Filed under: Foreign Policy, Middle East, National Security, Politics | Tags: Democrat Demagogues, Politics, Terrorism
It is baffling to consider President Obama’s vapid reaction to the uprising in Iran. Even Congress was a embarrassed and pressed him to condemn the Iranian government’s response to the insurgents. Both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly to condemn the actions by the Iranian government against demonstrators and moves to shut down the internet and cell phone communications.
The Iranian regime is a nuclear-obsessed tyranny that has threatened regularly to exterminate Israel and to re-establish a world-wide Caliphate including American soil. Gosh, if we respond firmly, we might be accused of interfering, or imperialism. Oh, wait, they already did. The cry from Iran is always “Death to America.” If we were firm, who knows what the Iranian government might say. And the Europeans and the media, what would they say? And why would we care?
Why is it necessary after 230 years to remind anyone in our own government that Americans stand for liberty? We have a principled stand for freedom, democracy, free and fair elections and human rights. It was true in 1776, when a good many Americans put their lives on the line, and over and over again. It has been true in many parts of the world: in the Philippines, in France, in Berlin and Poland, in Kosovo and Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq. On Friday, President Obama spoke up to say that the huge demonstrations all over Iran “are not something that has to do with the outside world.” Yes, that’s why so many of the signs that the brave, unarmed protesters carried were in English.
Obama did call, Saturday, on the Iranian government to “stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people.” He is supposedly trying to preserve the possibility of negotiating directly with the Iranian government over its nuclear program, its links to terrorism and presumably its interference in Afghanistan and Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and elsewhere in the Middle East. The Iranian government has said it has no interest in meeting with President Obama, but hope, as they say, springs eternal.
Victor Davis Hanson has some wise suggestions for Obama, and some possible answers as to why Obama is avoiding the opportunities for supporting freedom that this rebellion has offered.
Filed under: Law, Military, National Security, Progressivism, Terrorism | Tags: Crime/Law Enforcement, Democrat Demagogues, Terrorism
Obama made a big deal during the campaign about Guantanamo. He thought he had an issue that would get him votes. On his second day in office, he signed an executive order that Guantanamo would be closed within a year. At the time, he had not visited Guantanamo, and I would venture, though I don’t know, that he has never met anyone who has visited Guantanamo. It was simply another bold step in his campaign to defeat George W. Bush for the Presidency.
The problem was that he had no idea what to do with the detainees. None. The “outrage” about Guantanamo comes from the detainees, who were trained to tell anyone they could that they were abused and the guards really, really mistreated them.
Osama bin Laden is many things, but he’s not a dummy. Even in the remote villages of Afghanistan, they know that the Americans are ever-so-sensitive to charges of abuse. Everyone who visits (except the radical lawyers representing detainees) comments on what a model prison it is, and the honorable treatment by the staff in spite of constant provocation. Treatment of detainees meets the standards of the Geneva Conventions, just as George W. Bush ordered long ago.
Under the new “Global Justice” Initiative, the FBI will now have a central role in global counter-terrorism operations. The FBI seemingly doesn’t have enough on their plate with ordinary federal crime and desperately trying to track down domestic terrorists and foil their plots. The role of the CIA and other intelligence agencies will diminish. I mean, who knows what the evil CIA has been up to?
FBI agents will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to insure that criminal prosecutions are an option. Does no one realize that 9/11 was a failure of our reliance on the criminal justice system? And is it really a good idea for terrorists to have “the right to remain silent?”
The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. The Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to start giving Miranda warnings to captured alien combatant terrorists.
You’ve heard them hundreds of times on TV. “You have the right to remain silent…” They are doing this to insure that captured terrorists can be prosecuted in court. But this does not guarantee that they can be convicted, and if they are not convicted — what then? Are they released into the United States? Or if not, where? Back to the battlefield to kill American soldiers?
ABC News’ Jake Tapper asked about that. Will the Obama administration free Ahmed Ghailani (the first terrorist brought to the US to be tried) if he is found not guilty? He asked it several times in yesterday’s press conference, but Robert Gibbs said “he wasn’t going to get into hypotheticals about how something may or may not play out.”
This has to be embarrassing for President Obama. Candidate Obama and new President Obama scoffed at claims that he wanted foreign terrorists to get Miranda protection on capture. You can find him saying so on YouTube. The confusion about what are military matters and what are legal matters is forcing Obama into an awkward corner. He wants to be sure that he appears more, um, pristine than President Bush and Darth Vader who tortured everybody, you know. If he cannot continue to remind everyone of how evil BushCheneyRumsfeld were, then people might not hate Republicans enough to reelect him.
Minor matters like protecting the American people no longer seem so important. With Bush out of the picture, then there won’t be any more terrorism, for surely young Muslim men flocked to bin Laden training camps only because they were radicalized by all the torture Bush did, or something like that.
U.S. Representative Mike Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. He said “The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he’s building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer — you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone.”
The Democrats’ story has long been (once 9/11 began to fade) that there wasn’t really any danger from terrorism, it was just the Republicans trying to scare us. But they have never been much interested in consequences.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Law, Military, National Security, Politics | Tags: Homeland Security, Terrorism
The Obama administration is repeating the national security mistakes of the Clinton Administration. Andy McCarthy, who prosecuted the first World Trade Center bombing and knows what he is talking about, writes at National Review Online:
On Thursday, Josh Meyer of the Los Angeles Times broke the story that the FBI is edging the CIA out of the business of fighting international terrorism. Under the bureau”s “global justice initiative, Meyer reported that “FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option.” Who needs a War on Terror, or even an “overseas contingency operation,” when all the world”s a crime scene?
If you’re thinking, “Hey, we’ve seen this movie before,” you”re right. Slowly but surely, it’s September 10 again, a retreat into Clinton-era counterterrorism, when radical Islam prosecuted a war while we tried to prosecute radical Islam in court, playing cops-and-robbers while jihadists played for keeps.
Do read the whole article. Dick Cheney was right. The Obama administration is weak on national security, and our enemies have noticed.
The administration’s problem is an inability to recognize the difference between a criminal matter and a military matter. They are not the same. Obama is not much interested in foreign affairs, and it shows. As Andy McCarthy says, “Yes, we’ve seen this movie before. And we know how it ends.”
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Middle East, National Security | Tags: Guantanamo Bay, Terrorism, War on Terror
With an uncooperative Congress refusing to appropriate funds to close Guantanamo, President Obama didn’t really want to make a national security speech. But he was being criticized by both Democrats and Republicans who believe that bringing the “worst of the worst” detainees from the detention center at Guantanamo Bay to the United States for trial and imprisonment is a bad idea. Obama really doesn’t like criticism.
And then there is Dick Cheney — Mr. Gravitas himself. Democrats have for years attempted to portray him as Darth Vader, but it simply doesn’t work. Vice President Cheney is above all a patriot, and concerned for the welfare of his country. He has served in government in many administrations with great distinction. He is no longer in office, he has nothing to gain from speaking publicly, no favor to seek, no elections to win or lose. He is a private citizen with vast experience who wished the present administration success in the current troubled world. He does not criticize President Obama, but merely explains why, in the Bush administration, they made the policy decisions that they did. It was a splendid speech and deeply illuminating, the actions that they took carefully explained.
Well. The usual suspects (who probably didn’t either hear or read the speech) were immediately out there foaming at the mouth, calling Mr. Cheney all the usual names.
President Obama’s speech was surprisingly defensive, and deeply dishonest. But one wonders why Obama feels it necessary to constantly denounce his predecessor, who was extremely gracious to him, helping him to meet all the living presidents in private and ask their advice, making the transition easy and comfortable. I guess Obama is just another far-left sufferer from BDS. But the campaign is over. Bush has returned to private life, and Bush is not responsible for the financial problems. It’s time for Obama to take responsibility for his own actions, and deal with the problems that he finds on his plate, without whining, as all past presidents have had to do.
The necessity for closing Guantanamo is a mystery. So the French don’t like it — so what? If Gitmo, a state-of-the-art facility, is reduced to rubble and all detainees incarcerated in our maximum security prison, the French still won’t commit any more troops to Afghanistan, take any more of our prisoners, or commit any more funds. They don’t care about Guantanamo at all; it’s only the usual European demagoguery.
Attorney General Holder was in Europe recently trying to get European governments to accept some of our detainees. He was addressing a group of journalists, professors and others, and someone in the audience asked “Why can’t you just put the innocent ones in a hotel?” As if there were innocents there.
This demonstrates the problem. Those who have some foggy idea that the Iraq War was “unnecessary”, that our policies “created” terrorists, and why did we have to mess with Saddam anyway, are so far from grasping the basic nature of the problem that it is perhaps impossible to explain. Obama is beginning to grasp the nature of the detainees and to understand that there are some that, although vicious and dangerous, have not officially committed a crime. They are military prisoners, detained because in an ongoing war they cannot be returned to the battlefield to kill Americans. Of those already released, one in seven has returned to fighting with al Qaeda.
A lot of thought and study went into the construction of the facility at Gitmo. A lot of propaganda effort by those opposed to the war went into an attempt to make it appear as something evil. So re-brand it. Change the name. If we can continue the war by calling it an “overseas contingency operation”, then call the detention center the Caribbean Detainee Resort, The Reeducation College for Contingency Guests. Suggestions are welcome. No prizes.
Here is Vice President Cheney, plain-spoken, honest and full of gravitas:
Filed under: Freedom, Law, National Security, Politics, Terrorism | Tags: Culture War, Democrat Demagogues, Homeland Security, Terrorism
(click image to view full size)
“The Obama administration is confused.” writes Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard.
The president says harsh interrogation techniques “do not make us safer,” but his top intelligence adviser says the same techniques produced “high-value information” that gave the U.S. government “a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.
Obama White House officials routinely boast that theirs is “the most transparent administration in history,” but then they release Justice Department memos about the interrogations in which the assessments confirming the value of those techniques are blacked out.
Attorney General Eric Holder tells a congressional committee that he is unaware of memos about the information gleaned in harsh interrogations that have been requested by former Vice President Dick Cheney, but his boss, the president, not only knows about those memos but also describes their contents to members of Congress.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says the administration could support an independent investigation of interrogation techniques based on the 9/11 Commission. Then he says that Obama decided long ago that such an investigation would be too political.
In the National Journal Stuart Taylor Jr. says “The review should start by taking seriously the views of the people with the most-detailed knowledge. They say that the coercive interrogation program was highly effective.
Michael Hayden, Bush’s last CIA director and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey recently wrote, “As late as 2006, fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those interrogations.” Former CIA Director George Tenent has said,”I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program is worth more than [what] the FBI, the [CIA], and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.” Former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has said, “We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened.”
Marc Thiessen notes that: Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques “led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’
to use East Asian East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles.” KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that “information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave’.”In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.
“Admiral Dennis Blair, the top intelligence official in the United States” says Stephen Hayes,
believes that the coercive interrogation methods outlawed by his boss produced “high-value information” and gave the U.S. government “a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” He included those assessments in a letter distributed inside the intelligence community last Thursday, the same day Obama declassified and released portions of Justice Department memos setting out guidelines for those interrogations.
That letter from Blair served as the basis for a public statement that his office put out that same day. But the DNI’s conclusions about the results of coercive interrogations — in effect, that they worked — were taken out of Blair’s public statement. …
The letter included this language: “From 2002 through 2006 when the use of these techniques ended, the leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to Executive Branch policy makers and to members of Congress and received permission granted by “members of Congress” — permission that came from members of Obama’s own party.
Dick Cheney: “This is the first time that I can recall that we’ve had an administration come in, take power, and then suggest using the power of the government against their predecessors, from a legal standpoint. Criminal prosecution of lawyers in the Justice Department whose opinions they disagreed with on an impor”crimitant issue. Criminal prosecutions. When was the last time that happened?”
Porter J. Goss, former CIA director: “Since leaving my post as CIA director almost three years ago, I have remained largely silent on the public stage. I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can’t have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets.”
It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.
The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.
- We understood what the CIA was doing.
- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.
- We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.
- On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.
Should the winner of a presidential election attempt to use the enormous powers of his office to investigate and prosecute his political adversaries? Will this begin a cycle of retribution in which policy disputes are to be criminalized? And will this tear the country apart?
Filed under: History, Military, Movies, Terrorism | Tags: Military, Political Correctness/Multiculturalism, Terrorism
People approach events differently. Some lean into a crisis, want to know all about it. Others dissemble. If it is scary, they don’t want any part of it.
For example, take war movies. Some people don’t want to see anything that contains violence. Others want to know as much as they can about an event, even as it is not very accurately portrayed in a movie where there is no real blood or real bullets.
Supposedly it is women who don’t want to see, hear, or think about violence. I don’t know if that is true, though I know it to be true for many of my friends. I assume that is where the “chick flick” vs. “war movie” division between men and women came about. But then I’ve heard “eeuw, gross!” from plenty of guys as well.
That goes for other worrisome things as well, such as economic crisis, natural disasters and politics.
I have always been of the former kind. I read military history, read everything I can find about the current economic crisis and the stimulus bill, am afraid of neither spiders or snakes, and am decidedly female. Are little girls taught by their mothers to jump on a chair and say “eek!” at spiders or mice? My mother was much like I am, though I don’t know about the war movie part. Perhaps I am just more my father’s daughter.
My bookshelves are a testament to those interests. The Rape of Nanking, Survival in Auschwitz, The Battle Cry of Freedom, Saratoga, A Soldier’s Tale, House to House, With the Old Breed, or Black Hawk Down, for example. Probably my all-time favorite books have been Patrick O’Brien’s Aubrey-Maturin series of 20 books on the Royal Navy in the 1700s. I have read them over and over, as have many historians, and recommend them to anyone who likes to read. But the 18th century in the Royal Navy was decidedly bloody.
I have always known from the pictures of refugees streaming from the cities and bombs of World War II, that that could be me. That the unexpected could happen. Yet I suspect most people don’t think like that.
I also believe that many people simply do not want to know about the Stimulus Bill, what it contains, or what it portends for the country. I have been shocked at members of Congress and their aides who did not read the bill that they voted for.
There are columns by college professors concerned because their students don’t read, and suggestions that television, the internet and new media like Facebook, Twitter and Kindle are changing Americans’ relationship with words and understanding.
How about you? Do you fear or enjoy violence? Snakes and spiders? Are these things related? Do you want to know everything you can about a problem or would you prefer not to know if you feel that you can’t do anything about it? War movies, chick flicks? What is learned and what is innate? And does thinking or reading about frightening things or big crises prepare you a little better for actual things that happen?
Filed under: Foreign Policy, History, News, Terrorism | Tags: Election 2008, Iran, Terrorism
Months before his election, Mr. Obama apparently started to cultivate improved relations with the mullahs of Iran. A senior campaign adviser, former Clinton administration Defense Secretary William Perry met repeatedly with a representative of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (The Holocaust-denying, genocide supporting “gentleman”).
According to Frank Gafney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy, Obama’s special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke has hired as a senior adviser Professor Vali Reza Nasr — an Iranian expatriate with a record of shilling for the Islamic Revolutionary Iranian regime.
According to GeostrategyDirect.com, a newsletter published by The Washington Times national security reporter Bill Gertz:
“Diplomatic sources said that Barack Obama has engaged several Arab intermediaries to relay messages to and from as Qaeda in the months before his election as the 44th U.S. President. The sources said al Qaeda has offered what they termed a truce in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. ‘For the last few months, Obama has been receiving and sending feelers to those close to al Qaeda on whether the group would end its terrorist campaign against the United States,’ a diplomatic source said. ‘Obama sees this as helpful to his plans to essentially withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq during his first term in office.'”
President Obama’s first post-inaugural interview was with Al Arabiya, a Saudi-owned network. He said he was determined to “restore” the “same respect and partnership America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”
Shades of the Dixie Chicks. Charles Krauthammer pointed out that over the past 20 years:
America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. … It is both false and injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized.
It’s unclear just what President Obama hopes to accomplish with his ‘good intentions.’ Islamists are not alone in interpreting it as weakness.