A Shameful Mess

It seems as if everyone is talking about Benghazi.

Yesterday afternoon I was sitting at the kitchen table writing checks and paying bills when my brother breezed through the front door ranting and raving about Obama's seeming dereliction of duty in Benghazi.  He's not one to usually pay attention to such things.

The Benghazi story doesn't feel like Fast and Furious did; I kept thinking Fast and Furious was going to get more traction than it did.  I mean, a murdered border agent, our government walking guns into Mexico, hundreds of dead Mexicans, drug lords, the who mess.  Well, there was a little investigation, a deeply researched book, a fair amount of outrage, but it never caught on with the general public or the "low information voter" like it seems Benghazi has.

One of the most succinct summations of this mess came from Mark Steyn's weekend column:

We also learned that, in those first moments of the attack, a request for military back-up was made by U.S. staff on the ground but was denied by Washington. It had planes and special forces less than 500 miles away in southern Italy — or about the same distance as Washington to Boston. They could have been there in less than two hours. Yet the commander-in-chief declined to give the order. So Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought all night against overwhelming odds, and died on a rooftop in a benighted jihadist hellhole while Obama retired early to rest up before his big Vegas campaign stop. “Within minutes of the first bullet being fired the White House knew these heroes would be slaughtered if immediate air support was denied,” said Ty Woods’s father, Charles. “In less than an hour, the perimeters could have been secured and American lives could have been saved. After seven hours fighting numerically superior forces, my son’s life was sacrificed because of the White House’s decision.”

The pain of this father is unbearable.  His son signed up to serve his country, not to be abandoned by it.

Smitty, over at The Other McCain, makes a valid point, too:

This notion of “never leaving a buddy” is pounded into every military head at every rank. Should you hold the privilege of commanding a unit, I perceive it counts double: you neither want to see a buddy left dangling in the breeze, and you really don’t want the anguish of explaining to the world why there was a death within you command.
Which brings us to our current Commander-in-Chief, #OccupyResoluteDesk. I don’t believe the principle of “never leaving a buddy” eluded George W. Bush, say whatever else you will of his policies. In contrast, you have the Obama White House needing to dispute a storythat it sends form letters to families of the fallen. Wow.

This is clearly a concept Obama can't relate to; he's more accustomed to throwing people under the bus.

Then there are those who believe that the whole Benghazi fiasco was a conspiracy theory: that Obama planned for Stevens et al, to be taken hostage whereby he would negotiate some terrific hostage deal (right about the time of the foreign policy debate), the hostages would be freed, and he would waltz into re-election in November.  That might explain the lowered security, but is there enough evidence to support this theory?  I don't know.

Senator John McCain says that it's either incompetence or a cover-up, both unacceptable:

"This is either a massive cover-up or an incompetence that is not acceptable service to the American people," he said on CBS's "Face the Nation." 

McCain said that information that has surfaced since the attacks, which claimed the lives of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, indicates the narrative provided by the White House in the days following was "patently false."

Either way, whatever it is, the responsibility of four dead Americans is Obama's.  The administration clearly does not want this uncovered before the election which is also an indication of culpability.

And what of Hillary Clinton's role?  Did she, in fact, try to get extra security for Stevens and his team?

Even so.  The buck stops with Obama.

It is a shameful mess.  And one that Obama will eventually have to answer for.



(See Doug Ross for some unraveling of this mess.)

"My Number One Priority is to Always Keep our Diplomats Safe..."

#FAIL

The fact that Obama went to Vegas the night news was breaking in America about the murder of American ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens is insane.

Even crazier than that?  Everyone involved knew that Benghazi (and Stevens) was a target and nobody did anything about it.  Oh wait, actually, what they did was stand down:

The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

Criminal.

Allahpundit

For some strange reason, despite the obvious jihadist presence in eastern Libya and multiple warnings from different sources that they needed better protection, State seems to have resisted calls for a more robust security presence at every turn.  

The State Department basically says nothing was amiss, that no extra support was requested, and that there was no net loss of personnel after the initial team left in August.

Read more here and here.

Pundette asks the relevant question:

It's incredible to me that no one has been fired over this; Americans, including the US ambassador, were killed. Why the decreased security? Someone has to answer that. Was it just bureaucratic stupidity and negligence, or part of the administration's effort to minimize the threat of terrorism? 

Indeed.

Do we even need to ask what the media would be saying had this happened under George W. Bush's administration?

At least this debacle is distracting us from talking about the last debacle.  The just keep coming.

Let's put it in pictures:

Jimmy Carter Redux

Victor Davis Hanson on what may come in 2012:

The result, I think, may be that in this coming year we will see a new boldness among Islamic forces in North Africa; China will show the flag far nearer to Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea; some independent-minded former Soviet Republics will be forced to move closer to Russia; Turkey won’t worry too much whether it overflies Greek or Cypriot airspace — or worse; Iran will test a missile or do something stupider; North Korea may resume its now-and-then shelling of the south; and Lebanon and the West Bank will heat up again — all on the impression that either the U.S. doesn’t much care, does care but is too broke or weary to do much about it, or beneath its public warning harbors some quiet sympathies for such “corrections” in a prior flawed global order.

It should be required reading for anyone considering a vote for Obama.  That and a history class.

Read the whole thing.

Worst Speech Ever

After reviewing Obama's speech yesterday (I had to read through it; I can't stand to listen to him anymore), it's become more and more clear to me why I've retreated into the world of antiques and art museums on this blog.  How anyone can continue to tout support for this man is simply beyond me.  I can't fathom it.

The consensus is pretty clear this morning that 1) It wasn't a plan on fiscal reform but a partisan campaign speech and 2) Obama is delusional.  Or else he thinks we all are.

Obama's answer to our economic woes is to pull his previous support of the Bush tax cuts (the support he held after he didn't support them), and raise taxes on the "rich." 

The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code.  In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans.  But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society.  And I refuse to renew them again.

This is absurd and has been debunked over and over again.  Raising taxes on the wealthy is the worst thing he can to in our current economic situation.  It's a job killer.  It's a growth killer. Even if you raised taxes on the top 2% one hundred percent, Walter Williams points out that:

...doing so "would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year." Even if all the annual profits of the Fortune 500 were also taken, it would only keep the government funded for another 40 days, according to Williams.

Obama is saying what he said to get elected last election cycle but it won't play this time.  Independents and even some liberals are beginning to see the light and are also sick of the excessive spending.  The only way to get the deficit under control is cut spending, not raise taxes.

Victor Davis Hanson suggests Obama is living in "a dreamland."  If that's so, the rest of us are in a nighmare.

Fantasy apparently seems preferable to reality. In our new dream world, borrowed money need not be paid back. Cars may run on nasty gas, but only if it is produced in faraway places. Mean dictators should flee when told to leave. And radical Muslims are not really trying to kill us.

Obama was still blaming Bush yesterday.  We were on the right path in the 90s, he said.  It's the past ten years that have got us all messed up. How long are we supposed to fall for that one?  I'd venture to guess that Obama has borrowed more this year than Bush did his entire presidency.

Mark Steyn blasted the speech and the speechwriters for it's misinformation, it's laziness and its partisanship:

The whole speech was like that, a litany of brain-dead slapdash rhetorical questions that for sentient beings are no longer rhetorical:

The bottom line of Obama's plan is that we're going to forge ahead with green energy even though it doesn't exist.  We're going to buy oil from foreign sources even though we have plenty of resources here and gas is climbing to $5 a gallon.   We're going to cut defense while we're engaged in three wars, raise taxes on those who provide jobs and growth, and implement a health care albatross that will saddle the country with inferior care, raise the deficit and expand entitlements, further deepening our economic woes.

Fore!

On KSM and Gitmo

I really would like to blog about the announcement yesterday to try KSM and friends at Gitmo but I'm late for work right now and will have to get to it later.  By then it will be old news.  Meh. 

Suffice to say for now it's a really rookie, politicized move to go there on the same day you announce your re-election bid.  Did Team Obama think we'd all be showering praises on him right now for coming to his senses?  "You always wanted them tried at Gitmo; now you've got what you want and you're STILL bitchin'!" 

You bet we are!  How about years of frustration for justice as Obama dithered and pandered on this issue?  KSM confessed and was ready to be executed (i.e,. martyred) for his crimes and Obama let him chill down there at Gitmo instead. 

Rookie.  For all his blathering about how Gitmo has created more terrorism, his dithering has put a neon "Kick Me" sign on the back of America.  Weak.

Putz.

Obama's Reversal on GITMO

After all the blogging I've done on GITMO I'd be remiss if I didn't note Obama's reversal of policy on the facility:

President Obama on Monday reversed his two-year-old order halting new military charges against detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, permitting military trials to resume with revamped procedures but implicitly admitting the failure of his pledge to close the prison camp. 

Team Obama won't go so far as to vindicate Bush policies, however, and have tried to appease the left by explaining that this isn't exactly Bush's GITMO.  There is supposedly a new periodic review process in place.  The WSJ notes that this was actually tweaked in 2006:

By executive order, a new panel will now also conduct a "periodic review" of detentions. But the bipartisan Military Commissions Act of 2006, or MCA, had already included "administrative review boards" dedicated to the same goal.

The Wall Street Journal has some concerns with Protocol 1:

The other note of trouble is Mr. Obama's decision, also announced yesterday, to seek Senate ratification of a radical 1977 revision to the 1949 Geneva Conventions known as Additional Protocol 1. President Reagan repudiated Protocol 1 in 1987 because it vitiated the distinction between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants. Terrorists fight out of uniform and target civilians and thus do not deserve traditional prisoner-of-war protections. This was the two-decade political consensus until the Bush Presidency. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post editorialized in favor of Reagan's Protocol 1 decision.

Our guess is that Mr. Obama has adopted Protocol 1 to appease the domestic left and especially the "international community" that will be dismayed by his new embrace of Gitmo and George W. Bush's policies. Remember the moralizing Europeans? (See below.) Mr. Obama is nonetheless complicating the task of U.S. terror fighters, and encouraging further barbarism, by extending the laws of war to terrorists who hold combat restrictions in contempt.

It may all be political posturing in preparation for 2012, but however it comes, I'm glad the administration is now at least making gestures to return to military tribunals and keep GITMO open.   Take it with a grain of salt, though.  See how it unfolds. 

I don't think George W. Bush should look for his apology note in the mail anytime soon.  Even though Obama bashed Bush relentlessly on this issue, and even though he's now adopted many of Bush's policies, he'll never admit that Bush was right.  He'll stand by the old, "but we've tweaked it and made it BETTER" argument.  That's okay.  Whatever keeps America safe.

Obama Sells Out the Brits

Every time I think Obama can't shock me anymore, BAM!

The new Wikileaks drop and today's Telegraph revelation that Obama agreed to throw the U.K. under the bus to get his START treaty is giving me flashbacks to Clinton's ChinaGate.  It's not exactly the same thing, but exactly what diplomatic advantage is gained by giving our enemies defense secrets?  Ours or anyone else's?

According to the Telegraph report:

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week. Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Ace suggests we give this one 24 hours and keep in mind:

One thing: WikiLeaks doesn't have all the diplomatic cables. It might be the case (in fact, I'd bet hope it is the case) that the US and UK had a side-deal where the UK blessed this exchange.

Even if that's the case, it seems to me that any allies we have left might be reluctant to trust us in the future.  That is assuming that they still do, which is questionable.

Nice Deb suggests that this might also violate Article 3 of the NATO treaty.

I'm waiting for the spin to begin so we can sift through and find the real story.  Surely this can't be IT.  But if it is, hearings should begin immediately and as Ed Morrissey says:

Regardless of what Obama thinks of American nuclear deterrents and policy, he has no right to undermine the policies of our closest ally and stalwart friend, especially as they fight with us in Afghanistan.  Congress should immediately investigate this, and if possible the Senate should revoke its ratification of START.

What a disgrace.  Again.

(H/T:  Memeorandum)

Merry Christmas, Terrorists!

I'm getting really tired of Julian Assange.  Yesterday's Wikileaks drop include a list of "all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security."  Merry Christmas, terrorists!

The geographical range of the document on installations is extraordinary, our correspondent says.  If the US sees itself as waging a "global war on terror" then this represents a global directory of the key installations and facilities - many of them medical or industrial - that are seen as being of vital importance to Washington.  Some locations are given unique billing. The Nadym gas pipeline junction in western Siberia, for example, is described as "the most critical gas facility in the world". 

This, combined with Assange's promise to drop a new cache of uncensored documents should the government attempt to shut him down, simply confirm this man's status as an enemy of the state.

He's dangerous.

(H/T:  Memeorandum)

Enemy of the Country

All I can say about the WikiLeaks document drop is where is Julian Assange getting this information?

This just enrages me that this Julian Assange has not been captured, extradited to the United States and prosecuted, but maybe things don't work like that.  It's horrendous enough that he's publishing these documents, but I want to know where he's getting them.

Professor Jacobson wrote the best post I've seen on our government's seeming lack of response:

Have we lost our minds?  Wikileaks is about hurting us, bringing us down, damaging our relations with others, rendering us impotent.  This is not about open government policy, as if Wikileaks went a bit too far on its class project.

Julian Assange should have been indicted by now, and if the law did not allow more punitive measures in this circumstance, then the law should have been changed after the first document dump.  Assange is an enemy of our country and should be treated as such.

And as far as I'm concerned, the New York Times, is absolutely contemptible for publishing them.  Oh, I know that the foreign papers would publish them anyway, but ...If I'm in charge of the NYT?  Would. Not.Get.Published.


John at Powerline says:

Do the diplomatic cables "relate to the national defense"? Some of them certainly seem to. So a criminal prosecution of those involved in the leaks who are within federal jurisdiction (e.g., the New York Times) may be possible. Scott has studied these issues more closely than I have and may have more to say on the subject.  The Times explained its rationale for publishing the leaked cables here. The paper's most persuasive argument is that a number of foreign newspapers also have the documents and are sure to publish them, so the Times might as well join in.

(Insert unprintable expletive here).   As far as I'm concerned, this is an act of war. Prosecute Assange.  Find out the source of the documents leak and prosecute.  End this.

(More at Memeorandum)

What Has Happened to Common Sense in America?

I'm not sure what it is, but there's got to be a better way than what we're experiencing with the TSA security issues right now.  It's got everyone on edge from the travelers to the TSA workers themselves.

Even the TSA hates it:

'It is not comfortable to come to work knowing full well that my hands will be feeling another man’s private parts, their butt, their inner thigh,' one told the BoardingArea blog. 'Even worse is having to try and feel inside the flab rolls of obese passengers and we seem to get a lot of obese passengers!'  Another said he had a huge problem dealing with a 'large number of passengers... daily that have a problem understanding what personal hygiene is.'

One TSA agent said in the same article that a passenger accused him of "liking" the groping or else he would work for the TSA.

 

Of course the TSA doesn't like what they're being required to do.  

Marc Thiessen wrote a common sense piece yesterday:

In the coming days, millions of Americans will travel to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday with family and friends. May I pose a novel idea? As we go through the airport screening line, let’s stop and say “thanks” to the men and women of the TSA who give up time with their families during the holidays to keep us safe from terror.

In the past few weeks, these patriots have been compared with Big Brother and accused of sexual assault. They’ve suffered the same kinds of public indignities the Left has heaped on the men and women of the CIA — being accused of engaging un-American and unlawful behavior for doing the difficult and unpleasant work of protecting the country. They deserve better.

It all brings us back to the issue of profiling which actually goes further than just looking at a person and saying, "Hmmmm, that person looks like a terrorist."  Profiling also includes, as Bobby Jindal said Sunday, using the information we have.  Look for the patterns.  But, as Thiessen points out, that's not the only way to go:

Some say we should use profiling instead. Profiling should absolutely be a key part of our layered defenses against terrorist attack. But profiling alone is insufficient, and is not as easy as it may seem. Just as the terrorists adapt their tactics to get around our screening procedures, they will adapt to get around profiling. We know this because Khalid Shiekh Mohammed told us so. 

Our approach to airport security needs to employ some common sense, not just from the TSA, but from travelers, too.  At the very least, it helps nothing to heap abuse on the TSA any more than it helps to heap abuse on a police officer on the street who is just doing his job.

Just remember 9/11 and how indignant and furious you were that day when we were attacked.  Remember last Christmas when you were furious that a terrorist walked onto a plane with a bomb in his underwear.  Complacency will surely lead to another attack.

I don't know a whole lot about El Air, but it seems they do a pretty good job.  We've got to find a better, more common sense approach than degrading Americans OR vilifying the TSA. 

(H/T:  Memeorandum)

Bobby Jindal Sounds Off on TSA Groping

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal spoke out against the TSA screenings in an interview on Meet the Press yesterday:

I think that the American people are worried when they see an administration worried about reading Miranda rights to the underwear bomber. They worry when they see an administration committed to civilian trials. They wonder, "You're so worried about the rights of the terrorists , what about the rights of the innocent American traveler ?" So, absolutely, I'm concerned that out of political correctness , they're screening people they don't really believe to be dangerous.

Jindal makes a valid point with regard to political correctness; we've gone far amok there.  Jindal does not suggest we go to profiling but does suggest we use "the information we know," the intel we already have such as travel patterns, how the ticket was purchased, is it a one way ticket, etc.


Jindal makes the case that this administration needs to accept the fact that the war on terror is culture clash against an enemy who simply hates our way of life; they are not misunderstood, disadvantaged individuals who are seeking us out, but well financed, educated extremists who hate us and are willing to sacrifice their lives to kill us.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Additonally, Jindal insists he is not running in 2012 but does leave the door open for a VP invitation. 


In Louisiana, not everyone believes this.  Jarvis DeBerry writes:

If Jindal really has the job he wants, it's fair to ask why he hasn't exhibited more passion for solving Louisiana's problems. Could it be that solving this state's problems in a sensible way would make him less attractive as a Republican presidential nominee?

Jindal has been under fire here at home for his cuts to higher education and his extensive travels across the country as he attends fundraisers for GOP candidates and now promotes his new book.


C. B. Forgotston, a Louisiana blogger, attorney, political pundit and former Chief Counsel for the Appropriations Committee of the Louisiana House of Representatives, has long been nipping at Jindal's heels. Forgotston has been one of Jindal's most vocal critics on the issue of transparency in government, or lack of it.

Jindal is now under fire for his questionable appointments to fill three offices in Creola, a village in central Louisiana who recently recalled three of its elected officials.

All this to say, of course, that while some on the national scene see Jindal as one of the rising stars of the Republican party, there are plenty in Louisiana who see him differently.  That said, Jindal is correct in his assessment of the TSA screenings and the Obami approach to the war on terror.

One of the points George W. Bush makes in his memoir, Decision Points, is that on 9/11 as he was insisting on returning to the White House, he did not want the terrorists to have that small victory of seeing him scurrying to new locations whenever a new threat arose.  He didn't want to be manipulated. 

With these new TSA screenings, the terrorists have certainly achieved another victory as American citizens are being groped and humiliated in airports across the country.  It's incumbent on us to utilize better methods available to us than invasive searches or full body scanners.  The bomb sensing scanners were a flop but the technology exists and could be adapted.

I think in the end that Jindal is correct on one point.  We need to use common sense along with the intel we have.  Luck isn't a strategy and we need to get over the excessive political correctness.

(More at Memeorandum)

Eric Holder Must Go

Two excellent pieces calling for the firing of Eric Holder:  one from the Wall Street Journal and one over at Hot Air.

In short:

The right policy is to separate the laws of war from the laws of civilian society. Burglars and muggers should be tried in civilian courts. Unlawful enemy combatants captured on the battlefield deserve to be held in Guantanamo and tried in military commissions. And if Mr. Holder can't tell the difference, he should find a new job.

Exactly.

Of course, the New York Times thinks Holder did a fine job, a fine job!  Way to go, Eric!

The verdict in the first federal trial of a former Guantánamo detainee has unleashed the usual chest-thumping and fear-mongering from the usual politicians. They are disappointed that the defendant was only convicted of one count of conspiring to blow up American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 — a crime for which he will probably serve a life sentence. 

Figures.

Not Guilty of the Mass Murder of 224 People

The Ghailani verdict is stunning.  It absolutely stuns me how close this terrorist came to being found "not guilty" and technically having to be set free.  Would Team Obama have set him free?

As everyone knows by now:

Ahmed Ghailani, an al Qaeda terrorist who conspired to blow up American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, was acquitted of more than 280 charges, including one count of murder for each of the 224 people killed in the simultaneous attacks. The jury found Ghailani guilty of only one charge: conspiracy to destroy U.S. government buildings.
 

Over at Hot Air, Allahpundit wonders:

If he had walked, Obama would now be in the excruciating position of having to decide whether to let him go, which would be an utter political disaster, or to re-arrest him and hold him on some sort of preventive detention grounds, which would be a civil libertarian nightmare (and a political disaster among his base). 

Thomas Joscelyn wants to know:

It is a mystery how the jury could find that these facts failed to add up to a guilty verdict on all of the murder counts. How can a terrorist be guilty of conspiring to blow up two buildings, but then be found not guilty of the ensuing deaths?

The White House is "pleased" with the verdict.  Hell yeah, they are.  That one "guilty" verdict saved them from a PR nightmare.

Liz Cheney at Keep America Safe has issued this statement:

“Bad ideas have dangerous consequences. The Obama Administration recklessly insisted on a civilian trial for Ahmed Ghailani, and rolled the dice in a time of war. The Department of Justice says it’s pleased by the verdict. Ask the families of the victims if they’re pleased. And this result isn’t just embarrassing. It’s dangerous. It signals weakness in a time of war. The Ghailani trial was supposed to be a test case for future trials of 9/11 terrorists. We urge the president: End this reckless experiment. Reverse course. Use the military commissions at Guantanamo that Congress has authorized. And, above all--accept the fact that we are at war.”

I would agree with the many other pundits this morning who suggest that this puts the final nail in the coffin to holding the KSM trial in NYC.  Could the administration risk a "not guilty" on the 9/11 mastermind? 

This verdict shows that terrorists need to be tried by military commissions and they need to be tried at GITMO. 

Charles Krauthammer said on Special Report last night that he believes this verdict means Gitmo stays open and stays open for good.  I'd have to agree, there.

What an amateurish, and nearly costly blunder, by the administration.  Children playing where grownups should be.

Follow the rest at Memeorandum.

Treaon!

I wrote yesterday that my opinion of the WikiLeaks document drop this week is nothing short of pure treason.  Victor Davis Hanson seems to concur:

There has never been anything quite like WikiLeaks in American military history. We are engaged in a great experiment to see whether the U.S. military can still persist in a conflict when it knows that any and all of its private communications can become public — and will be selectively aired and hyped by people with a preconceived bias against it. Had the public known in real time from periodic media leaks about operational disasters surrounding the planning for the D-Day landings, intelligence failures at the Bulge or Okinawa, or G.I. treatment of some German and Japanese prisoners, the story of World War II might have been somewhat different.

Hanson points out that while Julian Assange claims to be dedicated toward "uncovering  bad behavior by governments around the world," he only  "targets the West."

Call me naive, but could someone explain to me how it's not treasonous when he's endangering the lives and revealing the secrets and methods of our U.S. military operations?  

Hanson doesn't scream "treason!" as I do, but he does foresee trouble on the horizon for WikiLeaks:

But WikiLeaks is now flitting around within the red zone, and any leaks about Afghanistan or Iraq post January 2009 reflect upon a left-wing Obama government. A public perception of inappropriate military policy would endanger an entire far-left social experiment at home.

Yes, indeed.   As Obama has adopted many of the Bush policies in the war, and retained Gitmo, after all, and as WikiLeaks begins to release documents of that nature, maybe the NYT won't feel the need to publish this sort of thing any longer.  Certainly our military would be safer.

Sick (UPDATED)

The buzz this morning is about Bob Woodward's new book, Obama's Wars, coming out next week.  The New York Times has excerpts as does The Washington Post.

This one...

"We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger." 

....just makes me nauseous.

"Everything we can to prevent it"?  Really?  Like closing Gitmo and setting terrorists free?  Oh wait...that hasn't worked out yet.  Like inviting an attack by attempting to hold the KSM trial in Manhattan?  I could go on...but I won't.  

We sure aren't "stronger" because of anything Obama has done.

Update:  Woah Nellie!  I was being restrained when I first posted this this morning but Victor Davis Hanson most definitely was NOT.  With regard to the above Obama quote, VDH calls it "a very callous and cruel editorial about the 3,000 who were so savagely killed and are no longer with us."

 You betcha.

Read the whole thing, but he finishes strong:

When all this is collated with the arbitrary withdrawal dates, the McChrystal mess, the confusions and flip-flopping on everything from Guantanamo to the KSM trial, the plethora of regional czars at the expense of the secretary of state’s traditional portfolio, the weird remarks like “allegedly” after the Mutallab attempt, the deliberate distortions of the issues involved in the Ground Zero mosque, the Cairo speech myth-making, the initial al-Arabiya review, the silence after the Iranian protests last years, and much more — then we, our allies, and our enemies all get the impression that Obama is uninterested in national-security issues, resents the position that he is put in by a war against terror and operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and seems to think that at some abstract level past American culpability has provoked radical Islamists to lash out, requiring us to absorb rather than preempt their blows. This trumps even Carterism and is a prescription for national suicide.

See!  If I didn't have to rush off to work this morning, I'd have explained it just like that.  Well, close to that.  He's more eloquent.



(H/T:  Memeorandum)

Dry Run Terror Plot Averted?

How does something like this continue to happen:

The two were allowed to board the flight at O'Hare airport last night despite security concerns surrounding one of them, the officials said.

The men were identified as Ahmed Mohamed Nasser al Soofi, of Detroit, MI, and Hezem al Murisi, the officials said. A neighbor of al Soofi told ABC News he is from Yemen.

Airport security screeners in Birmingham, Alabama first stopped al Soofi and referred him to additional screening because of what officials said was his "bulky clothing."

In addition, officials said, al Soofi was found to be carrying $7,000 in cash and a check of his luggage found a cell phone taped to a Pepto-Bismol bottle, three cell phones taped together, several watches taped together, a box cutter and three large knives. Officials said there was no indication of explosives and he and his luggage were cleared for the flight from Birmingham to Chicago O'Hare. 

Incredible.  I can't wait for the explanation on this one.  "The system worked," maybe? 

China's Buildup

This is scary as hell:

A Pentagon report suppressed by the administration describes a massive Chinese military buildup that has only one purpose: to deny us access to the Western Pacific and destroy American forces that try.

IBD has the frightening details:

"China is fielding an array of conventionally armed ballistic missiles, ground- and air-launched cruise missiles, special operations forces and cyberwarfare capabilities to hold targets at risk throughout the region," the report says. These targets would be American bases and carrier battle groups that might be sent to aid Taiwan.

The 74-page Pentagon report also notes that China is "pursuing a variety of air, sea, undersea, space and counterspace" weapons designed specifically to attack U.S. forces. Primary among them is the Dong Feng 21D carrier-killer ballistic missile that can hit moving and heavily defended American carriers with pinpoint accuracy at distances between 900 and 1,000 miles from China's coasts.

They don't have to attack us; they already own us, thanks to Obama.  

IBD questions why this report was delayed for five months and just now released.  Why was it suppressed?  Read their whole piece for the details.

Meanwhile, what are we doing?  Uhmmmm......not so much.  We are singing Kumbaya for a non-nuclear world.  We're canceling weapons programs and defense shields.  We're demilitarizing.

The Heritage Foundation points out:

The [People's Liberation Army] has enjoyed sustained growth in its resources, its capabilities, and its sophistication for so long that we are no longer surprised by its burgeoning reach and expanding envelope. There are individual technologies, such as anti-ship ballistic missiles, that are being pioneered by Chinese engineers, but we have become accustomed to China’s overall efforts to become a true military power.

You become complacent; you lose.  Period.

A Little News Round Up

Over the past two weeks, as I've been getting my mom in and out of hospitals, I've fallen out of the loop in the political world.  It happens so fast!  You read and try to keep up, but it's difficult to be as thorough as you are when you're posting everyday when you have so much else going on.  So, this morning I'm trying to get caught up on things and have just a few random comments.  Then I'm off to the school for a couple of hours to move my classroom, thereby leaving the rest of my week school-free.

On the WikiLeaks story:  I think the New York Times is despicable.  Sweetness & Light has a great post on this story which sums up pretty much where I am with it.    If you look at Memeorandum, everybody and his brother has already commented on it, of course, and so I don't have much to add.  Weekly Standard and Hot Air both are of the mind that the publication of the documents don't really reveal anything new, and this may be true, but that's almost not even the point.

The point to me is, where does the NYT decide not to publish something with regard to national security?  Would they have published top secret information?  I think we all know the answer to that.  Professor Glenn Reynolds points out that the White House condemns the report, but he says:

"They could be disinformation from people who don’t like the United States — or they could be disinformation from U.S. intelligence agencies. Who knows?"

Exactly.

Elsewhere:

I'm tired of the Shirley Sherrod story.

In the Arizona primary, John McCain has opened a rather large 20-point lead against his opponent, J. D. Hayworth.

And oh dear Lord, can you hardly wait to set your DVR for Obama's appearance on The View?  What a fawning load of saccharine blather that will be.  God help us.  He doesn't have anything else to do that day?  Seriously?

The cleanup in the Gulf continues now that Bonnie has fizzled out.  People are anxious for their communities and beaches to be cleaned up but tensions are high, as reported by this story.  The whole stranger in town scenario has locals tense.  Hell, the entire situation has people tense.  People are out of work because of the moratorium and the spill, money is tight, livelihoods are threatened; yes, I'd say tensions are high down on the coast.

Louisiana lawmakers are banding together to get the moratorium lifted, but they're wasting their time.  Obama hates us.  He doesn't care.

Speaking of the Gulf coast, I'm reminded to note that I tried Tina's shrimp cocktail recipe last night:  delicious!  Absolutely great!  Perfect for a hot summer day!  I cut it in half because I was using it as a side to grilled steaks, but man was it good!

I'm off to the school now for a couple of hours.  Steve and I are slipping out of town to spend the night in Natchitoches one night this week, and we're off to Minden tomorrow to visit Milly Rose and her little dogs.  Expect travelogues this week!

White House Slashing NYC Anti-Terror Funds

This via The New York Post.

Because we're no longer in danger from terrorists...

The Obama administration will announce tomorrow it has slashed anti-terror funds for New York City, despite the attempted Times Square bombing less than two weeks ago that underscored the enormous threat to the city.

The Department of Homeland Security informed New York officials yesterday that grants to the city were cut 27 percent for mass transit security and 25 percent for port security.

The mass transit funds dropped $42 million, from $153 million last year to $111 this year.  Port security funds suffered a $11.2 million cut, from $45 million to $33.8 million, officials said.

Someone please tell The White House that despite the fact that this country elected Barack Obama as President, we are still terrorist targets.

Books, Tests and Criminals

Random thoughts -

We did, in fact, do steak night at Hangar 2 and it was great.  Steve cooked.  I sat on the deck under the fans.  Awesome.  We ate, drank beer, watched the magnolias bloom, and came home.  Total relaxation!

No new dog damage.

My copy of The Manchurian President arrived today.  I had to take the book jacket off though.  Disturbing.

Okay, Bride.  believe it or not, when I wrote that post I heard your voice in my head.  I made the call and am working out a schedule with the CAT scan guy.  My deal isn't fear of the test; it's just reluctance at taking off work YET AGAIN when I only have 3 weeks of school left.  But I know, and you're right, and I'll do it.  Thank you for caring!  :)

And in something not having to do with my personal life (imagine that!)  I want to point to Andy McCarthy's post about the car bomber.  I wondered this at the time but figured I was too unschooled in such things to understand what I was talking about.  Turns out I wasn't.  McCarthy wonders:

So why unnecessarily release a complaint that lays out valuable information and then refrain from holding the presentment? By doing that, the Justice Department has told the world — including anyone who might have been working with Shahzad — both what Shahzad has told investigators and that he is continuing to help investigators. Why would we want to do that? 

Why tell his cohorts that he's talking and cooperating and WHAT he's telling us, if we don't have to?  Why make it all public knowledge?  So fast?  And of course, he comes to the inevitable conclusion.  Read his post to find out what it is.  I bet you can figure it out first.


Okay so I'm going to read my new book and rest my pleurisy.  I'm making the appointment, Bride, I promise!