Terrorism

Political Correctness…Terrorism’s Happy Place.

It’s a sad, very frightening scenario. Something that has late heroes like George S. Patton and Lewis B. ‘Chesty’ Puller, leaders who were warriors, rotating at 78 rpm in their graves.

We have a Four Star General of the United States Army more concerned about ‘diversity’ and political correctness, than in the execution of the world war on terror and combating possible infiltration of our fighting forces by individuals, who may or may not have an affinity for the pernicious evils of militant Islam. It ain’t your daddy’s Army anymore.

They are making special exemptions to allow people into the military who wouldn’t clear receiving barracks ten years ago. We don’t have a  military COMBAT frame of mind in the high command of the armed forces, we have SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION on a grand scale. Political correctness of the sort that allowed a Major Malik Nidal Hasan to not only slip through the cracks, but  simply ignore glaring warnings. Not just a few, there were many. Where were the people who should have taken note and taken action?

We have PC spin apologists calling it everything but what it was. Stress syndrome! What stress? The guy was an officer in a cush job that was essentially a sinecure when compared to most Army officer assignments. It was a plain murder by a homicidal jihadist who planned exactly what he was going to do. Just because he was not directly linked to one of the known Al Qaeda  terror groups makes him no less one of them. His cry of Allahu Akbar as he started his murderous rampage pretty much nails that one down.

The question begs…HOW THE HELL DID THIS GUY PASS BACKGROUND CHECKS? Unless it was because he WAS Muslim and the pressure on Army personnel to treat these people differently. This is the price of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS in the military, or anywhere in our society for that matter. A practical mind would call it just plain damn stupidity.

I’ve seen some media types wringing their hands and bemoaning that Major Hasan was supposedly ‘harassed’ by fellow soldiers…the kind of  statement that could only have been made by someone who had never been closer to the military than a television. Harassed!? Harassed by whom? The man was an officer. Certainly, no enlisted man would have said anything to him, either directly or in front of another officer. They would have instantly risked being brought up on charges. If someone had something to say about him, it would have been in private and around men of comparable rank. Even saying something in front of a senior non-com would have been to risk a dressing down. Another officer? Maybe one with a half a snoot full at the Officers Club? But such things are ungentlemanly and are generally frowned upon. Maybe another officer in private, calling him on his dangerously un-American views? Perhaps, but it would have to be one of equal or higher rank. Seems that there are a lot of people, in and out of the military, trying to make excuses for Major Hasan’s actions. There’s a glaring question mark behind that one also.

What about the rest of the Muslims in our military? We have had a Sergeant roll a grenade into a room, killing two officers and wounding fourteen others in Kuwait. He was a Muslim convert. There have been other domestic terror plots against our military, it is to be noted however, not connected to any service personnel.What about the soldiers who have to serve with the Muslim troops? How often do they ask themselves, “Is this dude going to go off one of these days?” AND what is the Army doing about that?

Has anyone gotten around to asking General Casey, while he’s busy protecting the Muslim troops in the Army from any ‘backlash’, what he is doing to protect the rest of the troops from them? Fair or not, they are part of a group of people known to espouse and nurture a virulently violent philosophy that worships death. It seems a little insane not to scrutinize them as well. Political correctness be damned.It appears that it is the only way to ensure we don’t have any more Malik Nidal Hasans.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2009

 

Applied Intelligence

 James Biden

by  Lance Thompson

 

“It is the nature of an intelligence service that it must receive encouragement and support from the government of the day; if the government lacks interest in or expert understanding for its intelligence service, not even the best service will succeed in overcoming external prejudices against it.” These are the words of Reinhard Gehlen, chief of the German federal intelligence service , the BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst), in 1971, in his excellent memoir, “The Service.” (English edition: World Publishing, New York, 1972). Gehlen brought invaluable intelligence assets to the United States regarding Russia after World War II, and founded the BND which continues its important work to this day.

 

Gehlen’s wisdom is alarmingly relevant today, as the American foreign intelligence service, the CIA, is battered by politically motivated attacks by Democrats and the Obama administration. The CIA, whose mission is to inform our leaders about the capabilities and intentions of our adversaries and allies, has always been a favorite target of liberals. But in recent weeks, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA of deceiving her when she was caught lying about briefings she received concerning interrogation techniques. When Pelosi’s false claims were exposed, she chose to denigrate the CIA rather than admit her deliberate deception.

 

Now, we learn that the House Intelligence Committee is investigating Democrat charges that former Vice President Cheney ordered the CIA not to inform Congress of a secret CIA plan to target al Qaeda terrorist leaders. This charge, of course, ignores the fact that the CIA reports directly to the President, is not under the command of the Vice President, and that both houses of Congress have independent intelligence committees who oversee the CIA.

 

Since the charge involves actions that took place years ago, under an administration that is no longer in power, it is evident that this is not a matter of urgency. Thus, it is obvious that this issue was chosen for other reasons–primarily to embarrass the previous administration. For such an exposure to be effective, the previous administration must be shown to have done something wrong.

 

The CIA is an intelligence agency, and many of its activities are effective only if kept secret. Therefore, the secrecy of the plans in question is not in itself questionable. Whether the vice president wanted greater secrecy or not is irrelevant–he did not have the authority or ability to demand what information the CIA revealed to congressional intelligence committees.

 

Therefore, the Democrats who want so badly to bring this investigation to light must believe that the plan itself–killing al Qaeda terrorist leaders–is wrong. They must believe that if Americans knew that the previous administration was studying ways of destroying our enemies who murdered thousands of Americans and were devising ways to murder thousands more, then it would bring shame and opprobrium upon that administration.

 

The Obama administration seeks closer ties to terrorist-sponsoring governments in Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. They seek to extend the Constitutional rights of American citizens to terrorists who will sacrifice themselves in our destruction. The Obama state department won’t even call the war on terror the war on terror, or even call terrorists terrorists. So it is quite possible that Democrats believe that a plan to kill terrorists is not only contrary to current policy, but legally and morally wrong. So wrong, in fact, that if the American people discovered that the previous administration was planning such acts, that they would be filled with indignation and revulsion.

 

The Democrats, then, must believe that the oaths sworn by their president and congressmen to defend the United States are not only non-binding, but that any action or decision made to augment that defense is a transgression. Thus, the Bush administration, with its war on terror, its detention and prosecution of terrorists, and its covert efforts to expose and prevent further terrorists attacks, has been caught doing something that the American people won’t stand for. The Democrats believe that standing against the war on terror is the morally superior position, and using the CIA as a scapegoat is a politically smart strategy.

 

With this view, the majority party has succeeded in undercutting our efforts to counter the terrorist threat. In the few short months of the Obama administration, America has gone from the great arsenal of democracy to the great apologist for terrorism and the great enabler of tyranny. The Democrats believe this is what Americans want. Whether you agree or disagree, there is one place to let your voice be heard–the ballot box next year.

 

Al Qaeda proposes Truce with America

Al Qaeda has offered a truce to America. On June 22nd 2009, the third in command of Al Qaeda, Mustafa Abul-Yazeed, has given an interview to Aljazeera during which he explained the Al Qaeda Pakistan strategy and offered a conditional truce to America. Mustafa Abul-Yazeed is believed to have been the Chief Financial Officer for Al Qaeda and provided the funds for the September 11 2001 attacks on America.

Al Qaeda's truce offered to America by Mustafa Abul-Yazeed contains several conditions they dictate we should follow. This will give us a truce that meets their definition of 'peace'.

"We are part of a Muslim world that wants happiness for all humanity. If the Americans agree to our conditions : leave Muslim nations, stop supporting Israel, stop supporting oppressive regimes in the region, and stop killing Muslims and release prisoners. If they met these conditions we would offer a long truce, say ten years. Then we will ask them to become Muslims and if they refuse, we will Impose the Jizyeh or tax. And if they refuse we will fight them. This is our view of peace and we don't think they will agree, so we should prepare for the fight."

They offer this truce to America at this critical time because they have a strategy where after ten years, they will be able to make Americans an offer to convert that will be hard to refuse. They need those ten years of no pressure from America to do something in Pakistan, where the main short term objective of Al Qaeda resides. Al Qaeda has a long term strategy to obtain control of the Nuclear Weapons of Pakistan.

As Mustafa Abul-Yazeed declares in his interview.

"God willing, the nuclear weapons won't fall into the hands of the Americans and they will be seized by the fighters and used against the Americans."

I am sure that if they do not get Pakistan's Nuclear arsenal, they will be happy to buy them from Iran or North Korea.

So be ready America. When Dear Leader ZerO sits on the fence as Pakistan struggles against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. When he allows North Korea to ship Nuclear weapons and missiles to Fundamentalist Muslim strongholds like Somalia. When he quibbles and vacillates as the Iranian people seek a more moderate government and productive interaction with America.

In ten years, you will be given the choice.

Convert to the Muslim faith and Sharia Law.

Refuse to convert and pay Jizyeh, a 'protection tax' for the right to exist in Islam as a second class dhimmi.

Die by the sword, or nuclear fire in this case.

Those are the three allowable conditions infidels have in an Islamic Caliphate, the kind of world government Al Qaeda strives to build with other fundamentalist Muslims.

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy55LOLkRVI

2820 Days Safe from Terrorism

2,820 days safe in America, but no longer. President George W. Bush kept us safe for 2,688 days! Dear Leader ZerO kept us safe for 132 days!

On September 11, 2001, America was attacked by Muslim Terrorists on American soil.

On June 1, 2009, Americans where once again attacked on American soil by Muslim Terrorists.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Muslim convert attacked a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas. He killed Private William Long and wounded Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula. Even though the Terrorist had an initial preliminary FBI investigation started on him, no full blown investigation was authorized. An article from STRATFOR.com might shed some light on that.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090603_lone_wolf_lessons

However, politics have proved obstructive to all facets of counterterrorism policy. And politics may have been at play in the Muhammad case as well as in other cases involving Black Muslim converts. Several weeks ago, STRATFOR heard from sources that the FBI and other law enforcement organizations had been ordered to “back off” of counterterrorism investigations into the activities of Black Muslim converts. At this point, it is unclear to us if that guidance was given by the White House or the Department of Justice, or if it was promulgated by the agencies themselves, anticipating the wishes of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

The defenders of American security have been suffocated by the new administrations attitude and policies. The likelihood that a preliminary investigation will be authorized for a full investigation by a supervisor has been diminished. There is a fear that their career could be ruined or worse if they did as they want, and not as the administration might wish.

Your safety, your families safety, and the safety of every American in America has been diminished. Because everyone in our security organizations has been living in fear. Not of terrorists, but of our own government. Ever since Dear Leader ZerO opened the door for criminal prosecution for the people who just offer mere legal opinions on what is lawful regarding terrorists. Now all of the brave men and woman who guard our safety are shaking every time they need to make a decision to investigate, question, or arrest a suspected terrorist.

No longer will terrorists be stopped BEFORE they commit an act of war. Now, thanks to Dear Leader ZerO, many will only be arrested AFTER they have committed a crime.

Video at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUeBuG7prWE

Obama, Machiavelli, and 43; why style still matters when the follower is quietly copying his predecessor....

President Obama rhetorically threw America under the bus yesterday.

George W. Bush gave the same substantive speech (minus apologies) a year ago.

My question is this: President Obama, as much as you quitely continue 43's counterterrorism policies In Iraq, Afghanistan, Club Gitmo, Terrorist Surveillance, and Rendition has the thought ever occured to you that despite your good (as much as it pains me to admit that) actions, your good actions are easily undermined by your words.

You don't understand Machiaveli 101; fear is more important than love.

I agree with you on a certain level; George W. Bush made us unloved around the world.  God Bless him, George W. Bush rejected the paradigm of appeasement to make sure our enemies feared us.

On the other hand, you really seem to think that by talking to them, our enemies will magically surrender.  Dude, it doesn't work that way.  Pussies are only an inch and a half away from you know what.

President Obama, America has not done anything wrong (except for raising taxes in 1990) over the past thirty years.  Given that you're speaking at Normandy later this week, before you throw America under the bus again, consider America's True Greatness.

I hope this helps.

Cahnman out.

Now A Terrorist Torches Topless Cafe In Maine

 

What a sad week we are having. We have seen right wing terrorism with the murder of an abortion doctor. We have had a case of Islamic terrorism with the murder at an Arkansas army recruiting station. Now an arsonist has burned down the Grand View Topless Coffee Shop in Vassalboro, Maine. The coffee shop had received national media coverage for having coffee served by topless waiters and waitresses.

I hope that they manage to rebuild and get the business back up and running.

More Insanity

We are not having a good week with regards to violence:

A Muslim convert who said he was opposed to the U.S. military shot two soldiers outside an Arkansas recruiting station, killing one, police said Monday.

“This individual appears to have been upset with the military, the Army in particular, and that’s why he did what he did,” Little Rock Police Lt. Terry Hastings said in a phone interview.

“He has converted to (Islam) here in the past few years,” Hastings said. “We’re not completely clear on what he was upset about. He had never been in the military.

“He saw them standing there and drove up and shot them. That’s what he said.”

 

Right Wing Terrorist Act Condemned By Sarah Palin And Other Conservatives

While it might aggravate some readers on the left, I do try to quote conservatives when they are making sense. Perhaps I have a fantasy that such positive reinforcement will contribute to improving the sanity of the right wing. In that vein I quoted from Dick Cheney in my previous post. It is often the case that I can find material to quote from most politicians that I both agree with and disagree with, I’m not sure that I ever posted anything from Sarah Palin which I agreed with. Finally I found something worthwhile:

“I feel sorrow for the Tiller family. I respect the sanctity of life and the tragedy that took place today in Kansas clearly violates respect for life. This murder also damages the positive message of life, for the unborn, and for those living. Ask yourself, ‘What will those who have not yet decided personally where they stand on this issue take away from today’s event in Kansas?’ Regardless of my strong objection to Dr. Tiller’s abortion practices, violence is never an answer in advancing the pro-life message.”

Along similar lines, TeamSarah.org founder and Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser released the following statement about the killing yesterday:

“The Susan B. Anthony List condemns this anti-life act in the strongest of terms. The heart of the pro-life movement is one founded in love. Without this driving powerful center no justice can possibly be achieved.  Authentic progress in women’s rights has always encompassed the protection of human rights of every person across the board. The rights of one human being can never be honored by diminishing or ignoring the rights of another. This week as we gather for our annual June Tea event, themed Love Lets Live, we will lift up George Tiller’s loved ones in prayer.”

As I noted previously, there has been both unfortunate support from some on the right as well as opposition from others for this act of right wing terrorism. The blogosphere, especially in the comments, can easily amplify the views of a noisy minority and hopefully the comments supporting this type of terrorism do represent a tiny minority on the right.

Some additional sane views from the right on this issue, with Allahpundit followed by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

I could say there are no Bill Ayers types on our side, but I can’t; I wish I could say there are no right-wing nutroots degenerates online cheering them on, but I can’t say that either. As for those who condemn the murder while merrily hoping that he’s burning in hell, let a poor confused atheist ask you this: Isn’t the proper Christian response to any death to pray that God will have mercy on a flawed, fallible sinner, who’s now at last seen the error of his ways? Tiller might have changed his mind about abortion and repented in years to come but his killer’s deprived him of the chance. No prayers that God will take that into consideration?–Allahpundit

The murder of George Tiller at his church is a heinous crime, without any sense or justice. Regardless of how one feels about George Tiller’s profession, his murderer is nothing more than a domestic terrorist — someone attempting to impose by force a policy that one cannot get in place through democratic means. Tiller’s killer is no better than William Ayers, Kathleen Soliah, and Eric Rudolph, people who attempted to use violence for their extremist ends. Those who value life know that murder is the antithesis of the pro-life movement.–Ed Morrissey

The far right wing ties of the accused killer have been revealed today. While many conservatives are condemning this, there continues to be signs of support from some on the right.  Right Wing Watch has video and text on Randall Terry’s  press conference at the National Press Club “to discuss how the pro-life movement should deal with Dr. [George] Tiller’s death” and defend his statement that Tiller essentially deserved to die because he was a “mass-murder.”

While there have been far more vile responses from some on the right who have condoned this act of terrorism (which I won’t bother to give any publicity to) one of the more absurd arguments has been that this coverage given to right wing terrorism somehow justifies the bizzare reaction on the right to the report from the Department of Homeland Security on right wing terrorism. This act actually verifies the fact that right wing terrorism is a real problem, with this being only one example. This demonstrates that the Department of Homeland Security had reason to prepare a report on right wing terrorism. Of course conservatives who are bringing up the report ignore the facts that DHS prepared reports on both far left and far right wing terrorism, and that the recently declassified reports were prepared by a Bush appointee.

 

Richard A. Clarke On The White House 9/11 Trauma Defense

It is understandable that people were shaken up by the events of 9/11. It must have been startling for Dick Cheney to have been carried off by the secret service to an underground bunker. Meanwhile George Bush seemed to be in such a panic that he could not function for a couple of days. We  need level headed leaders who can overcome their initial shock and act responsibly. Richard Clarke, who was also there on 9/11, doesn’t accept shock over the events as justification for the disastrous policy mistakes which followed. He writes in an op-ed:

Top officials from the Bush administration have hit upon a revealing new theme as they retrospectively justify their national security policies. Call it the White House 9/11 trauma defense.

“Unless you were there, in a position of responsibility after September 11, you cannot possibly imagine the dilemmas that you faced in trying to protect Americans,” Condoleezza Rice said last month as she admonished a Stanford University student who questioned the Bush-era interrogation program. And in his May 21 speech on national security, Dick Cheney called the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, a “defining” experience that “caused everyone to take a serious second look” at the threats to America. Critics of the administration have become more intense as memories of the attacks have faded, he argued. “Part of our responsibility, as we saw it,” Cheney said, “was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America.”

I remember that morning, too. Shortly after the second World Trade Center tower was hit, I burst in on Rice (then the president’s national security adviser) and Cheney in the vice president’s office and remember glimpsing horror on his face. Once in the bomb shelter, Cheney assembled his team while the crisis managers on the National Security Council staff coordinated the government response by video conference from the Situation Room. Many of us thought that we might not leave the White House alive. I remember the next day, too, when smoke still rose from the Pentagon as I sat in my office in the White House compound, a gas mask on my desk. The streets of Washington were empty, except for the armored vehicles, and the skies were clear, except for the F-15s on patrol. Every scene from those days is seared into my memory. I understand how it was a defining moment for Cheney, as it was for so many Americans.

Yet listening to Cheney and Rice, it seems that they want to be excused for the measures they authorized after the attacks on the grounds that 9/11 was traumatic. “If you were there in a position of authority and watched Americans drop out of eighty-story buildings because these murderous tyrants went after innocent people,” Rice said in her recent comments, “then you were determined to do anything that you could that was legal to prevent that from happening again.”

I have little sympathy for this argument. Yes, we went for days with little sleep, and we all assumed that more attacks were coming. But the decisions that Bush officials made in the following months and years — on Iraq, on detentions, on interrogations, on wiretapping — were not appropriate. Careful analysis could have replaced the impulse to break all the rules, even more so because the Sept. 11 attacks, though horrifying, should not have surprised senior officials. Cheney’s admission that 9/11 caused him to reassess the threats to the nation only underscores how, for months, top officials had ignored warnings from the CIA and the NSC staff that urgent action was needed to preempt a major al-Qaeda attack.

Clarke discussed specific ideas discussed, including invading Iraq, use of the U.S. courts and prisons to handle suspected terrorists, extreme interrogation methods, and wiretapping. While not discussed in detail in his op-ed, the Bush administration had also received warnings prior to the attack which they had ignored. He concluded:

Yes, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice may have been surprised by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — but it was because they had not listened. And their surprise led them to adopt extreme counterterrorism techniques — but it was because they rejected, without analysis, the tactics the Clinton administration had used. The measures they uncritically adopted, which they simply assumed were the best available, were in fact unnecessary and counterproductive.

“I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities,” Cheney said in his recent speech. But this defense does not stand up. The Bush administration’s response actually undermined the principles and values America has always stood for in the world, values that should have survived this traumatic event. The White House thought that 9/11 changed everything. It may have changed many things, but it did not change the Constitution, which the vice president, the national security adviser and all of us who were in the White House that tragic day had pledged to protect and preserve.

The purpose of a terrorist attack is to inflict terror upon the victims. They were far more successful than they might have anticipated considering the degree to which they inflicted terror upon top leaders in the Bush administration, leading them to take actions which were counterproductive to our national security and contrary to our principles.

 

Cheney Lost to Bush

Cheney Lost to Bush By DAVID BROOKS

I always enjoy reading articles where I gain new insight.

While I only agree with David Brooks 50% of the time, I always read his columns. Assuming that he has his facts right, he makes the case that there was a very serious & strong disagreement between George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Then he goes into how close Obama and GWB are pretty much on the same page.

President Obama and Dick Cheney conspired on Thursday to propagate a myth. The myth is that we lived through an eight-year period of Bush-Cheney anti-terror policy and now we have entered a very different period called the Obama-Biden anti-terror policy. As both Obama and Cheney understand, this is a completely bogus distortion of history.

Brooks posits that what most people think of as the Bush-Cheney era lasted only about 3 years. By 2005, the Bush-Rice-Hadley era had begun, and they were trying to close Gitmo.

Throughout the second Bush term, officials were trying to close Guantánamo, pleading with foreign governments to take some prisoners, begging senators to allow the transfer of prisoners onto American soil.

Then it gets more interesting, leaving the conventional wisdom (or lack thereof) behind. It’s really Bush who halted waterboarding, in opposition to what Cheney wanted.

Cheney and Obama might pretend otherwise, but it wasn’t the Obama administration that halted the practice of waterboarding. It was a succession of C.I.A. directors starting in March 2003, even before a devastating report by the C.I.A. inspector general in 2004.

Cheney, who sincerely believes he was right then, (and is right now), is now attacking the Bush administration, as well as the Obama administration - that is now adopting the same policies as Bush.

But then Brooks points out that Obama is correcting what GWB failed at - explaining his anti-terror policy in a way that people would understand.

The inauguration of Barack Obama has simply not marked a dramatic shift in the substance of American anti-terror policy. It has marked a shift in the public credibility of that policy.

Brooks defends Obama saying he has embraced almost all the strategies of the Bush years. He shows how in most cases, the Obama policy represents a continuation of or a gradual evolution from the final Bush policy.

He then quotes Jack Goldsmith, of The New Republic, describing what has been my biggest disappointment with GWB since 2003.

What Obama gets, and what President Bush never got, is that other people’s opinions matter. Goldsmith puts it well: “The main difference between the Obama and Bush administrations concerns not the substance of terrorism policy, but rather its packaging.   The Bush administration shot itself in the foot time and time again, to the detriment of the legitimacy and efficacy of its policies, by indifference to process and presentation. The Obama administration, by contrast, is intensely focused on these issues.”

I believe that if George Bush had explained day after day, week after week, month after month (albeit through the MSM filter that was determined to defeat him), things would have turned out much differently.

The very first day that Ted Kennedy accused GWB of “lying us into a war” and “misleading us,” and all the other Democrat lies that continued there after, Bush should have defended his actions and gone on offense. Or, at least on defence. But neither happened. And once the MSM picked up the narrative it was the beginning of the end of support for GWB’s terror policy which increased exponentially.

But now:

Obama has taken many of the same policies Bush ended up with, and he has made them credible to the country and the world.

Brooks, who has been quite enamored with Obama for some time, still makes a good case that I can agree with, on this subject. It’s the last sentence that I don’t buy, but that’s because of other factors.

Do I wish he had been more gracious with and honest about the Bush administration officials whose policies he is benefiting from? Yes. But the bottom line is that Obama has taken a series of moderate and time-tested policy compromises. He has preserved and reformed them intelligently. He has fit them into a persuasive framework. By doing that, he has not made us less safe. He has made us more secure.

Cross posted at: http://www.tomllewis.com/

Syndicate content