Wasting Time With Alex
Homeland Security
Defense from terror attacks.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
WikiLeaks redux
Unless you live in a cave somewhere - not Afghanistan or Pakistan of course, because if you are there, your co-conspirators in the MSM are keeping you in the loop, and letting you now how well your joint war on civilization is going - you have heard about the big WikiLeaks document dump. The real big revelation?
A trove of military documents made public on Sunday by an organization called WikiLeaks reflects deep suspicions among American officials that Pakistan’s military spy service has for years guided the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand, even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants.
Yawn! As if this was not obvious already. Maybe we need to talk more to the Pakis and cut off their funding. Let their Chinese buddies pay for them. Military investigators are checking computers used by Pfc. Bradley Manning, who somehow made it into an intelligence analyst slot, and then got charged this month with leaking this classified information for whatever idiotic reason. I hope that he spends a lot of time in Leavenworth, being “loved long time” at a minimum, or hangs for this treasonous act. The MSM, and especially these losers, are an enemy of this state.
Anyway, the left is dead set in pretending these documents show war crimes. Of course these morons would not know a war crime if it bit them in the arse, and only believe that the US or other NATO troops can commit war crimes - where else have we heard something just like that, huh? - anyway, so take it all with a grain of salt. As I suspected, this moron released mostly boring and low level contact reports, and while it is obvious that there will be information that is damaging to security, the troops, and operations, I doubt there will be anything that is going to satisfy the left’s need for a grand conspiracy and rampant war crimes after this revelation about the documents classification status made it obvious that:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Monday that its review of the leak of secret military documents on the war in Afghanistan would take “days if not weeks” and that it was too soon to assess their damage. WikiLeaks, an organization promoting the leaking of information to fight corporate and government corruption, on Sunday said it released 91,000 U.S. military documents on the war stretching back to 2004.
This Australian newspaper also seems not to know WikiLeaks is one giant joke where fake is real and not give them so much legitimacy, but who then again, it doesn’t fit the narrative. Speaking of narrative, check out this beat down:
Well, the issue of civilian casualties is a major one and the U.S. has taken a lot of criticism because of this. However, what’s interesting to note that is according to the documents, 195 Afghan civilians have been killed. But also according to the documents, two thousand Afghan civilians have been killed by the Taliban, which is more than ten times the number said to be killed by U.S. and NATO forces. And very little is being made of that.
I have been asking the same question. Why is the western media obsessed with how many people we kill but always giving these barbarians a pass? At a minimum it puts into serious doubt their motives and makes it clear that there is an agenda, and then not a good one. When the agenda is that leaks that compromise lefty reporters and their agenda is bad, but any leaks that kill American troops and hampers America’s ability to fight wars against evil people while helping those fighting America is good, you have a problem. In case you are not seeing the obvious swipe here, I am discussing the left’s reaction to the t revelations about Journolist and their shenanigans, up and including their collusion to defend and elect the idiot now living in the WH, versus the reaction from the left about the release of documents intended to hurt American troops during a war.
Don’t you worry though! The left will have someone on their side cook up the facts just right. Maybe they can get Oliver Stone to do it for them after he reforms Hitler’s & Stalin’s images so the left no longer needs to remember that these two collectivists combined to kill close to a hundred million people in a war, and that Stalin fellow killed a few tens of millions more of his own people and a few hundred million more, leaving billions in chains, as their filthy collectivist ideology spread across the globe.
Conflicts & Wars • War on Terror • Homeland Security • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Bold admission that Iran going nuclear is bad..
Israel has had nuclear weapons now for a few decades, and short of the usual nutjob demanding the Jews be pushed into the sea and the land reclaimed, non of its Arab nations have ever felt the need to build nukes to protect themselves. As anyone that hasn’t been living under a rock knows, that sentiment has not been extended to Iran, a fellow traveler and the nation vying for the title of top Jew hater, which has nuclear ambitions. In fact, Iran’s Arab neighbors are all either contemplating nuclear programs of their own - something they never felt compelled to do to keep up with Israel, or flat out pointing out that only idiots think anything short of force will deter Iran at this point.
ASPEN, Colo. | The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran’s nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose. In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran’s nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country’s quest for nuclear weapons. “I think it’s a cost-benefit analysis,” Mr. al-Otaiba said. “I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion … there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what.”
“If you are asking me, ‘Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,’ my answer is still the same: ‘We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.’ I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E.” Mr. al-Otaiba made his comments in response to a question after a public interview session with the Atlantic magazine at the Aspen Ideas Festival here. They echo those of some Arab diplomats who have said similar things in private to their American counterparts but never this bluntly in public. The remarks surprised many in the audience.
Emphasis mine on that last bit. See, the only people surprised by this are the morons that also still believe talk can make a difference. That the problem here isn’t that Iran is run by destructive madmen, but that we (meaning that aggressive America of the Bush age) are the evil ones. This Ambassador has basically admitted that at least his country, the UAE, knows that nothing short of force will deter Iran at this point, and that Iran’s terror supporting/enabling leadership is pursuing these weapons so it can use the shield it will provide them, to escalate that support. And he has done it in public. He knows Iran will cause mayhem in this region if they go nuclear. Don’t take my word for this:
The ambassador also said that “talk of containment and deterrence really concerns me and makes me very nervous.” He said Iran has not been deterred from supporting terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah now, when it doesn’t have a nuclear arsenal. So why, he asked rhetorically, would Iran be more cautious in its support for terrorism if it did.
Exactly! Why does Iran need nukes if it has gotten away with this stuff already? The only thing that makes any kind of sense is that Iran plans to escalate, not reduce its efforts and the problems that its proxies are causing, and it thinks that nuclear umbrella will protect it from what happened to Saddam in Iraq or the Taliban in Afghanistan when they pushed us too hard. Does anyone doubt we would have handled these situations differently if we had to deal with a nuclear armed enemy? Thank Israel that Saddam didn’t have nukes. We might be thanking them too for Iran not having them sooner than later.
Of course, I am sure the usual leftards will now chime in that a nuclear enemy might have prevented Bush’s cowboy adventurism, and thus justify why we should let Iran go nuclear, but before you actually think these morons have a valid point, consider the following statement by the UAE ambassador:
Mr. al-Otaiba said that his country would be the last Arab country to cut a deal with Iran, if Tehran were to go nuclear. But he predicted other wealthy Arab states in the Gulf would dump their alliances with the U.S. in favor of ties with Tehran if President Obama does not stop the Islamic republic’s quest to become a nuclear power. “There are many countries in the region that if they lack assurance that the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover with Iran,” he said. “Small, rich, vulnerable countries do not want to stick their finger in the big boy’s eye if they do not have the backing of the United States.”
Anyone thinking that this will result in more stability or lead to a better world is not just a moron, they are delusional. As I have often said, at a minimum you will get this:
Mr. al-Otaiba also said that an Iranian acquisition would set off a nuclear arms race in the region, predicting that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey would all start nuclear programs if Iran acquired such weapons.
Your average ignorant moron would argue that there is nothing wrong with these countries going nuclear too, I am sure. After all, Pakistan and India did it. And we are even living with the Norks being a nuclear nation. Let me point out what this ambassador had to say about that…
The ambassador in the end stressed that his country would not tolerate a nuclear Iran. “The United States may be able to live with it,” he said. “We can’t.”
I think the US would not be able to live with it either, but then again, the people that think this way are also the ones that believed the USSR should have been the one to win the Cold War, America isn’t fit to be the world’s leader because it is the root of all evil, China would do a better job than the US if it was top dog, and that they are able to use talk to keep a nuclear armed Iran in line. No matter how this plays out, it is going to be ugly. The thing is, as this ambassador has pointed out, that a nuclear armed Iran will be much more costly than whatever crap we get if we prevent it by force.
Conflicts & Wars • Old & New Empires • War on Terror • Axis-of-Evil • Homeland Security • All Things Government • Elections • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Lefties suffer another letdown.
This morning I woke up to find out that the all those lefties that were already excited about, and predicting that the would-be-bomber that left the SUV filled with explosives that fizzled this past weekend in NYC would end up being a right wing extremist racist, pissed off at Obamacare or some such like NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg, amongst the many that said the same, did, are going to yet again have their hopes dashed. As most of us that do know where the threat is coming from suspected and believed, it turns out this was not the work of a McVeigh disciple, Tea Partiers, or anyone angry at the collectivists destroying the country, but, according to this WaPo article, an Islamic terrorist.
Looks like all the drivel from the left about the domestic terrorism threat was right, only they got the real threat wrong yet again. This guy they grabbed at the last minute, as he tried to leave the country on a flight to Dubai , goes by the name of Faisal Shahzad. From the details the media is releasing, to their chagrin I bet, is sure doesn’t sound that, other than the fact that he is a naturalized citizen that was born in Pakistan and thus can be labeled home grown, he is going to turn out to be a right winger as they hoped he would be. Even worse, now it has become quite obvious that since the messiah took over, despite their promises that things would get better, it looks like we are getting more and more terror attack attempts from the people that should have now hated us less. And so far they have not succeeded in killing us simply because of pure dumb luck and ineptitude. I doubt we will hear much about that from the MSM or the WH though. At least Holder finally gets a real in the flesh domestic terrorist he can now stage a show trial in NYC for.
And another thing that caught my attention was that we got this fellow because of NSA probes of a disposable cell phone that led authorities to the would-be terrorists. Can you imagine the cries of woe and accusations of Orwellian or Nazi like government intrusion if this happened while Bush was president? I bet this isn’t even going to come up as a big deal now that the guy in the WH has a (D) next to his name.
Seems like the mythical redneck racist terrorist, like Sasquatch or the Loch Ness monster, continues to elude the left, dashing their hopes for a good excuse to delegitimize the causes of, and facilitate their crack down on, these moronic peasants that aren’t smart enough o understand their betters are in charge and that they should be happy about it. In the mean time terrorists and leftists all over the place continue to commit or try to commit acts of violence, but there isn’t any story there to report.
Conflicts & Wars • War on Terror • Homeland Security • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Obama’s new non-nuclear and non-anti-Islamic radicalism policies..
I heard about Obama’s new nuclear policy a day or two ago, but decided to get more details before commenting on it. I should have gone with my first instincts and just pointed out then that this idiotic new policy was madness masquerading as progress. When even the usual MSM DNC talking point outlets like the NYT are asking if the new policy disarms America, you can bet that’s the end result, if not the end goal and plan, in the first place. Think about it. The people that have now decided America will literally take forever to decide on a response and get the options from lawyers, if they can respond to any WMD attacks in kind at all. These people and this new policy are completely undermining the MAD (mutually assured destruction) philosophy that have prevented a nuclear exchange by the powers that be, first during the Cold War with the USSR, and then in the new world that came after their inevitable fall. These are the same people that have vehemently objected to any and all US efforts to create some kind of missile defense, and have argued that it was because they firmly believe that if we got such a defensive system, it would undermine the MAD principle and lead to bad choices if not another arms race. But what they are pushing for is disarmament – that’s what the end game is, and Obama has made no bones about it – and whether they admit it or not, this policy has now have literally done away with the concept of MAD. WTF? In order to deter the use of WMDs from others - only stupid liberals live with the idiotic angst that it will be the evil US that will start Armageddon - we will now make our response to a WMD attack to not only be even more unclear, but now also limited? Again, WTF? Bye, bye MAD. No changes for defense, but changes that make us not just weaker, but invite attack, that’s progress!
And I almost broke out laughing when I read the part about how the new Obama policy, in response to a WMD attack, relies on an army of lawyers which will first go over the suspected nation that attacked us’ IAEA nuclear non-proliferation report, and then based on that report and their nuclear efforts & ambitions, decide if a nuclear reply was allowed. I don’t know if you caught the meaning of this move, but have no doubt that Obama’s new brainfart indirectly gave the UN control over not just our nuclear arsenal – which he is also hard at work obsoleting, but that’s a different story for a different day – but over our decisions to use them! All the IAEA has to do is whitewash their reports, and the US literally can’t use nuclear weapons on anyone. What’s the plan then? You are not going to try to make the case that the left will push for a conventional response to any WMD attack, are you? Look at their stances on Afghanistan and Iraq, and you will see that their first inclination, after they blame us for the attack, will be to urge “restraint”. These are the morons that tell you they believe violence never solved anything! Well, to be honest they don’t believe violence against anyone other than those that don’t share their ideology and hate of this country’s exceptionalism solves anything, because in my experience they tend to be the most violent people in defense of their twisted ideology. Can you think of anything more insane than these people now being in charge of life and death decisions and our security? What about the mindset that this policy puts those that would want to use WMDs against us, then? If you say this shift will do anything but encourage them more, you are a fool. We have just been made even more unsafe.
Oh yeah, the fact that Obama and his team of geniuses, directly or indirectly, excluded Iran and North Korea from this new policy, should matter a bit. Does anyone think that people like Obama that wanted to sit down and talk to a hostile Iran but threatened our Pakistani ally – I know they are an ally of convenience, but that’s neither here nor there, as much smarter men than I long ago pointed out that when it comes to nations and their interests are allies are just that – with nuclear hellfire, can be trusted to do what’s best for us? These are the same morons that want to lawyer up those gunning to kill us and rammed through a terribly unpopular government healthcare takeover that will hurt us all and bankrupt the country, after all. We are in great hands! The world has suddenly become a better place. I miss that “Cowboy”…
If I was Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, or any other nation that had lived under the promise of protection from the US nuclear umbrella, this new shift towards insanity would be a wake-up call. Don’t be surprised that these nations with North Korea and China in the mix, decide they can no longer trust us and decide to start up their own nuclear program. If anything, I suspect this new policy will not only backfire on us and weaken our security and the confidence of our allies, while emboldening our enemies, but it will lead to exactly the opposite of what these leftist morons are hoping for. Instead of others giving up their nukes or nuclear ambitions, this policy will force countless other nations that rightfully no longer trust us to provide for their security – we can’t even provide for our own – to go nuclear. I mentioned the Asian nations that would feel obliged to go nuclear, but that list is going to extend to many nations in the Middle East – I should point out that these nations were fine with an Israeli bomb and never felt the need for a nuke of their own – and likely also Europe and South America. And I am not even discussing the open door policy this invites on non-nuclear WMDs. If you really want to screw over the US use a bio or chemical weapon, keep the UN in your pocket and their report clean, and then make sure the US knows that any conventional response is going to be nary impossible or super costly, especially with weak spined collectivist twits in charge, resulting in a token use of force at best, and you score. Only people in fantasyland think this isn’t how the new policy will play out.
I also found it telling that this dangerous nuclear policy shift by the Obama Admin came in the same week that the WH has adopted a new policy that literally abandons the use of anti-radicalized Islam terminology. If you can’t define or name your enemy, how do you propose to fight, let alone defeat them? Do these morons think that if they stop pointing out that the terrorists and terror enabling nations at war with us are such, that they will cease and desist? Ostrich much? Or is it so they can broaden the terms to just terrorists and then bran Tea partiers as such as well? After all, the left has clearly shown they see more of a threat, when none really exists I should add, from those that disagree with their policies, than from radical and evil Islamic terrorists hell bent on blanketing the world in Sharia.
There is a pattern here with these drastic changes to things that these people when it is convenient for them claim are weakened when someone is making changes that would strengthen our security, and I am worried about what it says. I see no good coming from these decisions, which ultimately again bring us to the radical America hating left’s obsessive and stupid believe that the problem is the US, and if it just exposed its jugular to the world’s predators, they would all suddenly learn to live in peace with us. This kind of thinking is insanity, and yet these are the people we now put in charge of our security. We can’t call the enemy what it is, and we are bending over backwards to ease the faux concerns of people that would like nothing more than a crack at crippling and destroying us if they but could get away with it. I guess we deserve the consequences of these dumb moves.
Blogging • Insane Stuff • Conflicts & Wars • War on Terror • Axis-of-Evil • Homeland Security • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Holder gets a short reprieve
It looks like the WH has handed Eric Holder a reprieve, and just 24 hours before he was to appear in front of the Senate, to answer to the plethora of questions his embarrassing testimonies have resulted in, for today, rescheduled his senate appearance, using the excuse he was needed there when the demcorats sign away our future and try to make Obamacare the law of the land.
US Attorney General Eric Holder was scheduled to have a chat with the Senate today, but, with less than 24 hours on the clock, it was rescheduled for April 14. The postponement is possibly due to the signing of the health care bill, but Republicans think Holder might be glad for the extra time. No matter when it happens, it will not be a passive event. The hearing is officially billed as “oversight of the Department of Justice” but general consensus is he’ll face strong questioning over his decision (which seems more and more likely to be reversed) to try some of the alleged 9/11 masterminds in federal court. The Wall Street Journal has a full report today on criticisms lobbed from both the left and the right and suggest that “the controversies provoked by his decisions threaten to derail his career...”
Holder has huge problems he needs to address. First off, will be an explanation of his DOJ which wants to try terrorists in civilian court will circumvent the obvious strategy by every defense team to demand the government disclose vital secrets and methods of operation against the terrorists that the government doesn’t want to. The fact of the matter is that there is no way to do this successfully in a civilian court unless the trial is rigged and just for show anyway, and Holder knows it. Any defense attorney worth his salt would demand the US disclose everything about how they go after terrorists, national security be damned, and hope that the government when it opted to keep critical procedures, informants, or operational tactics secret, would end up destroying its case. Civilian courts do not really care for or tend to allow secrets, even those with national security implications, from excusing the government from meeting those legal obligations.
At this point nobody that is sane disputes the second point, that this DOJ, despite the claims they were showing more deference to and confidence in our judicial system than the evil Bush clique and their military tribunals - basically switching to treating terrorists at war with us as common criminals - actually intended these trials to be anything but show trials. The choice of New York, where the 9-11 attacks occurred, backs that up. But the killer was Holder’s guarantee during one of his recent meetings to testify to our political class, that all the defendants would be found guilty. I don’t know about you, but I was always thought our system, in an effort to provide fairness and give everyone a chance to prove their innocence, couldn’t guarantee results like Holder promised, unless of course the verdict was already predetermined, and the rest is just for show.
The fact is that the DOJ itself admitted that military commissions would do a better job to in their written submission to these kinds of questions for the congressional committee. There is no disputing that the DOJ admits in this written report that the Classified Information Protection Act (CIPA) that would govern federal courts - where they want to try terrorists like common criminals - offer inferior protections to critical national security and operations secrets compared to those provided by military commissions. In fact, they point out they would have to make changes to CIPA to get similar protection offered by a military tribunal. Here is the relevant passage from the DOJ report:
28. Under the Classified Information Protection Act (CIPA), the government may pursue an interlocutory appeal from orders “authorizing the disclosure of classified information . . . or refusing a protective order sought by the United States to prevent the disclosure of classified information.” 18 U.S.C. App. § 7(a). In United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509 (4th Cir. 2003), the Fourth Circuit held CIPA did not authorize interlocutory appeals from orders related to the “pretrial disclosure of classified information to the defendant or his attorneys.” Id. at 514.
a. Do you agree that under the Moussaoui decision, the government may not seek immediate review of certain decisions authorizing the pretrial disclosure of classified information? If not, please explain your answer.
Response: In cases involving CIPA within the Fourth Circuit, under the Moussaoui decision, appellate courts lack jurisdiction under CIPA § 7 to entertain an interlocutory appeal by the United States of a district court order allowing a criminal defendant to depose a witness who may possess classified information.
b. Senator Kyl has offered legislation, including an amendment in Committee, to amend CIPA to address the deficiencies in CIPA. Given your decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others in federal court, do you support legislation to address gaps in CIPA that could lead to disclosure of classified information?
Response: While CIPA has generally worked well in both protecting classified information and ensuring fair trials, there may be certain portions which could be usefully updated and clarified. The Administration has not yet taken a position on possible legislation to improve CIPA.
And I am even more interested in getting answers from Holder about his previous claim that some 300 hundred terrorists had successfully prosecuted in criminal court and are now in the prison system. If you read the answer in their report it is obvious that they have either “misplaced and/or can’t find” the documents to back their claims, or were lying, and are now stalling to avoid the embarrassment of this idiotic assertion. I vote the later. April 14th will be here sooner than later though, and then Holder can make a bigger jackass out of himself yet again. This is going to be fun to follow.
Blogging • Insane Stuff • Conflicts & Wars • War on Terror • Homeland Security • All Things Government • Judicial Branch • News • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
What’s sadder?
That Obama and crew are again being shown to have lied while campaigning, or the muted and low-key reporting by the few MSM outlets to carry the story that Obama’s team is more secretive than the Bush team ever was? Their actions are finally giving meaning to what they meant when they told us they were about “hope and change”, I guess.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal agencies haven’t lived up to President Barack Obama’s promise of a more open government, increasing their use of legal exemptions to keep records secret during his first year in office. An Associated Press review of Freedom of Information Act reports filed by 17 major agencies found that the use of nearly every one of the law’s nine exemptions to withhold information from the public rose in fiscal year 2009, which ended last October. Among the most frequently used exemptions: one that lets the government hide records that detail its internal decision-making. Obama specifically directed agencies to stop using that exemption so frequently, but that directive appears to have been widely ignored. Major agencies cited that exemption at least 70,779 times during the 2009 budget year, up from 47,395 times during President George W. Bush’s final full budget year, according to annual FOIA reports filed by federal agencies. Obama was president for nine months in the 2009 period.
Right!!!! Obama told them not to, but they then went ahead and used it with such frequency - it’s almost double the number - that they set a new record! Either that means they think Obama a weakling moron and simply don’t care what he has ordered them to do, which is bad thing for the country in general because it projects the image that the executive has no control over it’s own government agencies, or the more likely truth, that Obama was saying this stuff during the campaign, but didn’t mean it at all, and the MSM, as they are wont to, is giving him cover with this kind of stupid writing in this article, which IMO is a much worse thing. My bet is - and this is based on the other promises not kept so far - that it is a combination of both, with the later being the bigger driver. And before you claim that these exemptions are happening for national security or military reasons, look at this:
In all, major agencies cited that or other FOIA exemptions to refuse information at least 466,872 times in budget year 2009, compared with 312,683 times the previous year, the review found. Agencies often cite more than one exemption when withholding part or all of the material sought in an open-records request. The AP examined the 2008 and 2009 budget year FOIA reports from the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Federal Reserve Board. Other FOIA exemptions cover information on national defense and foreign relations, internal agency rules and practices, trade secrets, personal privacy, law enforcement proceedings, supervision of financial institutions and geological information on wells.
Now, before you rabid libs get all mad at me and say I am inconsistent or did not call the Bush administration out when they did the some of the same, know that I have no problem with the government’s legitimate use of exemptions to FOIA. I am writing this to point out how differently the MSM reports a much broader and intensive use by government of the FOIA exemption depending on who is running the government. Even more important, I am writing it to point out that Obama and the demcorats, yet again, lied to us during their campaigning. If anything, this government is more secretive, and less concerned with your freedoms, than the one BDS infected liberals accused of being fascists, and yet, we now get tepid articles that actually defend the same practices that a year or two ago sent these morons into a frenzy.
Much of the Obama administration’s early effort on FOIA seems to have been aimed at clearing out a backlog of old cases: The number of requests still sitting around past the time limits spelled out in the open-records law fell from 124,019 in budget year 2008 to 67,764 at the end of the most recent budget year over the 17 agencies, the AP’s review found. There is no way to tell whether those whose old cases that were closed ultimately received the information they sought.
I wonder how many of these back-log items were filed by liberals when they thought they could use it to hurt the Bush Administration, but now would if revealed would be inconvenient to them since they are the ones in charge. Nice when it hurts and hampers the fascist Bush administration, bad if we have to live by the same standards and rules we hoped to use against them. If anything, that should make you wonder how seriously these people take our security when they so callously and easily play political games with information that when someone else was running the country they wanted disclosed, even if it endangered us, but now that they are in charge, feel should no longer be disclosed. Keep that in mind the next time you hear a democrat tell you how much worse others are and especially when they promise you something.
Conflicts & Wars • War on Terror • Homeland Security • All Things Government • Elections • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Friday, March 12, 2010
The al Qaeda lawyers controversy
The recent revelation that came out, after some massive stonewalling by the WH which obviously knew it was damning, that many of Obama’s top legal appointees, including Eric Holder over at Justice, seem to have a conflict of interest when it comes to terrorism, seems to have lit a fire in the legal community. Whether you feel that there are issues with the whole terrorists are enemy combatants that purposefully avoid any uniforms or identifications vs. terrorist are just criminals, you can not fail to grasp that there is something problematic with having the very people that are now in charge of preventing another terrorist attack being sympathetic to that cause. And before you lambaste me for saying this, remember that, as this Andrew C. McCarthy article points out, these attorneys chose to go represent people that wanted to destroy this country, and we should be able to ask why. Especially when, as I pointed out, several of these attorneys are now the ones making critical decisions on how to handle not just captured terrorists, but how and how timely we get intelligence from these captured terrorists that can protect Americans from another attack. Here is the money quote:
The Justice Department lawyers who represented al-Qaeda were volunteers. Of all the causes to which they could have donated their services, they chose our enemies. They are no doubt sincere in claiming they sought to vindicate principles, not terrorists. But the other stubborn fact is that, since they took the helm at Justice, counterterrorism policy has become much more terrorist friendly.
Anyone that tries to make the case that those people asking for clarifications and pointing out the conflict, are just ushering a new era of McCarthyism, demanding we ignore the consequences and impact of the policies implemented by, and the actions taken by these lawyers now making the decisions to treat terrorists like common criminals, or worse tries to make the case that these policy shifts have made us safer, is an outright liar or moron. Maybe even both. I can guarantee you that the people that say this is much ado about nothing and that anyone that points out that these lawyers once chose to defend terrorists, would be singing a different tune if we had a clear conflict of interest like this with some government appointee that had links to the private sector. There is no excuse, and this is based on their won words and actions, even when you think that capitalism is a bigger threat than terrorism, to pretend that there isn’t a clear issue here. The truth is that these lawyers have made us all less safe. We have been lucky so far, but that luck won’t hold.
Conflicts & Wars • War on Terror • Homeland Security • All Things Government • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Monday, February 15, 2010
How much more humane!
Liberals were up in arms about the “evils” of the Bush administration, especially in regards to the efforts tied to GWoT. Evil American troops were ordered by Darth Vader to capture those downtrodden guys that are mad at capitalist America - explains why so many on the left empathizes with these guys, huh? – and stick them in those nasty “torture camps” like Club Gitmo. But because they were so successful at selling that idiotic meme, they painted themselves into a corner. Reversing course now brings with it the risk of looking like the idiots they actually are. Admitting that the holding facilities, while not a perfect solution, were the best option where no good one existed, simply is too painful. So instead of capturing them, since now that the leftists are in charge they can’t simply demand we “cut & run” because when the next attack happens we will all know to blame them and their idiocy for it, we are only left with the option of killing more terrorists. Case in point:
When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.
The White House authorized the second option. On the morning of Sept. 14, helicopters flying from a U.S. ship off the Somali coast blew up a car carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan. While several hovered overhead, one set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of the remains for DNA verification. Moments later, the helicopters were headed back to the ship.
Now don’t get me wrong: most, if not all, of these bastards need a good killing. There are no compromises to be reached with them. It is us or them. They are not going to sit down with us and talk it out. Using drones to pop them when we can is a necessary step in curtailing their operations. But the largely unspoken fact is that since we aren’t willing to just wipe out everyone that lives in the swamps where these cockroaches are bred – thankfully so – we remain limited in our capability and responses. Our most important weapon, believe it or not, is intelligence. If we know what they are doing, hopefully, we can work against them. Thwart their efforts. Difficult under the best of circumstances, and even harder when you have these idiots in charge as the panty bomber proved. Sure Big Sis Napoletano will tell you the system worked, but we all know we got lucky there.
There is a big problem with this intelligence gathering strategy, as the article itself points out. No, it isn’t that we make more terrorists when we are aggressive and kill terrorists like the leftist idiots would like you to believe: it is that we are not gathering as much intel as we could because we are trying to avoid capturing terrorists. All because back when Bush was in charge, their BDS didn’t let these leftist tools see the difficult choices and options, leading them to denounce any and everything that was done by that administrations as not just bad but criminal. That stupidity has literally left them with no options of where to put prisoners now that they are in charge. Not unless they want to show how farcical and stupid their objections were in the first place. Nobody wants these bastards because they are real dangerous. They demonized Gitmo and are now looking like they were talking out of their rear ends when the promise to close it by went bye, and they are now left with no end in sight. So we are left with no options. If we are in the dark about what the enemy is doing, it makes it easier for them to do it.
So now, not only have we been forced to be more brutal – we now just kill – we are leaving a big intelligence gap that will come back to bite us in the wake of this all. But Bush was the cowboy moron….
Blogging • Insane Stuff • Conflicts & Wars • War on Terror • Axis-of-Evil • Homeland Security • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Monday, January 25, 2010
The enemy still wants to kill us
It looks like many now believe that the terrorists are gearing up for another attack and are pointing to Bin Laden’s own words for that. Despite the fact that “The Won” was supposed to fix all that anger evil Bush-Chimpy-McHitler had caused amongst the peaceful and tolerant muslim radicals, we keep seeing more and more stories like this one which shows how determined and hard the enemy has renewed their effort s to attack us. Now, I am not saying they did not try to get us when Bush was president, but they were not too good at it seeing as they went after our troops in Iraq and got massacred. Even in Afghanistan, where things are much harder and better for the enemy, the radicals were and continue to get clobbered. Maybe they are changing their MO now that it is obvious that fighting our troops is a death sentence and going back to trying more spectacular suicide attacks, but my guess is that they their likely motivation has more to do with the perceived weakness of any response to such attacks. After all, we are lawyering them up and giving these ununiformed enemy combatants that are at war with us our full legal protection to hide behind by treating them like common criminals, and too often, after the fact. And while I am not endorsing we throw away the Constitution and spy on our own citizens with drones like some are doing, we definitely should treat these people at war with us as such. I am not saying we should go as far as a Jewish friend of mine suggested – wrap the remains of every one of these bastards in pig skin and bury them upside down to deny them their illusion of heaven – we should stop making it so easy for them to come at us and try to kill us. After all, the Constitution was not a suicide pact, despite the best efforts of the idiots on the elft to make it so.
Blogging • Insane Stuff • Conflicts & Wars • War on Terror • Homeland Security • News • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Friday, January 22, 2010
What to make of this..
Well, today is the anniversary of Obama’s promise to close Gitmo. The spin about why Obama and his team can not keep yet another core campaign promise started a while back. Obama, we are told, has slowly realized that Gitmo is a complicated issue, a temporary “best case” solution to a “worst case” problem, and is impeded from making good on his promise. Of course, Bush was an evil moron for coming up with what I believe is a brilliant solution to an impossible problem. Oh the left is still claiming they are going to shut Gitmo down eventually, but I believe that reality will kind of intrude on that fantasy. I am also going to predict that those NYC show trials that Obama’s team promised us would end in convictions are going to meet with some serious difficulties. The terrorists are at war with us. The left seems to think that if they pretend otherwise hard enough it will cease to be the case. Anyway, glad to see team Obama’s actions, not their meaningless talk, again making Bush look right and good on this whole GWoT thing. Think the MSM will point out that Obama failed on yet another big promise?
Conflicts & Wars • War on Terror • Homeland Security • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Friday, December 04, 2009
START to expire.
It looks like despite the fact that the START treaty is about to expire at midnight tonight without a replacement agreement, that the Russians and the Obama admin have a tentative agreement to stick to it. While this is no loner a big deal these days - the Russians win big getting rid of all their older and crappy missiles that from what reports were leaked by our people would be just as likely to blow up right at launch time if not launc at all with this deal anyway - it is nice to see that Obama and his crew are not getting snowed on this issue as they have on practically everything else. At least not yet, or obviously.
Conflicts & Wars • War on Terror • Homeland Security • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
I TOLD YOU SO!
Time to gloat a little. Maybe a lot. I pointed this exact issue out to many that then proceeded to made fun of me and joked that I should tell them such things as what lotto ticket to buy after looking into that glass ball I used to glean this tid-bit from. There is another prediction here: Club Gitmo will not close next year either. Obama’s refusal to give a new date all but proves that these bumbling idiots have realized after the fact that Gitmo was a stroke of brilliance when confronted with a near impossible situation. Suck on that lemons you losers.
Conflicts & Wars • War on Terror • Homeland Security • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Friday, November 13, 2009
Circus comes to New York..
Well it looks like Holder has decided to bring the terrorists behind the 9-11 attack to justice in a US courtand people already are pointing out the politics and stupidity of this move. I watched Holder get lobbed a bunch of softball questions while working out at the gym this AM and simply could not believe the crap he was saying. First off, I was baffled how he talked about bringing them to justice and having a fair and impartial trial, only to then assure the mouthpieces playing at reporting that expressed the concern that trying war criminals (my words not theirs) in a civilian court could see them getting off, that he was certain they would be found guilty.
Of course Holder avoided answering what they would be tried for and kept mouthing off that he was going to ask for the death penalty. But in the end there was no clear charges mentioned, and that was obviously on purpose. And the obvious thing to me here is that this is all a meaningless but dangerous political act of contrition intended to appease the left, and it shows. Obama, have no doubt that even though Holder is doing the talking that Obama is pulling the strings, is going to give the left that circus to paint America as the bad guy he promised. I wonder if they no longer feel this sort of stuff makes terrorists like they used to tell us back when Bush was in charge and we tried to fight these terrorists.
Also, what nobody also asked was how long this Kabuki dance would take to play out. Considering the back and forth that is sure to follow between the lawyers defending these scumbags and the Justice Department, it could take a decade or more before these trails happen. In the mean time Obama and Holder are not just (hopefully) likely to be long gone, but they score cheap political points by claiming they brought these terrorists to trail even if they are going to be locked away for another decade or more, put us all at in danger. Remember that Bin Laden pointed out the reason he chose the Twin Towers was that he wanted to amongst other things punish us for trying the other bearded camel humper that tried to blow the place up in 1993. I wonder if these Ivy league geniuses know that or simply don’t care?
Blogging • Insane Stuff • Conflicts & Wars • War on Terror • Axis-of-Evil • Homeland Security • News • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Thursday, October 15, 2009
That’s how you do it: money for nothing and chicks for free!
Remember when the democrats where all up in arms that evil BushMcHitler sent our troops to Iraq without adequate equipment? The endless stories about the lack of body armor, mine resistant trucks, inadequate armoring on Humvees, the overstretched military which lacked enough manpower, bad MREs, or adequate internet connections so the troops would not have to watch slow loading porn? OK, that last one was a joke, but you get my drift. All that sudden caring about the troops, seemed to take a back seat to the obvious fact that it was these same democrats that defunded and drastically reduced the size and fighting capability of those troops they now worried about, so the money could be funneled elsewhere. Increased social spending that buys them votes, being the most obvious and likely target. And we will avoid the whole rigmarole about if they actually were worried about the troops or just playing politics and hurting the troops efforts because they had a vested interest in making the mission fail for now, because this would just cloud the issue I want to bring up.
Anyway, so now that they are in power and able to “help” those troops fill those gaps they agonized over and do their jobs better, this is how they choose to do it:
Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis. Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, “in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year,” said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.
I guess those democrats really knew what the troops really needed now that they are in charge. Educational institutes named after the U-Boat commander of Chappaquiddick and museums are essential war fighting materiel. And I am sure the MSM will report how much better off our troops are, now that they are still fighting a war these people tried their best to make us lose, with these guys calling the shot. Don’t worry though! Just like the big O plans to use the power of government to make jobs - because this has always worked so well every time it was tried and never ended up costing the tax payer a fortune while bloating up government with more useless people that just happen to vote for democrats – I am sure he will magically find a fix for this stuff too.
Blogging • Insane Stuff • Conflicts & Wars • War on Terror • Homeland Security • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Monday, October 12, 2009
Here comes the new spin…
Here comes the left’s new spin on why Iranian nukes are actually going to be a great thing. Suddenly the nutjobs are no longer demanding a nuke free world - with the US of course being the first to unilaterally disarm, as a token of good faith, and a fantasy that this will somehow make brutal and evil thugs follow along - but embracing the reality that in our world nukes now serve an indisputable function. In fact, now that Iran is heading that way and none of their jabber-jabber has made a difference, they are all for it:
President Barack Obama was surprisingly given the Nobel Peace Prize “primarily for his work on and commitment to nuclear disarmament,” according to Agot Valle, a Norwegian politician who served on the award committee. Valle told the Wall Street Journal that the stewards of the prize wanted to “support” Obama’s goal, as expressed recently at the U.N., “of a world without nuclear weapons.”
It’s tough to think of a goal more widely espoused than the dream of an H-bomb-free planet. President Ronald Reagan and activist Jane Fonda, political opposites, came together on this one — in his second term, Reagan stunned his advisers and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev by suggesting a treaty that would take nuclear arsenals down to “zero.”
As long as a nukeless world remains wishful thinking and pastoral rhetoric, we’ll be all right. But if the Nobel Committee truly cares about peace, its members will think a little harder about trying to make it a reality. Open a history book and you’ll see what the modern world looks like without nuclear weapons. It is horrible beyond description.
During the 31 years leading up to the first atomic bomb, the world without nuclear weapons engaged in two global wars resulting in the deaths of an estimated 78 million to 95 million people, uniformed and civilian. The world wars were the hideous expression of what happens when the human tendency toward conflict hooks up with the violent possibilities of the industrial age. The version of this story we are most familiar with is the Nazi death machinery, and we are often tempted to think that if Hitler had not happened, we would never have encountered assembly-line murder.
Yeah, really. A nukless world is suddenly wishful thinking – and yet Obama is lining up and giving away the game to everyone in the hopes he can convince the Russians to lower their warhead count so we can do the same (and my bet is this idiot reduces our arsenal even if the Russians don’t because he is just that full of himself) – and these twerps sudden understand the role of nukes. Know what this talk reminds me off? The whole “détente” bullshit that these same leftists bring up when discussing SDI and our scrapped Missile Defense plans. Do they even realize how stupid this 180 looks like?
Anyway, get used to it. These collectivist apologists are laying the ground work for the Obama administration to drop the ball on Iran: letting them go nuclear. I wonder why the leftists that love to claim the North Koreans went nuclear with Bush at the helm, ignoring bill Clinton’s role in that affair, don’t give him the honor of the same defense. And credit the Bush administration with never trying to pull this ridiculous line that a nuclear armed North Korea – or Iran - was a good thing.
So, after the left has tried to talk strong while acting as weak as possible, showing strength only when they could help prevent any action against Iran that might have made a difference, they now drop even that pretense. Now a nuclear armed Iran will suddenly help bring stability to the world! I am sure that’s why the Saudis told MI-6 they would allow Israeli over flight to attack those facilities even if they later denied they said so. They still have to keep appearances for the locals I guess. But in the mean time the left is getting ready to make the Middle East become a much more dangerous place, and this article showing the left suddenly engaging the nuclear reality is nothing but the precursor to our capitulation on this issue. Talk failed.
Blogging • Insane Stuff • Conflicts & Wars • War on Terror • Homeland Security • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink