Posts Tagged ‘War on Terror’
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 May 8, 2010
Who have been the stone and brick throwers? Who have been the ones chaining themselves together in circles in the street blocking traffic? Who have been the ones vandalizing businesses? Who have been hurling bottles at police? Which protestors have been regularly resorting to violence?
Tea Partiers? Or illegal immigrants and their supporters?
Who have taken to shooting up military installations and opening fire at recruiting stations on American soil? Which group of people has attempted to blow up Times Square, Los Angeles Airport, the Brooklyn Bridge and several in-flight airplanes? Which people are hell-bent on murdering innocents?
Tea Partiers? Or Islamist terrorists?
Before you venture to answer that question, you probably ought to check with Democrat Congressman Andre Carson from Indiana. In discussing Tea Partiers who had gathered in Washington to protest Obamacare, the following exchange took place with a reporter on March 20th:
REPORTER: Do you think the people outside are dangerous?
CARSON: Oh, absolutely. I worked in Homeland Security. I come from Intelligence, and I’ll tell you, one of the largest threats to our internal security – I mean, terrorism has an Islamic face – it really comes from racial supremacist groups. This kind of animosity, it’s the kind of thing we keep a threat assessment on record.
REPORTER: From groups like this?
CARSON: Oh absolutely.
This is the same man who, when asked to enumerate America’s greatest threats, listed racism and terrorism … in that order.
Racism, in the world of Andre Carson, is at least as serious a threat to national security as are Islamist terrorists and illegal aliens.
And he means it.
According to Carson, the threat to this nation’s security posed by Tea Partiers cannot be overemphasized. He should know. After all, he was in Intelligence … so to speak.
This is example 12,917 of why liberals (and other children) cannot be trusted with national security.
And speaking of fear mongering … Let us not forget that President Barack Obama – the unifier, the great orator and soother – rewrote Chapters 2 through 5 in the Little Fear Mongerers Companion and Workbook when he said:
You can imagine if you are an Hispanic American in Arizona, your great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state, but now suddenly if you don’t have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re gonna be harassed. That’s something that could potentially happen. That’s not the right way to go.
And no one – no one – in the mainstream gerbil cage has the avocados to challenge him on such an absurd and irresponsible statement.
It’s a disgusting lie, Mr. President.
A disgusting lie, Mr. Race Baiter.
…with all due respect.
H/T to the great Say Anything blog.
Posted in Dumb Liberals, illegal immigration, national security, Tea Party | Tagged: Andrew Carson, illegal aliens, Islamo facism, national security, Obamacare, Tea Partiers, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 May 29, 2009
barracks four at gitmo - this arrow points to mecca
This is one of those instances when the needle spikes heavily into the red on the “Obvious” meter.
If such a thing as a relevant “non-story” exists – one that might be extracted from the “Did You Know The Sky Is Blue” file – it is the reality that some of the prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay have actually gone back into the terrorism business. It’s as shocking as finding out that a Hollywood actor is going “green.”
The revelation that some ex-Gitmo prisoners have returned to the vocations from whence they came – blowing up innocents, preparing for a profusion of virgins in the afterlife – should amaze no one. It would be akin to contending that some prisoners who are released from jails in this country actually go back and commit more crimes.
Did you also know that water is wet?
Still, the significance of this cannot be overstated.
From Fox News:
The Pentagon said Tuesday it has fingerprints, DNA, photos or reliable intelligence to link 27 detainees to the battlefields since their release from the prison on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
That’s about 5 percent of the 540 terror suspects released from the prison. Another 9 percent of freed Guantanamo detainees are suspected to have rejoined the terror activity. That’s 74 detainees in all.
“What this tells us is, at the end of the day, there are individuals, that if released, will again return to terrorist activities,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday.
Some constitutional lawyers have disputed the data because it is not specific about the evidence used to track the detainees.
The Pentagon said all the detainees captured, and in most cases held, for years at Guantanamo were tied to Al Qaeda, the Taliban or other foreign fighter groups.
It was interesting to read some of the comments from Obamaniacs at the FoxNews.com website regarding this story.
Among the more fatuous lines of thinking I came across is one that (naturally) takes aim at former President George W. Bush. The idea is that the people released from Gitmo were set free while Bush was still President, thus the blame for any terrorist activity or acts of war that eminate from any of the big 540 can be placed directly at the feet of former President.
Yet another inherited problem for President Messiah to have to contend with.
(Couldn’t we just let him finish his waffle?)
This logic, presumably, is aimed to refute those who express disdain and outrage over President Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo (like me). According to the dancing Obamacrats, those of us quick to attack the current President for his decision to close the facility ought to sling their poison arrows at former President Bush for allowing terrorists to run free under his watch. After all, most of the Gitmo-folk would never have even considered engaging in such a deplorable way of life had the Muslim-hating Bush not driven them to it. (Remember, just a few days ago, President Obama said Gitmo’s mere existence has caused Al Qaeda recruitment to increase).
Is there anything that requires less thought than the “Blame America First” approach?
Indeed, there is a cartoonish myth that exists among Leftocrats and screeching anti-war types that many of those held in Gitmo shouldn’t even be there – that they were innocently living their lives, minding their own businesses, exchanging eggplant recipes, bothering no one, when they were suddenly and ferociously abducted by American gun-toting, bible-thumping, Qur’an desecrating, anti-Muslim military men with bad attitudes and a whole lot of artillery.
If anything is further from the truth, I’d love to see the brochure.
typical gitmo cell - how inhumane
That I even have to pose these questions is exasperating enough, but as I regularly ask my liberal friends (without ever getting a sufficient response), is it not clear by now that the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay are a different breed than the ordinary, off-the-rack, garden variety bad guys that occupy our nation’s jails? Isn’t it obvious that these dregs of society exist in a league all their own? Isn’t it clear what separates these lowlifes from others?
Unlike the armed robbers, rapists, murderers, and other detestable examples of human debris that populate our prisons, the Gitmo “detainees” are a direct threat to national security.
That’s the key.
The prisoners of Guntanamo Bay are a threat to national security.
These are people picked up on the fields of battle, waging war against the United States – those who do not wear the uniform or insignia of a specific nation. These are not “wrong place at the wrong time” halo-wearers snatched from libraries while studying for their medical degrees. These are not innocents rounded up at soccer games or kidnapped from neighborhood florists.
These are terrorists.
It really isn’t hard to understand – for those who allow their synapses to fire correctly.
Because of this unique status, the Gitmo crowd cannot be treated as typical criminals. They cannot be afforded Constitutional rights. Matters of national security cannot be put on display for public consumption in a court room.
This is war.
Even if the argument had a scintilla of credence – that Bush is to blame for releasing these terrorists, therefore conservatives who oppose Obama’s proposed closing of Gitmo are being, at the very least, hypocritical – what exactly has President Obama done or proposed that would change that situation for the better? President Obama stands firm in wanting to see Gitmo closed, although there is isn’t a single reason that can justify it (other than attempting to get people around the world to “like us” again), nor is there any plan in existence that betters it.
Guantanamo Bay exists because it works.
This “non-story” highlights two important points – one, that Guantanamo Bay must be kept open to house those enemy combatants deemed genuine terror threats against America, and two, that the process of releasing anyone from its confines had better be an undertaking so difficult and complex that blindfolded neurosurgery would seem easy by comparison.
(The photos were taken by US Army Sgt. Sara Wood in 2006. The entire set can be seen here).
Posted in Foreign Policy, Liberalism, War on Terror | Tagged: "terror suspects", 540 terror suspects, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 25, 2009
Are you aware that recruitment into Al Qaeda was bolstered because of the existence of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay? Did you know it became a symbol for that recruitment? Did you ever stop to consider that because the United States kept known or suspected terrorists under lock and key at Gitmo that otherwise complacent, law-abiding folks were compelled to join the ranks of Al Qaeda? Doesn’t it make sense that as a direct result of the actions of the United States of America, and the very existence of Guantanamo Bay, terrorism remains alive and well?
How do I know this?
The President of The United States has said so.
He has effectively placed the blame at the feet of his own country for the recruitment of otherwise halo-sporting, olive-branch carrying people into the Al Qaeda network. If not for maintaining a facility that affords a collection of human debris far more respect and conciliation than they deserve – a place where American soldiers, in order to accommodate their prisoners, are not even allowed to touch the Qur’an with their bare hands – the world would see Al Qaeda’s numbers shrinking and world opinion of America shooting up exponentially.
Bam said on Thursday:
“Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol to help Al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.”
Pray tell, how ever did Al Qaeda recruit folks into its ranks before Gitmo came along?
Stripping away the mesmerizing dulcet tones that wrap themselves around the text of his speech like a ravenous rattler on a field mouse, attempting to find any real meaning in what Obama says can become a full-time vocation.
According to Obama, Gitmo’s mere existence created terrorists.
In a nutshell, according to my Obama/English dictionary - no Gitmo would have to mean fewer terrorists.
Does that mean, for instance, the existence of maximum security prisons serve to recruit people to become criminals? Would violent felons rethink things if jails were closed? If certain penitentiaries were shut down as a sign of good will toward malcontents and miscreants everywhere, would crime suddenly plummet?
Thus, can one draw the conclusion that fewer prisons mean fewer criminals?
Do liberals ever listen to the things they say?
And how many people have been held at Gitmo in its entire existence? Hundreds? Is the President aware that there are tens of thousands of people involved in terrorist groups the world over that are not Al Qaeda?
To hear it from the president, the war isn’t about fighting the evil that is Islamo-facism. That kind of big-tent thinking can get you in real trouble. It’s all about Al Qaeda, stupid.
And that’s it.
(Love that renowned liberal nuance).
Lord help us.
Posted in Liberalism, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: al-Qaeda, Barack Obama, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 25, 2009
Let’s say, for instance, a man – I’ll call him “Bip” – is suffering from a severe headache at work. Bip tries various things to try and ease the pain, but nothing has proven successful. Finally, after trying a host of new age medications and techniques to no avail, Bip decides to try some good old fashioned headache powder. He is no fan of headache powder – never has been – but killing the pain is his priority.
Twenty minutes after taking it, the pain has subsided and he is able to function “normally” again.
Now, let’s say another person – I’ll call him “Pain” – comes along who is adamantly anti-headache powder, for whatever reason. Pain has a passionate dislike for the stuff. You might sat he is ideologically wired to hate it. In fact, for the sake of this argument, let’s pretend that Pain is so opposed to the use of headache powder that he has actually led crusades to do away with it in the workplace.
Pain finds out through the grapevine that Bip had the audacity to use the dreaded powder to beat back his horrible headache. Pain learns that others have done the same. He obviously isn’t happy. In fact, he is livid. Headache powder should never be used at work, he says with a raised fist.
Pain runs directly to the boss to protest:
“The decisions that were made over the last several years to allow headache powder in the work place, when there are so many other methods to combat headaches, has established an ad hoc approach for fighting headaches that is neither effective nor sustainable.”
The boss nods.
Pain is smooth, articulate and always sounds like he knows what he is talking about. (You’d have to be to lead workplace crusades against headache powder, wouldn’t you?)
Despite the fact that the headache powder did take care of Bip’s headache, the assertion has been made by Pain that headache powder is ineffective. Despite the preponderance of evidence that shows how successful headache powder has been at combating painful craniums, Pain continues to stand firm. The fact that Bip is now walking around, functioning in the workplace, free of hurt thanks to the headache powder seems to be irrelevant to Pain. The use of headache powder, according to Pain, is “neither effective nor sustainable.”
Pain is not backing down even though the realities that contradict his claims keep smacking him in the puss.
Absurdity at its best, yes.
With this analogy in mind, let’s now move from the pretend world of a contrived headache powder controversy to the real world of adults and liberals. Let’s substitute Pain – the anti-headache powder crusader – with the President of the United States. I’ll call him Barack Obama. And instead of headache powder, let’s use former President Bush’s methods of prosecuting the War on Terror as the target of Obama’s criticism.
Said President Obama on Thursday morning:
“The decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable.”
Understanding that cold hard reality can be a tough thing to wrap one’s mind around – especially when that reality rains down on the childlike worldviews and fairy-tale parades that drive liberal thought – this goes far beyond making the case for “two-plus-two equals six.”
This is sheer denial.
This reflex on the part of Obama and his dancing Obamacrats to continually trash the previous administration at every turn is beyond tedious. To do so while asserting complete falsehoods is equally embarrassing. President Obama is not entitled to his own set of facts.
Mr. Obama, how many terrorist attacks on America have there been over the past eight years?
That this point even has to be made is both tragic and laughable, but at the risk of stating the glaringly obvious, the lack of a terrorist attack in nearly eight years is a good thing. Yet, this reality is something regularly dismissed by Leftocrats across the board as too simplistic to mean anything, grossly irrelevant in the grand scheme, and hardly the result of anything undertaken by President Bush. Obamacrats view the absence of a terrorist attack as being attributable to anything and everything but the initiatives undertaken by President Bush.
It’s osmosis, or luck, or a Muslim awakening, or climate change, or something.
The fact of the matter is, the absence of a terrorist attack on this country since 9/11 is the primary indcator in measuring the effectiveness of the policies employed by President Bush in defending the American people.
With the same verve that President Obama has thus far used to redefine terms like “earmarks” and “tax cuts,” he is reconstructing – without challenge – the word “effective.” Thus, according to the fluidly opaque President of the United States, his predecessor was ineffective in the way he prosecuted the War on Terror – despite the conspicuous void of a single terrorist attack against the United States.
If one does not measure the level of effectiveness in the way the United States has defended herself since 9/11 by the lack of attacks against her, then how?
By how many people overseas say they love us?
How many attacks have been thwarted thanks to Bush administration initiatives like The Patriot Act? The answer is several – including a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City.
How much information was obtained through the very selective use of waterboarding of three – yes, only three – individuals? The answer is plenty – including information that led to the apprehension of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks.
If eight years of George Bush were “ineffective” in fighting Islamo-facist terrorism, what can be said for the previous eight years under President Bill Clinton, where American interests were attacked time and time again, including the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the first World Trade Center attack?
President Bush’s ability to draw unrelenting blame and ridicule for keeping the country free from further attack during the last seven-and-a-half years of his Presidency should be astounding to those of us who think, but it isn’t. His actions, which kept the country safe in the aftermath of 9/11, should be the object of universal high praise and gratitude, but they aren’t. While London and Madrid suffered devastating terrorist attacks, attempted strikes against America – including a comprehensive plot that included an attack against JFK Airport in New York – were snuffed out.
As talk show host Dennis Prager regularly says, “First tell the truth, then state your opinion.” To deny the effectiveness of Bush administration policies in the ongoing War on Terror is to deny reality.
Of course, this is the modern liberal motif – to wish something was so, pass it off as reality, and then hope for the best.
In that context, I suppose an argument can be made that if one says it long enough, two and two may eventually equal six.
Posted in Liberalism, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: Bush policies, Gitmo, Global War On Terror, Guantanamo Bay, Obama, War on Terror, waterboarding | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 21, 2009
home-grown terrorist james cromitie
A hearty, fist-pumping, robust “attaboy” goes out to both the FBI and the NYPD this morning for the arrests of four would-be terrorists in New York yesterday. A murderous plot that included blowing up at least two Bronx synagogues and shooting down military aircraft was thwarted after a year-long undercover operation.
Well done, ladies and gentleman.
Please take an enormous slice of gratitude from petty cash.
Three of the four aspiring examples of full-fledged human debris are “home-grown” vermin, while the fourth is an immigrant of Haitian descent. The New York Daily News reports that at least three of them are “jailhouse converts” to Islam, bitterly angry over Muslim deaths in Afghanistan.
(It’d be intersting to guage their level of anger at the Muslims who murdered thousands of other Muslims in places like Iraq.)
So naturally, with bitterness boiling on the front burners of their cerebral stovestops, what better way to express their discontent and rage than targeting Jews in a multi-synagogue bomb scheme in the Bronx?
Have these murderous thugs not been paying attention to President Barack Obama and his, “Let’s sit down and try to figure out what America has done to anger you folks so much” approach? Perhaps Obama’s “Let’s join hands and figure this all out” mantra isn’t getting through to these tortured, misunderstood souls.
Maybe Obama needs more teleprompters.
Can someone please turn up the volume of “Peace Train” so everyone can hear it?
From the Daily News:
“They wanted to make a statement,” a law enforcement source said. “They were filled with rage and wanted to take it out on what they considered the source of all problems in America – the Jews.”
The group’s alleged ringleader, James Cromitie, according to the complaint, discussed targets with an undercover agent. “The best target [the World Trade Center] was hit already,” he allegedly told the agent. Later, he rejoiced in a terrorist attack on a synagogue.
“I hate those motherf—–s, those f—ing Jewish bastards. . . . I would like to get [destroy] a synagogue.”
The men allegedly parked car bombs wired to cell phones outside the Riverdale Temple and nearby Riverdale Jewish Center. They were also heading to Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh, Orange County, when the law swooped in on them.
Sources said their plan was to shoot down a cargo plane headed to Iraq or Afghanistan with a surface-to-air guided missile while simultaneously calling the cell phones and blowing up the Riverdale synagogues.
Phony C-4 explosives were supplied to the terrorists by undercover agents as well as a fake surface-to-air guided missile system.
From Fox News:
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told FOX News that former President Bush and the Department of Homeland Security should be credited for keeping the country safe following the Sept. 11 attacks.
“Maybe the Bush administration might deserve a little credit for the fact that there’s not been another attack on the United States of America since 9-11,” McCain told FOX News.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said if there can be any good news out of this case it’s that “the group was relatively unsophisticated, penetrated early and not connected to any outside group.”
If only George W. Bush hadn’t angered these folks to the point where they clearly had no other recourse but to blow up Jews and shoot down American military planes, these four men might have used their spare time to volunteer at a local rehabilition home or read to the blind.
Kudos to the men and women of law enforcement.
Posted in New York City, War on Terror | Tagged: "home-grown" terrorists, Bronx synangogue terror plot, Bronx terrorist plot, terrorist plot, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 27, 2009
Now that there is no more George W. Bush to lambaste, there is obviously nothing happening in Iraq worth reporting anymore – at least not on any large scale or in any detail. Whereas at one time, there were two fronts in the War on Terror being recklessly and carelessly fought to decisive American defeats – as the mainstream media were all too happy to try and convince the American people at every conceivable turn – the departure of the Cowboy President has facilitated the departure of war coverage.
Oh sure, if you look for it, you’ll find some tidbits here and there on the war – especially if a fresh new angle on how President Bush can be retroactively savaged for it is hit upon by an enterprising young journalist – but for the most part, it’s faded from the front burners of the American psyche.
Corporate America is the new Taliban now.
Prior to the Messianic take over of the White House, a mere glimpse at the mainstream news outlets would have convinced even the most disinterested patrons that America was embroiled in the deadliest, most-contentious battles in its history, facing catastrophic defeat with unprecedented casualties.
Since the Messianic Age began, one might have a hard time realizing that this nation was at war at all. Not only are the words “War on Terror” a no-no anymore (by Obamacratic decree), but what have turned out to be the deadliest bombing attacks in a year in Iraq are getting very little play.
I bet you didn’t realize peace had broken out.
From Friday’s New York Times:
A deadly outburst of violence appears to be overwhelming Iraq’s police and military forces as American troops hand over greater control of cities across the country to them. On Friday, twin suicide bombings killed at least 60 people outside Baghdad’s most revered Shiite shrine, pushing the death toll in one 24-hour period to nearly 150.
Like many recent attacks, the bombings appeared intended to inflame sectarian tensions, to weaken Iraq’s security forces and to discredit its government.
From Thursday’s Times:
The overall level of violence in Iraq is at its lowest since the American invasion in 2003, and Iraqis have been venturing out to parks, restaurants and nightclubs. But a string of recent attacks, highly organized and carried out under tight security, has raised worries that Baathist and jihadi militants are regrouping into a smaller but still lethal insurgency seeking to reassert itself as the American troop presence on the ground is reduced before a full withdrawal in 2011.
Recall that President Obama announced to the world as part of his “Eroding America’s Strength and Greatness Campaign” the precise date of comprehensive American withdrawal from the Iraqi theater.
No one can accomodate anenemy like our President can.
The moment Bam placed his tootsies upon the water, the war against Islamo-facism became irrelevant and the doomsday needle spun toward the economy – and thus the war against capitalism and the free market began in earnest.
Posted in Media Bias, War on Terror | Tagged: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Iraqi violence, Media Bias, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 26, 2009
What is it with wanting to somehow involve our neighbors to the north in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001? As tempting as it may be at times to want to find something – anything – to blame Canada on, there seems to be a growing misconception as to the role the nation of Canada played in the 9/11 attacks from some here in America – and from people who should know better.
The correct answer, of course, is nothing … as in “Canada had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks in any way, shape or form” … but agendas and truth just don’t play well together.
Our esteemed Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, has already shown herself to be both an embarrassment and a joke by not only suggesting that returning war veterans could prove to be terrorist threats themselves, but by saying that the some (or all) of the 9/11 killers used the nation of Canada as a gateway into the United States. How reassuring – and thoroughly nauseating – to know that such a well-informed ignoramus is in place at the head of the Homeland Security table. Of course, this isn’t quite as infuriating as having the President of the United States apologize on foreign soil for the actions of his own country, or watching him bow before foreign leaders, but it is enough to add a bit more ornamentation to the “laughing stock” motif of the Obama administration’s first hundred days.
As it turns out, someone whom you would expect to posses slightly more clarity on the subject of the September 11 attacks – and the entire war against Islamo-fascism, for that matter – is apparently just as bird-brained than a less-than-informed, ignorant Homeland Security Chief. Ostensibly, former Republican presidential candidate John McCain also believes that the 9/11 hijackers made their way into the United States via Canada.
From the Canadian Press:
John McCain is the latest high-profile politician to repeat the diehard American falsehood that the 9-11 terrorists entered the United States through Canada.
Just days after Janet Napolitano, the U.S. homeland security secretary, sparked a diplomatic kerfuffle by suggesting the terrorists took a Canadian route to the U.S. eight years ago, McCain defended her by saying that, in fact, the former Arizona governor was correct.
“Well, some of the 9-11 hijackers did come through Canada, as you know,” McCain, last year’s Republican presidential candidate, said on Fox News on Friday.
The Arizona senator’s remarks prompted the Canadian embassy to immediately reissue remarks made earlier this week by Ambassador Michael Wilson, who reminded Americans once again that no 9-11 perpetrators came to the U.S. via Canada.
“Unfortunately, misconceptions arise on something as fundamental as where the 9-11 terrorists came from,” Wilson said.
To the best of anyone’s knowledge, none of the September 11 terrorists were ever in Canada at any time. There is certainly no evidence pointing to that fact, and there is nothing in the official 9/11 report suggesting it. Just because off-teleprompter out-of-the-box numbskulls utter idiocies doesn’t make them true. In truth, it was the United States and its remarkably spongy “Come On In And See America” visa plan that facilitated these scumbuckets’ entry into the country.
No Canucks were used or harmed in the making of the worst terrorist attack in this nation’s history.
However, twenty-four innocent Canadians were killed as a result of the attack that morning.
It brings me no great pleasure to say this, but Senator McCain ought to be ashamed of himself. The terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 is, without question, the defining event of this country’s recent past. That McCain – a champion of the ongoing War on Terror – would make such a provably inaccurate claim is more embarrassing, given his steadfast and outspoken support of the war effort, than Napolitano’s moronic, “equality uberalis” ramblings. It makes one wonder how the Barack-tabluous media would have covered such a ridiculous gaffe by McCain had he won the election last November.
“President McCain More Stupid Than Bush.”
“McCain Blames McCanada.”
I understand that there are many on both sides of the aisle who are so concerned about offending large chunks of the Latino voting block that they go out of their way to try and convince Americans (and the world) that the northern border of the United States poses just as much of a risk to national security as does the southern border, but there is simply no excuse for John McCain to start sounding like Meghan McCain.
Posted in politics, War on Terror | Tagged: 9/11 attack, 9/11 hijackers, Canada, Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, John McCain, Northern border, southern border, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 31, 2009
Liberals always feel better about themselves – like they’ve righted some dastardly wrong – when they spare the offended among us any more undue hurt by changing the names of things they deem objectionable and unseemly. After all, the societal goal of today’s Leftocrat is to make sure that no one – outside of conservatives – is ever offended at any time for any reason. On the liberal hit parade of bugbears and pariahs, “Do Not Offend” is a perennial top-five smash.
In the curious mind of today’s liberal (or should I say progressive) there is hardly anything worse, outside of putting a Wal-Mart in New York City, than being offended. Long-used terminology that is not meant to be in any way pejorative is now offensive. Thus, in the ongoing Age of Political Correctness, “crippled” has become “physically challenged” and “retarded” has morphed into “mentally handicapped.” This is the same mindset that will have us calling the dead “living impaired,” and liars “ethically discombobulated” before too long. Of course, these adorable little non-abrasive labels don’t change the fact that an individual who is crippled is still crippled, or that someone who is mentally retarded is still retarded.
We just don’t call it that.
The word “retarded” is ugly – or should I say “cosmetically distinctive.”
“Crippled” sounds judgmental somehow, and liberals despise judgments – unless it is against a conservative and his dazzling array of archaic, bigoted, multi-phobic positions.
Remember, liberal bigotry fosters unity.
This word-swapping makes libs feel better – and that is precisely what sits at the heart of all liberal policy, feelings. Truth is, at best, secondary, and problem-solving almost always translates into increased funding and/or decreased freedoms. Equality trumps liberty. Indeed, if “Thou Shalt Not Offend” were one of God’s commandment, then some of that judgmental religious stuff so “offensive” to progressives might be more palatable. If it were in the Bill of Rights – Congress Shall Make No Law That Offends Any Portion of the Electorate - the slave-owning Founding Fathers might be less abhorrent to today’s campus cacklers and multi-cultural warriors.
It is this metastasizing idiocy that has prompted the Obamacrats to stop using the phrase “Global War On Terror,” adopted by the Bush Administration after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and instead use the ever-loving, less-offensive, not-so-war-sounding “Overseas Contingency Operation.”
It almost sounds like a good will operation or a free cheese drive.
Last week, Fox News reported:
Critics have pleaded with the Obama administration to abandon the use of “Global War on Terror” because they say it mischaracterizes the nature of the enemy and its abilities.
The fact that enemy has attacked and murdered innocents all over the world hasn’t clouded Obamacrat thinking. Only a leftist can “mischaracterize” thousands and thousands of dead innocents at the hands of murderous terrorists across the globe.
In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirms the change.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday the Obama administration had dropped “war on terror” from its lexicon, rhetoric former President George W. Bush used to justify many of his actions.
“The (Obama) administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself. Obviously,” Clinton told reporters traveling with her to The Hague for a conference on Afghanistan, which Bush called part of his “global war on terror.”
The phrase was strongly criticized by human rights groups who said it was used to justify many actions, such as the opening of the Guantanamo Bay prison for detainees held without trial at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba.
Internationally, the phrase was seen by critics as a “with-us-or-against-us” philosophy, overly dependent on military force and what many Muslims decried as an attack on Islam.
A red flag should reflexively unfurl when the words “human rights groups” are used. In the same way “peace activists” really don’t advocate peace, human rights groups don’t give a damn about genuine human rights.
To these folks, the greatest war-mongers, perpetrators of evil and offenders of human rights in the world is the United States of America.
Perhaps the next foreign policy initiative of the Obama administration will be to request detailed reports from leaders around the world enumerating not only those things that America currently does that are offensive, but of things not to do in the future, lest our actions antagonize and disoblige anyone else.
In other news, God help us.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Liberalism, War on Terror | Tagged: Barack Obama, Global War On Terror, Hillary Clinton, Overseas Contingency Plan, Political Correctness, War on Terror | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 17, 2009
Recall that on Inauguration Day, the newly elected President of the United States, to the great dismay and disgust of those of us with a clue, asserted that America’s security “emanates from the justness of our cause.” This is the type of confused cognition that can only come from the mouth of someone who has no regard, gratitude or comprehension of what the armed forces of the United States provide for this country. It is as insulting as it is asinine, and conclusively denotative of why liberals cannot, in any way, be trusted with the security of the United States of America.
It is thus no surprise that the Obama administration would pursue the ignoble initiative of forcing private insurance companies to foot the bill for the treatment of wounded veterans, effectively pawning off that which is the undeniable moral obligation of the federal government onto the private sector. The idea that wounded servicemen and women would be forced to find a way to pay for their own treatment in order to save the government a few bucks is unconscionable. At a time when trillions of taxpayer dollars are being shoved into the most egregious, useless, unnecessary pig-meat projects in existence, to have the care of America’s wounded warriors treated as a matter of mere budgetary concern is an abomination.
For those who honor and revere the men and women who serve, it is a gross indignity to know that protecting the endangered Hawaiian monk seal, or monitoring coral reefs, takes precedence over the care of this nation’s military personnel.
Last week, as this story was gaining some national exposure, Adam Levine at CNN wrote:
Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.
But the proposal would be “dead on arrival” if it’s sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.
Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.
No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.
(The words “and darling of the anti-war Left” should have followed the opening words “Veterans Affairs Secretary.”)
Yesterday, Ed Morrisey, at the great Hot Air blog, wrote:
The Obama administration explains that it wants private insurers who sell coverage to vets to pay their fair share, but there are two things wrong with that argument. First, the United States has a moral obligation to provide treatment for those wounded in the service of their country. That’s a commitment we make to the people who enlist in military, and should not get outsourced.
Second, vets with service-related injuries and illnesses can only get third-party insurance because insurers know the US will cover all service-related medical treatment through the VA. If the government reneges on that commitment, it will put insurers on the hook for veterans already enrolled — but it will make it a lot harder for the next set of veterans to get insured. It will also raise costs to the rest of the insured by those companies, when the burden should fall on all Americans equally.
Morrisey was commenting on what is being reported as a fairly disturbing meeting between Commander David K. Rehbein, head of The American Legion, and The Messiah, that took place yesterday.
According to a story published at the American Legion website last evening called “Don’t Bill Our Heroes” :
The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.
“It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. “He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”
The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, “This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ‘ to care for him who shall have borne the battle’ given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America’s veterans!”
Here comes that old Clinton feeling again – the derision and disdain emanating from the top for the United States military is once again on full display, only this time with the Obamacratic regime. Who but those who harbor contempt for the military would pursue such a disgraceful policy?
A nation that does not care for those warriors who have sacrificed themselves in her defense cannot survive the vacuity of its immorality – nor does it deserve to.
Posted in Ethics, Liberalism, military, War on Terror | Tagged: "wounded veterans", American Legion, Commander David K. Rehbein, Eric Shinseki, veterans, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 27, 2009
Fielding e-mails about the Obama plan to reduce troop levels in Iraq by the end of August, 2010 to anywhere from 35,000 to 50,000 troops, I am getting roundly attacked on the supposed naivety – or knee-jerk reaction – of my position in the piece I posted earlier today called “QUICK THOUGHTS ON THE BAM PLAN TO SCRAM.”
One close friend wrote: “What do you mean this one is ‘hard to take’? Are you aware that Obama is actually following the Bush plan here?”
I’m missing some of the finer nuances, I’m being told. This really isn’t a withdrawal, I’m being reminded. This is only a political move to make nice with the radical lefties who are starting to gripe a bit about Messianic campaign promises. Obama can’t really get out of Iraq completely, they’re saying to me, because he can’t let that country descend into chaos. If I’d just stop reacting from my ideological perch here on the right, and actually put some thought into these things, I’d be able to understand that.
Fox News even has a story about how some libs are feeling “Left Out” because of Bam’s war strategy.
(Left out? Have they paid any attention to anything Obama has done since taking office? Guanatnamo Bay? $787 billion in Pork? Funding overseas abortions? Trillions in spending?)
First off, the fact that people on the far left are probably going to be upset by The One consenting to leave troops in Iraq after combat operations have been declared over means what? That Obama is now suddenly doing the right thing? That people like me are overreacting and missing the bigger picture? That I should reconsider my contempt for the President’s decision to announce to the entire world the date the United States will stop fighting in a place that terrorist thugs are just chomping at the bit to infiltrate? The idea that wacky Leftocrats are going to be annoyed doesn’t make the President any less liberal or any less wrong for announcing his exit strategy to the world as he did.
Never in the history of this country has the date for the cessation of hostilities been announced by the President while combat with the enemy was ongoing and without unconditional surrender.
Second, if it had been left to Obama in the first place, who adamantly said “The Surge” would never work, Iraq would be a terrorist’s nirvana right about now. Frankly, Obama’s judgment leaves a lot to be desired (from his choice of pastor and associates to his concept of a “spread-the-wealth” society). Forgive me for not jumping up and down with glee at anything he may say regarding national security. Seeing as the man has already turned this nation decidedly toward Marxism, is spending astronomical amounts of money that doesn’t even exist, and has promised the closing of Guantanamo Bay, thus affording incarcerated terrorists the opportunity to go elsewhere – including back to being terrorists – it is not entirely unreasonable to be “down” on Obama after this announcement.
I ask the question again, as I did in my original article, how is America any safer for this?
Whether or not the right thing to do strategically is draw down American troop levels by August of 2010 isn’t the issue. If the “withdrawal” date for the majority of American troops in Iraq were set for next Tuesday, so be it. The decision to publicize it is where the President has shown radically poor judgment – again.
And note the President’s inability (or hard-wired unwillingness) to use the word “victory” today when addressing the U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina in describing what the men and women of the United States armed forces have accomplished in Iraq. Quite telling. Democrats and “victories” only apply, I suppose, to pushing spending bills through Congress and paving the way for as many abortions as possible. “Getting the job done” certainly sounds nice, but “victory” is what the American military is really all about.
Remember, the only reason to send American troops into harm’s way is to make the United States safer. Period. I am, admittedly, one of those who believed that removing Saddam Hussein from the helm of a nation that openly supported terrorism – one that violated numerous UN resolutions while firing upon our military aircraft – and helping to secure an America-friendly country in the heart of a despotic region of the world would do just that. The war in Iraq – and our impending victory there – has made the United States safer.
Indeed, I supported the measure from jump street.
The majority of those on Capitol Hill did as well. Barack Obama did not.
And while that is no criterion in and of itself as to whether or not one can support victory once troops are deployed, recall Obama’s words on Inauguration Day: “Our security emanates from the justness of our cause.”
This is what the Commander-In-Chief of America’s fighting forces believes.
What do you think would have happened had he made that statement today in front of a gathering of United States Marines?
Mr. President, the security of the United States emanates from a strong military.
It is a shame you don’t believe that, nor understand that.
I wonder if Al Qaeda (and assorted vermin) will believe that Iraq’s security emanates from the justness of their cause beginning September 1, 2010.
Posted in Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: "Obama's withdrawal plan", August 31 2010, Camp Lejeune, Obama, War in Iraq, War on Terror, withdrawal plan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 27, 2009
The fundamental transformation of my country, the United States of America, continues unfettered under President Barack Obama – but this one is very difficult to take.
For almost six weeks I have seen the slow-and-steady dismantling of a shining city on a hill through extreme leftist policies that have drastically broadened the control of government. I have watched the new administration rape the individual of incentive by promising handouts to those who don’t deserve it while promising to punish the success of those who do. I’ve witnessed the wholly contrived and strategically effective spread of pessimism and fear during what is inaccurately being peddled as the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. I’ve shaken my head as successful war strategies against terrorists are changed while battles against the weather and drifting ice sheets are plotted.
The country was warned, time and time again, that Barack Obama was the most liberal senator in Washington – with shady associations that would have buried anyone else, and a resume as light and inconsequential as an Assistant Dog Catcher’s. Whatever delusions of “governing from the center” one may have had immediately following the Messiah’s anointment have all but died on the vine. Obama has taken a machete to the throat of national security with his contemptible gift to the enemies of this country.
To his credit, the President has, in fact, kept his promise of transparency here – but not to the American people. Instead, President Barack Obama on Thursday – in his capacity as Commander-In-Chief, charged with the task of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States – presented to the enemies of his own country the precise date when American combat operations in Iraq will come to an end.
The President might as well have invited some Al Qaeda bigwigs into the West Wing for Yodels and Ovaltine in order to mull over the details of the American exit strategy.
Obama didn’t just tip his hand, he gave the terrorists the deck.
Whether Iraqis will be ready to stand on their own by August, 31 2010 isn’t even the issue. They may be ready before then, or it may take longer. Oddly enough, war is unpredictable. The issue here is having the leader of the free world disseminate American military intentions in the midst of an ongoing war for anyone with open ears or internet access to ingest.
Thanks to one of the most asinine, arrogant and colossally bone-headed moves President Obama has made in what has thus far been a veritable leftist revolution, the entire world is privy to our war strategy – including not only the weak-kneed Europeans Obama so wishes to cajole into loving us again, but the death-loving terrorists he seems determined to make life easier for.
To the killers, August 31, 2010 is not that far away. They can bide their time.
And coincidentally enough, just in time for the 2010 midterm elections, too.
I’m wondering if American exit routes out of Iraq are posted anywhere … or if the precise times of retreat will be updated as the day approaches. Maybe an FAQ can be added to the Pentagon website detailing the withdrawal, with translations into Arabic to save time.
The President of the United States has officially empowered the enemies of his country – and I do not overstate it.
Major Garrett from Fox News gives some details on the Obama plan:
The president is expected to deliver a speech Friday at the Marine base in Camp Lejeune, N.C, in which he will order an immediate drawdown of the 142,000 Marines and Army personnel in Iraq. He has set a goal of reducing the U.S. military footprint in Iraq to no fewer than 35,000 and no more than 50,000 personnel after that date, congressional leaders were told.
The president met at the White House with top Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, as well as the leaders of the National Security and Foreign Policy committees to explain his decision.
The president told lawmakers troops that remain in Iraq after Aug. 31, 2010, will carry out new missions and will be trained and organized in a way that de-emphasizes combat-readiness and intensifies the focus on these three missions:
• Train, equip and advise Iraqi security forces
• Support civilian operations in Iraq aimed at reconstruction, redevelopment and political reconciliation
• Conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions.
That there will be as many as 50,000 troops still in Iraq after “the date” apparently isn’t making Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid particularly happy. Said Reid, “I have been one who has called for significant cutbacks in Iraq for some time. And I am happy to listen to the secretary of defense, the president, but when they talk about 50,000, that’s a little higher number than I had anticipated.”
That these 50,000 troops will be “left behind” knowing our enemies are fully aware that “combat readiness” is being de-emphasized – and the fact that the President of the United States is volunteering that information to those who wish to slaughter them – is flat out astonishing. Can we then expect Al Qaeda to de-emphasize IED disbursal? Or to cutback on suicide bombings? And exactly how is the United States of America made safer if those who want to kill our troops are circiling August 31, 2010 on their calendars?
Some Republicans worry that the Obama withdrawal date may be too soon, while others (Democrats) are more concerned with troop levels left behind.
Senator John McCain said, “We must avoid drawing down troop levels there too quickly or risk jeopardizing the hard-won security gains.”
Posted in Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: "End the War", "exit strategy", "withdrawal from Iraq", August 31 2010, Iraq, Obama plan, War on Terror, withdrawal | 3 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 26, 2009
let's be friends again
Gee, how original.
The new CIA Chief has decided that Congress needs a big hug, maybe more – and he’s ready to start dispensing the love. According to the agency’s new chief, Leon Panetta, all of those years under President Bush saw a nasty rift fester between the CIA and Capitol Hill – a relationship Panetta says was “badly damaged” with W in the lead – and the time has come to make it all good again. In other words, those lousy Bush-era policies that kept this nation safe from attack for over seven years need to be tossed onto the Ash Heap of History in favor of some new-fangled, open-minded, back-rubbin’ DC lovin’. Panetta is calling for what amounts to bureaucratic make-up sex to “to restore the trust between this Agency and Capitol Hill.”
Mike Allen at the Politico writes:
CIA Director Leon E. Panetta says the relationship between the intelligence agency and Congress has “had a lot of problems” under the last administration and “has to be repaired,” which he said is one of his top priorities.
“Frankly, I can’t do my job unless I have their trust.” (Panetta) said. “And since I’m a creature of the Hill and understand what it means to be a member up there and have this kind of information, I’m prepared to try to do whatever I can to try to repair that relationship.”
“This country has to operate by a set of rules that are in line with our Constitution and in line with the laws of this country. … We swear to support and defend that Constitution in taking these jobs … If we stand by our ideals, if we stand by the beliefs that we have about what this country is all about, I think it makes us stronger, not only here but throughout the world.”
And, of course, what the world thinks of the United States is far more important than whether or not the United States is upholding those values that make her the greatest nation the world has ever known. To liberals, being loved is as much a value as healthcare and equality of outcome. Securing the favor and approval of the world’s nations is a foundational American liberal tenet. It far outweighs doing what’s right and just.
Personally, I couldn’t give a damn what the rest of the world thinks of the United States. Remember, as I have written many times, as a rule of thumb, whatever world opinion is on a given matter, go with the opposite.
For one thing, (Panetta) said, “We are closing black sites,” a reference to secret prisons abroad used to hold and question suspected terrorist combatants.
The phrase “war on terror,” a hallmark of President George W. Bush’s White House, is rarely used in the Obama administration, but Panetta (says) that “there’s no question this is a war. There are those who threaten us to come here and kill Americans. … CIA is engaged on the front lines to try to develop the intelligence necessary to make sure that that doesn’t happen.”
In his opening remarks, Panetta said: “Al-Qaeda has obviously suffered some key setbacks in recent months and with the …strong support of the president, the vice president, national security director, we are not going to let up on [counterterrorism]. We are going to continue to pursue. We are going to continue to bring pressure.”
Heaven help the terrorists now.
Panetta has surely instilled fear in them by announcing that the United States is going to “bring pressure.”
If nothing else, it was surely nice of Mr. Panetta to acknowledge the existence of the war – and to once again announce to the world that “black sites” are being shut down – just for good measure. That’ll certainly get the bad guys to take pause and reconsider their murderous ways. The kinder, gentler approach to those who crave death is bound to melt icy hearts all across the Islamo-fascist world.
But if the goal is to undo Bush-era intelligence policies – the very policies he acknowledges has inflicted key setbacks to Al Qaeda – how can he and the Obama administration realistically expect the same kind of successes?
And why would he – or anyone – want to undo policies that have kept the country safe?
(Rhetorical meter spikes into the red).
This hackneyed and tedious “blame-Bush-for-everything-wrong-in-the-world” approach to life that has been the fuel of liberal motivation for eight years is literally going to cost innocent American lives. It precludes the ability to acknowledge anything Bush did right – like his prosecution of the war against Islamo-fascism – and it will, without question, lead to a disaster that will make 9/11 pale in comparison.
Posted in Liberalism, War on Terror | Tagged: al-Qaeda, CIA, Leon Panetta, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 21, 2009
Because Vice President Joe Biden hadn’t said anything uncommonly obtuse in a couple of days (as of Thursday morning), I took a few minutes to scour news sites and blogs to be sure he wasn’t ill or out of the country. Admittedly, Biden media absences make life a little less fun. Like a swear jar, I have a Biden gaffe jar. (I’m only seven gaffes away from a plasma TV).
My concern was real.
I feared he might have fallen asleep somewhere without a working alarm or was possibly caught in the Dupont Circle roundabout in Washington, D.C. looking for the his opportunity to exit onto Massachusetts Avenue. (It’s not easy being Joe). True, there’s always Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to induce a good chuckle (or acid reflux), but no one quite embodies cerebral cobwebs and tumbleweeds like our new Vice President.
And so it was, that during a visit to the CIA on Thursday to swear in Leon Panetta as the agency’s new director, that Vice President Biden demonstrated why liberals simply cannot be trusted with matters of national security. Speaking at the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, Biden said the Bush administration’s intelligence policies “gave Al Qaeda a powerful recruiting tool.”
Among his many soaring talents – plagiarism, for example – is not only his ability to show how classless he is by openly criticizing a previous administration’s policies (that have kept us safe for seven years), but his knack of grasping real world situations with the skill-set of a college freshman in a “World Cultures” class.
Think about the unbending brilliance of what the Veep is saying here. Because of President Bush and his beastly, mean-spirited, hideous, inhumane, war-hungry intelligence policies, otherwise peaceful or agnostic Muslims who most likely spent their days watching soccer matches on televisions at the local hookah bar were suddenly inspired to become bomb-strapping, baby-killing, plane smashing evil terrorists. Bush’s policies weren’t just your everyday off-the-rack recruiting tool – they were a powerful recruiting tool.
This malformed, gullible – and frankly, dangerous – way of thinking suggests that the opposite must be true – that is, treating members of Al Qaeda (or any terrorists) with the utmost kindness and consideration will keep recruitment low and work toward forging peace.
How about looking at Guantanamo Bay to see how a fuzzy-bunny approach works toward subduing human debris?
The prisoners there, by all accounts – including one of the most fascinating and comprehensive looks at Gitmo written by Colonel Gordon Cucullu in a book called Inside Gitmo: The True Story Behind the Myths of Guantanamo Bay - are afforded everything they request. Their comfort levels are tended to with a degree of consideration rivaling some high-end health spas in the United States. These vermin are treated far better than they deserve to be by the highly trained and stupendously disciplined guards of Gitmo – who for their good work, are regularly pelted with feces, semen, urine and are often subject to physical abuse.
Bush must’ve really made them mad.
How dare the Cowboy from Crawford disrupt the halo and falafel garden parties that were taking place in the Islamic world before America’s intelligence policies became a powerful recruiting tool.
Thus, as we have seen during the new administration’s first month of command, the responsible road to travel – the way to truly ensure American safety – is to order the facility at Guantanamo Bay closed, put an end to “harsh interrogation methods,” make it mandatory for the CIA to report all “detainees” to the Red Cross, order the cessation of CIA secret overseas detention programs, and state publicly, with the world watching, that the United States was wrong to make the poor terrorists angry.
We’ll do better this time.
That’ll make them love us.
(That sound you hear is laughter cascading from terror cells the world over).
Oh yeah … and one other thing … Biden also said:
The proliferation of dangerous weapons and technologies threatens our security. New challenges to the established order, such as climate change and other not yet known to us challenges, will emerge.
Actually, the proliferation of terrorist thugs who need to be dead, as well as bad value systems, threaten our security, Mr. Biden.
But probably not as much as climate change … or second-hand smoke.
Posted in Liberalism, War on Terror | Tagged: "powerful recruiting tool", Biden gaffe, CIA, Joe Biden, War on Terror | 4 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 26, 2009
If the murderous bloodshed of September 11, 2001 had taken place while Barack Obama were President of the United States, and his reaction and subsequent retaliation had followed precisely the path that George W. Bush had taken, undoubtedly he would not only have been branded the greatest wartime commander in the history of all humankind by the mainstream media, but he would have garnered my support without a scintilla of equivocation.
If, however, under the same scenario, with the rubble in lower Manhattan still smoldering, President Obama would have called for an immediate summit of Muslim leaders (and a task force or two to boot) to figure out not only why such a “tragedy” occurred, but exactly what the United States would need to change in its foreign policy to keep the peace, I would have said – adamantly and ferociously – that I did not support the President.
Therefore, using this example, I submit that to claim support for the President without supporting his policies is exactly the same as saying that one supports the troops without supporting the war. It is a nonsensical statement. It is not possible.
It is very common, for instance, to hear someone say they support the war effort in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. Although that is not my position, one is certainly entitled to feel that way. If that is, indeed, the case, then it is intellectually dishonest to say that someone who takes that position supports the troops in Iraq.
(More on that in a moment).
Certainly, there may be isolated instances where one may support a given policy of an otherwise opposed President, but the premise remains unchanged.
I have the highest regard for the office of the President of the United States. I therefore afford the person in the White House the respect he or she is due as the nation’s Chief Executive. It goes without saying - or it should - that I wish no harm ever to befall the President of my country.
With equal sentiment, I want only success, prosperity and peace for the United States and its citizens. I want the traditions and institutions that have made this nation the greatest the world has ever known to be protected, fostered and passed on from generation to generation. I want the spirit of individualism and liberty that defines American exceptionalism to continue to be revered, cherished and championed. I want the United States to continue to have the courage to define that which is evil and the fortitude to fight it when necessary.
If the President of the United States cannot meet those challenges, then I cannot – nay, I will not – support him.
I know this is a baffling concept to Leftocrats.
And as sad as it is to say, it is as confusing a notion to many pundits on the right who are now regularly saying, “I support the President even though I don’t agree with his policies.”
It makes no sense. What exactly does that mean?
If by “support,” one means hoping for the continued safety of the President, then by all means, call me a “supporter.” But if to support him, I am required to pretend that policies he enacts will be good for my country when I believe with every molecule of my existence they will not, I am no supporter.
Call it being part of the “loyal opposition,” if you like.
Assuming I am not speaking of the President’s personal life – which I am not – where else but in what the Chief Executive actually does while in office would I rightly be able to offer my support, or lack of it? What else but a policy decision or action on the part of the President warrants either my backing or disapproval? Indeed, it is a given that I only wish the best for his children and the success of his marriage (unlike Bush-bashers who regularly wished for the worst to befall Bush), but that is irrelevant to the question of supporting him. I have no vested interest in his personal life. All Americans, however, are potentially affected by what he does in his capacity as President.
In short, I do not support policies I believe will be harmful or antithetical to the success and well-being of this nation. Thus, I do not support a President that pushes for those policies.
It is perfectly all right, in my estimation, to weigh all of a President’s decisions, no matter who it is, and decide on balance if you support him or not.
“I was generally a supporter of George W. Bush, but his willingness to go along with the “bailout” bugged me. I didn’t support that.”
Which brings me to the hackneyed and hollow claim that it is possible to support the troops while not supporting the war.
The men and women of the United States Armed Forces have volunteered to serve. Their purpose is to win. Certainly, it shouldn’t be problematic for even the most sniveling anti-war types to grasp the idea that given the choice between winning and losing – which, incidentally, in the real world are the only choices – winning is always better than losing.
Yet, ask any peacenik if he or she wants the United States to win in the battle against Islamo-fascists. You’ll be peppered with typical campus-cackle about how we shouldn’t have even been in Iraq in the first place, blah, blah, blah … which is as useful and constructive as applying scotch tape to a compound fracture.
Ultimately, the answer will be “no,” for a whole host of incomprehensible, Zinn-inspired, university-friendly rationales.
The bottom line is … to be in favor of American losses cannot be, by any measure, considered supportive.
Yet, this is precisely what the anti-war screechers advocate. They don’t support the troops because they don’t support victory over the enemy. They support surrender. How in the name of all that is holy is that supportive of those who have volunteered to defend the country?
Is it at all relevant what the troops themselves want?
Or doesn’t that part of it matter?
The troops are defined by what they do. Their courage and values compel them to selflessly serve in harm’s way. To not wish for their success on the battlefield is to not support them. Period.
Liberals need to have the “courage” to admit that.
Wishing they were not there supports the pacifist, not the soldier.
Incidentally, thus far, I do not support the President of the United States.
There, I said it.
Posted in Conservatism, Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania | Tagged: "Support the President", "Support the troops", Afghanistan, Iraq, Obama, politics, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 25, 2009
but it's a park
The entire problem could be taken care of if Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania simply switched districts with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi – that way, Murtha’s offer to bring the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay to his district could mean the re-opening of Alcatraz (currently located in Pelosi’s district). Pelosi, however, is not exactly warm to the idea of bringing terrorists to her district, no matter who represents it – not necessarily because they are cold-blooded murdering pond scum, or because they might have to be wrongly afforded the rights of Americans – but because it is a tourist attraction … and a park, sort of.
That this “odd suggestion” is even a matter of discussion at all can be credited – at least in part – to House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, who appeared on Meet The Press Sunday. Boehner was echoing earlier suggestions that “The Rock” be used an alternative prison for the Gitmo detainees now that President Obama has signed an Executive Order closing the facility in Cuba.
From Fox News:
Republican Rep. Bill Young … suggested to White House counsel Greg Craig that the prisoners who could not be released back to their home countries or sent to a third country be put up in “the Rock,” the famous military installation and prison that closed down in 1963 and is now part of the National Park Service.
Asked whether that was a serious proposal, (Nancy) Pelosi said, “It is — no.”
“Perhaps he’s not visited Alcatraz,” Pelosi said of Young while displaying little sense of humor. “Alcatraz is a tourist attraction. It’s a prison that is now sort of like a — it’s a national park.”
That explanation didn’t stop House Minority Leader John Boehner from repeating the suggestion on Sunday, making that point that closing down Guantanamo by year’s end may not be the best plan considering the recidivism rate of terrorist detainees is about 12 percent.
“If liberals believe they ought to go, maybe we ought to open Alcatraz,” Boehner, R-Ohio, told NBC “Meet the Press.” Being reminded that Alcatraz is a national park, Boehner responded, “It’s very secure.”
Recall that John Murtha, who sang the praises of the decision to close Gitmo, extended an invitation to have the terrorists of Guantanamo Bay jailed in his district in Pennsylvania. Bob Layo, President of the Greater Johnstown/Cambria County Chamber of Commerce, agreed that Murtha’s suggestion was a stone cold groove, saying:
“I don’t see any downside. There has to be an added level of security for those types of prisoners, so they would probably build new facilities and add staff.”
Here’s a fair follow-up question …
What the hell are you talking about?
Can someone – anyone -answer this simple question: If there already exists a more-than-sufficient, extremely-secure facility in which to house these extremely dangerous individuals – namely Guantanamo Bay – why on earth would anyone in their right mind think that the best thing to do is move them out?
Listen up, Dems … I’ll keep it as monosyllabic as I can … This is not Abu-Grahib.
Honestly, I do not know if the suggestion to re-open Alcatraz is a realistic one, or if it is just an attempt by Republicans to goad the majority party a bit (which is a good thing), or even a way of attempting to illustrate the absolute absurdity – and blatant irresponsibility – of closing Guantanamo Bay.
But whatever it is, I’m okay with it.
In other news, Democrats cannot be trusted with national security.
Posted in Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: "The Rock", Alcatraz, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, John Murtha, terrorism, terrorists, War on Terror | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 24, 2009
This is utterly burlesque.
No propaganda. No partisan smoke screens. Just cold hard reality.
The President of the United States is not sure what will be happening with the detainees who currently reside at the detention center in Guanatanamo Bay once it closes next year.
He said so.
He just doesn’t know.
There is no plan.
He’ll figure it out.
Pinch me, Mabel, I’m dreaming, right?
He knows enough to be able to say with certitude that the closing of Gitmo is the right thing to do – just as he knew that “a woman’s right to choose” an abortion was the correct position to take, despite not being able to say when human life actually begins – but other than that, he’s just not able to speculate with any confidence where these examples of societal excrement will wind up.
How is it possible that the Commander-In-Chief of the United States of America in good conscience, in the midst of a war against barbaric murderers who will stop at nothing to destroy us, can shut down the prison that houses the very scum that would think nothing of slicing the throats of his own children if given the opportunity without a definitive plan in place? And in the name of what??
(If it helps, Mr. President, pretend the prisoners at Gitmo are Rush Limbaugh).
Not surprisingly, this does not appear to disturb the dazed and confused giddy Obamacrats who are still smoking their post orgasmic inauguration cigarettes one bit. As long as President Obama implements policies that run contrary to anything undertaken under George W. Bush, the planet is better off.
These are the same people, of course, who screamed, “What’s the exit strategy?!” at the Bush administration following the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Indeed, if there’s another attack against the United States, perpetrated by anyone released from Gitmo as a result of “preserving American ideals and decency,” there’ll be a whole new round of screaming going on.
As it turns out, some of the former graduates of “Club Gitmo” (as Rush Limbaugh calls it) have, in fact, moved on to bigger things.
Two ex-prisoners in particular are especially making their moms proud.
From the AFP:
Two men released from the US “war on terror” prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported.
One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.
Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333.
A Pentagon spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, on Saturday declined to confirm the SITE information.
“We remain concerned about ex-Guantanamo detainees who have re-affiliated with terrorist organizations after their departure,” said Gordon.
“We will continue to work with the international community to mitigate the threat they pose,” he said.
On the video, al-Shihri is seen sitting with three other men before a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq, the front for Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
“By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for,” al-Shihri was quoted as saying.
The Pentagon estimates that a little more than ten percent of the 521 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to “the fight.”
To those who find this number too small to be of real concern, consider that even if ten percent of the world’s one billion Muslims sympathize with the “fight” waged by these Islamo-fascist murderers – and even if only ten percent of those sympathizers consider themselves active and enthusiastic supporters of “the cause” – that is, by any measure, substantial.
Said the President on Thursday:
“The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals.”
Wrong, Mr. President.
The message this sends, not unlike the message sent by those opposed to capital punishment, is that the lives of the innocent have equal worth to the lives of murderers … and they most certainly do not. The naivety in the President’s position is the assumption that the enemy holds the same value set we do. Remember, aggressive interrogation methods are not standard-fare in this country. No one advocates that they should be. By contrast, torture is as normal a cultural devise to our enemies as outdoor barbecues on Memorial Day are to Americans.
American values and ideals are altogether consistent with the protection innocent life, rewarding those who do good, and fighting those who would inflict evil on the innocent. This is precisely the charge of the United States.
Obama further said:
“We intend to win this fight. We’re going to win it on our terms.”
How about defining them first, sir?
Posted in Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, Islamo Fascist, Obama, politics, terrorism, terrorist, War on Terror | 4 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 24, 2009
Has confusion set in yet?
Are the pacifists who had the words “Bush War Crimes” hot-ironed onto their foreheads – those who had visions of impeachment plumbs dancing in their tired minds – wondering what the hell is going on? Perhaps that swearing-in ceremony on Capitol Hill was nothing but a sweet dream – complete with botched Oath, pre-recorded “play along” string arrangement, racist benediction and listless say-nothing speech.
Maybe George W. Bush is really still in charge.
It just doesn’t make sense otherwise.
Those aren’t birds or locusts … those are question marks flying from the spinning craniums of peace-symbol wearing twenty-somethings (and their sixty-something grey-haired pony-tailed mentors) trying to figure out how such a Bush-like move comes from such a savior.
How could The One – the Messiah, if you will – approve of such a thing as launching missiles to kill people? That’s the kind of thing Republicans do. That’s the kind of thing that war mongers and right-wing trigger-happy xenophobes get off on.
Are you in there?
The New York Times, of all places, has the story:
Two missile attacks launched from remotely piloted American aircraft killed at least 15 people in western Pakistan on Friday. The strikes suggested that the use of drones to kill militants within Pakistan’s borders would continue under President Obama.
Remotely piloted Predator drones operated by the Central Intelligence Agency have carried out more than 30 missile attacks since last summer against members of Al Qaeda and other terrorism suspects deep in their redoubts on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan.
But some of the attacks have also killed civilians, enraging Pakistanis and making it harder for the country’s shaky government to win support for its own military operations against Taliban guerrillas in the country’s lawless border region.
American officials in Washington said there were no immediate signs that the strikes on Friday had killed any senior Qaeda leaders. They said the attacks had dispelled for the moment any notion that Mr. Obama would rein in the Predator attacks.
Mr. Obama and his top national security aides are likely in the coming days to review other counterterrorism measures put in place by the Bush administration, American officials said.
Dead terrorists, Mr. President.
That’s what we’re shooting for – or aiming for.
The more the merrier.
Posted in Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: missile strikes, Obama, Pakistan, War on Terror | 4 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 22, 2009
He’s already frozen the pay of the White House staff.
For those keeping score at home, Barack Obama’s second full day as President looks to be at least as eventful.
This is, indeed, the portion of the program where the new President not only starts to rearrange the furniture and hang up vacation plates in his new Pennsylvania Avenue diggs, but where he begins putting his own stamp on the Presidency.
Today, if he sticks to the docket, he’ll be slipping on his “Executive Order” shoes early, breaking out his ball point pen and signing the death warrant of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, granting it one more year of feeble existence before it closes forever.
According to Fox News:
Under a scenario foreshadowed in the draft orders, some detainees being held at Guantanamo would be released, while others would be transferred elsewhere and later put on trial under terms to be determined. Closing Guantanamo could potentially mean moving the remaining detainees to federal prisons in the U.S., such as the Leavenworth prison in Kansas.
That’s no misprint.
The scenario prescribes that “some detainees at Guantanamo would be released.”
How’s that for a warm and fuzzy thought?
The President’s decision to slice the throat of the Guantanamo Bay facility (ugly pun most definitely intended) means that the options for the remaining vermin being held there include bringing them to the United States for trial (thus granting them the rights of citizens), releasing them to “other nations” to incarcerate, or sending them back where they came from so that they might return to the peaceful lives they were leading before being dragged to Gitmo.
Offering them discounted out-of-state college tuition hasn’t been officially proposed yet, but that, too, may be forthcoming.
It is no wonder the families of 9/11 victims are outraged.
“To me it’s beyond comprehension that they would take the side of the terrorists,” said Peter Gadiel, whose son, James, was killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. “Many of these people have been released and been right back killing, right back at their terrorist work again.”
Back on January 14th, in an article called “Life After Gitmo,” I wrote:
” … a new revelation from the Pentagon has come to light – namely, that as many as 61 former detainees have returned to terrorist activity after being released.
(jaw hits floor)
I don’t know about you, but I would have guessed the existence of Santa Claus – or clear thinking liberals – to be more of a likely prospect.
Who’d have guessed that upon discharge, the human dregs that made up the population of Gitmo would have returned to the cesspool from whence they came.”
Former Commander Kirk Lippold, who saw seventeen of his sailors murdered when the USS Cole was bombed by suicide terrorists in 2000 said:
“There is no need to suspend [the military tribunals]. There is no reason why [Obama] can’t conduct a concurrent review at the same time that the military commission process is moving forward to render justice for the terrorists that have murdered thousands of people. It demeans their deaths because we seem to be more concerned with the rights of detainees than we are with the justice that is being denied to my sailors that were killed.”
As a side note, Representative Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania says he’d have no problem letting Guantanamo Bay detainees occupy jails in his district if it should come to that.
Of course, if all this Gitmo talk has you bored to tears, don’t fret.
President Obama also intends to reverse what is known as the “Mexico City Policy” – a ban on funding for groups overseas that provide abortions.
From Fox News:
President Obama will issue an executive order on Thursday reversing the Bush administration policy that bans the use of federal dollars by non-governmental organizations that discuss or provide abortions outside of the United States.
Obama will sign the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.
The policy, known in governmental circles as the “Mexico City policy,” requires any non-governmental organization to agree before receiving U.S. funds that they will “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.”
Yes he can.
And just think … The Freedom of Choice Act is still to come.
Posted in Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: 9/11, enemy combatants, Executive Order, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, Kirk Lippold, Obama, terrorism, terrorists, War on Terror | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 18, 2009
I recognize that this particular choice as one of the most memorable moments from the George W. Bush presidency may appear painfully cliche and wholly predictable.
I accept that.
That it has been seen many times makes it no less powerful or less stirring.
It is from September 14, 2001 at Ground Zero.
It is the third of three moments I have chosen to commemorate as the Bush presidency draws to a close.
The first two clips I have chosen as ones to remember can be seen here:
George W. Bush – September 20, 2001 in front of a joint session of Congress.
George W. Bush – September 11, 2001 – We will make no distinction.
Update: 19 January 2009, 12:55 AM
A blogger from Free Republic.com called Wolfstar commented:
Why does the author have to clothe his praise in such simpering defensiveness? That moment at Ground Zero was wildly uplifting, unique among presidential speeches, and wholly unpredictable.
He is, of course, right. While I certainly did not wish to be defensive in any way (nor did I feel I needed to be), it nontheless seems to have come across that way. It is a fair assessment. My intention, rather, was to present this clip in the spirit of “No matter how many times you’ve seen it, it is no less moving, no less stirring.”
I should have worded it that way.
The fact remains, it was an unforgettable moment.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: 9/11, George W. Bush, Ground Zero, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 18, 2009
With less than two days before Barack Obama takes the oath of office, and with seemingly every square inch of American humanity and culture consumed with all things messianic, I wanted to recall a few memorable moments of the George W. Bush presidency.
I ‘ve already posted one – a powerful moment from George W. Bush’s speech before a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
Not surprisingly, for me, they all center around 9/11.
This is the second of those three.
It comes from the night of September 11, 2001 – just about twelve hours after the North Tower of the World Trade Center was attacked.
The clip is only :22 seconds in length, but it is the very essence of how the President chose to approach the war against Islamo-fascist terrorists.
It is, for me, one the most memorable moments from the Bush Presidency.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: 9/11, Bush Doctrine, Bush legacy, George W. Bush, terrorism, terrorist, War on Terror | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 14, 2009
From the “No Way” file …
With talk radio, op-ed columns and spinning-head television all abuzz in recent days with conjecture of what the future holds for the military prison installation at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, a new revelation from the Pentagon has come to light – namely, that as many as 61 former detainees have returned to terrorist activity after being released.
(jaw hits floor)
I don’t know about you, but I would have guessed the existence of Santa Claus - or clear thinking liberals - to be more of a likely prospect.
Who’d have guessed that upon discharge, the human dregs that made up the population of Gitmo would have returned to the cesspool from whence they came.
There’s just no telling what people will do.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as “returning to the fight” and 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Morrell declined to provide details such as the identity of the former detainees, why and where they were released or what actions they have taken since leaving U.S. custody.
“This is acts of terrorism. It could be Iraq, Afghanistan, it could be acts of terrorism around the world,” he told reporters.
Morrell said the latest figures, current through December 24, showed an 11 percent recidivism rate, up from 7 percent in a March 2008 report that counted 37 former detainees as suspected or confirmed active militants.
As egregiously academic as it to have to make this point (but I do so knowing that I am dealing with the morally bankrupt), to allow just one of these killers – who, incidentally are not afforded the same rights as American citizens, nor should they be – to blend back into the murderous community of lowlifes that look to do as much harm to this country as possible is one person too many.
If, indeed, the closing of Gitmo is on The One’s agenda – and it almost certainly seems like it is – who can argue, with any degree of reasonability, that doing so is anything more than an act of vacuous symbolism? That to “undo” anything that is directly tied to the Bush administration carries far more weight with Big Bam than the actual practicality of keeping these dangerous killers under wraps?
Mr. Obama, what happens to these terrorists once Gitmo goes away?
Where do they go?
Are they sent to “better” facilities? Are they shipped to prisons with better human rights records?
Rights advocates said the lack of details should call the Pentagon’s assertions into question.
“Until enough information is provided to allow the press and the public to verify these claims, they need to be viewed with a healthy degree of skepticism,” said Jennifer Daskal, a Washington-based lawyer for Human Rights Watch.
Rights advocates contend that many Guantanamo detainees have never taken up arms against the United States and say the Defense Department in the past has described former detainees as rejoining “the fight” because they spoke out against the U.S. government.
“The Defense Department sees that the Guantanamo detention operation has failed and they are trying to launch another fear mongering campaign to justify the indefinite detention of detainees there,” said Jamil Dakwar, human rights director at the American Civil Liberties Union.
An important Rule of Thumb for Americans to follow is that anytime Human Rights Watch or the American Civil Liberties Union is involved, it is prudent to find out what positions they take and then support the opposite.
I find the use of the term “rights advocates” as laughable as having Cuba on the Human Right Council of the United Nations (which they are). These organizations foster victimhood of the undeserving while ignoring those who truly are victims.
As talk show host Dennis Prager often says, “Those who are kind to the cruel will often be cruel to the kind.”
Over at the Vocal Minority blog – one of my favorites – they comment on these so-called “rights advocates”:
You’re not rights advocates, OK. You’re aiders and abettors of terrorists. Of murderers. Of thugs. What about the rights of the innocents these animals have slaughtered all over the world? When have you advocated for their rights, huh?
You’re on the wrong side of morality and history, a’ight? And you’re an enemy of this country.
Verify these claims? Easy! Just read the paper! Gateway Pundit has done the courtesy of compiling a list of reports for you:
Gitmo Detainees Re-Arrested in Russia
Former Gitmo Prisoner Arrested for Terrorism in Moscow
Three Former Gitmo Detainees Held in Morocco
Former Gitmo Inmate Involved in Russian Terror Attack on Nalchik
Camel-Riding Former Gitmo Detainee Blows Himself Up
Former Gitmo Detainee Re-Arrested in Pakistan
Seven Percent of Gitmo Detainees Return to Battlefield.
Former Club Gitmo Detainee Carries Out Suicide Mission in Iraq
Say it with me: Leftists cannot be trusted with matters of national security.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: ACLU, Geoff Morrell, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, Human Rights Watch, Obama, Pentagon, terrorism, terrorists, War on Terror | 4 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 12, 2009
Lord knows that President George W. Bush has rubbed this conservative the wrong way on more than several occasions – from his propensity to spend like a Kennedy on kahlua, to his declaration that the way to save the free market system is to abandon free-market principals.
Recall, that it was Bush who implemented a stimulus package not too long ago by sending out checks to taxpayers at the expense of other taxpayers. (It all sounds so liberal, doesn’t it?) What a rousing success that was (not really) – so much so that under our new President, we are going to do it all over again, only this time, exponentially larger in scale. (That’s what makes a liberal a liberal. If something doesn’t work, do more of it).
However, with eight days left in his Presidency, Bush is actually stepping up to defend something that absolutely needs ardent defending from the Commander-In-Chief of the United States (particularly in a time of war) – and it’s good to actually hear him fight back for a change.
Bush is defending his record on interrogation.
Good for him.
Patrick O’Conner of Politico writes:
President Bush on Sunday defended controversial interrogation measures established by his administration, arguing that techniques like water-boarding helped save American lives.
“The techniques…were necessary and are necessary to be used on a rare occasion to get information to protect the American people,” Bush said during an expansive exit interview that aired on Fox Sunday.
Citing an interrogation with Al Qaeda strategist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, which included simulated drowning, otherwise known as “waterboarding,” the outgoing president said, “We believe the information we gained helped save lives on American soil.”
The Bush administration has been criticized by civil liberties advocates and others for the use of, and legal justifications underpinning, these harsh interrogation methods. President-elect Barack Obama has already promised to review these policies when he takes the oath of office later this month.
One of the great puzzles of the past several years has been this administration’s complete unwillingness to challenge the multitude of false assertions put forth by the cackling left – things have been repeated so often that they are simply accepted as truth.
Indeed, there were no “ready-to-fire” weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, but the administration has been absolutely silent on the tons of uranium found there (meant for what? barbecuing?), or the endless documents discovered there that do, in fact, tie Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda in a variety of different ways. Bush has chosen to let falsehood after disingenuous accusation after lie continue to spew from on leftward unchallenged – and it has been supremely frustrating.
But here, the President is standing firm. He rejects the idea that the aggressive interrogation techniques he has defended amount to the condoning of torture.
Said the President:
“I firmly reject the word ‘torture.’ Everything this administration does had a legal basis to it; otherwise, we would not have done it … Look, I understand why people can get carried away on this issue, but generally they don’t know the facts … But I am concerned that America, at some point in time, lets down her guard. If we do that, the country becomes highly vulnerable.”
Is there anyone out there who honestly believes that the past seven-plus years of mainland safety has been the result of nothing more indimidating than dirty looks, name-calling, promissory notes and flaming bags of dog poop on the enemy’s front porch? Save for two car bombs that detonated outside the American Embassy in Yemen in September of last year (killing ten Yemenis), American interests all over the world have been safe from terror attacks since 9/11 precisely because the United States engages in such aggressive tactics when necessary.
Those are the key words: when necessary.
By a show of hands, who out there in the real world believes that bold and forceful interrogation techniques were not used in helping to maintain the security of the United States?
By an equal show of hands, who would be willing to take a chance on how safe things might be without those techniques?
Citing an interrogation with Al Qaeda strategist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, which included simulated drowning, otherwise known as “waterboarding,” the outgoing president said, “We believe the information we gained helped save lives on American soil.”
In the exit interview, Bush specifically mentioned Mohammed, whose interrogation became a flashpoint in the broader legal debate about the rights of suspected terrorists detained abroad.
Mohammed, a top Al Qaeda strategist, was arrested in Pakistan and eventually flown to a secret detention site in Poland, where he reportedly endured a series of harsh interrogation methods, most notably waterboarding. But Bush administration officials have repeatedly argued that that session with Mohammed gave them leads to prevent other attacks.
When serious matters – such as national security – are left to the children-of-the-Chomsky left, it is only a matter of time before innocent Americans pay the price. Leftocrats may know how to emote with world-class non-confrontational Zinn moral-equivalency, but the actual safety of Americans needs to be left to the adults. That libs still argue for stopping any and all harsh methods of interrogation for fear that American soldiers will, thus, be treated just as brutally (and worse) if captured in war makes me wonder how lefties can ever be taken seriously at all.
Am I then correct to assume, using dumb-o-crat logic, that if Americans only played nice, then the throat-cutting, embassy blasting, IED exploding, ramming planes-into-buildings Islamo-fascists would follow suit?
The terrorists are following our lead?
Anyone who believes that, stand on your head.
It would surprise me beyond words to know that outside of academia, Young Democrat Clubs, hard-leftists, media types and John Mellencamp that too many Americans are really losing shut-eye over the possibility of human debris terrorist scum-buckets undergoing “intense questioning” – especially when American lives are at stake.
I was not surprised to read, however, that President-Elect Obama “promised to review these policies when he takes the oath of office later this month.”
He views “waterboarding” as torture.
That methods of aggresive interrogation don’t always work should not be an issue. There is no institution or practice that is perfect. Should we eliminate police because some criminals get away? Should we abandon the courts because on rare occassions the innocent are jailed? The fact is, aggressive interrogation has worked in the past – as in the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed – and has unquestionably saved countless lives. That alone should keep the option open to anyone who takes national security seriously.
If the choice comes down to innocent Americans versus the toenails, eyelids and nostrils of a terrorist who would slash the throats of my daughters even if we offered back massages and reclining chairs to enemy combatants, there is no contest.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: aggressive interrogation, George W. Bush, interrogation, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, national security, torture, War on Terror | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 27, 2008
21st centuey weaponry
Call it breaking down stiff resistance.
It could also be called a successful tactic in the War Against Islamo-Fascist Terror… that is, maybe until now.
With a veritable smorgasbord of potential rim-shots waiting to be thwacked at the idea of using Viagra as a means of getting an upper hand in the war, the more serious matter of exposing a successful gambit while the battle is still ongoing becomes the front-burner issue.
The Washington Post is reporting that the “little blue pill” has proven to be an effective tool (no pun intended) in helping to gain information from otherwise tough-to-crack Afghani warlords and bigwigs.
In an effort to win over fickle warlords and chieftains in Afghanistan and get information from them, CIA officials are handing out Viagra pills in exchange for their cooperation, the Washington Post reports.
“Whatever it takes to make friends and influence people – whether it’s building a school or handing out Viagra,” an agency operative, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the Post.
The growing Taliban insurgency has forced the agency to get creative in how they obtain certain information from Afghan warlords and tribal leaders, including Taliban movements and supply routes.
There is something slightly more clandestine about the below-the-waistline benefits of the famous “blue pill” than there is in, say, building a school. Members of the Taliban can actually see a school – but the point is well-taken.
This story is, understandably, a hard one to resist, but the real question is why is it seeing the light of day at all? This is a covert operation in an ongoing war. Why is it necessary to expose it? (So to speak).
And how exactly does it help the war effort to know that the CIA is dispensing little portions of blue manhood to unsatisfied Afghani war dogs?
(Rhetorical knob switched to “off“).
What it does illustrate, however, is the ongoing fascination – nay, a hard-wired compulsion – by the mainstream media to expose any and all war strategies conceived and implemented during the administration of George W. Bush as questionable, unusual or downright dumb (not to mention unethical) – something almost certain not to carry over into the Messianic Age that begins on January 20, 2009.
This is especially true of the New York Times – the staggering and stammering broken down Old Lady in desparate need of cash – that in December, 2005 reported:
Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.
Remember that story?
What purpose, other than to insinuate illegal activity from the President, would there be in publishing such a story?
What good could have come of it?
Bush, at the time – on one of the rare occassions where he actually rose to defend his administration, the handling of the war, and the relentless attacks against him – was absolutely correct when he said, “The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.”
Recall six months later, in June, 2006, when the Times “uncovered” an international financial surveillance program run by the Bush Administration and plastered it all over its fishwrap.
I suppose that was also “hard news.” And important for the general public to know, why?
The New York Times apparently decided that being informed was more important than being secure.
As long as the suggestion was perpetuated by “legitimate sources” that President George W. Bush was quite possibly a war criminal – or at the very least, pervasively unethical – the unveiling of covert war operations (and all the illegalities supposedly associated with them) could “pass” for news.
Seeing as Barack Obama will almost certainly have to follow much of the same path of President Bush in prosecuting the war – at least for a while – it is a very safe bet that not one story will emerge from the mainstream media unearthing anything remotely covert during the next four (possibly eight) years.
Granted, the Viagra story is not quite the national security issue that the two New York Times’ stories were – some would say treasonous – but it is indicative of a trend, and may mark the end of the Viagra program’s effectiveness.
Afghan veterans told the Post that the usual bribes of choice – cash and weapons – aren’t always the best options because they can garner unwanted attention and fall into the wrong hands.
“If you give an asset $1,000, he’ll go out and buy the shiniest junk he can find, and it will be apparent that he has suddenly come into a lot of money from someone,” Jamie Smith, a veteran of CIA covert operations in Afghanistan, told the Post.
The “benefit” of a Viagra payoff isn’t quite as conspicuous as, say, some new “shinky junk.”
The program is covert in all senses of the word – that is, until now.
All it would take is some loose-lipped chatter from one of the warlord’s wives or mistresses about her man’s “blue pill” experience to sink his ship. Once it got back to the bad guys – the Taliban – that there are now other means of compensation to American sympathizers outside of guns and money, it would make things far more difficult for our side.
Nice job, Washington Post.
Don’t worry. With a bit more practice, and a few more tasty top-shelf national security secrets exposed, you’ll be up there with the Times.
But make it quick. You only have twenty-four days of Bush.
After that, all bets are off.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Afghani chieftains, Afghani warlords, Afghanistan, CIA, Islamo Fascist, Viagra, War on Terror | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 9, 2008
The terrorist threat to the United States is either a Bush-concoted exageration, or an unintended consequence of imperialist war-mongering – according to much of the American leftorcay. After all, the human fecal matter who fly planes into buildings and strap bombs to the guts of their children were just minding their own business, planting radish gardens, baking Dome of the Rock shaped fig cookies until we came along.
The “fundamental transformers” of America – i.e. the Democrats – are probably not taking too much notice of this one, but I’ll waste my time with it, being one of the brainwashed Bush monkeys.
According to a Yemeni al-Qaeda operative, in a story published on the front page of an Arabic newspaper in London – Al-Quds Al-Arabi – “the terrorist organisation (al-Qaeda) has entered a ‘positive phase’, reinforcing specific training camps around the world that will lead the next “wave of action” against the West.”
(Osama) bin Laden is himself closely following preparations for an attack against the US and aims to “change the face of world politics and economics”. The operative is quoted as saying that “this will be shown by the fact that we now control a major part of the south of Somalia“.
The source also said that during the next few days the terrorist organisation may send a sign of its violent intentions.
The warning has emerged at the same time as publication of a report leaked to The Telegraph newspaper which reveals that a document drawn up by the intelligence branch of the Ministry of Defence says that thousands of extremists are active in the UK.
Security officials, The Telegraph reports, are convinced al-Qaeda cells will attempt another “spectacular” inside the UK with major transport centres, such as airports and train stations, the most likely targets. Other targets include the Houses of Parliament, Whitehall and Buckingham and St James’ palaces, with the threat level described as “severe”.
Let’s hope this “change” that President-elect Obama keeps talking about isn’t the seven-years the United States has been free of terrorist attacks.
Hey Obamacrats …. Do America a favor, okay? Just pretend the terrorists are greehouse gases, or free enterprise.
Go after them. Yeah, it’s that serious, lefties.
Posted in Foreign Policy, War on Terror | Tagged: 9/11, al-Qaeda, Bin Ladin, Obama, Osama, terrorism, terrorist, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »