5 Questions our Beaming President Needs to Answer on the Death of Osama bin Laden

May 04 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

President Obama is basking in the after-glow of the successful operation that led to the demise of Osama bin Laden. As I have said previously, he deserves credit for making the gutsy decision to use a Navy SEAL team to take Bin Laden down. Of course, the lion’s share of the credit belongs to the special operations forces themselves, who overcame immense odds to mount the incredibly risky attack ordered by their commander-in-chief. However, as President Obama savors the high point of his time in office to date, there are some questions that he needs to answer to the American people. Here are just a few of them. 1. Does the president have any change of heart about the harsh criticisms he leveled at his predecessor for using renditions of suspected terrorist detainees and enhanced interrogation techniques in light of the crucial information they yielded on the identity of bin Laden’s trusted courier, which in turn led us to locate Bin Laden himself? Since taking office, President Obama has largely followed the counter-terrorism policies of President George W. Bush, despite criticizing them while campaigning to succeed Bush. Guantanamo remains open. Military commissions are still being used by the Obama administration to try some detained terrorist suspects. Renditions and indefinite detentions of high risk suspects without trial have continued. It’s time for President Obama to admit that he was wrong in castigating the Bush administration during the campaign and acknowledge the continuity of Bush’s policies that are necessary to fight an evil foe determined to kill as many Americans as possible. 2. Why have there been so many conflicting reports on what happened during the mission? First we were told by the president’s chief counterterrorism adviser , John O. Brennan , who reportedly observed the mission in real time from a live feed transmitted by the Navy Seals as it went down, that Bin Laden had a firearm which he was using when confronted and shot. Brennan said in his initial account that Bin Laden was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in We were also told that he used one of his wives as a human shield. The next day we learned that Bin Laden was not carrying a weapon when he was killed by our forces, but was somehow resisting arrest. We also learned that Bin Laden had not used any human shield. Given the fog of war in a fast-moving operation, why did Brennan speak with such certainty in the first place on what happened when apparently he did not know the whole story? Was there an attempt to justify killing Bin Laden, rather than taking him into custody, in order to satisfy international law sticklers including President Obama himself?  Will the Obama administration, in its usual deference to the United Nations, comply with the request from the UN’s senior human rights official, Navi Pillay , for detailed information on the operation to confirm its ‘legality?’ 3. Why did the Obama administration show such concern in handling and disposing of bin Laden’s body to make sure it conformed to Islamic law? President Obama said in his speech to the nation on Sunday night that “Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. If Bin Laden represented a perversion of Islam, why obsess that he be buried within 24 hours and cleansed in accordance with Islamic law? Why not bury him in an unmarked grave or drop him into the sea to live with the fishes after making absolutely sure that we have confirmed his identity? 4. What are we going to do about double-dealing Pakistan where al Qaeda terrorists are finding sanctuary? Shouldn’t we re-focus our efforts in the region from counter-insurgency, nation-building in Afghanistan to more limited counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan and Yemen where our enemy is now concentrated? The Obama administration wisely left Pakistan in the dark about the Bin Laden mission until it was completed. Elements of Pakistan’s military and intelligence services have a record of working with the Taliban and al Qaeda. There is no way that bin Laden could have been hiding in a town filled with Pakistani military facilities and within yards of Pakistan’s equivalent of West Point without the knowledge and support of members of Pakistan’s military and intelligence service. Advance information about the operation in the wrong hands would have ensured the failure of the mission and could well have brought about significant casualties to our forces. After initially praising the killing of Bin Laden as a “major setback to terrorist organizations around the world,” the Pakistan government issued a statement yesterday complaining that the United States had undertaken an “unauthorized unilateral action.” It’s time for a major push back against this fair weather, duplicitous ‘ally.’ Is the Obama administration planning to revisit the billions of dollars Pakistan receives each year from our country? Will we continue, and even expand our counter-terrorist operations in Pakistan, including continued drone attacks and commando raids, without seeking Pakistan’s permission as their treacherous government demands? And aren’t we wasting billions of dollars and sacrificing the lives of our soldiers trying to re-build Afghanistan when the global terrorist networks threatening America are now operating out of Pakistan and Yemen, not Afghanistan? 5. Finally, will the Obama administration continue to mistakenly look at radical Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and their U.S. affiliates such as the Council of American Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America benignly, distinguishing them from al Qaeda, even though they are using more stealth means towards the same Islamic supremist agenda to impose sharia law as broadly as possible? President Obama can take pride in his accomplishment of ridding the world of Osama bin Laden. But the American people deserve answers to these and other difficult questions in the days, weeks and months to come. Joseph Klein is the author of a recent book entitled Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam

Read more here:
5 Questions our Beaming President Needs to Answer on the Death of Osama bin Laden

No responses yet

Afghanistan Murder Apologists Reid & Graham Call for Free Speech Limits & Koran Burning Inquiry

Apr 04 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress, Senate

From Newsreal’s That’s What She Said blog. Please follow us on Twitter and subscribe to our feed ! This is  utterly revolting : U.S. lawmakers said Sunday they would consider a request by Afghan President  Hamid Karzai to formally condemn a Florida pastor’s decision to burn the Koran, after the act triggered deadly riots in  Afghanistan . Note that once again it is being said that one act – the burning of paper – “triggered” the deadly riots. Not the ideology nor the people who committed the acts, of course. Reid flat-out says that Terry Jones caused the murders — murders committed at the hands of other people. People are apparently so simple-minded that they cannot think for themselves and cannot possibly know the difference between right and wrong. Senate Majority Leader  Harry Reid repudiated pastor Terry Jones for touching off the chaos with what he called a “publicity stunt.” Jones had earlier threatened to burn the Koran, but then shelved the plan until last month. The burning attracted little U.S. attention at the time but was used as a rallying cry in Afghanistan. “This was an effort to get some publicity for him. He got it. But in the process, 10-20 people have been killed,” Reid said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Asked whether Congress could pass a resolution condemning it, he said, “We’ll take a look at this.” You’ll take a look at this? Hey, I have a better idea. Why not take a look at  why you constantly make excuses for barbarism and evil acts ? Why not take a look at, you know, history and see that murderous rampages and beheadings happen all the time – somehow occurring without some obscure pastor burning a book. Lindsey Graham, who for some inexplicable reason has not been banned by the GOP from appearing on Sunday shows also jumps on the apologist/excuse making bandwagon: Sen.  Lindsey Graham , R-S.C., suggested Congress should condemn the burning, but also stressed that one pastor’s actions should not excuse the subsequent killings. “Burning a Koran is a terrible thing, but it doesn’t justify killing someone. Burning a Bible would be a terrible thing, but it wouldn’t justify murder,” he said. “But having said that, any time we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk, we ought to do it.” You know what puts our troops at risk, Lindsey? Evil barbarians. It also puts them at risk when you remain willfully ignorant to that fact and, instead, attempt to put the blame on others. Quashing our freedom of speech by having the American government condemn the exercise thereof does nothing to protect our troops. In fact, it spits on the very freedoms for which they fight. Harry Reid went even further and said there  may have to be hearings on Koran burnings. Lindsey Graham not only wants to condemn the exercise of free speech, but may want to actually limit it. He wants to take away rights from American citizens — to appease people who wish to kill us .  On Face The Nation today (video above) he said “Freedom of speech is  a great idea, but we’re in a war.” So much for that pesky old Constitution, I suppose.

Continue reading here:
Afghanistan Murder Apologists Reid & Graham Call for Free Speech Limits & Koran Burning Inquiry

No responses yet

President Obama Continues To Get A Free Pass For His War Policies From Most (But Not all) On The Left

Mar 23 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress

President Barack Obama has launched a third war in a Muslim country, expanded the war in Afghanistan and is continuing many of the national security policies of former President George W. Bush, including keeping Guantanamo open, indefinite detentions of enemy combatants, rendition and military trials. Civilians continue to be killed by U.S. and NATO military forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, in just the last few days, photos have begun to be released of atrocious crimes against Afghan civilians, allegedly committed last year by American soldiers . Nevertheless, most of the Obama administration’s Left-wing supporters are still in the fold, remaining silent when the same sort of conduct during the Bush years brought an unrelenting stream of vitriolic condemnations against George W. Bush. True, Obama  is beginning to face a few challenges from the hard Left . However,  his progressive base is mostly sticking with him for now. One challenger on the Left is Ralph Nader , who has called for President Obama’s impeachment, saying he is responsible for war crimes in the Middle East. In an interview with the anti-war group Democracy Now!, Nader compared Obama to Bush: Why don’t we say what’s on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes; and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached. “[Bush officials] were considered war criminals by many people. Now, Barack Obama is committing the same crimes. In fact, worse ones in Afghanistan. Innocents are being slaughtered, we are creating more enemies, he is violating international law. Rep. Dennis Kucinich , the seven-term Left-wing Democratic congressman from Ohio said President Obama committed an “impeachable offense” in deciding to authorize U.S. airstrikes over Libya without the consent of Congress: President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn’t have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said. I’m raising the question as to whether or not it’s an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense. Medea Benjamin , the co-founder of Code Pink, said on the “O’Reilly Factor” last night that she opposed Obama’s decision to go to war in Libya. There have also been scattered anti-war protests against American involvement in the war against Col. Moammar Qaddafi’s forces. However, these challengers to President Obama’s policies from the hard Left are the outliers. The core of Obama’s Left-wing base appears to be remaining in his corner for the most part, at least for now. His supporters in the media and the Democratic Party are giving him the benefit of the doubt, which they never extended to George W. Bush. The last time I checked Moveon.org’s website, for example, I saw nothing from this self-described anti-war group condemning Obama’s attack on Libya . If this had been George W. Bush and he had acted without any Congressional authorization, Moveon.org would have gone for his head by now. The New York Times ran an editorial yesterday supporting Obama’s Libyan war, following the support it had expressed for Obama’s Afghan war surge decision in December 2009. By contrast, the Times savaged every war-related decision that George W. Bush made, including the successful surge in Iraq that turned the tide of that war in our favor. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow gave Obama a pass because he was a “reluctant” warrior who sought international consensus first. The fact that he neglected to consult with Congress in any serious way mattered not to her. What has even more dramatically demonstrated the double-standard of Obama’s apologists is the revelation, reported by the British newspaper The Guardian , that members of a self-styled U.S. Army “kill team” in Afghanistan last year posed for photos with corpses of civilians they allegedly tortured and killed. This happened on Obama’s watch. The photos, Guardian reporter Jon Boone wrote, were published in German news weekly Der Spiegel . They are reportedly worse than the images of U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib in Iraq, for which the mainstream media and Democratic Party leaders blamed President Bush. The New York Times , which alone published 56 stories on the Abu Ghraib scandal, many on its front page, and ran editorial after editorial excoriating Bush, has barely mentioned these latest photos. In yesterday’s Times , an article appeared on p. 4, under the headline “Photos Imperil U.S. Relations With Afghans.” I didn’t see any article on the subject in today’s Times . Nor has the Times chosen to run any editorials yet. Joe Klein of Time Magazine had accused George W. Bush and Dick Cheny of running a profoundly un-American administration Joe Klein went on to claim that Bush’s policies “led directly to the abuses” of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Although Klein did offer some mild criticism of Obama’s decision to intervene militarily in Libya, where has Klein been on the latest revelations of civilian abuse in Afghanistan during the Obama administration? As of his last post yesterday on the Swampland blog, Klein has said nothing about it. All of this proves that, with limited exceptions, the Left’s rants against President Bush were not motivated by sincere anti-war principles, but only by a desire to destroy Bush’s presidency for partisan purposes. The Left’s double standard is alive and well. Joseph Klein is the author of a recent book entitled Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam

Read more:
President Obama Continues To Get A Free Pass For His War Policies From Most (But Not all) On The Left

No responses yet

Negotiating a Ceasefire to the Afghanistan Study Group War

Sep 15 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Thought a political settlement to the insurgency in Afghanistan was going to be hard to come by? Should be a cakewalk compared to negotiating a ceasefire to the firefight that’s been going on this week between the authors of the Afghanistan Study Group report and its critics. But since I hate to see people I like and whose work I admire engaged in such a bitter argument, I’ll give it a try. The initial withering assault by Joshua Foust can be found here, as well as more constructive criticism from Michael Cohen here , and Andrew Exum here . This follow-up post by Foust has links to all the principals’ responses, as well as further criticism from other informed observers. In the interests of transparency, my professional editorial relationship with Foust, Exum and Cohen has developed into friendships with all of them, and I’ve also edited and ran articles on the WPR front page by Justin Logan, Bernard Finel and Steve Clemons (and gladly would again). Also in the interests of transparency, I’ve only read excerpts of the ASG report, mainly because I, like most of the report’s critics, am in agreement with regard to its broad conclusions (i.e., the excerpts I have read): The current approach to Afghanistan is not working, and there is a mismatch between resources applied and strategic interests involved. The major criticism of the report has been that its analysis is based more on Washington tropes than on ground-level knowledge of Afghanistan and the war effort, and that as a result, its policy recommendations do not offer a realistic or effective alternative to the current failed approach. Its authors defend themselves and the report against these charges by either denying their accuracy or arguing that the report is meant more to influence the current policy debate on a “big picture, grand strategy” level than to present a detailed action plan. Unfortunately, as Exum already noted, this bruising debate is taking place out in the public arena, instead of in a conference room during an early draft stage of the document, because it seems clear to this sympathetic (to all sides) observer that these differences are not only reconcilable, but potentially complementary. To my mind, the problem that the debate reveals, and that no one has addressed so far, is the degree to which Afghanistan now represents policy paralysis: We cannot achieve our goals with our current approach, but we can neither afford the costs that a fully resourced approach would entail, nor accept the risks that a more limited approach would expose us to. What’s more, because of the uncertainty of outcomes in Afghanistan, you could interchange the verb clauses of that sentence in all the various permutations, and it still holds up. Unfortunately, that paralysis, combined with the kind of internecine fighting going on now over the ASG report, favors the default position, which is the current approach. And that’s before Gen. David Petraeus has even begun his anticipated campaign to either postpone the July 2011 troop drawdown or request even further U.S. troop commitments. Clearly, the ASG report was an effort to shore up the argument that the risks involved with downsizing our footprint in Afghanistan are manageable. I happen to agree with that premise, even if I probably could not defend it to the satisfaction of the report’s critics any better than the ASG report did. My hunch, though, is that everyone is partly right here. The report’s authors underestimated the degree to which this kind of document has to win over the issue and area experts in order to enjoy credibility among the non-experts (like myself) who follow this debate. And its critics overestimate the degree to which the “in the weeds” reality on the ground is going to influence either the political debate in Washington or public opinion in general. In U.S. politics, as in counterinsurgency, perception and narrative are the most powerful tools to drive fence-sitters into picking a side. Petraeus understands that when it comes to COIN tactics, both in-theater and domestically. Until opponents of the U.S. military commitment in Afghanistan demonstrate a similar understanding, it will be very difficult to transform popular dissatisfaction with the war into support for ending it.

Here is the original post:
Negotiating a Ceasefire to the Afghanistan Study Group War

No responses yet

America’s Shield After 9/11: The War on Terror’s Unknown Heroes

Sep 11 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

They are called the Shadow Warriors. Like the military they go willingly into harm’s way. However, unlike their military brethren, they serve without public recognition. Their names will never be known and they will never get the public gratitude so many others who fight the War on Terror receive. The essence of heroism is to put the interests of America ahead of your own and that is precisely what these brave men and women did who served in the intelligence agency. Some have sacrificed their lives. On Wednesday December 30th, 2009, CIA officials were murdered and others were critically wounded at the Camp Chapman base in the eastern Khost province of Afghanistan on the Pakistan border. Retired CIA officer Rob Richer and his wife Kim decided to ride across America on their bikes to honor the fallen, beginning on September 11th. To raise money and awareness he came up with the idea of Pedaling for Patriots where they will bike from Jacksonville Beach, Florida to San Diego, California. NewsRealBlog interviewed him about the project and his feelings about September 11th. NewsRealBlog: What were your responsibilities in the CIA? Robert Richer: I had a varied and exciting career in the CIA’s clandestine service. As you can understand, there are limits on how much detail I can provide publicly. It is safe to say that I spent the bulk of my 20 plus years with the Agency serving overseas in locations like Yemen, Tunisia, Nepal, Jordan and Oman. My wife Kim raised our three terrific kids in locations around the world. As hard as it is being a CIA officer overseas, the job of a CIA mom is even harder. Toward the end of my career I held a series of positions at the Agency headquarters involving things like Iraq planning, chief of Middle East operations, and finally as the number two person in the Directorate of Operations. NRB: Please address the fact that the CIA officials who died in the line of duty are the unknown heroes. They and their families can’t get the national recognition or public gratitude other heroes get. Robert Richer: Because of the sensitivity of what they do, many CIA officers must remain anonymous even in death. About 40 percent of the 102 stars etched on the Agency’s Wall of Honor represent people whose identities still cannot be publicly revealed.(Each star representing someone who has died in the line of duty) The American people are wonderful about how they reach out and support the families of the military fallen. This is how it should be. Unfortunately, the families of some CIA officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice are unable to receive the same full measure of public support in their hour of grief. This is a reality the CIA officers willingly accept when they enter the clandestine service.

See more here:
America’s Shield After 9/11: The War on Terror’s Unknown Heroes

No responses yet

Is Florida Pastor Just Threatening Koran Burning to Prove Violence of Islam?

Sep 11 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

So far the only fires set aren't by Koran burners but angry protesters. There has been a firestorm of coverage the past few days on Pastor Terry Jones and the Dove Outreach Center’s plans for a Koran burning on 9-11.  As of right now it appears plans to torch the Muslim holy books has at least been suspended and possibly canceled .  There have been grave warnings of potential violence if the Korans are reduced to ashes. What hasn’t gotten much attention is specific threats of terror and the actual destruction and deaths caused by Muslim protesters around the world.  And it may just be that the Florida pastor planned the Koran burning just to reveal to the world how vicious the reaction of Islamists would be around the world.  I’m not sure the pastor, whose central message has always been that Islam is evil, ever even planned to actually burn a single book.  Pastor Jones may have wanted to simply prove his main message of an evil Islam to the world.  He may have tipped his hand on Friday when he told the press: “We’re pointing the finger at the wrong person.  I haven’t even done anything. I think it reveals … the violence in Islam. Just the mere mentioning of it, just the threat, causes them to kill people, to protest, to say they are going to kill the president. I think it is quite obvious that what we are saying is definitely, definitely true.” – Terry Jones Jones was responding to violent protests in Afghanistan on Friday.  In Western Afghanistan hundreds surrounded the NATO base there and soldiers had to defend the base.  At least one civilian was killed and three were wounded.  In Northern Afghanistan another NATO building was charged by angry Muslims and at least five protesters were wounded and three police officers were hurt.  All of this violence took place after Terry Jones had announced the Koran burning was suspended.  Fires also burned across the troubled nation but it wasn’t books being burnt, it was cars and buildings. Afghanistan isn’t the only example of extreme violent reactions to the mere possibility of some small, so-called church burning a pile of holy books.  In England some British Muslims have promised to burn U.S. flags outside the American embassy on 9-11.  Thousands of protesters in Indonesia held signs promising Jihad if the Korans are burnt.  In Pakistan, even after the Koran burning was suspended, hundreds of angry Muslims burned American flags, called for the hanging of Terry Jones, and shouted “death to America”. Somehow I wonder if that kook Terry Jones is smiling behind closed doors telling folks: I told you so.  A fifty person anti-Islam religious cult claiming to be a church has won the attention of the world.  World leaders have contacted Jones and spoken to the media about the need for Jones to relent.  And the reaction throughout many parts of the Muslim world has been violence and promises of more violence.  And what does that violence do?  For Jones, it proves he was right all along.  The promise of burning books has led to not only threats of Jihad but actual killings, fires, and hatred.

Read the original post:
Is Florida Pastor Just Threatening Koran Burning to Prove Violence of Islam?

No responses yet

Afghan Protests Against Koran Burning Turn Violent (New York Times)

Sep 10 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

New York Times : Afghan Protests Against Koran Burning Turn Violent

No responses yet

Hugh Hefner and Friends: Obama Is Not Radical Enough for Hollywood’s Taste

Sep 09 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress, Senate

Back in the good old days, before Obamacare became law, much hay was made of poll numbers indicating the majority of Americans were against it . The dramatic election of Scott Brown to the Senate seat previously held by the late Ted Kennedy was likewise seen as a referendum against Obamacare. The simple analysis was that everyone who opposed the planned health care reform preferred a free market solution. That assumption was incorrect. A significant amount of the opposition to Obamacare was from radical leftists who wanted “ single payer now .” As mind-numbing as it may be to contemplate, a similar trend is now apparent in President Obama’s overall rating. The 46% approval number is not entirely due to moderates and conservatives. Many in Hollywood are upset because Obama has not moved us toward their imagined leftist utopia fast enough. These voices ought to concern us a great deal, since the actions of the Obama administration, and their allies in Congress, have been dismissive of both the will of the people and the rule of law . FOXNews.com interviewed several celebrities over the past several weeks who supported Obama’s candidacy. A year-and-change into his first term, many are expressing disappointment regarding his positions on such issues as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, gay marriage, health care and the economy , among other things. Playboy founder Hugh Hefner is upset that the slow pace with which the President has moved troops out of combat operations overseas. “We need to get out of the wars, we’re going through the same thing as Vietnam right now,” Hefner told Pop Tarts. “We can’t please the world and all we do is make enemies.” Hefner’s stated concern is indicative of many who protested the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush administration. He here breaks ranks with the Obama faithful by saying it out loud. Actress Rose McGowan is peeved that the President is, in her point of view, so “moderate” when going up against Republicans, and that he is yet to make gay marriage the “national law…” How frightening is that? McGowan is apparently under the impression the president can legislate. Worse, she seems unfamiliar with the limitations the Ninth and Tenth Amendments place upon the federal government.

Here is the original post:
Hugh Hefner and Friends: Obama Is Not Radical Enough for Hollywood’s Taste

No responses yet

Older posts »