Joust The Facts

Would You Buy A Used Car From This Woman?

Just before taking on her position as President Obama's National Security Advisor, current UN Ambassador Susan Rice surfaced to interject her expert opinion regarding yet another international crisis.  She called on all of her expertise in international relations, foreign affairs, and national security to tell us that Edward Snowden, the man who told us all that the NSA says all our data are belong to them, has not damaged national security.

She said it's too soon to judge whether there will be any long-term serious repercussions from the intelligence leaks by the former National Security Agency contractor who fled to Hong Kong and then Russia after seizing documents disclosing secret U.S. surveillance programs in the U.S. and overseas, which he has shared with The Guardian and Washington Post newspapers.

"I don't think the diplomatic consequences, at least as they are foreseeable now, are that significant," she said.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have called Snowden's leaks a serious breach that damaged national security. Hagel said Thursday an assessment of the damage is being done now

Are we to believe Ms. Rice?  Thinking back to the last time we heard from our UN Ambassador, she was telling us - on five separate Sunday morning political talk shows - that the Benghazi terrorist raids that led to the murder of Ambassador Chris Stephens and three others was due to a "spontaneous" protest over an anti-Islam video.  This despite the fact that in none of the versions of the administrations talking points on the attack was the video even mentioned.  Repeated lying like that takes a special talent, remarkable actually.

We now know exactly why Mr. Obama finds Ms. Rice so valuable.  Just like the salesperson in a shady used car dealership, she's willing to make the sale by telling the customer, the "mark," just what the owner wants them to believe. 

Can't The White House Handle The Truth?

In A Few Good Men Jack Nicholson, as Col. Nathan Jessup famously declared to Lt. Daniel Caffey (played by Tom Cruise), "You can't handle the truth!"  The question today is, can the White House?  In the second presidential debate Barack Obama declared self-righteously that he had identified the Benghazi terrorist attack an "act of terror" in the Rose Garden speech the next day.  That requires very generous inference from the speech.  Then spokespeople, representatives and administration officials, including press secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, spent the next 2 weeks identifying a spontaneous demonstration generated by outrage over an obscure internet video trailer as the real source of the problem.  Have a look.

Well, today we learn that immediately after the attack, within hours, the White House was informed that this was most likely not a "spontaneous demonstration" gone awry, by State Department emails

(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

While officials did mention the possible involvement of "extremists," they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

At the very least, such emails should have tempered the full-court press that deflected blame to the allegedly offending video.  A question I asked earlier is this:

If it is irresponsible to declare this a terrorist attack without definitive evidence that it was, why was it not also irresponsible to absolve terrorists and affix the blame to the video without the same definitive evidence?

I'd also be interested in why such mendacity would be necessary.  Perhaps it was thought that it might deflect the questions about lax security.  After all, if it was an un-anticipated spontaneous demonstration that ran amok, how could such an event have been anticipated?  Perhaps it was because the White House sees insults to Islam as the source of Islamic rage.  Which, of course, leads to the incorrect conclusion that according to the administration such rage and killing is understandable if not justifiable whenever insults to Islam occur, and also to the conclusion that the First Amendment in the US Constitution should not protect such speech.  Perhaps it's because with Romney winning on the economy, Obama couldn't afford to lose face in foreign policy before November 6.  In that event, who would then be playing politics with the loss of American lives?

Ambassador Susan Rice's earnest Tour de Jon Lovitz on five Sunday morning talk shows several days after the attack focused on the video and the word "spontaneous" and made nary a mention of a terrorist attack as the most likely explanation.  Yet that appears to be the one that should have been foremost in administration thinking.  Spontaneous, indeed.

More from Allahpundit here.

On Libya, And Lying, And Lameness

So I watched last night's debate with Gwendolyn by my side, and she questioned why I felt it necessary to watch a debate between the two men running for president when both of us know already who we're voting for.  And I had to admit, it would be really easy to switch the channel and watch My Cousin Vinny for the 32nd time, or catch Justin Verlander dispatching the Evil Empire in game three of the ALCS.  But then up popped a question on Libya.  And no, I'm not even going to get into the whole "Candy Crowley jumped in on Obama's side, was wrong to do so, and was wrong about what the President said in the Rose Garden" thing.

As I watched, I tweeted.  Here's a sample of my tweets (and a few re-tweets) from that segment.** (read from the bottom up)

Well, maybe I - and a number of others - were wrong.  We must have simply missed the answer, but it was there.  Just slipped past us.   Errr, no.

Right.  I didn't think he answered the question.  Now, onto the lameness.  I swung by Real Clear Politics to see what the topics of conversation might be, and was surprised ... shocked really ... to see this.

Oh, he did?  Really?  Here's the link to Mr. Drum's piece, and the actual title: "It's time for Romney to give Benghazi a rest."  The central point Mr. Drum makes is this:

But what I really wonder is: how has this become a serious question anyway? Why does anyone care if it took two weeks to decide that Benghazi was an act of terror? Two weeks! That's not exactly an eternity. Even if it were true that Obama spent a few days waiting for firm intelligence reports before making firm statements, is there anything wrong with that? Isn't that what a president should do?

It's a serious question because four people, including an ambassador, died.  It's a serious question because it highlights the truthfulness, or lack thereof, of the administration in dealing with this tragedy.  It's a serious question because Mr. Obama didn't treat those deaths as serious, choosing to go to fundraisers in Las Vegas when an ambassador had died. Here are a few inconvenient ones for those cheering Mr. Obama's answer (and Ms Crowley's partisan efforts) last night.

• The slain ambassador wrote in his journal about his own security concerns and his desire and need to improve security.
• Testimony in Congress by Eric Nordstrom indicates he was rebuffed for months in attempts to improve security.  And a Lt. Colonel who was the leader of a security team that was called home knew right away that it was a terrorist attack.
• The Libyans knew within less than 24 hours that a) no protest took place that day in Benghazi about any video, and b) the attackers were well-organized and associated with Al Qaeda.
• Despite that, administration officials spent almost two weeks repeatedly blaming the attack on an anti-Islam video trailer, including arresting the video's producer.  If they weren't sure it was terrorism initially, how were they so sure it was the video?  Are some out-on-a-limb accusations acceptable, but not others?

So no, this doesn't put the Benghazi story to rest.  Not at all.  And the fact that the President failed to answer Mr. Ladka's question of who declined the extra security, and misled viewers about his own statements on the day after the attack doesn't help him one iota.

*Let's just say that Mr. Obama didn't explicitly call it terrorism, and didn't specifically condemn that particular attack as a coordinated act of terror.  He did call it an "attack," and later in the speech condemned "acts of terror" generically.  But he also linked the attack to the video, as later that week so did Susan Rice on five separate Sunday morning shows.

**If anyone can inform me how to post the entire timeline of my tweets, or a section of them, I'd be most appreciative.  These are screenshots - best I could do.

At The WTC Site, Still Under Construction

My family and I recently visited NYC, around the end of August, and ventured to the lower end of Manhattan to have a look at the progression of the re-building of the financial district buildings after the attacks of 9-11. The thing I like about it best is the open park with the two square fountains, surrounded by the names of the 9-11 victims.  The park contains this - the only tree left standing at the site in the aftermath of the attack.  It was removed and nursed back to health and, according to this story, now stands at over 30 feet tall. 

Here's a look at the fountains

Here's a look at how construction stands now.

The twin fountains, with square layout representing the twin towers, are just at the lower left corner of the photo above and just beyond the foreground building.

*I have my own photos at home from our visit, and plan to substitute for these later.

The 23rd Anniversary of Pan Am 103

December 21^st has acquired an increasing aura of ominous significance for my family and me.  In 1988 Pan Am 103 was blown from the skies by now-convicted Libyan terrorists, falling to earth in Lockerbie, Scotland and taking with it the lives of 259 people on board the plane and 11 on the ground.  One of those lives on the plane was my brother, returning from a semester overseas in London during his time at Syracuse University.

Annually on this date I have been reprinting my first post from the start of this blog, which I dedicated to my brother.  The plane disappeared from the radar screen at 7:03 PM GMT, the moment when all those lives, my brother's included, were tragically ended.  The post is timed here at 7:03 PM EST, the time when I arrived home from my residency training to discover the awful truth.  In 2005 the pain of this shortest day of the year in the northern hemisphere became that much greater, when my father was taken from our family suddenly.  The irony - or possibly the design - of the two dying on the same date has not escaped our notice.  This post now contains the original first post, from September 2004 and the material I wrote about my father when, after his death, I returned to this blog.

The original first post:

My Reason for Being

There are a lot of ways this weblog could begin. I think the best is with a brief history and explanation. You see, I lost a wonderful younger brother in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. I miss him every day; he would be 38 now. I recall thinking back then that the attack constituted an act of war. I couldn't believe that there wasn't the moral clarity and certitude of purpose on the part of our government to prosecute a war against those who had attacked us. That lack of moral clarity persisted through the Desert Storm war, leaving Saddam in power, through the first bombing on the World Trade Center, through the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, etc., etc., etc. With the devastation of the attack on 9-11 finally, at long last, all Americans would see that we may not have thought ourselves at war, but an enemy was at war with us. The same America that fought World Wars I & II would surely unite to fight against an enemy that attacked us on our home soil - but I was wrong.

Even before the first strikes in Afghanistan many, particularly in the media, were questioning the action, opining that we would find ourselves in a quagmire. With the attacks in Iraq the same voices were heard. Now, as Iraq struggles to find a footing for democracy many who in the 1990's thought Saddam needed to be ousted and, if necessary, preemptive action taken have changed their mind, simply because it's not their guy doing the ousting.

President Bush is doing exactly what needs to be done - aggressively prosecuting the GWOT. The critics note that terrorists are flocking to Iraq to fight against Iraqi and US soldiers - to which I answer "Good. Get more of them together, rather than chasing them to the ends of the earth." To those who think Iraq is not part of the GWOT and that we should have left Saddam in power I ask, do you really think the world would be a better place with Saddam still in power?

This is the history that has influenced me. As Senator Zell Miller said at the beginning of his speech at the Republican National Convention [link]:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren. Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions. And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face. Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in. And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family? The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party. There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

My family, and in fact all Americans, are too important to me. This blog will stray onto lesser topics regularly, my passions and interests. But it will likely always return to this vital effort.

Posted by Giacomo on 28 September 2004

Here are the Wikipedia entry on Pan Am 103 and the website for the Syracuse students.  The latter is very well done.

From my return post of December 29, 2005:

Lastly, I'd like to write briefly about my dad, who passed away eight days ago, on a professional level.  He was a remarkable physician, a cancer specialist in a way that really no cancer specialists are anymore.  He performed all manner of cancer surgery, soup to nuts, including the plastic reconstruction of any deformity created.  He guided the radiation therapy and chemotherapy for his patients.  He read their MRIs and CTs himself.  He looked at their pathology slides.  This was one-stop shopping cancer care, something that you need six or seven different doctors to provide now.  You might think that each of those six or seven physicians would be more highly informed in their particular area to optimize their portion of the care.  You would be wrong.  And you'd have to coordinate six or seven different physician offices to get anything done.

He retired four years ago, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming from his practice.  When he left, he spent the next two years staying in contact with his patients, and working with each of them to be sure they had the best follow-up care he could arrange.  That's something you don't see either.

I won't be writing here on a personal level.  That's something I did for his burial two days ago.  We miss you, Dad.  We all miss you very much.

If anyone is interested, here is the link to his obituary.

On The Death Of A Dictator: "It Couldn't Happen To A More Deserving Guy"

The rebel/revolutionary forces in Libya and the NATO forces still fighting there have gotten their man.  Ghadafi is - finally and thankfully - dead.  As long-time readers of this blog no doubt know, my brother was one of the 270 who lost their lives when Pan Am 103 was blown from the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland by a bomb that originated with Libyan terrorists.  Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was the Libyan agent convicted in the bombing, and unfortunately, at more than two years after he was given "three months to live" with prostate cancer and given "compassionate release" he remains alive in Libya.  But the man who gave the order, the long-time dictator in Libya, is dead.

Thousands of Libyans poured on to the streets of the capital on Thursday, ecstatic at the news that Muammar Gaddafi had been killed in his birthplace of Sirt. As depicted in several cellphone video images, it was a violent and gruesome death for a man who had ruled this country with an iron fist for 42 years.

Like I wrote, it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

After an hour and a half of unconfirmed reports, the news came on at about 3.30 p.m. that Gaddafi was indeed dead. Footage on Al Jazeera Television, showed a bloodied Gaddafi being dragged by his arms on the street toward a vehicle. Images also showed Gaddafi's body, apparently killed in gunfire, his eyes rolled back lifeless. In the lobby of the Radisson Blu Hotel, where many rebel officials, as well as foreign journalists, have been based for weeks, many Libyans doubled over, weeping, overcome with emotion.

Many of the family members of the victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing are emotional as well.

Hussein.  Ghadafi.  Castro.  Chavez.  Jong-Il.  Dictators, particularly the murderous ones, can survive a long time.  When they are gone they are not mourned by their people (unless, as in North Korea after the death of Kim Il-Sung they are forced to by the next dictator).  Rather, their deaths are celebrated.  They are only mourned by those who romanticize the ideals of their supposedly idyllic society while refusing to see the terror, fear, oppression, want and hatred that lies just beneath a false veneer of majesty.

Here's my first December 21st post, from back in 2004, on the occasion of the 16th anniversary of Pan Am 103.   An excerpt:

Sixteen years ago today Pan Am 103 was blown from the skies over Lockerbie Scotland, taking with it as it fell the lives of 259 passengers and 11 Scots on the ground.  One of the passengers was my brother.  I will be annually reposting my first post on this date, in memory of my brother.  He was 22.  I can think of nothing more vital in this world than defeating the terrorists so that other families will not have to go through what my family, and the other families of the Pan AM 103 victims, have gone through.

9-11 Turns 10 - A Remembrance

It has been 10 years since the 2001 attack on America, but the memories of that day will stick with all Americans, particularly those of us whose lives have been scarred by terrorism, for the rest of our days.  The day haunts me at times unexpectedly.  A couple of days ago while watching the 1997 film Men In Black with my kids I noticed the scene where Will Smith delivers an alien child in the backseat of a car in New Jersey.  Prominently in the background stood the two majestic towers on another bright, sunny day, the image now a stark reminder of their absence.  The image below was captured from the movie trailer.

Yahoo currently has a 9-11 10 year anniversary image site running, and in that is a collection of the 25 most stark images from the day, some of which I hadn't seen before.  The Falling Man photo is in there, as is an image of the North Tower on fire from the first impact, with Flight 175 in the background approaching its impact with the South Tower.  There's also an image of White House Chief of Staff whispering the news of the attack to President George W. Bush.  Yahoo includes the following in the caption:

Ten years later, one of the kids who was there in that class, Chantal Guerrero, told Time magazine that to this day she's grateful that Bush -- obviously profoundly upset about something that Card had told him -- maintained his composure and stayed with the students until the book they were reading, The Pet Goat, was finished. "I think the President was trying to keep us from finding out," Guerrero said, "so we all wouldn't freak out."

I recently discussed this topic with my older daughters, who had seen a news report following up with the children in that class.  My daughters agreed that it was probably best for the class that Mr. Bush had kept his calm in that moment, just as those children now think.  Michael Moore et. al. may want to rethink the "My Pet Goat" line of attack.  Go through the photos slowly and absorb them all.

Speaking of Mr. Bush, here's a brief documentary video of his pitch at Yankee Stadium, including Derek Jeter adding to the already enormous pressure.  The President threw a strike.

Here are a few additional links. 

• National Geographic's "Inside 9/11" documentary series.  Click on the "videos" tab.
• Lots of audio, video and still images, as well as remembrances and links at this September 11 Memorial website.  Plan to spend some time there.
• A&E is showing Flight 93 now, and after that showing the History Channel's "102 Minutes That Changed America."  Linked here.

And finally, the History Channel's documentary on the World Trade Center itself, in "Modern Marvels"

 Previous JTF September 11 posts:

• 2005: Remembrances Real And Imagined
• 2006: A Transforming Dawn
• 2007: We Remember
• 2008: There Are Some Things We Probably Shouldn't Forget and Yahoo! Forgets
• 2009: September 11: Eight Years On
• 2010: Nine Years From Darkness

 9/11/2011: A couple of additional links.  Hot Air's Ed Morrissey hosts his local 9-11 remembrance, and gives us his stirring open comment.  And Professor Jacobson at LegalInsurrection remembers well, quite well.

The JTF "Quote Of The Day"

From Gabriel Malor, of Ace Of Spades fame.  Discussing the incoherent collection of random policies by which the Obama administration deals with captured terrorists, he writes: (orig. story at WaPo)

Lemme see if I've got this right. The President acknowledges that we have to interrogate these guys. He's admitted that, finally. But he cannot send terrorists to U.S. detention sites on our allies' territory because he railed against that when Bush 43 did it. He cannot send terrorists to the major detention facility created for that purpose on territory we control because he similarly railed against that at a time when he had no real responsibilities and despite the fact that he has now conceded that it will remain in operation indefinitely. He cannot send them straight to the United States because then we couldn't interrogate them and he has surrendered to the fact that we need to interrogate them.

Solution: avoid this entire mess of his own creation by secretly detaining terrorists on naval vessels and as far as international (or domestic law) goes just fugedaboudit. Too. Much. Trouble. Presidentin'. Is. Hard.

That'll leave a mark.  Painted into a corner much?  Oh, and if you think the CIA is doing this interrogating, think again.  From Gabe again:

Oh, here's another Obama snowball-into-avalanche mess:

Warsame was turned over to the FBI after extensive "humane" interrogation aboard ship by a unit known as a High-Value Interrogation Group, made up of FBI, CIA and Defense Department personnel, the officials said. But a U.S. official said CIA officers did not directly question Warsame. After the controversy surrounding George W. Bush-era interrogations of detainees, the CIA has consistently said it has kept its agents away from direct questioning.

I originally went through there bolding the important bits, but when I got to the end, practically the whole thing was bolded. Read it again, Sam. The CIA literally won't touch terrorist interrogations with a ten foot pole. Not even "humane" interrogations. And that's a direct result of Obama's and AG Holder's witchhunt.

The 22nd Anniversary of Pan Am 103

December 21^st has acquired an increasing aura of ominous significance for my family and me.  In 1988 Pan Am 103 was blown from the skies by now-convicted Libyan terrorists, falling to earth in Lockerbie, Scotland and taking with it the lives of 259 people on board the plane and 11 on the ground.  One of those lives on the plane was my brother, returning from a semester overseas in London during his time at Syracuse University.

Annually on this date I have been reprinting my first post from the start of this blog, which I dedicated to my brother.  The plane disappeared from the radar screen at 7:03 PM GMT, the moment when all those lives, my brother's included, were tragically ended.  The post is timed here at 7:03 PM EST, the time when I arrived home from my residency training to discover the awful truth.  In 2005 the pain of this shortest day of the year in the northern hemisphere became that much greater, when my father was taken from our family suddenly.  The irony - or possibly the design - of the two dying on the same date has not escaped our notice.  This post now contains the original first post, from September 2004 and the material I wrote about my father when, after his death, I returned to this blog.

The original first post:

My Reason for Being

There are a lot of ways this weblog could begin. I think the best is with a brief history and explanation. You see, I lost a wonderful younger brother in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. I miss him every day; he would be 38 now. I recall thinking back then that the attack constituted an act of war. I couldn't believe that there wasn't the moral clarity and certitude of purpose on the part of our government to prosecute a war against those who had attacked us. That lack of moral clarity persisted through the Desert Storm war, leaving Saddam in power, through the first bombing on the World Trade Center, through the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, etc., etc., etc. With the devastation of the attack on 9-11 finally, at long last, all Americans would see that we may not have thought ourselves at war, but an enemy was at war with us. The same America that fought World Wars I & II would surely unite to fight against an enemy that attacked us on our home soil - but I was wrong.

Even before the first strikes in Afghanistan many, particularly in the media, were questioning the action, opining that we would find ourselves in a quagmire. With the attacks in Iraq the same voices were heard. Now, as Iraq struggles to find a footing for democracy many who in the 1990's thought Saddam needed to be ousted and, if necessary, preemptive action taken have changed their mind, simply because it's not their guy doing the ousting.

President Bush is doing exactly what needs to be done - aggressively prosecuting the GWOT. The critics note that terrorists are flocking to Iraq to fight against Iraqi and US soldiers - to which I answer "Good. Get more of them together, rather than chasing them to the ends of the earth." To those who think Iraq is not part of the GWOT and that we should have left Saddam in power I ask, do you really think the world would be a better place with Saddam still in power?

This is the history that has influenced me. As Senator Zell Miller said at the beginning of his speech at the Republican National Convention [link]:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren. Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions. And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face. Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in. And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family? The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party. There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

My family, and in fact all Americans, are too important to me. This blog will stray onto lesser topics regularly, my passions and interests. But it will likely always return to this vital effort.

Posted by Giacomo on 28 September 2004

Here are the Wikipedia entry on Pan Am 103, the Victims of Pan Am 103 official site, hosted by Syracuse University, and a link to archival information on the Syracuse students who perished that day.

From my return post of December 29, 2005:

Lastly, I'd like to write briefly about my dad, who passed away eight days ago, on a professional level.  He was a remarkable physician, a cancer specialist in a way that really no cancer specialists are anymore.  He performed all manner of cancer surgery, soup to nuts, including the plastic reconstruction of any deformity created.  He guided the radiation therapy and chemotherapy for his patients.  He read their MRIs and CTs himself.  He looked at their pathology slides.  This was one-stop shopping cancer care, something that you need six or seven different doctors to provide now.  You might think that each of those six or seven physicians would be more highly informed in their particular area to optimize their portion of the care.  You would be wrong.  And you'd have to coordinate six or seven different physician offices to get anything done.

He retired four years ago, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming from his practice.  When he left, he spent the next two years staying in contact with his patients, and working with each of them to be sure they had the best follow-up care he could arrange.  That's something you don't see either.

I won't be writing here on a personal level.  That's something I did for his burial two days ago.  We miss you, Dad.  We all miss you very much.

If anyone is interested, here is the link to his obituary.

Demise Of The Reasonable Middle

I haven't commented to this point on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Clinton policy toward gay soldiers instituted when President Clinton discovered that, back in 1993, full repeal of the ban on gays was fully a bridge too far.  With a super-majority in the Senate (until the election of Scott Brown, which really didn't change things regarding DADT) and a large majority in the House, President Obama has been under pressure to act on this for two years.  The cowardly lions in the Democratic caucus sustained huge losses in last month's election, and so now there is urgency among the rejected lame ducks to pass much of the rejected agenda that they hadn't the courage to pass earlier.  DADT falls into that category.

I haven't weighed in on the policy to this point for a number of reeasons.  I don't have military experience, and so my opinion on the real-world effects of repeal on the services is not as well-informed as some other commenters.  I also understand that the camps are tightly drawn, and there is not much opinion to be swayed.  On the other hand, when it comes to being swayed by opinions myself in this instance I'm inclined to listen to the actual military commanders who have to deal with those real-world effects among their troops.

As a result, it seems to me that the repeal of DADT that occurred in a Senate vote yesterday marks the fall of a reasonable middle.  DADT enforced the principle that private behavior is private, because said private behavior cannot be allowed to alter the effectiveness of troops in the field.  Was that fair to gays in the military?  Not really, but the over-riding concern was and should be the functioning of units.  What's the miltary really for, after all?

On the other hand, I am also sufficiently impressed with the discipline and professionalism of the American military via observation that I believe that the more open policy will eventually have no real effect.  What I will be troubled by for a while is how the transition may alter that effectiveness, particularly with ongoing combat operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere.  I'm also troubled by celebrations of the change by pressure groups that have less concern for military functioning than for militant demonstrations.

Let's hope I'm right, and that the American military will continue to be the most effective and honorable fighting force the world knows.

On Juan, NPR, And Fear Of Free Expression

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads simply this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Congress shall make no law..."  That does not apply to private, or rather public-funded companies, and taxpayer-funded NPR fired longtime analyst and senior correspondent Juan Williams, who also contributes regularly to Fox News, for expressing the simple sentiment that he feels a little anxious seeing someone wearing traditional Muslim attire on an airplane with him.  NPR did so in response to a deluge of "listener email."  Here are a few snippets from commentary on the topic, well worth considering.

From Emilio Karim Dabul, journalist, in today's Wall Street Journal:

I grew up surrounded by Islamic culture, went to Islamic events, and was used to seeing women in traditional Muslim clothing, and yet when that woman appeared at the Berlin airport, I was scared.

That's all Mr. Williams was saying. He didn't say that they should be removed from the plane, treated differently, or anything close to that. He simply said he got nervous. And for that, he was fired.

The reality is that when Muslims cease to be the main perpetrators of terrorism in the world, such fears about traditional garb are bound to vanish. Until such time, the anxiety will remain. In the long run, it's what we do with such fears that matters, not that we have them.

CAIR has taken it to another level by denouncing an "sizeable minority" of Americans who "think it is legitimate to single out Muslims for special scrutiny."  Unfortunately there's a "sizeable minority" in their own backyard that should be highlighted, as Geoff at Ace of Spades identifies.

But you also have a sizeable minority of Muslims who think it is legitimate to indiscriminately kill peaceful folk and deny them the lives all other people hold dear. That viewpoint expresses intolerance and bigotry on a level far beyond "special scrutiny."

Until CAIR acknowledges the sizeable minority that concerns us, I don't see why we should acknowledge the one that concerns them.

A WSJ editorial points out the obvious - that Mr. Williams association with Fox News likely was the heavy load, and one additional brick caused the collapse.

They finally found a way to get rid of Juan Williams.

It has long been one of the most open secrets in the world of punditry (which needless to say, includes NPR's "analysts"), that NPR's progressive political base was unhappy with Mr. Williams's appearances on Fox as existentially incompatible with their worldview.

  Mr. Williams and I disagreed on many things; I found particular disagreement with his acceptance of unsupported accusations of racism from Democrats, such as those that arose in connection with the "n-word" being allegedly hurled at congressmen in Washington last spring.

It is a fact that the tea party is an overwhelmingly older, white and suburban crowd. It is true that Republicans in Congress are almost completely white. And it is also true, according to some black and gay Democrats, that a tea party rally against health-care reform at the Capitol degenerated into ugly scenes in which racial and homophobic epithets were used and spit flew on some members of Congress. There are suspicions that tea party anger boiled over into the spate of personal threats against Democrats who voted for the health-care bill.

There's still no evidence whatsoever to support those accusations, which should not be taken at face value.  In fact, the evidence is strong that it did not.  Still, to Mr. Williams credit, he defended the tea party against the blanket smear of racism.

The tea party is not the problem. Whether you like them or not they do seem to have captured the political angst in the electorate, without regard to skin color.

Mr. Williams has the right to express concerns regarding the presence of Muslims on airplanes.  Given the history - 9/11, the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber - those concerns are not unreasonable by any stretch.  And NPR, publicly funded though it is, has the option of terminating his employment.

Of course, even-handedness could have caused them to terminate his employment for participating in the smear of the tea party last march with his support of the false accusations.  Taken together they betray what NPR has become, an organization that is not committed to freedom of expression that offends liberals.

10/22/10 1340: More, from Juan Williams himself:

Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims.

[...]

I took Bill’s challenge and began by saying that political correctness can cause people to become so paralyzed that they don’t deal with reality. And the fact is that it was a group of Muslims who attacked the U.S. I added that radicalism has continued to pose a threat to the United States and much of the world. That threat was expressed in court last week by the unsuccessful Times Square bomber who bragged that he was just one of the first engaged in a “Muslim War” against the United States. -- There is no doubt that there's a real war and people are trying to kill us.

Mr. Williams is a rational, very slightly leftist thinker who throws no bombs, eschewing the outrageous, and carefully considering the worthy arguments of both sides.  I still disagree with him at times; I rarely find his arguments wholly irrational or without basis in at least some fact.  The disagreements usually stem more from interpretation.  Here he's being rational once again.

There's Two Kinds Of Dumb

George, who has been helping out with the Hickory boys basketball team in the absence of a full-time coach, meets with new coach Norman Dale (Gene Hackman) on the new coach's first day with his charges:

Coach Norman Dale: First of all, let's be real friendly here, okay? My name is Norm. Secondly, your coaching days are over.

George: Look, mister, there's... two kinds of dumb, uh... guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and, uh, guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don't matter, the second one you're kinda forced to deal with.

In this case, Coach Dale is the good guy.  Well, what if a guy who is the second kind of dumb is one of the "bad guys?"

UNITED NATIONS – The U.S. delegation walked out of the U.N. speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday after he said some in the world have speculated that Americans were behind the Sept. 11 terror attacks, staged in an attempt to assure Israel's survival.

He did not explain the logic of that statement that was made as he attacked the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel and is deeply at odds with the United States and European allies over its nuclear program and suspicions that it is designed to produce an atomic bomb. Iran says it is only working on technology for electricity generation.

The U.S. delegation left the hall after Ahmadinejad said there were three theories about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks:

_That "powerful and complex terrorist group" penetrated U.S. intelligence and defenses.

_"That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view."

The Americans stood and walked out without listening to the third theory, that the attack was the work of "a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation."

The Americans did absolutely the right thing in walking out, although it could easily be argued that they never should have been there in the first place for Mad Mahmoud.  It's not as if he hasn't been both provocative and detached from reality in his speeches before.

President Obama did address Iran's nuclear program in his speech to the General Assembly earlier today.

As part of our effort on non-proliferation, I offered the Islamic Republic of Iran an extended hand last year, and underscored that it has both rights and responsibilities as a member of the international community.  I also said -- in this hall -- that Iran must be held accountable if it failed to meet those responsibilities.  And that is what we have done.

Iran is the only party to the NPT that cannot demonstrate the peaceful intentions of its nuclear program, and those actions have consequences.  Through U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, we made it clear that international law is not an empty promise.

Now let me be clear once more:  The United States and the international community seek a resolution to our differences with Iran, and the door remains open to diplomacy should Iran choose to walk through it.  But the Iranian government must demonstrate a clear and credible commitment and confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program.

And if they don't ... then what?  UN Resolution 1929 extends sanctions, but Iran doesn't seem to think them all that tough.  That was more a "get what you can get" negotiation rather than a "get what will make them behave" result.  "Then what?" seems to be a rather open ended question, one that Ahmadinejad and Iran believe to be less than serious.

CNNonsense: Islamophobia

Caught this bit of CNNonsense in the OR lounge this morning.  This is the full clip, starting with a review of a finding from a Pew poll, and leading to an interview with Deepak Chopra discussing ... aw, heck, I don't even know what he was discussing.  I stopped listening after a minute or two.  Focus for a minute on the question in the Pew poll.

"Do you think Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against non-believers?"

In response to that question 46% answered "yes," that Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against non-believers.  Shouldn't that number be much higher?  Think logically for a second.  First, since the faith itself doesn't speak we have to look at leaders and their interpretations.  Do any Islamic leaders - any at all, now, located anywhere in the world - advocate violence against non-believers?  The answer is obviously yes.  Think of the Taliban, for one prime example.  Second, can you think of any other representative in any faith - Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Jew - that advocates violence against non-believers specifically because of their status as a non-believer?  I could be wrong, but my answer there is "no."  Therefore, since the answer to the first part of the construct is "yes" and to the second is "no" Islam would be more likely to encourage violence against non-believers.

Now, that's not to say that a majority, or even a sizable minority of adherents advocate violence against non-believers in Islam.  "More likely" is comparative, not absolute.  But if 2%, 1% or even 0.002% of the more radicalized Islamists believe and advocate violence and the comparison is to 0% for other faiths, that would be more likely.  And I'd feel a lot better about Islam if terrorists stopped acting in its name, and if the Danish cartoonists and Molly Norris of "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day" fame didn't have to fear for their lives, and particularly if the peaceful leaders issued unqualified denunciations.  But they don't.

CNN and Deepak Chopra, who was really there promoting his new book, would rather you not make such a rational assessment of the question.  Instead, Mr. Chopra rather slickly turns the construct around, stating that this poll demonstrates a consciously-taken misperception of Islam, held so that violence against Muslims can be justified.

No, really.  I kid you not.  That's when I stopped listening.  That's an astonishing misdirection and misrepresentation for an allegedly clear thinker.

Nine Years From Darkness

Monday Morning quarterbacks.  Always right, in retrospect.

Recently there have been murmurings that "we over-reacted" to the terrorist attack on 9-11, from Ted Koppel in the Washington Post and Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek.

Mr.Koppel's sense of overreaction deals mainly with the concern about Al Qaeda obtaining access to more dangerous unconventional weapons, a concern that led to the war in Iraq:

The goal of any organized terrorist attack is to goad a vastly more powerful enemy into an excessive response. And over the past nine years, the United States has blundered into the 9/11 snare with one overreaction after another. Bin Laden deserves to be the object of our hostility, national anguish and contempt, and he deserves to be taken seriously as a canny tactician. But much of what he has achieved we have done, and continue to do, to ourselves...

It did not have to be this way. The Bush administration's initial response was just about right. The calibrated combination of CIA operatives, special forces and air power broke the Taliban in Afghanistan and sent bin Laden and the remnants of al-Qaeda scurrying across the border into Pakistan. The American reaction was quick, powerful and effective -- a clear warning to any organization contemplating another terrorist attack against the United States. This is the point at which President George W. Bush should have declared "mission accomplished," with the caveat that unspecified U.S. agencies and branches of the military would continue the hunt for al-Qaeda's leader. The world would have understood, and most Americans would probably have been satisfied

Left unsaid, of course, is that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had an equal hatred of America.  Had the intelligence at the time been correct that Saddam had a nuclear program, one that was no longer able to be monitored by the IAEA as the inspectors had been kicked out, was there anything that could stop him from assisting Al Qaeda with another attack on America, or Israel?  If such an attack occurred, could George W. Bush ever be forgiven had he not tried to insure that such a terrible weapon be kept from an enemy that had already attacked terribly once? 

The left and the press (BIRM) went crazy over the August 6, 2001 Daily Briefing that discussed Bin Laden, under the pretext that President Bush either should have known or did know that 9-11 would occur.  Well, actually taking down the WTC is a lot more specific warning than intelligence rumblings, and if he didn't react to that and another attack. this time with an unconventional weapon, succeeded...

Fareed Zakaria more curiously thinks the entire security apparatus of the State is an overreaction.

Nine years after 9/11, can anyone doubt that Al Qaeda is simply not that deadly a threat? Since that gruesome day in 2001, once governments everywhere began serious countermeasures, Osama bin Laden’s terror network has been unable to launch a single major attack on high-value targets in the United States and Europe. While it has inspired a few much smaller attacks by local jihadis, it has been unable to execute a single one itself. Today, Al Qaeda’s best hope is to find a troubled young man who has been radicalized over the Internet, and teach him to stuff his underwear with explosives.

I do not minimize Al Qaeda’s intentions, which are barbaric. I question its capabilities.

Mr. Zakaria credits "serious countermeasures" with Al Qaeda's inability to attack for the last 9 years - and simultaneously wonders whether our security measures are necessary because they haven't attacked successfully.  This is a non sequitur.

Oh, but they have attacked successfully.  There is a takedown of this nonsense at Pajamas Media.

Notice the sleight of hand. Zakaria whitewashes radical Islam and its international network spawn, and reduces al-Qaeda to a few hundred cave-hoppers bowing around Waziristan. The reality is more multifaceted: “al-Qaeda” is the head of the jihadi snake, the epicenter of the global Islamist insurrection. It has offshoots in Algeria, Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines –– and perhaps forty other countries. And that’s just “al-Qaeda.” There are many terror groups.

No attacks in Europe? The Madrid attacks and London bombings immediately come to mind. In the United States, there was the Long Island convert who tried to blow up Penn Station. An al-Qaedist in Arkansas attacked a military recruitment center in Little Rock, killing an American soldier. An Islamist in Illinois tried to take down a federal building in Springfield. A jihadi from Chicago set his sights on a Danish newspaper and assisted the gunmen in the Mumbai attacks. An Afghan national targeted Manhattan landmarks. A Jordanian national tried to topple a Dallas skyscraper. There was the massacre at Fort Hood. And this was just last year.

While Mr. Zakaria is simply ignoring evidence that counters his thesis, Mr. Koppel is playing the monday morning quarterback.  Talking about the game last night, he knows just what play should have been run on second and goal.  Of course he does, because they ran that play on second and goal two games ago and it worked.

There were people who didn't want war in Iraq, but few if any knew with certainty that we shouldn't be concerned with Iraq's unconventional weapons.  For example, Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector only began after the war began to suspect that Iraq had no weapons.

Let's not pretend our 20-20 hindsight should have been 20-20 looking forward.  Let's not pretend that we can know with certainty the maximum capabilities of enemies at all times.  And let's not pretend that 9-11 wasn't a life changing singular event in American history.  I'm sure Mr. Koppel doesn't have that intent, but writing of "overreaction" to the event surely has that effect.

For a refresher on the events of that day, you could do worse than peruse the 9-11 News Archive.

A Modest Proposal On The Ground Zero Mosque: Dual Use?

Let's see.  An Islamic community center and mosque is planned 2 blocks from the bases of the former World Trade Center buildings, destroyed after 19 Muslim men flew planes into those buildings (as well as the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, PA, though the latter wasn't their intent) on September 11, 2001.  While not at the actual site, it's awfully close, certainly within the dust cloud of Ground Zero, and people are understandably concerned that this shows tremendous insensitivity to the feelings of those who lost loved ones in the attack.  There has been, to say the least, some controversy.

In addition, Islamic history is rife with instances of building mosques of triumph at sites of conquest, and Americans do not wish to have such a "victory mosque" established at the southern tip of Manhattan.  Offers have been made to move the mosque, turned down by the backers and front men, who seem to insist that moving it would be an insult to Islam, an incitement ... as if the original placement wasn't an insult, an incitement against all Americans after 9-11.  An offer by Donald Trump to buy the site from the developer at a 25% profit was turned down today.  President Obama rightly pointed out that in America individuals are free to do such things; President Obama failed to point out that if these men are interested in building bridges between Islam and the west then this is not the way to do it.  Americans who hold the opinion have been demonized as "Islamophobes," as if fear were the motivating factor rather than decency.  "Hate" crimes against Muslims have been highlighted, ignoring the fact that many more anti-Semitic hate crimes occur with consistent regularity.  We seem to be at an impasse.

However, I may have a solution.  If appeals to reason, to decency, to consideration for the opinion of the vast majority of New Yorkers and in fact all Americans do not cause the developers to reconsider;  if they really are reaching out to Americans of all faiths; if, as they insist, this really isn't a "victory mosque;" if no Muslim would be so crass as to celebrate the structure as a monument to a great victory, then they should be confident that the following would be a "safe bet":  write into the building permit that if Muslims anywhere celebrate the building as a monument to the attack on the "Great Satan," then the developers will be required to either raze the building and move functions elsewhere, or better still, convert it to dual use as a Jewish Community Center part-time.

As a show of tolerance and fellowship, you know.  "Building bridges" as it were.

Fact Checking An AP Fact Check

Continuing its water-carrying for the Obama Administration, the Associated Press tries to debunk some of the "misconceptions" surrounding the controversy over the Ground Zero Mosque.  They try to convince us that, gee, it's not really at Ground Zero, it's a whole 2 blocks away.  And isn't this antithetical to the American tradition of religious freedom?  Number one on their hit list?  The misconception that Imam Rauf, heading up the mosque project is a radical.

No one has established a link between the cleric and radicals. New York Police Department spokesman Paul Browne said, "We've identified no law enforcement issues related to the proposed mosque."

Well, one thing you don't need is a link between Rauf and radicals if you can show that the Imam himself is a radical.  Then you really don't need the link, do you?  The AP gives us a head start later in this section.

He has denounced the terrorist attacks and suicide bombing as anti-Islamic and has criticized Muslim nationalism. But he's made provocative statements about America, too, calling it an "accessory" to the 9/11 attacks and attributing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to the U.S.-led sanctions in the years before the invasion.

Calling America an "accessory" to the 9/11 attack is not "provocative," it's flat out wrong and inflammatory.  Or "radical," if you will.  Perhaps the AP could fact check that assertion.  And questionable research in the Lancet seems to always have a home with America-bashers, which Christopher Hitchens notes and deconstructs here.  In Imam Rauf's words, "we tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims."  "We," indeed.

But let's leave all that radical talk aside, and instead wonder whether some additional evidence might surface of truly radical statements.  That would change things, wouldn't it? Terrorism specialist Steve Emerson claims to have the goods, 13 hours of audiotapes.  Hat tip: Ace of Spades, who helpfully adds

Obama and the MFM staked the entirety of their crdibility and judgment on the assertion that this was a moderate man interested only in peace, and of course in no way a supporter of terrorism, and anyone who suspected otherwise was an ignorant bigot with a heart full of hatred.

I have to admit, however, that I found it irrelevant whether the Imam was "radical", or whether it was really Ground Zero.  My opposition to the siting of the Ground Zero Mosque was based on the following:

1. Roughly 3000 people were killed when two planes were hijacked and flown deliberately into the World Trade Center towers
2. These planes were hijacked and flown into the towers by 19 Muslim men murdering in the name of Islam.
3. Islam has a history of building monuments to their conquests.  This is to be called Cordoba House, Cordoba in Spain being the capital of the Caliphate.  And yes, two blocks away is close enough.
4. Having been shocked and hurt at the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi now one year ago, the Lockerbie bomber who was granted compassionate release with allegedly three months to live and was celebrated on his arrival in Libya, I did not wish for similar insult to come to the families of those who lost their lives on 9-11.

Let them build it elsewhere.  Frankly, all of Manhattan should be off-limits for this project.

Prognostic Caution And Lockerbie

There is an old doctor joke. 

A patient is sitting in his doctor's office and the physician reviews the medical facts, and states, "Mr. Howard, I'm sorry to tell you that you've got cancer.  You have only six months to live." 

The patient pauses, then says "Doc, that's terrible news.  I don't have a job now, and I was hoping to get back to work after the surgery.  I don't know if I'll be able to pay off what I owe you by then."

Whereupon the doctor gives Mr. Howard six more months.

When it comes to the Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and the only man convicted for the attack it seems truth is stranger than fiction.

LONDON – The regrets of a cancer expert who assessed the only man ever convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie jetliner bombing have intensified the anger felt by victims' relatives over Scotland's decision to release the Libyan on compassionate grounds.

Professor Karol Sikora and other experts had said Abdel Baset al-Megrahi probably had only three months to live when he was freed from a Scottish jail last August and allowed to return home to Libya. But one year later, Al-Megrahi, who is being treated for prostate cancer, is still alive.

Sikora, one of three experts who assessed al-Megrahi's health for Libyan authorities, was quoted by Britain's Observer newspaper Sunday as saying he should have been more cautious about the chances of survival.

"If I could go back in time, I would have probably been more vague and tried to emphasize the statistical chances and not hard fact," Sikora was quoted as saying.

"In medicine we say 'Never say never and never say always,' because funny things happen. All you can do is give a statistical opinion," said Sikora, dean of the School of Medicine at Buckingham University, in central England.

Prostate cancer can be fatal, but it's very common for a patient to die with prostate cancer rather than from it.  For a prisoner who participated in the mass slaughter of 270 innocent people, the entire system should have been extremely cautious in predicting al-Megrahi's demise from it.

A report made public by Scottish authorities shows the Scottish Prison Service's medical chief, Andrew Fraser, was advised by four specialists at the time of al-Megrahi's release. The report described the three-month prognosis for al-Megrahi as "reasonable," but confirmed that none of those consulted ruled out that al-Megrahi might live longer.

Precisely why he should still be in prison in Scotland.  It was, however, sold to the public on the currency of that three month prognosis.

Sikora told the Observer he remains certain al-Megrahi will die of cancer, "I suspect in the next few weeks. To tell the truth, I'll be quite glad because we can move on."

Some people never learn from their mistakes.

The JTF "Quote of the Day"

From Sarah Palin's Facebook page, a question (among many) for Mr. Obama in light of his statement on the Ground Zero Mosque.

If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive "cross-cultural engagement" and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven't they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite?

Indeed.

Now, such a legitimate question as this can, and often are, when filtered through the media, presented with wholly unsupportable spin.  See, for example, "GOP takes harsher stance toward Islam" from Ben Smith, who ought to know better than that, and Maggie Haberman at Politico.

Obama's remarks provide a clear, national focus for the simmering question of Islam in American life, and Republicans showed every sign Saturday of beginning to capitalize on it, with Republican candidates in New York and Florida seeking to inject the issue into local races as Democrats largely held their silence.

That stance in the GOP — both in terms of political strategy and policy views — appears to be carrying the day. Most of the potential Republican presidential hopefuls, led by Sarah Palin, came out sharply against the mosque.

There's so much wrong in this snippet it's hard to know where to begin.  Mr. Obama hardly clarified the issue with his remarks, despite dragging out his rhetorical tic "let me be clear."  He failed utterly to address the divisive plan to build the mosque, instead limiting his statement to the constitutional question of whether it is permissable.  He used Thomas Jefferson's hosting of an ambassador from Tunisia as verification of Islam's place in America.  He set up an equivalence between intolerance of Muslims and sentiments that the mosque should be build elsewhere, an equivalence that doesn't exist.  The "simmering question" isn't Islam's place in American life.  Rather, it's Islam's respect for American values, something the planners of the mosque have not demonstrated.

Smith and Haberman write that Sarah Palin "came out sharply against the mosque."  Sharply?  Harsher?  These are words written with intent.  In fact, No Republican or conservative that I have read since Mr. Obama's speech have come out "sharply" with a "harsher" stance toward Islam, including Sarah Palin.  (see the quote above at the link)  What they have done, rather, is to come out "sharply" and "harshly" against Mr. Obama's formulation of the questions involved, which is legitimate.

And by the way, Mr. Smith and Ms. Haberman, the silence of Democrats indicates not tolerance of Islam, but that they too feel that the President's rhetoric is unsupportable, and that they feel trapped by it.

My Question On The "Ground Zero Mosque"

You know the story by know.  Muslim developers, including an Imam, are attempting to build a 13 story Islamic Cultural Center, including a large mosque, 2 blocks from the crater left by the fall of the World Trade Center towers from the attack of September 11, 2001, an attack carried out by 19 Muslim extremists.  President Obama weighed in on the matter last night.

“I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” the president said in remarks prepared for the annual White House iftar, the sunset meal breaking the day’s fast.

But, he continued: “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.”...

Aides to Mr. Obama say privately that he has always felt strongly about the proposed community center and mosque, but the White House did not want to weigh in until local authorities made a decision on the proposal, planned for two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center.

I have a question.  How many mosques - in New York or elsewhere - have been closed down or their plans halted due to religious intolerance, such that building this mosque to make a stand for religious freedom and tolerance justifies poking a finger in the eyes of New Yorkers, families of the victims, and other Americans still hurting from those attacks?

This isn't about religious freedom or tolerance.  I'm quite certain that this would be a non-story if the plans were to build in Hoboken, Queens, or Washington Heights.  The President wants America to demonstrate that "our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."  How about expecting that the Muslim developers would show their understanding of the pain felt by all Americans following that attack by not building it there.

Americans' commitment to religious freedom is unshakable.  That's not what this is about.  This is about logistics and decency.  What should the President have said?  How about this:

"This is America, and we have an unshakable commitment to religious freedom, tolerance, equality of opportunity and equal treatment in the eyes of the government.  It's written in the words of our Constitution, and lived in the actions of Americans every day. It's not that the developers cannot build their Center so close to Ground Zero.  I would hope, however, that they would not.  In sensitivity to the loss of nearly 3000 American lives they should choose to build elsewhere.  Doing so would build a sturdier cultural bridge, show humility about the terrorism of 19 men acting falsely in the name of Islam, and demonstrate a profound understanding of America and Americans."

Or is Mr. Obama really, in Dorothy Rabinowitz' construct, the "Alien in the White House?"

8/14/10 1130:  Looks like I'm on exactly the same page as Scott Johnson.

If it is another mosque that is wanted, as Obama suggests, ordinary Americans desire only that it be built somewhere else in New York. Obama's invocation of the First Amendment right of the free exercise of religion is not on point.

In the good old USA, citizens have a right to do many wrongs. One such wrong would be the establishment of a Muslim shrine at Ground Zero. Obama simply does not engage the point. He does not argue that the establishment of a Muslim shrine at Ground Zero would be right.

'Far Preferable' To Whom, Exactly?

The Obama administration apparently did communicate that they would prefer that the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, remain in a Scottish jail, which is good.  But given the choice between continued incarceration in Libya via prisoner transfer and release they actively encouraged release as "far preferable," according to "documents obtained by The Sunday Times."

THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.

Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.

The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.

The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.

When Mr. Obama made that claim, that the release was a surprise to Americans, he could not have included himself in that number.  The Lockerbie bombing took 280 lives, of whom 193 were Americans, including my at the time 22 year old brother.  Given those numbers, and having dealt with Scottish officials for 22 years since my brothers death, there is absolutely no way such an eventful decision would be made without deep consultation within the State Department and the White House.  They all knew, the President knew; it was not a surprise.

In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.

The note added: "Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."

And now there is proof of these consultations, demonstrating that not only was the administration not nearly serious enough about the loss of those American lives, but that Mr. Obama was not fully honest.  Surprised?  I think not.

Now, in looking at the contents of the letter, I'll take a most generous view that the U.S. felt that only three options were on the table: a) continued incarceration in Scotland, b) release but with the convicted to remain in Scotland, and c) transfer to a Libyan prison, and that d) release to freedom in Libya, was even felt to be plausible.  It does seem that Mr. LeBaron indicated the U.S. first choice was a), but that b) was preferable to c).  Why would release be preferable to continued incarceration wherever it was?  Compassionate, indeed.

It's also apparent that failure to take a strong stand, and simply and clearly state that the U.S. favored al-Megrahi's continued incarceration in Scotland - end of story - opened the door to the release.  It opened the door to the ongoing joke of a convicted mass murderer with "three months to live" now living freely in his home country nearly a full year since his release.

So of course the U.S. knew, and we once again see the inability to take a strong stand in favor of what's right and necessary in dealing with terrorism.

Okay, George, I'll Bite

Just caught a snippet on Bill O'Reilly of Mr. O'Reilly and George Stephanopoulos discussing the admittedly remote possibilty that Sec. of State Hillary Clinton might challenge Barack Obama in a 2012 Democratic Primary.  Let's go to (my recollection - which is pretty good - of) the tape:

George S: "Oh, I don't think that's likely.  If there's going to be a challenge it would be more likely someone to Mr. Obama's left."

Okay, George, I'll bite.  Is there anyone politically viable to Mr. Obama's left?  I can't think of anyone, but you can nominate your candidates in the comments.

The Terrorist Threat In The Age Of Obama

First up, the Wall Street Journal discussing the terrorist attack on Northwest flight 253:

Brian Jenkins, who studies terrorism for the Rand Corporation, says there were more terror incidents (12), including thwarted plots, on U.S. soil in 2009 than in any year since 2001. The jihadists don't seem to like Americans any better because we're closing down Guantanamo.

This increasing terror tempo makes the Obama Administration's reflexive impulse to treat terrorists like routine criminal suspects all the more worrisome. It immediately indicted Mr. Abdulmutallab on criminal charges of trying to destroy an aircraft, despite reports that he told officials he had ties to al Qaeda and had picked up his PETN explosive in Yemen. The charges mean the Nigerian can only be interrogated like any other defendant in a criminal case, subject to having a lawyer present and his Miranda rights read.

Yet he is precisely the kind of illegal enemy combatant who should be interrogated first with the goal of preventing future attacks and learning more about terror networks rather than gaining a single conviction. We now have to hope he cooperates voluntarily.

A man on a terrorism watch list gets on a flight bound for the U.S. with a bomb strapped to his body and "the system worked?"  Give me a break.  Such a statement by the head of Homeland Security shows either unconscionable ignorance of the facts or laughable prevarication.  Further, isn't it apparent that the Cairo speech, outreach, and closing Guantanamo notwithstanding, the terrorists are not going away.  Michelle Malkin highlights another mistaken belief that seems to permeate the Obama administration.

As I noted last summer, Barack Obama clings, like so many willfully blind, to the myth of the poor, oppressed jihadist in the face of years and years of contrary evidence. The “essence” of the 9/11 “tragedy,” he wrote days after that attack, “grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.”

This woeful misdiagnosis allows the apologist to treat deliberate, carefully planned evil acts of the long-waged Islamic war on the West as responses to social injustice.

These are not common criminals.  These are not poor, oppressed minorities struggling for social justice and freedom.  And these are not individuals who are otherwise indistinguishable from the general population.  The Fort Hood shooter gave strong indications all through his training and deployments of his bent.  Similarly, the Northwest bomber was outed by his own father for his jihadist views.  And each of these individuals, and others, has had contacts with radical Islamic teaching and with terrorist infrastructure, like Al Qaeda.  So stop pretending that these are random acts by random persons, as they are clearly not.

It's okay to be wrong.  It's not okay to continue to insist that you're right when the evidence that you're wrong is overwhelming.  If Mr. Obama and his administration continue to ignore the obvious, Matt Damon's Will Hunting has an appropriate analysis.

"See, the sad thing about a guy like you is that in 50 years you're going to start doing some thinking on your own, and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life.  One, don't do that.  And two, you dropped $150 grand on a &%**#$ education you could have gotten for $1.50 in late charges at the public library."

Or perhaps you dropped the money on an education you'd have been better off without.

And it may be helpful to, you know, offer some comment about this near miss, where 300 innocent air travelers might have been blown from the sky, before the year is done.  Just sayin'.

12/28/09 1440: Well, Ms. Napolitano appears to be able to process the evidence and admit she was wrong.

[NBC's Matt] Lauer pressed: How does a guy who’s on this general terror list, who buys a one-way transtlantic ticket with cash, who checks no luggage, and who’s own father has flagged him to authorities, get on the plane? Napolitano said that “our system did not work in this instance” and no one “is happy or satisfied with that.”

Although, prior to this, an anonymous administration minion asserted that letting him on the plane was done in order to avoid tipping him off that we were on to him.  No, really.  (Via Jimmy at The Sundries Shack)

More items worth a look:

• The Heritage Foundation's Foundry:

The Obama administration continues to demonstrate that they believe counterterrorism is a law enforcement problem to be managed, not a war to be won. Hence Attorney General Eric Holder’s insistence on sending Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other terrorists to New York for a civilian trial in federal court...

The Flight 253 incident was an intelligence failure. Instead of focusing on convictions, the Obama administration should be focusing on gathering the intelligence necessary to best protect the American people.

• Roger Pilon of Cato:

The one main reason we have government at all is to better protect us from domestic and foreign threats than we ourselves, acting alone, could do.  But as planes were flying to the twin towers, the Pentagon, and the Capitol, Mr. Bush was reading to elementary school children.  Perhaps Mr. Obama should turn his attention from taking responsibility for the nation’s health care — the market and private charity can handle that, if he’d just get out of the way — to taking his main responsibility more seriously.

The 21st Anniversary of Pan Am 103

December 21^st has acquired an increasing aura of ominous significance for my family and me.  In 1988 Pan Am 103 was blown from the skies by now-convicted Libyan terrorists, falling to earth in Lockerbie, Scotland and taking with it the lives of 259 people on board the plane and 11 on the ground.  One of those lives on the plane was my brother, returning from a semester overseas in London during his time at Syracuse University.

Annually on this date I have been reprinting my first post from the start of this blog, which I dedicated to my brother.  It posts at 7:03 PM GMT, the time when the plane disappeared from the radar screen, and all those lives, my brother's included, were tragically ended.  Two years ago the pain of this shortest day of the year in the northern hemisphere became that much greater, when my father was taken from our family suddenly.  The irony - or possibly the design - of the two dying on the same date has not escaped our notice.  This post now contains the original first post, from September 2004 and the material I wrote about my father when, after his death, I returned to this blog.

The original first post:

My Reason for Being

There are a lot of ways this weblog could begin. I think the best is with a brief history and explanation. You see, I lost a wonderful younger brother in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. I miss him every day; he would be 38 now. I recall thinking back then that the attack constituted an act of war. I couldn't believe that there wasn't the moral clarity and certitude of purpose on the part of our government to prosecute a war against those who had attacked us. That lack of moral clarity persisted through the Desert Storm war, leaving Saddam in power, through the first bombing on the World Trade Center, through the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, etc., etc., etc. With the devastation of the attack on 9-11 finally, at long last, all Americans would see that we may not have thought ourselves at war, but an enemy was at war with us. The same America that fought World Wars I & II would surely unite to fight against an enemy that attacked us on our home soil - but I was wrong.

Even before the first strikes in Afghanistan many, particularly in the media, were questioning the action, opining that we would find ourselves in a quagmire. With the attacks in Iraq the same voices were heard. Now, as Iraq struggles to find a footing for democracy many who in the 1990's thought Saddam needed to be ousted and, if necessary, preemptive action taken have changed their mind, simply because it's not their guy doing the ousting.

President Bush is doing exactly what needs to be done - aggressively prosecuting the GWOT. The critics note that terrorists are flocking to Iraq to fight against Iraqi and US soldiers - to which I answer "Good. Get more of them together, rather than chasing them to the ends of the earth." To those who think Iraq is not part of the GWOT and that we should have left Saddam in power I ask, do you really think the world would be a better place with Saddam still in power?

This is the history that has influenced me. As Senator Zell Miller said at the beginning of his speech at the Republican National Convention [link]:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren. Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions. And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face. Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in. And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family? The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party. There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

My family, and in fact all Americans, are too important to me. This blog will stray onto lesser topics regularly, my passions and interests. But it will likely always return to this vital effort.

Posted by Giacomo on 28 September 2004

Here are the Wikipedia entry on Pan Am 103, the Victims of Pan Am 103 official site, hosted by Syracuse University, and a link to archival information on the Syracuse students who perished that day.

From my return post of December 29, 2005:

Lastly, I'd like to write briefly about my dad, who passed away eight days ago, on a professional level.  He was a remarkable physician, a cancer specialist in a way that really no cancer specialists are anymore.  He performed all manner of cancer surgery, soup to nuts, including the plastic reconstruction of any deformity created.  He guided the radiation therapy and chemotherapy for his patients.  He read their MRIs and CTs himself.  He looked at their pathology slides.  This was one-stop shopping cancer care, something that you need six or seven different doctors to provide now.  You might think that each of those six or seven physicians would be more highly informed in their particular area to optimize their portion of the care.  You would be wrong.  And you'd have to coordinate six or seven different physician offices to get anything done.

He retired four years ago, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming from his practice.  When he left, he spent the next two years staying in contact with his patients, and working with each of them to be sure they had the best follow-up care he could arrange.  That's something you don't see either.

I won't be writing here on a personal level.  That's something I did for his burial two days ago.  We miss you, Dad.  We all miss you very much.

If anyone is interested, here is the link to his obituary.

December 21^st has acquired an increasing aura of ominous significance for my family and me.  In 1988 Pan Am 103 was blown from the skies by now-convicted Libyan terrorists, falling to earth in Lockerbie, Scotland and taking with it the lives of 259 people on board the plane and 11 on the ground.  One of those lives on the plane was my brother, returning from a semester overseas in London during his time at Syracuse University.

Annually on this date I have been reprinting my first post from the start of this blog, which I dedicated to my brother.  It posts at 7:03 PM GMT, the time when the plane disappeared from the radar screen, and all those lives, my brother's included, were tragically ended.  Two years ago the pain of this shortest day of the year in the northern hemisphere became that much greater, when my father was taken from our family suddenly.  The irony - or possibly the design - of the two dying on the same date has not escaped our notice.  This post now contains the original first post, from September 2004 and the material I wrote about my father when, after his death, I returned to this blog.

The original first post:

My Reason for Being

There are a lot of ways this weblog could begin. I think the best is with a brief history and explanation. You see, I lost a wonderful younger brother in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. I miss him every day; he would be 38 now. I recall thinking back then that the attack constituted an act of war. I couldn't believe that there wasn't the moral clarity and certitude of purpose on the part of our government to prosecute a war against those who had attacked us. That lack of moral clarity persisted through the Desert Storm war, leaving Saddam in power, through the first bombing on the World Trade Center, through the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, etc., etc., etc. With the devastation of the attack on 9-11 finally, at long last, all Americans would see that we may not have thought ourselves at war, but an enemy was at war with us. The same America that fought World Wars I & II would surely unite to fight against an enemy that attacked us on our home soil - but I was wrong.

Even before the first strikes in Afghanistan many, particularly in the media, were questioning the action, opining that we would find ourselves in a quagmire. With the attacks in Iraq the same voices were heard. Now, as Iraq struggles to find a footing for democracy many who in the 1990's thought Saddam needed to be ousted and, if necessary, preemptive action taken have changed their mind, simply because it's not their guy doing the ousting.

President Bush is doing exactly what needs to be done - aggressively prosecuting the GWOT. The critics note that terrorists are flocking to Iraq to fight against Iraqi and US soldiers - to which I answer "Good. Get more of them together, rather than chasing them to the ends of the earth." To those who think Iraq is not part of the GWOT and that we should have left Saddam in power I ask, do you really think the world would be a better place with Saddam still in power?

This is the history that has influenced me. As Senator Zell Miller said at the beginning of his speech at the Republican National Convention [link]:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren. Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions. And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face. Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in. And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family? The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party. There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

My family, and in fact all Americans, are too important to me. This blog will stray onto lesser topics regularly, my passions and interests. But it will likely always return to this vital effort.

Posted by Giacomo on 28 September 2004

Here are the Wikipedia entry on Pan Am 103, the Victims of Pan Am 103 official site, hosted by Syracuse University, and a link to archival information on the Syracuse students who perished that day.

From my return post of December 29, 2005:

Lastly, I'd like to write briefly about my dad, who passed away eight days ago, on a professional level.  He was a remarkable physician, a cancer specialist in a way that really no cancer specialists are anymore.  He performed all manner of cancer surgery, soup to nuts, including the plastic reconstruction of any deformity created.  He guided the radiation therapy and chemotherapy for his patients.  He read their MRIs and CTs himself.  He looked at their pathology slides.  This was one-stop shopping cancer care, something that you need six or seven different doctors to provide now.  You might think that each of those six or seven physicians would be more highly informed in their particular area to optimize their portion of the care.  You would be wrong.  And you'd have to coordinate six or seven different physician offices to get anything done.

He retired four years ago, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming from his practice.  When he left, he spent the next two years staying in contact with his patients, and working with each of them to be sure they had the best follow-up care he could arrange.  That's something you don't see either.

I won't be writing here on a personal level.  That's something I did for his burial two days ago.  We miss you, Dad.  We all miss you very much.

If anyone is interested, here is the link to his obituary.

December 21^st has acquired an increasing aura of ominous significance for my family and me.  In 1988 Pan Am 103 was blown from the skies by now-convicted Libyan terrorists, falling to earth in Lockerbie, Scotland and taking with it the lives of 259 people on board the plane and 11 on the ground.  One of those lives on the plane was my brother, returning from a semester overseas in London during his time at Syracuse University.

Annually on this date I have been reprinting my first post from the start of this blog, which I dedicated to my brother.  It posts at 7:03 PM GMT, the time when the plane disappeared from the radar screen, and all those lives, my brother's included, were tragically ended.  Two years ago the pain of this shortest day of the year in the northern hemisphere became that much greater, when my father was taken from our family suddenly.  The irony - or possibly the design - of the two dying on the same date has not escaped our notice.  This post now contains the original first post, from September 2004 and the material I wrote about my father when, after his death, I returned to this blog.

The original first post:

My Reason for Being

There are a lot of ways this weblog could begin. I think the best is with a brief history and explanation. You see, I lost a wonderful younger brother in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. I miss him every day; he would be 38 now. I recall thinking back then that the attack constituted an act of war. I couldn't believe that there wasn't the moral clarity and certitude of purpose on the part of our government to prosecute a war against those who had attacked us. That lack of moral clarity persisted through the Desert Storm war, leaving Saddam in power, through the first bombing on the World Trade Center, through the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, etc., etc., etc. With the devastation of the attack on 9-11 finally, at long last, all Americans would see that we may not have thought ourselves at war, but an enemy was at war with us. The same America that fought World Wars I & II would surely unite to fight against an enemy that attacked us on our home soil - but I was wrong.

Even before the first strikes in Afghanistan many, particularly in the media, were questioning the action, opining that we would find ourselves in a quagmire. With the attacks in Iraq the same voices were heard. Now, as Iraq struggles to find a footing for democracy many who in the 1990's thought Saddam needed to be ousted and, if necessary, preemptive action taken have changed their mind, simply because it's not their guy doing the ousting.

President Bush is doing exactly what needs to be done - aggressively prosecuting the GWOT. The critics note that terrorists are flocking to Iraq to fight against Iraqi and US soldiers - to which I answer "Good. Get more of them together, rather than chasing them to the ends of the earth." To those who think Iraq is not part of the GWOT and that we should have left Saddam in power I ask, do you really think the world would be a better place with Saddam still in power?

This is the history that has influenced me. As Senator Zell Miller said at the beginning of his speech at the Republican National Convention [link]:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren. Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions. And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face. Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in. And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family? The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party. There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

My family, and in fact all Americans, are too important to me. This blog will stray onto lesser topics regularly, my passions and interests. But it will likely always return to this vital effort.

Posted by Giacomo on 28 September 2004

Here are the Wikipedia entry on Pan Am 103, the Victims of Pan Am 103 official site, hosted by Syracuse University, and a link to archival information on the Syracuse students who perished that day.

From my return post of December 29, 2005:

Lastly, I'd like to write briefly about my dad, who passed away eight days ago, on a professional level.  He was a remarkable physician, a cancer specialist in a way that really no cancer specialists are anymore.  He performed all manner of cancer surgery, soup to nuts, including the plastic reconstruction of any deformity created.  He guided the radiation therapy and chemotherapy for his patients.  He read their MRIs and CTs himself.  He looked at their pathology slides.  This was one-stop shopping cancer care, something that you need six or seven different doctors to provide now.  You might think that each of those six or seven physicians would be more highly informed in their particular area to optimize their portion of the care.  You would be wrong.  And you'd have to coordinate six or seven different physician offices to get anything done.

He retired four years ago, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming from his practice.  When he left, he spent the next two years staying in contact with his patients, and working with each of them to be sure they had the best follow-up care he could arrange.  That's something you don't see either.

I won't be writing here on a personal level.  That's something I did for his burial two days ago.  We miss you, Dad.  We all miss you very much.

If anyone is interested, here is the link to his obituary.

SEALs Win Battles

Or they would if we'd let them.

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

I thought initially that this must be a joke, that no sane government would punish the rough men (and women) who protect America for being the rough men (and women) who protect America.  This must be a situation where they are in trouble for not being aggressive enough.  But no, or rather, sadly no.

The Obama administration seems to specialize in wishful thinking.  For example, in health care reform, in economic policy, in Afghanistan, in terrorism.  They seem to believe that they can select an ideologically driven policy, and select a desired outcome, and simply assert that the latter will derive directly from the former, logic be damned.  For example, watch Sen. Lindsay Graham walk AG Eric Holder through his illogic in defending the federal terrorism trials scheduled for New York. 

It is rather pathetic that the Attorney General of the United States found it so difficult to understand such a simple concept. In the case of the SEALs they'd like to "fight" a war without any risk, any deaths, any attacks, or any one on either side getting a "bloody nose."  What's more, the administration seem particularly disturbed when it's the enemy that gets it.  Mr. Obama's justice department needs to understand that Al Qaeda, terrorists, the Taliban are a wartime enemy, and a non-Geneva Convention one at that given their deliberate targeting of citizens, avoidance of uniforms and hiding within the civilian population.  It's sad that they don't.  Handcuffing our soldiers publicly does nothing to discourage the enemy's will, instead reinforcing in the enemy the belief that we don't have the will.  We need a president who is a soldier, or who understands soldiers.  Instead we have one who understands manipulation of the law, and favor-trading and deal-making, and who seems to have insufficient animosity for the enemies of the nation.

Obama's Winning War Of Attrition

Question: Which war is Barack Obama winning?

Answer: A war of attrition on public opinion re: the war in Afghanistan.

ABC News reports that support for the war is at a new low in polling, 44%.  As support for this "war of necessity" drops, this war that so many Democrats - including the President - supported so vociferously just a few short years ago (right up to November 4, 2008), it becomes easier for Mr. Obama to lose his heart, his nerve, his determination to fight the "good" war.  He seems to be waiting for such a "popular" option.  A cynic, and I may be among them, might opine that Mr. Obama and the other Democrats who were vocal proponents of fighting in Afghanistan were simply using it as a bludgeon to bash Mr. Bush over the head for Iraq.  Either way, words mean something, and the unwillingness to stand by one's words also means something.  And in this case it's not something good.

The President needs to do one of two things.  He either needs to step up efforts to win in Afghanistan as Mr. Bush did in Iraq and as Mr. Obama said he would in March, per General McChrystal's recommendations.  Or he needs to explain exactly why winning in Afghanistan is no longer vital as he said so often during his campaign and in March.  But sitting on the sidelines waiting for public opinion to drop enough that a loss of will could be politically survived is not acceptable.  And although public opinion might eventually sink to a point that fighting on in Afghanistan is seen as untenable, the people will still hold him responsible for losing a battle that he clearly said must be won.

The President At Fort Hood, And Inescapable Conclusions

In times of epic sadness it is often the gift of somber eloquence that helps to buoy the spirits of the throng. To reassure, to comfort, to join in dispair, and to raise up from the same.  As Marc Ambinder points out, the President surely did that today.  You can read the full text of his remarks there.

Theirs are tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call - the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.

We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm's way.

Absolutely.  I'd like to have a look at another paragraph, however.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy.  But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next.

While it would have been completely inappropriate on this solemn occasion for the President to point out that, yes, there does seem to be one faith in particular where it is more commonplace for its adherents to justify such murderous and craven acts, it will be appropriate and also justifiable to do so in the future.  In particular, it will be helpful for him to do so in reference to Major Hasan.  In doing so he'll help the large number of journalists and observers struggling to avoid drawing - not jumping to - that inescapable and supported conclusion.

"We don't know all the answers yet," the Associated Press quotes President Obama as saying Friday about the Fort Hood massacre. "And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts."

Not only is the president right, his advice is tautological. Premature judgment is ill-advised by definition. But one senses in much of the commentary about suspect Nidal Malik Hasan a desire to avoid considered judgment as well--not just a reluctance to jump to conclusions, but a drive to go far out of one's way to avoid ever reaching one particular conclusion.

If a physician were to spend an inordinate amount of time, effort and money desperately searching for an alternative diagnosis when the obvious and well-supported one is uncomfortable then ultimately he or she would be committing malpractice.  Journalistic - and political - malpractice is no less objectionable.

11/11/09 0625: Dan Riehl makes the point that the speech thing is the one thing that Mr. Obama happens to do very well, so let's not get too excited.  Well, yeah.

It's simply embarrassing. But the fact is, this is all they've got. And it's the same thing we saw day after day on the campaign trail. So what? His stimulus package was a dismal failure, his health care bail will likely crash into the Senate and burn, and his popularity ratings are beginning to sag while his policy ratings suck.

However, man, he gave a heck of a speech. How awesome is that?

Perspective, And Appropriateness

I spent today at a medical education conference, reviewing and updating my knowledge base on low back pain, workman's compensation, and behavioral signs related to musculoskeletal issues.  I know, sounds like a hoot.  But as the opening salvo of lectures was ending the moderator called for questions from the audience, and one of the more well known attendees stepped up to the microphone.

He didn't ask a question, rather, he solemnly informed everyone in attendance, in case they were unaware, of the terrible events at Fort Hood of November 5th.  He gave the tally as 13 dead, 38 wounded, and then asked for a moment of silence for those who lost their lives.  The room fell fully silent.  When he was much younger this physician had been a military doctor, and he obviously felt a strong bond, an affinity, for those in uniform and for what this meant.

The President also spoke yesterday about the shootings at Fort Hood.  Compare, and contrast.

Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting

The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president. The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.

But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks [video]. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner."  Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should occur.

The real question isn't who is advising him.  Rather, I believe we should wonder why this man should need such advice. 

11/7/09 1335: Oh, and the Congressional Medal Of Honor winner mentioned by the President?  Not.

This is not a mistake the TOTUS would have made. ... Maybe next time he won't just wing it.  And as Newsbusters notes, if Bush had been this inappropriate and poorly prepared we would have heard of nothing else.

Add it to the list.

The Difference Between Bailing Out And Bailing Out

Does anyone else think that there's something wrong with a President who wants to bail out newspapers,

The president said he is "happy to look at" bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.

"I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them," Obama told the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade in an interview....

"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," he said.

newspapers that, interestingly enough, grovel regularly at his feet, while now being unwilling to bail out the Afghan people 

From his headquarters in Kabul, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal sees one clear path to achieve President Obama's core goal of preventing al-Qaeda from reestablishing havens in Afghanistan: "Success," he writes in his assessment, "demands a comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign."

Inside the White House, the way forward in Afghanistan is no longer so clear.

Although Obama endorsed a strategy document in March that called for "executing and resourcing an integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency strategy," there have been significant changes in Afghanistan and Washington since then.  A disputed presidential election, an erosion in support for the war effort among Democrats in Congress and the American public, and a sharp increase in U.S. casualties have prompted the president and his top advisers to reexamine their assumptions about the U.S. role in defeating the Taliban insurgency.

Instead of debating whether to give McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, more troops, the discussion in the White House is now focused on whether, after eight years of war, the United States should vastly expand counterinsurgency efforts along the lines he has proposed -- which involve an intensive program to improve security and governance in key population centers -- or whether it should begin shifting its approach away from such initiatives and simply target leaders of terrorist groups who try to return to Afghanistan.

from oppressive and threatening rule by the Taliban and the re-establishment of Al Qaeda?  Recall, this is the man who during the campaign was focused like a laser on the "real" war, in Afghanistan.  There certainly was plenty of tough talk on this from Mr. Obama during the debates.  (Note: there was no question on terrorism or Afghanistan from Bob Schieffer in the third debate)

First debate:

OBAMA: Yes, I think we need more troops. I've been saying that for over a year now.

And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible, because it's been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better.

We had the highest fatalities among U.S. troops this past year than at any time since 2002. And we are seeing a major offensive taking place -- al Qaeda and Taliban crossing the border and attacking our troops in a brazen fashion. They are feeling emboldened.

And we cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don't have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan.

So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan.

And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front -- that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

So here's what we have to do comprehensively, though. It's not just more troops.

We have to press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people. And I've said this to President Karzai.

No. 2, we've got to deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded over the last several years.

No. 3, we've got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we've been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.

And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe.

Second debate:

Obama: Katie, it's a terrific question and we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn't finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda.

So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there.

They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They're stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that's why I think it's so important for us to reverse course, because that's the central front on terrorism.

They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region and that's where it will end. So part of the reason I think it's so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that's funding terrorism.

But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can't coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he's making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants.

What I've said is we're going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

I see.  An "erosion in support" among the American people is enough to change policy on defending the country, but not enough to change policy on health care reform?

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed.

Do the American people really know more about foreign policy and national security than about their own health care system and domestic economic issues?

Mr. Obama was given a tremendous gift by former President Bush.  Iraq was, although not fully secure, stabilized after the successful "surge" and counterinsurgency strategy.  All he needed to do there was stay the course of supporting Iraqi democracy and Iraqi security forces.  Mr. Obama has Afghanistan as his responsibility.  And it seems he's determined to punt it away after calling it "our biggest national security priority" as "the central front on terrorism."

The JTF "Quote Of The Day"

From Fouad Ajami, in today's Wall Street Journal.

This distinction between a war of choice (Iraq) and a war of necessity (Afghanistan) has become canonical to American liberalism. But we should dispense with that distinction, for it is both morally false and intellectually muddled. No philosophy of just and unjust wars will support it. It was amid the ferocious attack on the American project in Iraq that there was born the idea of Afghanistan as the "good war." This was the club with which the Iraq war was battered. This was where that binary division was set up: The good war of necessity in the mountains of Afghanistan, the multilateral war born of a collective NATO decision—versus George W. Bush's war of choice in Iraq, fought in defiance of the opinions of allies who had been with us in the aftermath of 9/11...

Wars are great clarifiers. Barack Obama's trumpet is uncertain. His call to arms in Afghanistan does not stir. He fears failure in Afghanistan, and nothing more. Having disowned Iraq, kept its cause at a distance, he is forced to fight the war in Afghanistan. So he equivocates and plays for time. Forever the campaigner, he has his eye on the public mood, the steel that his predecessor showed in 2007 when all was in the balance in Iraq is not evident in Mr. Obama.

There is a difference between playing to win, and playing not to lose.

9/11/09 0950: Ralph Peters knows the difference.

Eight years ago today, our homeland was attacked by fanatical Muslims inspired by Saudi Arabian bigotry. Three thousand American citizens and residents died.

We resolved that we, the People, would never forget. Then we forgot.

We've learned nothing.

Instead of cracking down on Islamist extremism, we've excused it.

Instead of killing terrorists, we free them.

Instead of relentlessly hunting Islamist madmen, we seek to appease them.

September 11 - Eight Years On

My wife Gwendolyn and I made a date every Sunday night for a number of years to watch The Sopranos.  We have the DVD's, and even now will pop in a disc and re-watch some of the old episodes.  We didn't pick it up until about midway through year 2, but once we started watching we were hooked.  The intro, with the now-recognizable A3 song "Woke Up This Morning (Chosen One Mix)", lured you into Tony's world, beckoning you to view the seamy side of the underworld. 

You woke up this morning
Got yourself a gun,
Mama always said you'd be
The Chosen One.

She said: You're one in a million
You've got to burn to shine,
But you were born under a bad sign,
With a blue moon in your eyes.

You woke up this morning
All the love has gone,
Your Papa never told you
About right and wrong.

The intro shows Tony leaving New York, heading into Jersey, complete with toll booth.  And outside the car a view of the New York skyline.  Have a look about 18 seconds in.

Then, due to 9/11, the intro changed.  As the towers were no more, they disappeared from the intro, that brief snippet excised.  Watching episodes from later years of the show always brings a moment of sadness when the absence of the towers calls up the realization of why they're not there.

Here's a look at the building, and the subsequent demise, of those two majestic towers.  The attack took down the towers, and with them the lives of 2603 people inside.

Previous posts on 9/11:

2008: There Are Some Things We Probably Shouldn't Forget

2007: We Remember

2006: A Transforming Dawn

2005: Why?

Traded, For A Few Barrels Of Oil

There have been some bad trades in history.  Babe Ruth traded for financing for No No Nanette, Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson, Curt Schilling for Mike Boddicker, John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander, Jason Varitek and Derek Lowe for Heathcliff Slocumb, and "who can forget Milt Pappas for Frank Robinson, for gosh sakes".  But baseball is a game, and a bad trade offends the fans, but doesn't devalue their lives.  Other trades can.  I don't think I've seen a worse trade than this.

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests.

After less than 12 days per murder the convict is set free, based upon the false representation of impending death and for the commercial interests of BP.  My brother's life, traded for a few barrels of oil.  Before I was disturbed.  Now I'm pissed.  British PM Gordon Brown should be ashamed, and I, for one, want an abject apology.

8/30/09 1235: At Protein Wisdom, Darleen Click points out that this really is, finally, blood for oil.  And Jules Crittendon wants everyone to consider the possibilities.  Also: Moe Lane

... Megrahi’s back in Libya and Gadaffi doesn’t particularly care what Brown thinks about things.  And if you’re wondering why they waited two years… well.  Gadaffi cared a great deal about what George W. Bush thought about things.

This new guy in the Oval Office?  Eh.  not so much.

Pathetic.

8/30/09 1320: After reading, for example, Eleanor Clift and Melissa Lafsky excuse Ted Kennedy in the matter of Mary Jo Kopechne and Chappaquiddick because, politically, he did so much with which they agreed, perhaps it's just a leftist flaw that considers human life only worth as much as any other political football, to be punted around for field position.

8/30/09 1345: Ed Morrissey, who has been right on top of this:

What happens to Brown’s government now?  Will Parliament issue a vote of no confidence and force his resignation and new elections?  After this debacle, men of honor wouldn’t wait for a vote of no confidence but resign in disgrace, not just for the grubby commercial bargain but for their contemptuous lies afterward.

He should resign in disgrace, but only after issuing that abject apology.

9/6/09 2315: First we find out from that the Obama administration was kept in the loop throughout on the negotiations for the release of al-Megrahi.  Via Allahpundit at Hot Air:

The US was kept fully in touch about everything that was going on with regard to Britain’s discussions with Libya in recent years and about Megrahi,’ said the Whitehall aide.

‘We would never do anything about Lockerbie without discussing it with the US. It is disingenuous of them to act as though Megrahi’s return was out of the blue.

'They knew about our prisoner transfer agreement with Libya and they knew that the Scots were considering Megrahi’s case.’

Mr Obama said Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds was a ‘mistake’ while Mrs Clinton phoned the Scottish administration to complain in person.

This doesn't make the case that the release was approved by the Obama administration, though I do note that when the documents relating to this matter were released, those involving the US were held back at the request of the administration.

Here's a photo essay on the 20th anniversary of the bombing, at TIME.

Tell Me This Isn't True

When al-Megrahi, the terrorist convicted in the bombing of Pan Am 103, was released to Libya I assumed that the one piece of information that had been fully checked out was the medical status of the prisoner.  After all, why would one even consider "compassionate release" if compassion need not even be considered? Hot Air:

It turns out that other doctors had been consulted in the case, none of whom were willing to say that Megrahi was even dying from the disease.  In fact, one said he seemed suspiciously asymptomatic for a patient with the kind of diagnosis that Scotland asserted:

Of course, if the physician who makes the call is "in the bag," it would explain a lot.

And suggestions that the doctor who gave the prognosis may have been employed by the Libyan government emerged in the report’s notes. It said that a professor from Libya had been involved in Megrahi’s care and the medical officer who wrote the report had been “working with clinicians from Libya over the past ten months”.

If so, this demonstrates gross incompetence in the administration of the case, and venality by the UK and possibly the Scots if financial considerations trumped the murder of 270 innocents.

Disturbed

That would be me.

• First, a "hero?"

Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only man ever convicted of the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing, which killed 270 people, received a hero's welcome back home in Libya today just hours after being released from a Scottish jail.

He was greeted by a large enthusisatic crowds at the airport in Tripoli, according to The Associated Press.

• Then, more joy, and rumors of commercial reasons from Gaddafi's son.

Saif al Islam Gaddafi said that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s return was a “victory” for all Libyans.

He made the claims in a television interview for Libyan television recorded as he accompanied Megrahi on the flight back from Scotland to Libya on Thursday.

The claims were vehemently denied. A Foreign Office spokesman said: “There is no deal. All decisions relating to Megrahi’s case have been exclusively for Scottish ministers, the Crown Office in Scotland and the Scottish judicial authorities.

“No deal has been made between the UK Government and Libya in relation to Megrahi and any commercial interests in the country.”

• Denials all around, but more suggestions of improved "relations" from Libya's leader.

Meeting Abdel Basset al-Megrahi and his family late on Friday, Gaddafi thanked British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Queen Elizabeth for "encouraging" Scotland to release the dying prisoner from a Scottish jail, Libyan news agency JANA reported.

After receiving a warm embrace from Gaddafi, Megrahi bent forward and kissed the leader's hand, TV images showed.

"This step is in the interest of relations between the two countries ... and of the personal friendship between me and them and will be positively reflected for sure in all areas of cooperation between the two countries," the Libyan leader said.

Gaddafi's comments drew a flat denial from Britain that Megrahi's release was in any way linked to business deals with Libya, which has Africa's largest proven oil reserves. Britain said all responsibility for his release rested with Scotland, which runs its own judicial affairs.

al-Megrahi claims he will prove his innocence before he dies.  I would be willing to listen if he does, but if not, then let's hope the three months he's been given on his release is an overestimate.  And the I'll be keeping an eye on BP for any new contracts.

Al-Megrahi And Pan Am 103

This happened today, but the hearings have been going on for a while.

EDINBURGH (Reuters) - A former Libyan agent jailed for life for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people, most of them Americans, is to be freed on Thursday, the Scottish government said.

Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, will return to Libya on compassionate grounds, despite pressure from the U.S. government to keep him in prison.

"Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power," Scottish justice minister Kenny MacAskill told a news conference. "It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die."

A Libyan government spokesman said Megrahi was being flown home by a son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

"Megrahi has been released and is on his way home," the spokesman said.

Megrahi, 57, is the only person to be convicted over the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in mid-air above the Scottish town of Lockerbie. He lost an appeal against his conviction in 2002.

(pause for effect)  My brother was aboard Pan Am 103 that fateful evening, and so this I can say with certainty.  After conviction for the calculated murder of 270 individuals by terrorist bombing the key to al-Megrahi's cell should have been melted and then thrown away.  I'm quite certain the Scottish prison is capable of providing compassion to a dying man while still keeping him incarcerated.

8/20/09 1315: The Moderate Voice has a roundup, linking to this in The Telegraph.

I’m sorry, but I don’t care a jot whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi has terminal cancer.  So long he remains the only person to have been convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity committed on British soil he should remain in prison for the rest of his life, whether he dies this year or in 20 years’ time.

It’s all very well for Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, to talk about releasing Megrahi on compassionate grounds. But where was the compassion he showed the victims of the terrorist attack on flight Pan Am 103 in December 1988 when he planted the bomb that killed 270 people?

I Would Hope So

From this morning's Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON -- A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter.

The precise nature of the highly classified effort isn't clear, and the CIA won't comment on its substance.

According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.

In 2001, the CIA also examined the subject of targeted assassinations of al Qaeda leaders, according to three former intelligence officials. It appears that those discussions tapered off within six months. It isn't clear whether they were an early part of the CIA initiative that Mr. Panetta stopped.

Back in the day "they" hoped so too.  Who are "they?"  Let's have a look at a few examples.

• Former Senator Tom Daschle: 
  
  Now, addressing the "Where's Osama?" question, Daschle (D-S.D.) wonders "whether or not we are winning the war" on terror.
  
  "We can't find Bin Laden" and "we haven't made real progress in finding key elements of Al Qaeda [either]," Daschle said yesterday.

• 2004 Presidential Candidate Senator John Kerry:
  
  Kerry has asserted throughout the campaign that U.S. forces could have run down bin Laden in the Tora Bora mountains in late 2001 if they had gone after him on the ground, and he has blamed Bush for the decision to let Afghan forces lead that chase.
  
  "He didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down Osama bin Laden," Kerry said in an interview with WISN in Milwaukee. "He outsourced the job."

• Senator Harry Reid:
  

  WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House denied on Wednesday that the U.S. hunt for Osama bin Laden has been downgraded after the CIA disbanded a unit set up in the 1990s to oversee the search for the al Qaeda leader.

  Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada had cited the disbanding of the CIA unit as an example of what he called misplaced priorities in the Bush administration.

  Democrats are trying to raise questions about President George W. Bush's national security policies in a bid to overturn Republican control of the U.S. Congress in November elections.

• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
  
  "The fact of the matter is that Osama bin Laden is still at large, able to taunt and instill fear," Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, said Sunday on ABC. "That is a failure of the Bush administration.["]
• Oh, and also then-Senator and candidate-for-President Barack Obama:
  

  So how he describes the toughest security struggle he will face is important.

  "I think it is a top priority for us to stamp out al-Qaeda once and for all," Obama told "60 Minutes" recently. "And I think capturing or killing bin Laden is a critical aspect of stamping out al-Qaeda. He is not just a symbol; he's also the operational leader of an organization that is planning attacks against U.S. targets."

  This warning followed Obama's pledge in the Oct. 7 presidential debate: "We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national-security priority."

Congressional Democrats are up in arms because they hadn't been fully informed of the program.  But here's the key phrase, from paragraph three in the first excerpt:

The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.

That's CIA director Leon Panetta, who became director in 2009.  Also, there's this:

Senior CIA leaders were briefed two or three times on the most recent iteration of the initiative, the last time in the spring of 2008. At that time, CIA brass said that the effort should be narrowed and that Congress should be briefed if the preparations reached a critical stage, a former senior intelligence official said.

So, as I understand it, congressional Democrats are upset at not being fully informed about a secret CIA program that was not operational and which was designed to do exactly what almost all of them publicly espoused.

Have I got that right?

7/13/09 1235: DrewM. at Ace of Spades -

This seems like nothing more than a minor skirmish in the ongoing war between CIA and people like Nancy Pelosi. The thing is by over playing this, it seems like Panetta is taking Pelosi's side.

CIA spend a lot of time and energy warring with the Bush administration. Now it looks like they are going to be fighting it out with the Democrats and their own director.

Good think we aren't at war or facing a terrorist threat or anything so we have time for this crap.

How Evil Are Democrats?

This evil.

*  Alberto Gonzales did not attempt to mislead Congress in 2007 when he testified that the controversy that erupted at the Justice Department in 2004 was not over what was popularly known as the "terrorist surveillance program" (i.e., the NSA's warrantless surveillance program to intercept suspected terrorist communications that crossed U.S. borders — the effort the Left smeared as "domestic spying").  In fact, as Gonzales told the Senate judiciary Committee, the controversy was about other intelligence activities.

*  When congressional Democrats rolled their eyes, suggested that Gonzales was lying, and groused that a special prosecutor should be appointed, they well knew he wasn't lying — but they also knew he couldn't discuss the intellligence activities at the center of the controversy because those activities were (and remain) highly classified. That is, they knowingly badgered the Attorney General of the United States at a hearing in a calculated effort to make him look dishonest and to intimate something they knew to be untrue: namely, that the dispute at DOJ arose because senior officials believed warrantless surveillance was illegal.

There's more from Andy McCarthy at the link, including information about the false Democrat/media presentation of Mr. Gonzales' famous visit to AG John Ashcroft's bedside.  To summarize, congressional Democrats smeared the Attorney General of the United States as a liar, suggesting that he be prosecuted for perjury, when they knew full well that he was telling the truth, simply because they also knew that he couldn't defend himself against the charges, as the information that would do so was classified.

That is, given the choice between accepting truth that Mr. Gonzales gave them or beating up a handcuffed man by lying about him for political gain they chose the latter.  Harming national security?  Hey, sometimes you gotta break a few eggs to make an Obamalet, right?

Meanwhile, the Obama administration thinks bloggers need adult supervision.

Sunstein calls for a "notice and take down" law that would require bloggers and service providers to "take down falsehoods upon notice," even those made by commenters - but without apparent penalty.

Consider how well this nudge would work. You blog about Obama-Ayers. You get a letter claiming that your facts are wrong so you should remove your post. You refuse. If, after a court proceeding proves simply that you are wrong (but not that you committed libel, which when a public figure is the target is almost impossible), you lose, the penalty is . . . you must take down your post.

How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? Sasha and Malia will be running for president by then. Nobody will care anymore. But it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court.

Guess which side of the political spectrum would use such a law most aggressively?  One might suggest that a far more necessary use for such supervision would be to address the falsehoods and smears coming from the mouths of our illustrious congressfolk.

Obama's First Mistake

And it didn't take long.

Obama was going to the State Department Thursday to join Clinton in addressing diplomats there and — very likely — setting forth major elements of the administration's emerging national security strategy.

One key aspect of that policy would move forward Thursday, with Obama planning to sign an order to shutter the much-maligned Guantanamo prison within a year, according to a senior administration official. This would redeem a promise that Obama frequently made on the campaign trail.

This is, however, attributed to the ubiquitous "anonymous aide," and so may be pure hokum designed to mollify a demanding liberal press intent on holding Mr. Obama to the most left-wing of his campaign statements.  I therefore reserve the right to say I told you so if the order doesn't come about.

That said, if he does sign the order it's a mistake on the order of the Iraq timetable that many, including the new president, were demanding when the war was going badly there.  Right now there are a) dangerous men in Guantanamo, unrepentent in their hunger to continue their bloody quest and b) others who, although releasable, have nowhere to go, including the U.S. mainland.  It's not helpful to state you're closing it if you have no idea what to do with the inmates.

Unless you're going to move them from one holding facility to another, call it different, and use Guantanamo to continue the propaganda war against the now deposed service-concluded Mr. Bush.  In that case I can see the purpose.

1/22/08 1005: Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades writes that these moves, including "banning" harsh interrogations, appear to be fig leaves designed to appease the demanding left while leaving open the option of pursuing them if deemed necessary.

The new White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, briefed lawmakers about some elements of the orders on Wednesday evening. A Congressional official who attended the session said Mr. Craig acknowledged concerns from intelligence officials that new restrictions on C.I.A. methods might be unwise and indicated that the White House might be open to allowing the use of methods other the 19 techniques allowed for the military.

So, a fig leaf, and an implicit acknowledgment that President Bush was right. The CIA hasn't waterboarded anyone since 2003, but they wanted the option if it became necessary. Obama just agreed.

The 20th Anniversary of Pan Am 103

December 21^st has acquired an increasing aura of ominous significance for my family and me.  In 1988 Pan Am 103 was blown from the skies by now-convicted Libyan terrorists, falling to earth in Lockerbie, Scotland and taking with it the lives of 259 people on board the plane and 11 on the ground.  One of those lives on the plane was my brother, returning from a semester overseas in London during his time at Syracuse University.

Annually on this date I have been reprinting my first post from the start of this blog, which I dedicated to my brother.  It posts at 7:03 PM GMT, the time when the plane disappeared from the radar screen, and all those lives, my brother's included, were tragically ended.  Two years ago the pain of this shortest day of the year in the northern hemisphere became that much greater, when my father was taken from our family suddenly.  The irony - or possibly the design - of the two dying on the same date has not escaped our notice.  This post now contains the original first post, from September 2004 and the material I wrote about my father when, after his death, I returned to this blog.

The original first post:

My Reason for Being

There are a lot of ways this weblog could begin. I think the best is with a brief history and explanation. You see, I lost a wonderful younger brother in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. I miss him every day; he would be 38 now. I recall thinking back then that the attack constituted an act of war. I couldn't believe that there wasn't the moral clarity and certitude of purpose on the part of our government to prosecute a war against those who had attacked us. That lack of moral clarity persisted through the Desert Storm war, leaving Saddam in power, through the first bombing on the World Trade Center, through the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, etc., etc., etc. With the devastation of the attack on 9-11 finally, at long last, all Americans would see that we may not have thought ourselves at war, but an enemy was at war with us. The same America that fought World Wars I & II would surely unite to fight against an enemy that attacked us on our home soil - but I was wrong.

Even before the first strikes in Afghanistan many, particularly in the media, were questioning the action, opining that we would find ourselves in a quagmire. With the attacks in Iraq the same voices were heard. Now, as Iraq struggles to find a footing for democracy many who in the 1990's thought Saddam needed to be ousted and, if necessary, preemptive action taken have changed their mind, simply because it's not their guy doing the ousting.

President Bush is doing exactly what needs to be done - aggressively prosecuting the GWOT. The critics note that terrorists are flocking to Iraq to fight against Iraqi and US soldiers - to which I answer "Good. Get more of them together, rather than chasing them to the ends of the earth." To those who think Iraq is not part of the GWOT and that we should have left Saddam in power I ask, do you really think the world would be a better place with Saddam still in power?

This is the history that has influenced me. As Senator Zell Miller said at the beginning of his speech at the Republican National Convention [link]:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren. Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions. And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face. Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in. And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family? The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party. There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

My family, and in fact all Americans, are too important to me. This blog will stray onto lesser topics regularly, my passions and interests. But it will likely always return to this vital effort.

Posted by Giacomo on 28 September 2004

Here are the Wikipedia entry on Pan Am 103, the Victims of Pan Am 103 official site, hosted by Syracuse University, and a link to archival information on the Syracuse students who perished that day.

From my return post of December 29, 2005:

Lastly, I'd like to write briefly about my dad, who passed away eight days ago, on a professional level.  He was a remarkable physician, a cancer specialist in a way that really no cancer specialists are anymore.  He performed all manner of cancer surgery, soup to nuts, including the plastic reconstruction of any deformity created.  He guided the radiation therapy and chemotherapy for his patients.  He read their MRIs and CTs himself.  He looked at their pathology slides.  This was one-stop shopping cancer care, something that you need six or seven different doctors to provide now.  You might think that each of those six or seven physicians would be more highly informed in their particular area to optimize their portion of the care.  You would be wrong.  And you'd have to coordinate six or seven different physician offices to get anything done.

He retired four years ago, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming from his practice.  When he left, he spent the next two years staying in contact with his patients, and working with each of them to be sure they had the best follow-up care he could arrange.  That's something you don't see either.

I won't be writing here on a personal level.  That's something I did for his burial two days ago.  We miss you, Dad.  We all miss you very much.

If anyone is interested, here is the link to his obituary.

December 21^st has acquired an increasing aura of ominous significance for my family and me.  In 1988 Pan Am 103 was blown from the skies by now-convicted Libyan terrorists, falling to earth in Lockerbie, Scotland and taking with it the lives of 259 people on board the plane and 11 on the ground.  One of those lives on the plane was my brother, returning from a semester overseas in London during his time at Syracuse University.

Annually on this date I have been reprinting my first post from the start of this blog, which I dedicated to my brother.  It posts at 7:03 PM GMT, the time when the plane disappeared from the radar screen, and all those lives, my brother's included, were tragically ended.  Two years ago the pain of this shortest day of the year in the northern hemisphere became that much greater, when my father was taken from our family suddenly.  The irony - or possibly the design - of the two dying on the same date has not escaped our notice.  This post now contains the original first post, from September 2004 and the material I wrote about my father when, after his death, I returned to this blog.

The original first post:

My Reason for Being

There are a lot of ways this weblog could begin. I think the best is with a brief history and explanation. You see, I lost a wonderful younger brother in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. I miss him every day; he would be 38 now. I recall thinking back then that the attack constituted an act of war. I couldn't believe that there wasn't the moral clarity and certitude of purpose on the part of our government to prosecute a war against those who had attacked us. That lack of moral clarity persisted through the Desert Storm war, leaving Saddam in power, through the first bombing on the World Trade Center, through the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, etc., etc., etc. With the devastation of the attack on 9-11 finally, at long last, all Americans would see that we may not have thought ourselves at war, but an enemy was at war with us. The same America that fought World Wars I & II would surely unite to fight against an enemy that attacked us on our home soil - but I was wrong.

Even before the first strikes in Afghanistan many, particularly in the media, were questioning the action, opining that we would find ourselves in a quagmire. With the attacks in Iraq the same voices were heard. Now, as Iraq struggles to find a footing for democracy many who in the 1990's thought Saddam needed to be ousted and, if necessary, preemptive action taken have changed their mind, simply because it's not their guy doing the ousting.

President Bush is doing exactly what needs to be done - aggressively prosecuting the GWOT. The critics note that terrorists are flocking to Iraq to fight against Iraqi and US soldiers - to which I answer "Good. Get more of them together, rather than chasing them to the ends of the earth." To those who think Iraq is not part of the GWOT and that we should have left Saddam in power I ask, do you really think the world would be a better place with Saddam still in power?

This is the history that has influenced me. As Senator Zell Miller said at the beginning of his speech at the Republican National Convention [link]:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren. Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions. And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face. Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in. And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family? The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party. There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

My family, and in fact all Americans, are too important to me. This blog will stray onto lesser topics regularly, my passions and interests. But it will likely always return to this vital effort.

Posted by Giacomo on 28 September 2004

Here are the Wikipedia entry on Pan Am 103, the Victims of Pan Am 103 official site, hosted by Syracuse University, and a link to archival information on the Syracuse students who perished that day.

From my return post of December 29, 2005:

Lastly, I'd like to write briefly about my dad, who passed away eight days ago, on a professional level.  He was a remarkable physician, a cancer specialist in a way that really no cancer specialists are anymore.  He performed all manner of cancer surgery, soup to nuts, including the plastic reconstruction of any deformity created.  He guided the radiation therapy and chemotherapy for his patients.  He read their MRIs and CTs himself.  He looked at their pathology slides.  This was one-stop shopping cancer care, something that you need six or seven different doctors to provide now.  You might think that each of those six or seven physicians would be more highly informed in their particular area to optimize their portion of the care.  You would be wrong.  And you'd have to coordinate six or seven different physician offices to get anything done.

He retired four years ago, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming from his practice.  When he left, he spent the next two years staying in contact with his patients, and working with each of them to be sure they had the best follow-up care he could arrange.  That's something you don't see either.

I won't be writing here on a personal level.  That's something I did for his burial two days ago.  We miss you, Dad.  We all miss you very much.

If anyone is interested, here is the link to his obituary.

A Curious Recommendation

Jeffrey Goldberg has some advice for those who must travel into more heated zones of the terror war, in the wake of the Mumbai attacks.  Some are useful; some, not so much.

Always travel with a flashlight, utility knife (they're easy to sneak past TSA), matches, and a few energy bars.

Travel with a utility knife?  Ahem.  As I recall, that was one of the things that got us into trouble in the first place.  And matches?

This appears to be a bad idea on at least two counts.  One, you invite the scrutiny of the TSA and a likely delay to your trip if they do find your knife.  Two, isn't it wrong to encourage people to break the law?

An Unsurprising Revelation

Another politician of questionable honesty.  This is not the Barack Obama I thought I knew.

In a new afterword to his memoir, 1960s radical William Ayers describes himself as a "family friend" of President-elect Barack Obama and writes that the campaign controversy over their relationship was an effort by Obama's political enemies to "deepen a dishonest narrative" about the candidate.

Ayers describes phone threats and hate e-mail he received during the campaign, and he bemoans Obama's guilt by association.

During the campaign, Ayers' friendship with Obama was a favorite subject of conservative bloggers and talk show hosts who insisted the two were closer than the candidate was admitting. Ayers' new description of the relationship seems to contradict Obama's statements.

Obama had dismissed Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood" and "somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know."

It wasn't a "dishonest narrative" because the narrative was never what it was characterized as by the media and the Obama campaign.  Rather than indicating anything anti-American about Mr. Obama it indicated a lack of judgement in associating with someone who hated enough about America to resort to a domestic bombing campaign.  And it indicated a lack of honesty in discussing that association.  "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood" indeed.

The admission by Mr. Ayers of a closer relationship than Mr. Obama and his campaign admitted has essentially verified the gist of the conservative blogosphere's discussion of Ayers-Obama.  The right insisted that a) Mr. Obama wasn't telling the truth about the relationship because it b) would reflect poorly on his judgement to have had a friendship with an unrepentent domestic terrorist and far left radical.  That judgement is in question not because of acts of the Weathermen in 1969, but because as the NY Times story that came out on 9-11 indicated Mr. Ayers continued to hold his radical beliefs and espoused violence.  Mr. Obama was 40.

Next thing you know we'll find out that Mr. Obama actually did hear most of the anti-American and racist diatribes of Jeremiah Wright, since he was in that church "every week," leaving his church only when it became politically untenable.

11/16/08 2350: Howard Kurtz noticed the media's creation of what they want a President Obama to be, and the endless fawning that creation spawned.  Well, that is his job.

What's troubling here goes beyond the clanging of cash registers. Media outlets have always tried to make a few bucks off the next big thing. The endless campaign is over, and there's nothing wrong with the country pulling together, however briefly, behind its new leader. But we seem to have crossed a cultural line into mythmaking.

"The Obamas' New Life!" blares People's cover, with a shot of the family. "New home, new friends, new puppy!" Us Weekly goes with a Barack quote: "I Think I'm a Pretty Cool Dad." The Chicago Tribune trumpets that Michelle "is poised to be the new Oprah and the next Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis -- combined!" for the fashion world.

Whew! Are journalists fostering the notion that Obama is invincible, the leader of what the New York Times dubbed "Generation O"?

Each writer, each publication, seems to reach for more eye-popping superlatives. "OBAMAISM -- It's a Kind of Religion," says New York magazine. "Those of us too young to have known JFK's Camelot are going to have our own giddy Camelot II to enrapture and entertain us," Kurt Andersen writes. The New York Post has already christened it "BAM-A-LOT."

Aaacck!  I'm sorry.  I just threw up a little in the back of my throat.  Excuse me.

Note to the media: Settle down.  He's just an inexperienced child of the Chicago political machine, and given that he's only been a senator for 4 years, and was running for president for three of those, it's extremely unlikely he's all that you've made him up to be.  Had you done the job you were hired to do, rather than the one you wanted to do, we'd know a lot more about him.

Yahoo Forgets

Without further comment, a screenshot of the Yahoo front page.

9/11/08 10:15: Okay, they've improved it.

But look who they highlighted reminding people of the anniversary.  Hmm, I think there's another guy at that joint Ground Zero appearance, John McSomething-or-other.

There Are Some Things We Probably Shouldn't Forget

 

Click the image to view the video at YouTube.  The lyrics:

I hear people saying we don't need this war
I say there's some things worth fighting for
What about our freedom and this piece of ground
We didn't get to keep 'em by backing down
They say we don't realize the mess we're getting in
Before you start your preaching let me ask you this my friend

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin laden
Have you forgotten?

They took all the footage off my t.v.
Said it's too disturbing for you and me
It'll just breed anger that's what the experts say
If it was up to me I'd show it everyday
Some say this country's just out looking for a fight
After 9/11 man I'd have to say that's right

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin laden
Have you forgotten?

I've been there with the soldiers
Who've gone away to war
And you can bet that they remember
Just what they're fighting for

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin laden
Have you forgotten?

Have you forgotten all the people killed?
Some went down like heros in that pennsylvania field
Have you forgotten about our pentagon?
All the loved ones that we lost and those left to carry on
Don't you tell me not to worry about bin laden
Have you forgotten?

Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten?

There are some out there who not only forgot, they never got the message.  Or, rather, they got the wrong message.  We'll have a look at some of them later today.

Earlier Posts on 9-11's past:

2007: We Remember

2006: A Transforming Dawn

2005: Why?

9/11/08 1050: Another reminder video from Hot Air.

To Err On The Side Of Caution

In medical terms erring on the side of caution would be a possibly unnecessary biopsy taken in an effort to increase the level of certainty in the diagnosis.  "Is that irregular calcification on the mammogram an early cancer?  I don't think so, but it's suspicious.  We need to take a biopsy to be sure."  Would you want that from your doctor, or would you prefer a pat on the back and "see you next year?"  Sometimes the biopsy is negative - no cancer.  Is that unnecessary surgery?

Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic writes in the NY Times today on national security and the threat of WMD terrorism, as we approach the seventh anniversary of 9-11.  He notes that Al Qaeda is not the Soviet Union, where MAD could keep the worst impulses on both sides in check.  "Though Al Qaeda cannot destroy the world, it will destroy what it can, when it can."

That is why it was so disconcerting to hear Barack Obama, on the ABC program “Nightline” in June, commend the virtues of the federal response to the first World Trade Center attack, in 1993. “We were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial,” he said. “They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.”

This is entirely true, and yet there is no better example of why law enforcement is inadequate to the demands of effective counterterrorism today than the prosecution of the 1993 bombers.

And why is that "no better example" of the inadequacy of arresting and trying terrorists?  Because the WTC came down 8 years later in another attack.  So erring on the side of caution might, in that situation, have meant not only searching for perps but more aggressively anticipating the desire and the reach of Al Qaeda to do further harm to America, and acting pre-emptively.

Let's move forward eight years.  9-11 happens, just under 3000 lose their lives, and two monstrous skyscrapers are turned to ash, twisted metal and a huge hole in the ground.  A nuclear device could certainly have made things a lot worse, and President Bush knew it.  Mr. Goldberg knows it.  But - and here's the disturbing thing - he's not sure that Mr. Obama knows it.

In my conversations with Senator Obama, he seems to understand the menace — early last year, even while trying to secure the support of his party’s left wing, he told me the possibility of a terrorist group obtaining a nuclear weapon was “the No. 1 threat” facing America. But does he understand that this threat cannot be neutralized mainly by law enforcement; that it must be anticipated by intelligence agencies, and eradicated by the military? The paramount goal is not prosecution, but pre-emption.

Ah, pre-emption.  That was the reason for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.  Now, in hindsight with no WMD located following our arrival in Iraq, it's easy to point the finger at President Bush for the folly of going after Saddam Hussein - and Mr. Goldberg, almost on cue, does.

Did I say “pre-emption”? The doctrine that shall not be named? The Bush administration did the nation no service by pre-empting an Iraqi weapons-of-mass-destruction program that no longer existed in any meaningful way.

But the lack of WMD was not known prior to the invasion despite inspections.  It could easily be argued, again recalling the two toppled towers and the possiblity of even greater destruction and death, that Mr. Bush was simply acting on what were the common intelligence understandings at the time.  Could he take the time to be Goldilocks, looking for the just right porridge before settling in for a snack?  He didn't think so; his job was to make sure Americans were safe.  Further, the ISG report linked above found that once sanctions were lifted Saddam had intentions to reconstitute weapons programs.  If you don't depose Saddam and the sanctions get lifted, then what?  Monday morning quarterbacking is easy, isn't it?

It's a dangerous world.  Sometimes the lesion is so suspicious it requires a wide-margin biopsy in order to err on the side of caution.  In the case of threat of nuclear weapons, our leaders might need a bit more latitude in assessing and then neutralizing perceived threats.

I Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

In an article - and we'll discuss the scary numbers in a moment - reviewing the extent of radical islamic thought among British Muslims, the TimesOnline prints the following from Anthony Glees, a professor of security and intelligence studies at Lees University:

“There is a wide cultural divide between Muslim and non-Muslim students. The solution is to stop talking about celebrating diversity and focus on integration and assimilation.”

The ideal of diversity is not to celebrate the fact that so many remain in their separate cultural cubicles, but that coming from many separate cultural cubicles the people are able to integrate so extraordinarily well into the office culture that as a group they function seamlessly and productively and the office is a happy one.

It's hard to imagine a happy office when people in one cubicle think it's okay to kill people in other cubicles.

ALMOST a third of British Muslim students believe killing in the name of Islam can be justified, according to a poll.

The study also found that two in five Muslims at university support the incorporation of Islamic sharia codes into British law.

The YouGov poll for the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) will raise concerns about the extent of campus radicalism. “Significant numbers appear to hold beliefs which contravene democratic values,” said Han-nah Stuart, one of the report’s authors. “These results are deeply embarrassing for those who have said there is no extremism in British universities.”

The other students recognize the problem.

The researchers found that 55% of non-Muslim students thought Islam was incompatible with democracy.

Contrary to the impression of those diversity celebrationists who seem to misunderstand the concept, assimilation and integration does not mean giving up all of your traditions and cultural heritage and forgetting your background.  Rather, the idea is to embrace the necessary parts of your new culture so that you function (and are accepted fully) as one of it's members.  These parts include at least these: language, law, and democratic/governmental principles. You may of course hold onto other cultural beliefs and traditions that are compatible with functioning in your new culture.

It also means, however, gaining an understanding that not all members of your new society come from your background and respecting their beliefs (i.e., religion).  When you believe those things must be changed to match the culture you came from you have not assimilated.  You hold yourself as superior to those whom you've joined.  And you should probably leave that culture and return to where your beliefs are more widely accepted.

Just Like Sandy Berger

I haven't had the time to crawl into the CIA videotapes erasure brouhaha, and I won't be making assessments and proclamations on all aspects of it at this late date.  I'll just say that the CIA would have been better off keeping them and defending the interrogation methods used against non-Geneva Convention illegal combatant terrorists than destroying them and opening themselves to new charges of a cover-up and going beyond that which has been admitted.

Then this story caught my eye.

WASHINGTON - The CIA on Saturday rebutted suggestions the spy agency was uncooperative and hid from the Sept. 11 commission the videotaped interrogations of two suspected terrorists, saying it waited until the panel went out of business before destroying the material now in question.

The destruction in late 2005 of the videotapes of two al-Qaida suspects has upset a federal judge and riled the Democratic-controlled Congress, which has promised an investigation. The Justice Department also is trying to find out what happened and whether any laws were broken.

A recent memo by Philip Zelikow, the former executive director of the Sept. 11 commission, suggests the CIA was less than forthcoming when asked for documents and other information from the panel, which investigated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Sandy Berger knows what that's all about.

WASHINGTON — Former President Clinton's national security adviser is under criminal investigation for taking highly classified terrorism documents that should have been turned over to the independent commission probing the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, FOX News has confirmed.

Sandy Berger is under scrutiny by the Justice Department following the disappearance of documents he was reviewing at the National Archives.

At the time Mr. Berger had this to say:

"I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced."

We know now that none of that was true.

We'll probably never know exactly what was on those videotapes; we'll probably never know exactly what was in the classified documents Sandy Berger stole and destroyed.  However, since the 9/11 Commission was primarily charged with investigating the lead-up to 9/11, and secondarily the things being done to correct the problems, it's not entirely clear that interrogation videotapes were vital to their effort.  Mr. Berger's missing material was.

Doctor's who alter the medical record to cover mistakes are treated much more harshly than others who leave the record intact, and they should be.  Sandy Berger got off easy.  CYA works in Washington, apparently.

The Nineteenth Anniversary Of Pan Am 103

December 21^st has acquired an increasing aura of ominous significance for my family and me.  In 1988 Pan Am 103 was blown from the skies by now-convicted Libyan terrorists, falling to earth in Lockerbie, Scotland and taking with it the lives of 259 people on board the plane and 11 on the ground.  One of those lives on the plane was my brother, returning from a semester overseas in London during his time at Syracuse University.

Annually on this date I have been reprinting my first post from the start of this blog, which I dedicated to my brother.  It posts at 7:03 PM, the time when the plane disappeared from the radar screen, and all those lives, my brother's included, were tragically ended.  Two years ago the pain of this shortest day of the year in the northern hemisphere became that much greater, when my father was taken from our family suddenly.  The irony - or possibly the design - of the two dying on the same date has not escaped our notice.  This post now contains the original first post, from September 2004 and the material I wrote about my father when, after his death, I returned to this blog.

The original first post:

My Reason for Being

There are a lot of ways this weblog could begin. I think the best is with a brief history and explanation. You see, I lost a wonderful younger brother in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. I miss him every day; he would be 38 now. I recall thinking back then that the attack constituted an act of war. I couldn't believe that there wasn't the moral clarity and certitude of purpose on the part of our government to prosecute a war against those who had attacked us. That lack of moral clarity persisted through the Desert Storm war, leaving Saddam in power, through the first bombing on the World Trade Center, through the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, etc., etc., etc. With the devastation of the attack on 9-11 finally, at long last, all Americans would see that we may not have thought ourselves at war, but an enemy was at war with us. The same America that fought World Wars I & II would surely unite to fight against an enemy that attacked us on our home soil - but I was wrong.

Even before the first strikes in Afghanistan many, particularly in the media, were questioning the action, opining that we would find ourselves in a quagmire. With the attacks in Iraq the same voices were heard. Now, as Iraq struggles to find a footing for democracy many who in the 1990's thought Saddam needed to be ousted and, if necessary, preemptive action taken have changed their mind, simply because it's not their guy doing the ousting.

President Bush is doing exactly what needs to be done - aggressively prosecuting the GWOT. The critics note that terrorists are flocking to Iraq to fight against Iraqi and US soldiers - to which I answer "Good. Get more of them together, rather than chasing them to the ends of the earth." To those who think Iraq is not part of the GWOT and that we should have left Saddam in power I ask, do you really think the world would be a better place with Saddam still in power?

This is the history that has influenced me. As Senator Zell Miller said at the beginning of his speech at the Republican National Convention [link]:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren. Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions. And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face. Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in. And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family? The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party. There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

My family, and in fact all Americans, are too important to me. This blog will stray onto lesser topics regularly, my passions and interests. But it will likely always return to this vital effort.

Posted by Giacomo on 28 September 2004

I should note that, as regards the war against terrorists, I value consistency and strength.  Politicians who change their positions with every shift of the political winds should be ashamed, but they are beyond shame.  As a result, the only current Democratic presidential candidate worthy of my respect in this regard is Barack Obama.  He's wrong, but at least he's been consistently wrong.  The others chanced to be right when it was popular, and now are similarly wrong because it has become popular.

Here are the Wikipedia entry on Pan Am 103, the Victims of Pan Am 103 official site, hosted by Syracuse University, and a link to archival information on the Syracuse students who perished that day.

From my return post of December 29, 2005:

Lastly, I'd like to write briefly about my dad, who passed away eight days ago, on a professional level.  He was a remarkable physician, a cancer specialist in a way that really no cancer specialists are anymore.  He performed all manner of cancer surgery, soup to nuts, including the plastic reconstruction of any deformity created.  He guided the radiation therapy and chemotherapy for his patients.  He read their MRIs and CTs himself.  He looked at their pathology slides.  This was one-stop shopping cancer care, something that you need six or seven different doctors to provide now.  You might think that each of those six or seven physicians would be more highly informed in their particular area to optimize their portion of the care.  You would be wrong.  And you'd have to coordinate six or seven different physician offices to get anything done.

He retired four years ago, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming from his practice.  When he left, he spent the next two years staying in contact with his patients, and working with each of them to be sure they had the best follow-up care he could arrange.  That's something you don't see either.

I won't be writing here on a personal level.  That's something I did for his burial two days ago.  We miss you, Dad.  We all miss you very much.

If anyone is interested, here is the link to his obituary.

A Different Kind Of Cynicism

So, in fact, Democrats are - or at least, were - willing to do what was necessary to protect the nation.

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA  program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, D- Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

[...]

The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

..."Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

The shock that many Democrats express over the exposed CIA techniques for interrogation is an act.  And the feigned horror at finally learning of these terrible techniques is an act.  And Mr. Bush has been telling the truth when he has stated that Congress has been kept apprised of the situation throughout.

Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack.

I see.  So, while you feel there is danger then it is "do what is necessary," but as soon as the blanket of security that those efforts bring is safely wrapped around your shoulders you point your accusatory finger at those who provided the blanket?  Is a little intellectual consistency too much to ask?

12/9/07 2130: John Hinderaker at Power Line asks a pertinent question.

JOHN adds: As I've said before, I think waterboarding is the ideal interrogation technique for known terrorists. It is nearly always effective, works in just a few minutes, and does no physical harm. It works by frightening the subject, which seems highly appropriate for a terrorist.

What I can never understand is how, exactly, the people who object to waterboarding want us to interrogate terrorists. Presumably they don't want us to beat them; unlike waterboarding, that would not only scare the terrorists but do them physical harm. Do they seriously think that we can get timely information from hard-core terrorists through clever cross-examination? Or do they think that captured terrorists, like criminal defendants in the American judicial system, have a right to remain silent?

 

Grow Up Before You Graduate

Some students at Cornell thought they'd take the opportunity of a visit and speech by former Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft to show their maturity with a rather unoriginal protest.

ITHACA — In the face of shouting dissenters and shrouded protesters, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft stood firmly behind his conviction Thursday that the 2001 USA Patriot Act strengthened America's freedom and continues to protect the country from terrorist attacks.

[...]

About 13 minutes into the attorney general's speech, more than 100 students and Ithaca community members stood up from their seats, turned their backs to Ashcroft and placed black shrouds over their heads. The protesters stood in silence for another 14 minutes before walking out of his speech together.

I think I get the point.  Had they stayed for Mr. Ashcroft's speech they might have heard some unassailable truths.

“We have a circumstance that compels us to protect this nation,” he said. “It is unacceptable to rely on the old strategy of preventing by prosecution. We assumed that people would fear prosecution so that they would not perpetrate.

“But when people design their criminal acts in such a way as to kill thousands and they are willing to extinguish themselves in the perpetration of the crime, the potential for prosecution is empty,” he said.

He might have added that, if you think prosecution is easy during the preparations phase and no overt act has yet been committed, well, think again.

More Good News From Iraq ...

... and this time it's also possibly good news from Iran.

Iran may be curtailing the flow into Iraq of lethal armor-piercing projectiles that have become a major killer of U.S. troops, although more time is needed to confirm the trend,  Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and senior military officials said yesterday.

The number of explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) that have been detonated or found in Iraq has dropped by nearly half in recent months, from a peak of 99 in July to 53 last month, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander in charge of day-to-day military operations in Iraq, said yesterday in a videoconference with Pentagon reporters.

[...]

Iranian leaders have given assurances to the Iraqi government that they will try to stop the flow of the projectiles and other weaponry from Iran, Gates said, but he added: "I don't know whether to believe them." He also said, "It's too early to tell" whether the flow has been significantly reduced.

[...]

U.S. forces have continued to find caches of EFPs, including one of the largest ever a week ago, Odierno said, but he noted that the uncovered shipments could pre-date any agreement to slow the flow of weapons. "In terms of Iran . . . it's unclear yet to me whether they have slowed down bringing in weapons and supporting the insurgency or not. I'll still wait and see," he said.

I absolutely don't want to go to war with Iran.  I'd much prefer that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad respond to diplomatic efforts and live up to those Iranian assurances about EFP's, stopping the pursuit of nuclear weapons and halting the support of the terrorist insurgency that is killing U.S. servicemen and women.  But such support can surely be construed as de facto armed conflict with us already.  If there was a "rush to war" with Iran we'd already be fighting them.  We cannot take that option off the table.

That said, if they have stopped providing these weapons to the terrorists in Iraq then it is a welcome step in the right direction, and a sign that opening more diplomatic efforts may be worth pursuing.

11/2/07 1745: And speaking of good news ... (hat tip: Ace)

More Bad News From Iraq

What was that phrase from the NY Times editorial?  Oh, that's right, I remember ...

The news out of Iraq just keeps getting worse.

In the hallways and around the water cooler at Eighth Avenue they're not going to like this.

BAGHDAD - The monthly toll of U.S. service members who have died in Iraq is on track to being the lowest in nearly two years, with at least 37 troop deaths recorded as of Tuesday, but the military cautioned it's too early to declare a long-term trend...

It is the lowest number since 32 troops died in March 2006 and the second-lowest since 20 troop deaths in February 2004, according to an Associated Press count based on military figures.

That would be the second consecutive drop in monthly figures, after 65 Americans died in September and 84 in August

Is this news worse?  It seems like better news, but I could be wrong.  However, the AP can't let a positive story go without at least a splash of icy 'reality.'

Iraqi civilians, meanwhile, faced more attacks on Tuesday.

At least four mortar rounds slammed into a village near Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, killing a woman and wounding five other civilians, police said.

In Baghdad, gunmen in a speeding car tossed a hand grenade into a crowd of shoppers in eastern Baghdad, killing one person and wounding five, according to an officer in the capital. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information.

Unmentioned?  The fact that these attacks on Iraqi civilians, if indeed they did occur, were perpetrated by terrorists.