
I’m curious … under what circumstances would communication between an American serviceman and a known radical imam (and supporter of Al-Aqeada) not be anything the military should be made aware of?
Posted in Political Correctness, terrorism, Uncategorized, War on Terror | Tagged: Anwar al-Aulaqi, Carl Levin, FBI, Ft. Hood shooting, Ft. Hood terrorist attack, Nidal Malik Hasan, terrorism, Yemeni imam | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 20, 2009
The President of the United States – with his nation at war – will not take any decisions on what course of action he will pursue in regard to the war in Afghanistan until after Thanksgiving.
A couple of days ago, in fact, the President said it could take several weeks before he comes up with something. No one is exactly sure what other nuggets of information need to be revealed to him before he can finally announce a plan of action there, but he said he will surely let us know.
How nice of him.
While his do-nothing Asian excursion produced no more than a few exceedingly uninteresting moments (except the bow, of course), the war in Afghanistan – being fought by real live Americans deserving of far more than the secondary and tertiary consideration they’re getting from this administration – continued its hapless flap in the political breeze. Indeed, President Obama looked good yesterday telling 1,500 military personnel on Osan Air Base that they made a “pretty good photo op,” but ultimately that’s all it was – a photo op.
There just wasn’t a whole hell of alot that was “presidential” about his visit.
The truth is, the President refuses to own this war, and as long as he can continue to take his cues from the Pathetic President’s Songbook and tie the name of George W. Bush to Afghanistan, he will.
It is sad to say so, but there isn’t an ounce of strength or assuredness coming from this man. The rest of the world sees it. America’s enemies embrace it. America’s troops are the ones paying for it.
With continued indecision comes a real cost – anxious allies, emboldened enemies, and a growing likelihood that Congressional Democrats will feel less inclined to fully back the war effort.
The President himself seems indifferent on the matter.
Yet, Obama’s passions are real. They do exist. Unfortunately, they’re not stirred by his desire to win in Afghanistan. They’re not summoned in his steadfast leadership in the war effort. In fact, he looks mostly lost and discombobulated in his role as Commander-in-Chief. Rather, what arouses him is his annoyance at being asked yet again when he plans to make a decision on Afghanistan; or the fact that from somewhere in his administration, information regarding his deliberations on Afghanistan are leaking out.
Posted in Afghanistan, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan, Afghanistan policy, Obama decision, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 17, 2009
The Governor of New York and the President of the United States aren’t exactly tight. While they are both big time Democrats who hail from big blue states, they seem to have about as much affection for each other as a gaping flesh wound has for salt.
The President, for instance, has all but asked Paterson to bow out of the 2010 gubernatorial race, and the Governor has all but told him to take a flying leap off a high ledge.
That’s how they play together.
The decision by the Obama administration to bring terrorists to New York to stand trial has only widened the gap between them.
While most Democrats seem to be in favor of Attorney General Eric Holder’s (i.e., President Obama’s) disastrous decision to have 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, tried in a civilian court with four of his terrorist chums, the Governor of New York, David Paterson, doesn’t like the idea one bit.
For once, I agree with the otherwise useless governor of my state.
Marcia Kramer from WCBS-TV in New York writes:
Gov. David Paterson openly criticized the White House on Monday, saying he thought it was a terrible idea to move alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspected terrorists to New York for trial.
“This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn’t just attack, it’s anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country,” he said.
Paterson’s comments break with Democrats, who generally support the President’s decision.
“Our country was attacked on its own soil on September 11, 2001 and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost,” he said. “It’s very painful. We’re still having trouble getting over it. We still have been unable to rebuild that site and having those terrorists so close to the attack is gonna be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers.”
Paterson went on to say that “he will do everything in his power to make sure that the state’s Department of Homeland Security will keep New Yorkers as safe as possible.”
As difficult as this is to say definitively, considering the cavalcade of harm President Obama has already overseen since taking office ten months ago, this decision to bring war criminals to New York to be tried as civilians may very be the most disastrous of all.
More importantly, this is a very bad move for the United States. Treating war criminals like civilians, who will potentially have access to intelligence data and Bush-era policy information, is a calamity waiting to happen. It will also afford these examples of human excrement a forum from which to disgorge their hateful prattle.
As it stands right now, nearly two-thirds of all Americans believe this is a bad idea – that a military court is the place to try these war makers who have already asked to be put to death.
The first noise you hear is the gentle sound of terrorist laughter wafting across the oceans into New York, where that great big hole in the ground still sits.
That other sound you hear is Obama’s base collectively gnawing on that great big bone he threw them.
Posted in Evil, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: 9/11 mastermind, Barack Obama, civilian trial, David Paterson, Eric Holder, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, New York trial, terrorism, terrorist trial | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 16, 2009
How many misfiring synapses does it take to enable one to come to the conclusion that moving incarcerated terrorists from a detention facility in Cuba to the mainland United States is a good idea? Uprooting human debris hell-bent on destroying America from a perfectly functioning maximum security military installation so that they can be locked up in America is the embodiment of absurdity. Where else but from the muddled minds of liberals could such thinking come? Where else but from the left could such a plan be born?
President Obama has said that Gitmo’s mere existence has served as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Thus, in Obama-speak, it stands to reason that once these terrorists are transported to the American mainland, recruitment for the terrorist organization will begin to fall off, right? Those who would have thought nothing about strapping bombs across the chests of their children to kill infidels will rethink their positions if the enemies of America could actually be moved here. Osama bin Ladin’s heart will surely soften once these jihadists are living in the midwest.
Makes sense, no?
Setting aside whatever anti-Bush motivations there are concerning this obsessive need among Obamacrats to close Guantanamo Bay, proponents of the terrorist transplant plan claim that it will also be a huge economic boost.
Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times writes:
If [the Thomson Correctional facility] is acquired by the federal government, [it] would be run as a supermax facility housing federal prisoners. A portion of it would be leased to the Defense Department for a “limited number” of Guantanamo detainees — about 100, according to Durbin. About 215 prisoners are now at Guantanamo.
[Senator Dick] Durbin’s office has been quarterbacking the potential sale of the prison through a series of meetings between the White House and [Governor Pat] Quinn, who is looking to generate revenues for the cash-strapped state.
According to an economic impact analysis by the Obama administration, the federal purchase and operation of Thomson could generate $1 billion for the local economy over four years and create between 2,340 and 3,250 jobs.
Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Everybody wins, yes?
Here’s the problem.
Every one of those jobs is a government job. That means every one of those employees’ salaries would come at the taxpayers’ expense. That means all of that money would be sucked out of the economy first before it is redistributed in the form of paychecks.
Durbin and Quinn called the possibility of opening such a facility in their state “a dream come true.”
That’s three thousand new jobs that can be added to the billions and billions of new jobs that have already been created by this administration.
Posted in Dumb Liberals, Economy, Liberalism, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, terrorism, terrorists, Thomas Correctional Facility, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 16, 2009
Can they stop badgering him with these incessant questions about Afghanistan? Is there nothing else to talk about? Do these mainstream media one-trick ponies realize the war there is not the only topic on planet Earth? Do they not understand that their one-dimensional appraoch to journalism is going to irritate the big man to no end if they keep pestering him about it?
It must be incredibly difficult for President Barack Obama to have to deal with persistent nagging from belligerent elements of the press corps (no doubt Limbuagh-dispatched insurgents) about his plans for Afghanistan when there are other matters to tend to, such as how good he looks and how cool he sounds. It must baffle him to no end trying to figure out how the right-wing managed to infiltrate the mainstream media. Who else but they would keep hassling him about this? A trip to Asia is no place to discuss foreign policy, especially when there are heads of state yet to bow to, apologies yet to be made, and American soldiers in harm’s way yet to blow off.
In Shanghai yesterday, the President’s panties were, indeed, in a twist as yet another tedious inquiry about Afghanistan came at him.
Mike Allen, at Politico, writes:
President Barack Obama made no effort to conceal his irritation when his press corps used the first question of his maiden Far East trip to ask what was taking him so long on Afghanistan.
Jennifer Loven of The Associated Press had asked: “Can you explain to people watching and criticizing your deliberations what piece of information you’re still lacking to make that call.”
“With respect to Afghanistan, Jennifer,” the president scolded, “I don’t think this is a matter of some datum of information that I’m waiting on. … Critics of the process … tend not to be folks who … are directly involved in what’s happening in Afghanistan. Those who are, recognize the gravity of the situation and recognize the importance of us getting this right.”
The cool president’s heated response reflected second-guessing from the press and Pentagon about a process that has spanned eight formal meetings with his war cabinet, totaling about 20 hours.
The White House has been deliberately portraying the process as thorough, emphasizing the opposing views the president has considered, as a way of positing a contrast with President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
How exasperating it must be for Barack H. Obama. The press is so captivated, so bedeviled, with the damn war, they’re completely missing these golden presidential photo opportunities. Does the press corps ever think of anything besides itself?
David Alexrod, White House senior advisor, blames this obsession with trying to get Obama to act presidential and take a decision about Afghanistan as a symptom of the “A.D.D. policial culture.”
Yeah, it’s us.
Where was this “thorough” deliberation process when the monumental failure known as the Stimulus Bill became the law of the land in about thirteen nanoseconds?
The fact is, Afghanistan – like everything else with Barack OBama – is still all about George W. Bush.
Obama knows that the moment any kind of decision on Afghanistan is taken, the war becomes his. And the moment he owns it, he can no portray himself as a victim.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, China trip, David Alexrod, Troops in Afghanistan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 15, 2009
Remember how critical it was that Congress pass the Stimulus Bill? Remember how vital it was for the country’s well-being? Remember how its passage was essential to preserve America’s very existence? There wasn’t a moment to waste. It was so urgent, by golly, that there wouldn’t even enough time for anyone to sit down read the thing. Action had to be taken as soon as humanly possible, lest disaster strike. The United States, after all, was on the brink of complete and utter collapse.
Remember how quickly President Obama announced that he’d be shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba after taking the Oath of Office? His inaugural waffle hadn’t even gotten cold yet before he was telling the world that the splendidly effective, incredibly efficient, perfectly secure terrorist prison would have to be shut down. Mind you, Obama had no alternate plan for the terrorists, nor was he ever able to convey a coherent reason for closing the facility. Nonetheless, he acted swiftly.
Remember when the President said, in regard to the threat of global warming, that “the science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear”? Remember how he explained that “few challenges facing America — and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change”? Without a shred of evidence anywhere to support the hysterical belief that increasing CO2 levels are killing the Earth - and with thousands and thousands of years of evidence showing that climate does, in fact, change of its own accord - Obama didn’t spare a second beginning his full frontal assult on “climate change.”
He can be an impulsive bugger at times.
Obama wasted no time in facilitating the government takeover of auto makers. He didn’t hesitate to put the kibosh on the Eastern European missile defense shield. He thought nothing of saying that a recession was the wrong time for corporate profits. He was (and still is) quick to apologize for his own nation on foreign soil. Without a moment’s dithering, he was postive he couldn’t be sure when human life begins, yet knew enough to err on the side of killing the unborn. He was quick to condemn the Cambridge Massachusetts Police Department for “stupidly” handling the arrest of his race-obsessed friend, Professor Henry Louis Gates, without knowing the facts. He has instinctively rolled over for Iran, while alienating America’s allies.
And let us not forget ObamaCare.
In the mere blink of an eye he is prepared to create the most astronomicaly crippling debt this, or any other, nation has ever seen. Without as much as a batting eyelash, he is more than ready to saddle generation after generation with tax burdens unheard of in American history. Without breaking a sweat, he is eager to expand the federal government to levels that would have garnered a tip of the hat from FDR.
And yet …
When it comes to the war in Afghanistan – the fight he called the “war of necessity” – he just can’t seem to figure it out. Despite months and months to come up with a plan of action for what he said repeatedly was the central front in the fight against Al Qaeda, he just doesn’t know. Despite recommendations from the best military minds in the world, he just can’t seem find it in himself to do much of anything but wait. With American soldiers in harm’s way waiting for their Commander-in-Chief to finally act the part, President Obama says he wants to take it slow and come up with the best solution. So far, he’s rejected all proposed plans up to this point.
What the hell?
Afghanistan was Obama’s easy call, remember? This was the fight that America needed to be focused on all along, right? This was the “good war,” wasn’t it?
And yet, less than two weeks away from Thanksgiving, still nothing.
These things can’t be rushed, he says.
Anyway, enjoy Asia, Mr. President.
How many trips does that make since January?
Posted in Global Warming, health care, Junk Science, Liberalism, military, Obama Bonehead, politics, stimulus bill, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan policy, Barack Obama, Obama dithering, War in Afghanistan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 14, 2009
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in reacting to the pathetic and irresponsible decision taken by the Obama administration to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other terrorists to civilian court, reminded us all, in an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News, what the 9/11 attacks really were:
This was an act of war. One of things I thought we learned from September 11th is that we were in a state of denial before September 11th. We went through this once before in 1993. We had terrorists attack the World Trade Center. We did not recognize it as an act of war. We tried them in the Southern District in New York. It did no good.
President Barack Obama is following through on his promise to undo everything Bush by gradually emptying out the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
What better way to do it than to yank terrorists from the security of Gitmo and send them to an American city to face a jury not comprised of their peers? And what better place to bestow rights onto those who are not entitled to them than in New York City?
As disgusting as this is – and, I assure you, it doesn’t get more reprehensible than conferring Constitutional rights on terrorists – it should come as no surprise to anyone.
52.7% of your fellow countrymen voted for this.
While he was still a candidate, then-Senator Barack Obama was talking constitutionality – which in itself was (and still is) enough to send the short hairs on the back of my neck to attention. He launched an attack against then-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her position on the so-called rights of terrorist suspects, referencing Palin’s comments in her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last summer.
She said (referring to then-Senator Obama):
Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay … he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights?
First of all, you don’t even get to read them their rights until you catch ‘em. They (the Republicans) should spend more time trying to catch Osama bin Laden and we can worry about the next steps later. My position has always been clear: If you’ve got a terrorist, take him out. Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take ‘em out.”
Obama saw himself as defending the Constitution (in some sick, twisted way) as he went after Governor Palin, supporting the issuance of rights to terrorist suspects because, as he put is, “we don’t always have the right person.”
If this wasn’t the atomic alarm of all alarms, then nothing ever could have been.
How was Obama able to reach the conclusion that Osama bin Ladin was a terrorist without affording him access to the legal protections outlined in the Constitution? What criteria was he using to make that determination? How could Obama want to “take out” bin Ladin without granting him his Constitutional rights?
And if I am being obtuse here, then allow to me ask the question the other way. Wasn’t Sadam Hussein a terrorist? Or, at the very least, the leader of a state that sponsored terrorists? Didn’t we “take him out?”
Of course, it would have been interesting for someone at the time to point out that Obama supported the Washington, D.C. handgun ban, which is unconstitutional.
Kettle meet pot.
And now, more than a year later, the circus of all circuses – one that will needlessly cost the American taxpayer tens of millions of dollars – will begin only blocks from where the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center stood. The Attorney General, Eric Holder, will seek the death penalty against the five men who have already said – repeatedly - they want to die. (At least they’re on the same page). The courtroom will serve as a stage from which these reprehensible terrorists – war criminals – will be given the opportunity to spew their hate, justify the murders of nearly three-thousand innocents, and hide behind the Constitutional protections afforded them by the Commander-in-Chief of the United States.
If undoing the endless malignancies of the Bush era means putting American lives in danger, so be it.
It isn’t Obama’s fault he inherited such a mess.
Posted in 9/11, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, KSM, New York City, Obama, Sarah Palin, September 11 2001, terrorism, terrorist rights, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 11, 2009
The destructive, lethal idiocy that has deluged this country in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on Fort Hood last week is beyond repugnant. For almost a week now, from every corner of the fainthearted, bend-over-and-take-it mass media complex there has come an astonishingly embarrassing exhibition of weak-minded, namby-pamby, Lucy Van Pelt pop-psychology rationalizations as to why Nidal Malik Hasan might have opened fire on innocents, murdering thirteen.
It is confounding.
Hasan could have had a neon sign plastered to his forehead that read, “This is a terrorist attack!” and the mainstream media would have a panel of analysts discussing what Hasan meant by the word “is.”
If ever there has been such a ubiquitously loathsome display of weakness from Americans in recent times, I am not aware of it.
Courage – and dare I say, truth – clearly has no place in the mainstream media.
With an ever-growing profusion of evidence making it abundantly clear that the murderous rampage undertaken by Hasan was a genuine act of Islamic jihad, the ever-tender, overly-feminized, feelings-obsessed American media chooses to travel the road of the least offensive. In the name of objectivity, they continues to explore a host of alternate possibilities that might have led Hasan to kill.
It’s that “let’s keep an open mind” approach to reporting the news that will, presumably, keep angry Muslims from coming after journalists.
The “religion” angle is just too easy – merely a construct of Jesus-loving, xenophobic, gun-obsessed anti-Muslim types.
the terrorist, Hasan
Despite the fact that every arrow, every indicator, every investigation, every report, every stitch of evidence, everything that has been uncovered relating to the killer Hasan suggests – nay, dictates – that terrorism is the correct way to describe the Fort Hood attack, the alphabet and cable channels, along with the liberal print media, continue to maintain their fairness (i.e., gutlessness).
This fatalistic need to obscure the realities of the world in order to safeguard the feelings of others – all in the name of political correctness – will, undoubetdly, be the undoing of this country. The enemy will come from within. Expect many more than the thirteen who were murdered at Fort Hood to die as our most important and sacred institutions (e.g., the military, the free press) are crippled by those who do all they can, at the expense of what is right and just, to ensure Muslims are not offended.
Personally, I don’t give a damn how many Muslims get offended.
In matters of national security, I don’t give rat’s nipple who gets insulted. I’m only interested in making sure this nation is secure from her enemies, foreign or domestic.
If, as leftists and other children want us to believe, Muslims are so incapable of understanding that no one on my side of the aisle thinks that all practitioners of Islam are terrorists, then that’s just too bad. If, in the view of the Left and other terrified puppies, Muslims are ill-equipped to comprehend that those of us willing to speak the truth do not – and never have – lumped all Muslims together, then there’s nothing more that can be said or done to change it. Time and time again, to the point of utter frustration and intellectual exhaustion, conservatives have bent over backward to explain to the world that we are not anti-Muslim. We have done back flips to prove that no one on the right believes the entirety of Islam supports terrorism.
We are anti-evil, no matter where it comes from.
But it’s not been good enough.
The fact is, the greatest threat to freedom in the world today is radical Islam – and all indications are that Hasan was a radical islamist.
There simply is no movement of radical Baptists commiting thousands upon thousands of acts of terrorism across the globe in the name of Jesus Christ. Or Methodists. Or Catholics.
That the incredibly obvious is now being expelled and disregarded so that the feelings of a few may be potentially spared – at the expense of human lives – is deplorable and unforgivable.
I, for one, am not willing to see the security of this nation compromised, or the safety and well-being of those who defend her imperiled, for the sake of not affronting a group of people.
I am sick to death of hearing from the Left how intolerant Americans are. I am fed up with having to read and hear from ungracious, spineless pensmiths and pundits how much they fear reprisals and retribution from angry Americans (i.e., the right wing).
It is all complete, unsubstantiated nonsense.
Where was the anti-Islam uprising after September 11, 2001? Where were the anti-Muslim reprisals after the London attacks? Or the Madrid bombing? How many acts of revenge against mosques took place in America after the first World Trade Center attack in 1993? How many bodies littered the streets in retaliation to any number of jihadist terrorist plots uncovered here in the United States?
Do leftists ever think beyond the initial “feel good” fix that defines their approach to the world? Is there solace among leftists in knowing that even though thirteen were murdered at Fort Hood, they can at least rest well knowing that they’ve not offended a single Muslim?
Posted in Dumb Liberals, Evil, Islam, Liberalism, Media Bias, Moral Clarity, national security, religion, War on Terror | Tagged: Fort Hood, jihad, Nidal Malik Hasan, offending Muslims, Political Correctness, terrorism, terrorist attack at Ft. Hood | 3 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 9, 2009
Daniel Patrick Boyd
Remember Daniel Patrick Boyd? You may recall he was the North Carolina contractor who, along with a group of others (including two sons), was planning a “violent jihad,” which included an attack on the Quantico Marine Base. He was a Muslim convert who was also involved in planning a series of terror attacks internationally.
If his name doesn’t ring a bell, don’t feel too bad. He wasn’t an angry Christian targeting an abortion clinic, so the story had a shelf life of maybe eighteen seconds.
How about the name Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad? If not (which is quite likely), perhaps you will recall the incident associated with him. In June of this year he shot up a Little Rock, Arkansas recruiting office, killing an American soldier. Afterwards, he claimed he was justified because of what Americans were doing to Muslims in the Middle East.
Since he wasn’t an angry American white man setting off a bomb somewhere, the chances that this story would snag more than a day’s worth of coverage was slim-to-none.
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad
Remember the story of the Bronx, New York terror plot – the one where four home grown Muslim terrorists planned on shooting down military planes and were arrested as they planted what they thought were bombs at two synagogues? How long did that story stick around with the mainstream media?
Since there was no way to cloak the role of Islam in that particular terrorist scheme, it isn’t surprising that after a day or two, it became a page twenty-five afterthought, lest the Muslim community be insulted or provoked.
Certainly many will recollect the Fort Dix terror plot. That should have been, by anyone’s measure, a huge story – particularly when three Muslim immigrant brothers, Dritan, Shain and Eljvir Duka, were convicted of planning an al-Qaida-inspired attack meant to kill hundreds of American soldiers on the New Jersey military installation.
It went away in short order as newspapers filled with stories of how screwed up Afghanistan was thanks to George W. Bush.
Ask anyone with even an elementary knowledge of current events to recall any of these domestic terror plots and, more likely than not, you won’t elicit many responses.
Sadly, they’re buried way below the fold of America’s collective consciousness.
But now, with thirteen people dead and twenty-nine injured at Fort Hood, Texas – and every indication in the world that the murderer, Nidal Malik Hasan, acted as a radical Islamic terrorist - the morally weak, fainthearted American media (in conjunction with the American Leftocracy) cannot sweep the details of this horrific incident away under the rug as they would like. Thus, as long as the news cycle demands that this story be covered, they will continue to avoid the obvious as long as humanly possible – that radical Islam almost certainly played the defining role in the Fort Hood mass murder.
Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera, for example, went as far as saying that, for all we know, it could have been a bad headache that made the terrorist, Hassan, kill.
Yes, he really said that.
And no, he doesn’t believe that for a second.
However, Rivera is one the overwhelming majority of journalists who live in a world where clarity is routinely sacrificed for being inoffensive.
(I wonder how many throbbing-headed individuals in human history have actually resorted to mass murder. I’ve found that, generally speaking, bad headaches are debilitating).
On his radio program today, Dennis Prager played a clip from MSNBC’s show Hardball that aired Friday, where host Chris Matthews introduced a segment with Nihad Awad from the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) this way:
Welcome back to Hardball. The investigation into that massacre at Fort Hood yesterday is still ongoing and it’s unclear if religion was a factor in this shooting.
What motivated this killing yesterday? And we may not know that ever.
So, in light of every stitch of evidence available to him, in light of every report pointing in that direction, Mr. Matthews believes we may never ever know what motivated these murders?
I guess this Hasan is a real puzzle.
If everything that is known right now about Hasan – including the fact that, for years, he has been making anti-American comments in public; that he has openly professed to being pro-terrorist; that he has posted commentary online in support of suicide bombings; that he has incontestable ties to radical Islam; that he has likely had contact with terrorists; that he has been heard to say on numerous occasions that he is a Muslim first and an American second; that he was heard to shout “Allahu Akbar!” (God Is Great) before slaughtering innocents - is not enough to suggest that religion might have been some sort of factor in what happened at Fort Hood, what exactly would be?
What other “clues” would need to be in place for the murderer, Hasan, to be seen by the gutless American media as an Islamic terrorist?
Even Anwar Aulaqi – the radical imam, now in Yemen, who preached at the Virginia mosque where Hasan was known to have attended – posted the following at his website:
Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.
Obviously, Aulaqi believes that Hasan’s shooting spree had something to do with religion. Why else would he praise Hasan if this was not a terrorist attack in the name of Islam? When, pray tell, will Chris Matthews criticize Aulaqi for jumping to conclusions?
Somehow, in the flummoxed brains of the American leftist, to accept the reality that there are radical Muslims who commit atrocities such as the Fort Hood massacre – and do so in the name of Islam – is to say that all Muslims are terrorists. It’s how they think. It’s a charge the Left makes against conservatives regularly – that we on the right believe all Muslims are terrorists. But no one on my side of the aisle has ever said it, nor do we believe it. It isn’t an issue. Rather it is they on the Left who avoid the topic all together in fear of offending Muslims, even when the Qur’an is slapping them repeatedly across the chops.
Of course, lefties often go on and on about white racism in America – especially where the opposition of Barack Obama’s policies are concerned – but never once have any fear of offending all whites, or lumping all Caucasians together.
Funny how that works.
Posted in Evil, Islam, Liberalism, Media, military, Political Correctness, religion, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: 13 dead, cowardly media, domestic terrorism, Fort Hood, media weakness, Nidal Malik Hasan, Political Correctness, terrorist attack | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 9, 2009
There are reports that Nidal Malik Hasan, the man who murdered thirteen at Fort Hood, Texas last week, attended the same Virginia mosque as two of the 9/11 hijackers in 2001. This would have happened during the period when a radical imam, Anwar Aulaqi, was preaching at the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va.
According to an Associated Press story:
Aulaqi told the FBI in 2001 that, before he moved to Virginia in early 2001, he met with 9/11 hijacker Nawaf al-Hazmi several times in San Diego. Al-Hazmi was at the time living with Khalid al-Mihdhar, another hijacker. Al-Hazmi and another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, attended the Dar al Hijrah mosque in Virginia in early April 2001. In his FBI interview, Aulaqi denied ever meeting with al-Hazmi and Hanjour while in Virginia.
Of course, it is imperative that the American public continue to refrain from jumping to any conclusions.
There may be other factors to contend with that the rest of us may be missing. Perhaps he was bullied as a child. Maybe he adored his mother and hated his father. It could be that he wasn’t allowed to have a Big Wheel as a boy. Maybe the other kids wouldn’t let him play in any reindeer games.
Regardless, we need to relax and let the facts come out.
While Hasan’s ties to the Virginia mosque are obviously of tremendous relevance – and as all the details surrounding the Fort Hood terrorist attack become known – it is the Associated Press article itself that draws my attention.
To begin with, the article’s opening sentence is profoundly troubling:
The alleged Fort Hood shooter apparently attended the same Virginia mosque as two Sept. 11 hijackers in 2001, at a time when a radical imam preached there.
The “alleged” shooter?
So, it is possible that the individual who shot thirteen people dead and injured twenty-nine was not Nidal Malik Hasan? It could have been someone else?
And what about Sergeant Kimberly Munley, the officer who took down the killer, Hasan?
If Hasan is “alleged,” I hope Munley is being held in jail until it can be confirmed who the “shooter” actually was. Or did she “allegedly” shoot Hasan? Or did she shoot someone else? And if so, was that shooting “alleged?”
And are the dead “alleged” until the shooter can actually be confirmed?
Is the entire incident “alleged?”
(And does this shirt make me look fat?)
The article’s next line is equally troubling:
Whether the Fort Hood shooter associated with the hijackers is something the FBI will probably look into, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
The FBI will “probably” look into whether or not the terrorist, Hasan, had any associations with the 9/11 hijackers who attended the same mosque as he??
Given that I am obviously a novice when it comes to criminal investigations, law enforcement and matters of national security, wouldn’t it nonetheless seem to be an automatic to look into it?
Maybe I watch too much television.
Posted in Evil, Islam, military, Political Correctness, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: 13 dead, Anwar Aulaqi, Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center, Ft. Hood, Nidal Malik Hasan, Virgibia mosque | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 28, 2009
President Barack Obama needs to grow up, quit all the whining, stop blaming every conceivable ill that exists in America on the other side, and at least try to appear as if leadership of some kind is attainable. It’s time for this colossal do-nothing President to get up off his backside and finally own his Presidency. Someone with some balls needs to pick up Mr. Obama, turn him over, flip the switch from “campaign” to “President,” inform him that he is now more than nine months into his term, and demand that he stop behaving like a prepubescent kickball team captain and finally act like a man accountable.
Democrats have the White House and both houses of Congresses (Lord helps us), and if there has ever been a more disengaged, sedentary, lackluster, bumbling, stumbling collection of stammering political lummoxes than the crew in charge right now, I’m not aware of it. And although the campaign is long over (calendar-wise), and the blame-Bush-for-everything window has long been hammered shut, the President is still trying to squeeze through.
The fact is, it’s too late for that now.
It now belongs to the Anointed One.
It is all his.
This is, after all, the real world - where enemies exist, lives hang in the balance and actions must speak louder than words. This is not a hacky-sack bull session among campus marxists-in-waiting and capitalism-sucks dope smokers. This is not Wednesday afternoon Mahjongg, or one of President Obama’s studly White House basketball games, or one of his twenty-nine thousand rounds of golf. This is reality … and the reality is, this is a nation at war, with troops in harm’s way, facing an enemy hell-bent on destroying this country and all it stands for, led by a holding-pattern President who needs to pull out his thumbs and actually lead. Unfortunately, America’s top Keystone Cop has done little more than show those who are under his command that they are, at best, secondary to such pressing matters as global warming, curbing CEO salaries, destroying private insurance companies and doing all he can to make sure Chicago hosts the 500 meter freestyle event.
How dare this President fiddle with five irons and lay his egotistical charms on the Olympic gods while America’s bravest wait for some kind of word from the mountain top as to what their mission in Afghanistan is. While Obama’s White House is busy brown-shirting their way into a war against the Fox News Channel – and he continues to distinguish his administration with Mao enthusiasts, 9/11-truthers, tax evaders, race-baiters and unaccountable czars – American troops are quite literally stranded in a strategic limbo wondering what the hell their Commander-in-Chief is waiting for.
On Monday, for instance, the President commented that after “long years of drift,” he was finally going to get America’s Afghanistan policy correct.
In response, Charles Krauthammer, of the Fox News Channel, on yesterday’s Special Report, said:
I want to point out one thing about what Obama had said, what he talked about: “the long years of drift.” There is something truly disgusting about the way he cannot refrain from attacking Bush when he’s being defensive about himself. I mean, it’s beyond disgraceful here. He won election a year ago. He became the Commander-In-Chief two months later. He announced his own strategy – not the Bush strategy, his strategy – six months ago, and it wasn’t off-handed. It was a major address with the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State standing with him, and now he’s still taking about “the drift” in the Bush years.
What’s happening today is not a result of the “drift in Bush years,” so-called. It’s because of the drift in his years. It’s because of the flaws in his own strategy, which is what he is re-examining. He has every right as Commander-in-Chief to re-examine his own strategy, but he ought to be honest, forthright and courageous enough as the President to simply say, “I’m rethinking the strategy I adopted six months ago, and not, once again, childlike attack his predecessor.
Also on Monday, the President of the United States, speaking to a military audience in Jacksonville, familiarly took leave of his backbone and once again proved why national security cannot be trusted to liberals and other children. With his nation at war, and troops already on the battlefield, he forever etched his name in the annals of great American war leaders, saying, “I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way. I won’t risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary.”
Is he kidding?
It’s been seven months.
This is the President of the United States, the most powerful man on the face of the earth, addressing members of the American military, the greatest fighting force the world has ever known, and the message he manages to convey – the words of inspiration he musters for those who have pledged their lives to defend this country – is he “won’t risk” lives “unless it is absolutely necessary.”
What about those who are at this moment in harm’s way, Mr. President? What about those who are already risking everything so that you (and the rest of us) can hit the links, or arrange pick-up games at the White House, or use fatty oils to fry up their latkes? What about the troops who are now fighting America’s enemies in a war that, not too long ago, you called a war of necessity?
Is it no longer a war of necessity?
Is the President aware that the words he speaks are actually heard and ingested outside of the friendly confines of his own mind? Including those who are currently serving in Afghanistan?
I humbly ask … Is it at all posibble for the man who won a whopping 52.7% of the popular vote last November – the man who proclaimed incontrovertibly that victory was the only option in Afghanistan – to stop blaming his own inability to chew gum and q-tip his ears at the same time on George W. Bush?
Yes, yes, we know … Along with all of his other atrocities, Bush probably took great delight in kicking little puppies, thought nothing of cutting in front of little old ladies at the Post Office, and stole coins from the blind pencil guy on the street.
Regardless, Barack Obama is in charge today. This is his ship. Nine damn months is long enough.
The President, of course, employs the same “it-was-him-not-me” approach when dealing with domestic issues (e.g., unemployment, health care, growing deficits, etc.) Note that as he attempts to “tackle” the myriad of challenges facing the United States – and defend his all-too important legacy-in-progress – everything always comes down to doing all he can to try and deal with the incalculable disasters he inherited from George W. Bush.
It wasn’t him, he cries.
Eight years of bad policies just can’t be undone like that, he explains.
Things will get worse before they get better, he promises.
It’s not easy, he says.
Blah, blah, blah.
Proclaiming that America’s problems still boil down to the preponderance of pervasive blunders and destructive policies perpetrated and implemented by George W. Bush, he figures, will have the citizenry nodding and sighing in agreement, as if to say, “We understand, Bam. We’re with you. Just get to it when you can.”
Forget the fact that Obama already sees his role as a rebuilder and transformer. It is his charge (in his own mind) to reconstruct this nation from the ruins of the more than two centuries of social injustice, run-away capitalism, and international bullying that preceded him. He first has to salvage what he can from the calamitous reign of George W. Bush, then he can beat down the Founding Fathers.
Someone – anyone – who is more concerned with the well-being of the United States than whether or not they will continue to have access to the messianic inner circle needs to shake some damn sense into the man who cannot let go of the blame-Bush-for-everything game plan that got him the job. This incessant cry-baby approach – the victimization mentality of “it-isn’t-my-fault-because-this-is-what-was-handed-to-me” – must come to a screeching halt immediately.
Enough is enough.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Liberalism, military, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: "blame bush", Barack Obama, Blaming Bush, Do-nothing President, Foreign Policy, ineffective Presidency, stop blaming George W. Buah, War in Afghanistan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 14, 2009
An important new blog has been added to the Roman Around blog roll.
It is called Keep America Safe and is the creation of Liz Cheney, William Kristol and Debra Burlingame.
Their mission statement, in part, reads as follows:
The mission of Keep America Safe is to provide information for concerned Americans about critical national security issues. Keep America Safe seeks to influence public policy by encouraging dialogue between American citizens and their elected representatives in order to produce legislation and executive action that enhances the national security of the United States.
Keep America Safe believes the United States can only defeat our adversaries and defend our interests from a position of strengh. We know that America has, for 233 years, been an unparalleled force for good in the world, that our fighting forces are the best the world has ever known, and that the world is a safer place when America is trusted by our allies and feared and respected by our enemies. Keep America Safe will make the case for an unapologetic approach to fighting terrorism around the world, for victory in the wars this country fights, for democracy and human rights, and for a strong American military that is needed in the dangerous world in which we live.
On the Keep America Safe home page is a terrific video, professionally produced called Rhetoric vs Reality.
Please check it out, bookmark the site, and visit regularly.
They’ve done a fine job.
Posted in Foreign Policy, national security, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Debrah Burlingame, Keep America Safe, Liz Cheney, William Kristol | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 29, 2009
From the “Warm And Fuzzy” file …
Now that a new secret underground nuclear processing plant in Iran has been made public, is there a better way for that nation to follow up such a hair-raising revelation than with some good old-fashioned, feel-good long-range missile tests?
And is there anything quite as comforting in knowing that these missiles, according to Iran, are capable of reaching any location they feel may pose a threat to that country, including Israel, significant portions of Europe, and some American military installations?
And better still, doesn’t it just make you go all goose-pimply knowing that the President of the United States recently put the kibosh on a missile defense shield that would have been able to take care of these missiles?
Am I the only one hearing Katrina and the Waves sing, “…And don’t it feel good?”
Along with the reality that our President is not interested in victory when it comes to Iran, by now you’re surely aware that General Stanley McChrystal, Commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is saying that he has spoken to Barack Obama, Commander-In-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, only once since being put in charge over the summer.
Only once in a little over two months!
How about that for instilling confidence?
Recall that Afghanistan, according to Obama himself, is the central front in America’s “Overseas Contingency Operation” – or at least it was, as of not too long ago.
Maybe – and this is a big maybe – the President can find the time to actually consult with the Commander of American Forces in Afghanistan before he returns from Copenhagen on his “Let’s Bring The Olympics Home To Chicago” tour.
Maybe an instant message before he finishes his waffle?
Sing it Katrina … Don’t it feel good?
Posted in Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: Barack Obama, NATO Forces in Afghanistan, Obama in Copenhagen, Obama in Denmark, Olympics to Chicago, Overseas Contingency Operation, Stanley McChrystal, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 24, 2009
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
A tale of two speeches.
Yesterday at the United Nations, President Barack Obama – leader of the free world, Apologist-In-Chief – all but spit upon the notion of American exceptionalism with some of the most embarrassing, lily-livered, weak-kneed, touchy-feely palavar ever spoken by an American President while still in office. He stood up in front of the world, sounding more like the guest speaker at a “Get-In-Youch-With-Your-Inner-Self” encounter group and delivered hokey cliché after threadbare platitude, explaining to everyone (in that “I know better than everyone who preceded me” tone) that “No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” He also managed to grab the necks of one of our closest allies, Israel, and drag them to the bus depot, lay them out on the exit ramp, and hold her down while bus after bus rolled over her.
Rich Lowry of the National Review said Obama came across as a “gullible sap.”
I was thinking more along the lines of a tenderfooted, bait-taking, mollycoddling sucker, but I acquiesce to Lowry’s superior wordsmanship.
Contrast Obama’s nerveless blather to today’s speech given by Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu – dare I say, a real leader.
Said Netanyahu, in part, today:
For eight long years, Hamas fired rockets – fired those rockets from Gaza – on nearby Israeli citizens. Thousand of missiles, mortars, hurling down from the sky on schools, on homes, shopping centers, bus stops.
Year after year as these missiles were deliberately fired on our citizens, not one UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing, absolutely nothing, from the UN Human Rights Council – a misnamed institution if there ever was one.
In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It was very painful. We dismantled 21 settlements – really bedroom communities and farms. We uprooted over eight thousand Israelis – yanked them out from their homes. We did this because many in Israel believed that this would get peace.
Well, we didn’t get peace.
Instead, we got an Iranian-backed terror base fifty miles from Tel-Aviv.
Life in the Israeli towns and cities immediately next to Gaza became nothing less than a nightmare.
You see, the Hamas rocket launchers, and the rocket attacks, not only continued after we left, they actually increased dramatically. They increased ten-fold.
And again, the UN was silent. Absolutely silent.
He went on to commend those nations who had the good sense to walk out on yesterday’s speech (if you wish to call it that) by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who again went on to deny the Holocaust, among his other abominable cacklings.
But Netanyahu courageously and openly condemned the United Nations – in no uncertain terms – for allowing the despicable Iranian terrorist to be given the forum to espouse his hateful, destructive, threatening rhetoric in the first place.
From Fox News:
Holding aloft evidence of Hitler’s Final Solution, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday railed against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his denial of the Holocaust and scolded the United Nations for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak during its opening session of the 64th U.N. General Assembly.
With detailed reminders in hand of the war that sent 6 million Jews to their deaths in concentration camps, including construction blueprints for Auschwitz, Netanyahu took his turn at the dais to recall the agreement within the world body to create the Jewish state and express astonishment at what he witnessed a day earlier in that organization’s great hall.
He commended those who boycotted Ahmadinejad’s speech, but condemned those who allowed it.
“To those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people. … Have you no shame? Have you no decency?” Netanyahu said.
Netanyahu also scolded the United Nations for giving the Iranian president “legitimacy” just six decades after the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad addressed the body Wednesday, and in the run-up to the session repeated his belief that the Holocaust is a myth.
“What a disgrace,” Netanyahu said. “What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations.”
Compare and contrast the words and sentiments of Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu.
Compare and contrast strength to acquiescence. Compare one who echoes the voices of Churchill and Reagan to one that echoes the sentiments of fragility and defeat. Compare one who understands that it is our moral obligation to stand between evil and the innocent to one who looks to level the playing field between the evil and innocent.
Bravo Benjamin Netanyahu – Prime Minister of a tiny little country that sits more alone today than it has in quite a while.
Posted in Antisemitism, Israel, United Nations, War on Terror | Tagged: Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu speech at the UN | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 24, 2009
In case you hadn’t noticed, this is quite a President we have here.
Ever eager and willing to bend over backwards for thug dictators, terrorist appeasers and human rights violators, President of the World (and quite possibly the vast majority of the galaxy), Barack Obama, is equally exhilarated about thumbing America’s nose at longtime allies.
Some of America’s staunchest supporters and embracers of liberty are in Eastern Europe – particularly Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama’s decision to scrap the installation of critical missile defense shields in those two countries – which has incidentally pleased Russia to no end – isn’t exactly securing him any invites to (former Polish President) Lech Walesa’s house for supper and scrabble. Former Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek said, “The Americans are not interested in this territory as they were before. It’s bad news for the Czech Republic.”
After all, if you can’t alienate your friends, who can you alienate?
Meanwhile, in Israel, the percentage of people who believe that President Obama is a friend to their nation is at 4% – that’s four bloody percent!
Compare that to 88% under President George W. Bush.
And now this little tidbit from Great Britain this morning.
David Hughes from the UK Telegraph writes this very important – and telling – piece:
The juxtaposition on our front page this morning is striking. We carry a photograph of Acting Sgt Michael Lockett – who was killed in Helmand on Monday – receiving the Military Cross from the Queen in June, 2008. He was the 217th British soldier to die in the Afghan conflict. Alongside the picture, we read that the Prime Minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure a few minutes “face time” with President Obama after five requests for a sit-down meeting were rejected by the White House.
What are we to make of this? This country has proved, through the bravery of men like Acting Sgt Lockett, America’s staunchest ally in Afghanistan. In return, the American President treats the British Prime Minister with casual contempt. The President’s graceless behaviour is unforgivable. As most members of the Cabinet would confirm, it’s not a barrel of laughs having to sit down for a chat with Gordon Brown. But that’s not the point. Mr Obama owes this country a great deal for its unflinching commitment to the American-led war in Afghanistan but seems incapable of acknowledging the fact. You might have thought that after the shambles of Mr Brown’s first visit to the Obama White House – when there was no joint press conference and the President’s “gift” to the Prime Minister was a boxed DVD set – that lessons would have been learned. Apparently not. Admittedly, part of the problem was Downing Street’s over-anxiety to secure a face-to-face meeting for domestic political purposes but the White House should still have been more obliging. Mr Obama’s churlishness is fresh evidence that the US/UK special relationship is a one-way street.
Remember, liberals actually care what the rest of the world thinks about the United States … or should I say liberals care what our enemies and assorted international leftists think about the United States. (It’s crucial to keep in mind that the world does not look down upon this country, as Obama would have us believe. The world’s leftists look down upon the United States).
Perhaps if Gordon Brown ordered soldiers into civilian neighborhoods to slaughter innocents, President Obama would be more receptive to him. Perhaps if the Polish government ordered innocents to be rounded up and shot for speaking out against them, the President of the United States would be willing to work with them. Maybe if Israelis fired missiles into civilian territories and strapped bombs across their chests to blow up pizza parlors, Bam would make it his business to address their concerns.
While one can make the case that Obama’s “cold shoulder” is rooted in how Great Britain handled the releasing of a convicted terrorist to Libya earlier this month, let us all be as realistic as humanly possible.
This is Barack Obama we’re talking about – apologist, waffler, foreign-policy novice. He doesn’t even refer to the current war as such. It is an Overseas Contingency Operation, remember? How can one believe that the President is troubled by the release of a terrorist when one of his first actions as Commander-In-Chief was to order the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba closed?
Hughes’ “one-way street” comment obviously does not apply to the history between the United States and Great Britain – see World War I, World War II, the Cold War. But as we all stand witness to a brand new history being forged by the in-over-his-head, wonder boy from Illinois, it is obvious that all one-way streets clearly lead right back to the Messianic Palace.
(Uh, oh. I used the word “boy.” Did you hear that, Maureen Dowd?”)
Posted in Foreign Policy, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Gordon Brown, Great Brtain United States relations, Michael Lockett, UK telegraph David Hughes, US UK relations | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 11, 2009
Eight years ago today, the United States of America was attacked by Islamist terrorists. Four airplanes were hijacked and used as missiles against targets in this country. The twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City were destroyed. The Pentagon in Northern Virginia was damaged. A fourth airplane crashed in rural Pennsylvanis before it could reach its intended target in Washington, D.C.
Nearly three thousand people were murdered that day.
The first television bulletin of the attack came at 8:49 AM on WNYW-TV in New York, just three minutes after American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower.
Presented here is a portion of a program I created several years ago documenting in timeline fashion how the 9/11 attacks were covered by the media on that fateful morning.
This first clip is a montage of the original “as it happened” breaking news bulletins from each of the networks (nationally and locally) just after the North Tower was attacked.
By 9:03 AM that mroning, all of the national news networks and all but one of New York’s local channels were covering the story.
The next clip is a montage of how each broadcast channel covered the crashing of United Airlines Flight 175 into the South Tower on live television. There are also additional angles of the attack taken from non-broadcast sources.
In what still ranks as the most horrifying thing I have ever witnessed, the South Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed into the streets of Lower Manhattan at 9:59 AM that morning, engulfing the entirety of the island’s southern tip in smoke. Listen to the broadcasters here – particularly ABC’s Peter Jennings as he speaks with correspondent Don Dahler who is on the scene. Even as they watch the devastation unfolding before them, it is incomprehensible.
Jennings: A whole side has collapsed?
Dahler: The whole building has collapsed.
Jennings: The whole building has collapsed?
Dahler: The building has collapsed.
Twenty-nine minutes after the South Tower crumbled, the North Tower came down.
There were a total of 2,974 people murdered that day, including 343 members of the New York City Fire Department, 23 members of the New York City Police Department, 37 members of the Port Authority Police Department and 55 members of the United States military.
It is estimated that at least 200 people jumped to their deaths from the burning towers.
Posted in 9/11, War on Terror | Tagged: 9/11, As It Happened, Flight 11, Flight 175, Flight 93, Pentagon, September 11 2001, terrorist attacks, TV coverage of 9/11, World Trade Center | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 11, 2009
- Never Forget
Posted in 9/11, War on Terror | Tagged: 9/11, Ground Zero, September 11 2001 | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 1, 2009
Attorney General Eric Holder
In early August, it became Obamacratic doctrine. Officially, there was no longer a “War on Terrorism” to deal with.
A new sheriff meant new rules.
That whole “War on Terror” thing was so George W. Bush.
Instead, it was to be seen as the war against Al Qaeda and its “extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda’s murderous agenda.”
This, of course, was not to be confused with the phrase “Overseas Contingency Operation,” a term introduced by the Pentagon in March that, sadly, never became the iconic catchword the anti-Bushites had envisioned. Yesterday, in fact, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs – the greatest human ever to hold the position – went back and used the term “War on Terror” at his daily briefing.
It was an “oops” moment of considerable caliber.
(Those of us on the outside envision a punishment for Gibbs that will be as swift as it is severe).
If, as Obamacrats profess, there really is no “War On Terror” to fight – only a small group of crazed cave dwellers that need to be dealt with – then certainly it makes perfect sense to tie the hands of, and emasculate, the CIA. After all, it is one of the prevailing motifs of modern liberalism - emasculation.
Attorney General Eric Holder simply is not going to allow patriotic Americans charged with the task of keeping America safe from terrorist attack to be rough with murderous thugs anymore. He has decided that the aggressive tactics and methods used to extract critical information from terrorists – intelligence that unquestionably kept America from sustaining a single post-9/11 terrorist attack – must now be investigated. We are, after all, living in a United States of America under new messianic management – one that is evolving and transforming. We measure our civility not by how we treat the innocent and the good but by how we coddle those who want to blow us the hell up. Tortuous interrogations employed by American intelligence operatives – like sleep deprivation and loud music – are things of the past.
Interestingly enough, Barack Obama finds himself in a bit of a bind. Before he became President, there can be no doubt that he was fully aware of Eric Holder’s belief that the Bush administration was guilty of sanctioning torture. Holder made it a point of saying so in speech after speech. Therefore, it would not have been unreasonable for anyone – including Bam – to conclude that Holder, as Attorney General, would look to bring the hammer down on what he viewed as the Bush torture machine.
Whether or not Barack Obama actually supports Holder in pursuing such a course of action is debatable (seeing as there is really nothing for Obama to gain from it), but for the President to not see this coming, or to be surprised by Holder’s actions, reflects far more on his naivety than anything else. Plus, to publicly go against the Attorney General on this would be a tough move, lest the hard left feel betrayed. And despite unconvincing – and frankly, pathetic – attempts by President Obama to somewhat distance himself from Holder’s time of “reckoning,” the time will come soon when he will have to do or say something presidential.
That ought to be entertaining.
Yet, it’s still interesting to note that in discussing the hypothetical “ticking bomb” scenario with those who feel that aggressive methods of interrogation are never to be used unless a threat is imminent, a peculiar contradiction emerges. Indeed, most libs (and some conservatives) will tell you that while they believe the chance of a genuine “ticking bomb” situation actually coming to fruition is slim to none, they would generally agree that if such a life-and-death scenario should ever play out, with tens of thousands of lives in the balance, vigorous methods of extracting information could probably be tolerated – but again, only in that very rarest of instances.
On yetserday’s Mike Gallagher radio program, former Chief Assistant US attorney, and National Review Online contributor Andrew C. McCarthy commented:
If you think about the arguments they’ve been making since 2004 when Abu Grahib exploded into our consciousness, it’s never made any sense. Even (Senator John) McCain, who is a doctrinaire opponent of torture, has always said these tactics never work, (but) if we were in a “ticking bomb” scenario, of course we would do what we have to do to get the information, and we wouldn’t prosecute the guy later.
Well, if the tactics don’t work, why would you use them in a “ticking bomb” scenario?
Posted in War on Terror | Tagged: "ticking bomb" scenario, CIA interrogations, Eric Holder, Overseas Contingency Operation, Robert Gibbs, War againat Al Qaeda, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 19, 2009
As I sit here collecting my thoughts, sipping at my iced coffee, doing my best to frame my arguments coherently, I am angry.
My approach on this blog has been to try and infuse humor, sarcasm, biting satire, occasional abrasiveness and well reasoned arguments into a collection of blog entries I hope are as entertaining as they are insightful.
Sometimes, I forego the humorous approach and write what could be accurately called straight “essays,” like the companion pieces I posted last week about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment - First Amendment Musings and More First Amendment Musings (A Follow Up).
And while it is tempting to do so here, I’d like to veer away from a straight-forward First Amendment colloquy and inoculate some values into the discussion.
Recall that during his lackluster inauguration speech, President Barack Obama said, “Our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus—and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.”
While partially correct in one area, he was flat out dead wrong in another.
He is correct in the sense that we are a nation of comprsied of Christians, Jews, Muslims and even nonbelievers. America’s people come from every corner of the globe. And indeed there are cultures that have had varying degrees of influence on different areas of American life. All of that is undeniable.
But as nifty as all of that may sound to multiculturaliststhis, this country was not shaped by every language and culture on Earth.
The Mongolian influence on American life, for example, is nonexistent; the Malaysian culture’s impact on America would remain negligible even if it were multiplied by a thousand billion; and although the Tunisians may very well be wonderful people, they had no influence on the shaping of America. Moreover, as difficult as it may be for some to believe, the United States was not – repeat not – built on an Islamic value system, nor did Islam have any influence on the nation’s development, its founding document, or its Constitution.
America was shaped by the English language, the Anglo-Protestant culture and the Judeo-Christian value system.
Liberty, equality of opportunity, individualism, and the freedom to go as far as one’s abilities, passions and desires take them is what America has always been about.
(E Pluribus Unum has a meaning).
Thus, understanding that the vast majority of those who subscribe to the modern misinterpretation of the “separation of church and state” tend to be on the left, I would like to pose these hypotheticals to separationists:
Let’s say the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) – part of the Department of State – implemented several outreach programs and publications for the upcoming Christmas season designed to bring people together and cultivate understanding between those who may not be Christian and those who are.
And let’s say the State Department issued a publication tracing the ancestry of American-Christians to more than eighty countries with an emphasis on discovering the diversity of those cultures as seen through the celebrations of Christ’s birth. The content of such a publication would include essays by young Christians talking about their faith. Such a thing would be used to create a bridge of tolerance and acceptance of Christianity among nonbelievers.
And let’s go on to say that the following articles were being published by the State Department just in time for Christmas 2009: “The Concept of a Christian in America ‘Brand’”; “Advocacy (Civic and Political) of the Christian-American Community”; and “Community Innovation/Community Building.” The writer or writers would contact Christian American experts in each of these fields.
And, finally, picture a publication put out by the State Department called “Being Christian In America” It is the IIP’s crown jewel, full of stories and insights on the “varied experiences” on America’s Christians, complete with illustrations.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Allow the words – and the spirit – of the First Amendment to bounce around in your mind as you contemplate such a hypothetical situation.
Would the ACLU be sending in the big guns?
Would conspiracy theorists be chirping about an all-powerful Christian-right steering America into the pits of a theocracy?
Now, just to make it interesting, go back to each of those aforementioned IIP scenarios and substitute every reference to Christianity with Islam. Make it so that the IIP’s outreach programs are geared toward the Muslim holy month of Ramadan instead of Christmas.
Does it change anything?
What if I told you that this was no longer a hypothetical situation, but an honest-to-goodness initiative of the Obama administration underway right now?
Would that change anything?
Pamela Geller at the great American Thinker website writes about a “cable” that has been sent from Hillary Clinton’s State Department to all American embassies and consulates around the world:
Here is but the latest act of submission to Islam by your State Department. A State Department cable has just been sent out with this announcement :
The Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) has assembled a range of innovative and traditional tools to support Posts’ outreach activities during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
Can you imagine every Embassy and consulate putting up a Menorah and having some Rabbis as speakers via a webcast?
Can you imagine if we had the Stations of the Cross put on the walls of all of our embassies, consulates, and other posts, as well as the many Department of State buildings across the country, including C Street?
Why aren’t priests, pastors, etc. invited during Christmas to give blessings or talk about Christianity in the United States?
Can you imagine if the Buddha were revered and we had some monks coming to do a meditation session with all of the officers of each embassy, consulate, etc.?
Can we get printed and distributed Hare Krishna posters for all of our posts, so as to reach massive audiences?
I mean, put it in reverse and see how crazy it is. Absolutely nuts.
She’s right, of course.
Since we have successfully crossed over from the presumptive world to the real one, I wonder if we can we now expect to see the cape-wearers of the American Civil Liberties Union spring into action against the federal government. Can we anticipate the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) to start assembling “innovative and traditional tools” for every other faith? Where exactly are the outreach initiatives for Jews and Hindus? Or Satanists and Atheists?
Again, leaving the First Amendment issue aside, allow the magnitude of this reality to sink in.
Let it get you angry, as it does me.
This is not what the federal government is there to do.
From all across the world, stories of Ramadan violence being perpetrated by practitioners of Islam are coming out daily. Any reasonable person would only have to take a rudimentary look around the world to notice that the overwhelming percentage of the world’s violence and brutality is being undertaken by Islamists – and that during the holy month of Ramadan, these occurrences increase.
The idea that the United States of America would actively bend over in this way for the “religion of peace” – the ideology that creates the murderous terrorists that want to destroy us – while Muslims across the globe continue to persecute non-Muslims in nations they control is both disgusting and unforgivable. By conservative estimates, one tenth of all Muslims on Earth support fellow adherants of Islam who target innocents, deprive others of basic human rights, and strive to subject the entire population of the world to Sharia law – that’s a mere one hundred million people.
Does the President forget what religion spawned those who brought down the Twin Towers on September 11th?
Is the President blind to the fact that at least one tenth of the Muslim world celebrate September 11th as a triumph?
Does it not register in the deep recesses of his messianic brain that we are still at war with Islamo-Facist terrorists?
Is it really the right thing to do to spend taxpayer dollars on “reach out” programs on the religion that produced (and continues to produce) such vermin?
Honestly, what the hell goes on in a liberal mind?
How on Earth does President Obama have the audacity to launch a taxpayer funded, State Department-sponsored, “Love a Muslim” campaign after the horrific slaughter of innocents by the Iranian government? Or the continued atrocities being undertaken in Sharia-run nations and terrorist strongholds, like tortuous clitorectomies performed on young women, the slow sadistic beheadings of dissenters and infidels, and the denial of even the most basic human rights?
And the irony?
As much as liberals wince and whine when religion is brought into the public sphere, note how easily they genuflect at the feet of those who adhere to a faith that promotes the blowing up innocents, the flying of planes into buildings, and the launching of rockets into civilian neighborhoods in the name of their religion.
What the hell is this President thinking?
Was his multi-city overseas American apology tour not enough to add to the weakness and vulnerability being put forth by this administration?
Why is he hell-bent on sparing the feelings of terrorist thugs and other human debris while the memory of three-thousand of his own murdered countrymen at the hands of those who would do it again without blinking an eye – those who subscribe to the “religion of peace” – still burns vividly?
It is mystifying.
This is not to say that the United States is at war with Islam. It simply isn’t true. Indeed, the majority of the world’s Muslims are not terrorists. Millions of Muslims live peacefully in this country.
But Muslim extremists are at war with us; and in a 21st Century World, the overwhelming vast majority of terrorism – and the greatest threat to national security – comes from practitioners of Islam. No other group, religion, cult or organization comes remotely close to posing the threat that radical Islamists pose.
And just think, my tax dollars are paying for “Muslims Are Okay” reach-out programs.
You’re damn right I’m angry.
Posted in First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: First Amendment, IIP, International Information Programs, Islam, Obama, Ramadan, State Department | Leave a Comment »