Wednesday, December 30, 2009

The Pretenders

Cheney is becoming some kind of GOP jack-in-the-box.. popping out every time president Howdy Doody issues a less than meaningful statement or response regarding terror. The Politico covers the latest, so consider this a take on their take:
Former Vice President Dick Cheney accused President Barack Obama on Tuesday of “trying to pretend we are not at war” with terrorists..
That's the setup. Now the snippets:
A senior Democrat said in response: “It’s telling that in attacking the president and the administration, that Vice President Cheney did not condemn the attack against our nation on Christmas Day.”
True, but it took Obama 3 days to publicly condemn it. He played golf instead.
..GOP officeholders have eschewed the customary partisan restraint following a terrorist incident and baldly portrayed Democrats as weak on security.
Good grief, they're mainly commenting on the lapse, as have some Democrats, as have many in the press, as has the president himself.
President George W. Bush was quieter for much longer about the attack by shoe bomber Richard Reid in December 2001.
Yes, but it's not as if Bush was out there after 9/11 downplaying the threat, calling for prisoners to be tried in court and badmouthing Clinton for leaving him a mess. The public was still reeling from 9/11--we knew we were at war then. Besides, the Dems constantly criticized Bush for not jumping on issues as they occurred like Clinton did.
The senior Democrat said: “There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference from the last administration is that we are at war with that which is tangible — Al Qaeda, violent extremists, and terrorists — rather than at war with a tactic, ‘terrorism’.”
Yeah, and how's that working out for us? How many people actually think there's much of a difference anyway? The teachable moment here is that words really don't matter with these guys.
“The world will have confidence that I am listening to them, and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world. That will ultimately make us safer. And that’s something that this administration has failed to understand.”
Which seems to prove Cheney's point.

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Obama on Extremism

Obama spoke out again about the crotch bomber, the second time in two days, after refusing to interrupt his golf over the weekend (except for a surfboard accident in the holiday party).

Talk about bland rhetoric, it was pretty much a further walking back of the Napolitano cat. He sounded more like a mid level Pentagon spokesman than a president discussing national defense.

As to content, well, if Obama is going to take a Clinton-model law enforcement approach to terrorism (that's why Holder is there) then he needs to explain to the American people that the risks of attack will be higher than under Bush. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty. He started it today, and it's about time.

Obama and company undoubtedly counted on his charm, Muslim roots, different word choices (no more using 'terrorist') and the closing of Bush terror facilities and programs to reduce the level of Islamohate and thereby reduce the chances of attack. As a result we've gotten a year of almost constant threats/attacks. Such is the by-product of a law enforcement approach--go back to when Holder was last in government for confirmation of that fact. And it's something the public needs to understand. Reviews aren't going to change much.

One more thing, about words. Obama and minions are purposely using the word "extremist" over terrorist to describe the crotch bomber and anyone else who wields the sword of Allah against us. The Bush folks were in the process of morphing away from the standard terminology before leaving office but with Obama there's just something incomplete about the way he's using 'extremist'. Here he is from Monday:
We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us, whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. homeland.
He was careful to say 'violent' extremist, since someone can have extremist views and not be violent. But by not specifying Islamic terror he's leaving the door open to just about everyone of ill will against the government being an extremist, including Tim McVeigh types here in the USA. Go back to that DHS report on right wing "extremists" and the way some on the left wildly described the tea partiers and you'll get the picture.

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Memphis Connections?

Back during the summer a Little Rock recruiter was killed and another injured when a former Memphian conducted a drive-by jihadi shooting. The story got little national fanfare and the Little Rock police even tried to downplay its significance at the time:
Muhammad was not part of any terrorist group, nor was his attack part of a larger conspiracy, according to Thomas. "We believe that it's associated with his disagreement over the military operations," the police chief said.
Yet the suspect, Carlos Bledsoe, aka Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, was on a watch list due to spending time in, of all places, Yemen:
While there, Muhammad — a U.S. citizen from Memphis who is a convert to Islam and was previously known as Carlos Bledsoe — studied jihad with an Islamic scholar, reported.
For the record, his parents did not agree with the Little Rock police chief:
"His parents are absolutely in shock. They cannot imagine this is their son. He was not raised this way. He did take a trip to Yemen and they believe certain people had an influence on him," Hensley said Wednesday
Sounds familiar. And just who might have had the biggest influence? Wonder if they are talking to Bledsoe about him right now? Let's hope so.

As to any Memphis connections, other than him hailing from the area Bledsoe once stopped at a Memphis mosque to pray according to its Imam, which spurred the Blue Collar Muse Republican to do some poking around there back in June. He found some interesting things regarding a few members and their admiration for Imam Aulaqi, the same one who was pen-palling with Major Hasan, but there were no smoking guns.

But no need to worry. Despite three jihadists with connections to Yemen, and possibly to Aulaqi himself or his cohorts, the president remained on the golf course and Janet Napolitano says the aviation system worked as planned. Just an overseas contingency, so move along now. You know, more people might cut the snark and cut some slack if this bunch hadn't made their beds with a cover of Bush-blame on this whole thing.

MORE 12/28/09

I wrote the above piece before hearing this story, which also made Hot Air today:
The FBI found three Islamic cassette tapes and miscellaneous papers in the suspect's car, which were removed for additional study, according to the affidavit. Police charged Ibrahim with commission of an act of terrorism, filing false reports and disorderly conduct. He posted $100 bond and was released, pending his court date on Monday.
That's where the 100 dollar figure came from but Cap'n Ed says the folks at 201 Poplar disagree:
Either the original reporting was incorrect or the bail got increased in Ibrahim’s court appearance this morning. According to Shelby County courthouse website, the bail is now at $50,000 (case number 09148795). He has a court date of January 11th. Thanks to Robert A for the information.
If his bond was set at 50K and was increased then he was re-arrested because the initial stories claimed he has posted and walked. The capture took place on Christmas according to this ABC 24 report. There's nothing on WREC's site and very little on Fox 13 but according to Channel 5, they've found Mohamed Ibrahim, but aren't telling us where he is without a small fee.

Two initial impressions-- one, this guy seems more like a lone nut than the others and two, that premise is based on no subsequent reports of him having contacted Aulaqi at some point.

Hero Status

Google Jasper Schuringa and you'll find many pages describing the man who "dove over four passengers" and put out the fire between attempted terror bomber Abdul Mutallab’s legs--by all accounts a hero. He is also, according to Mediaite, being paid for his media interviews:
Here’s what it sounds like happened: CNN tells Mediaite they paid a “licensing fee” for the exclusive cell phone image, which they have been using throughout the day. TVNewser reports, “Insiders tell us other networks are vying to buy the image for upwards of $10,000.”

CNN clarifies the network did not pay for the actual interview during CNN Newsroom. However, there’s a reason Schuringa has not appeared any further on CNN or any other network – we hear he has asked for additional payment for any future interviews.
I happened to see the interview live on CNN and got the same strange feeling, especially after he started a conversation with someone off camera and tried to end the interview, almost as if there were handlers. But he's worked in showbiz. Some people know how to cash in.

The Flying Dutchman aside, there are some odors with this story. For instance, why would the State Dept. not pull the visa of a man placed on a terror list or place him on the no-fly list? The UK did. The NY Times explains that one doesn't always lead to the other, which makes sense, but at the same time his father told the US Embassy and Nigerian intelligence about his son's leanings six months ago.

Er, well maybe three months ago. Or according to the administration, a few weeks ago. The timeline is important since the father mentioned the son was going to Yemen. America just happens to be involved in a hot war in Yemen right now.

As such, one might think anyone remotely associated with Yemen would be watched like a hawk at the moment, especially those coming to the states, and especially since the Dept of Homeland Security has to clear everyone departing on international flights. Did Christmas have anything to do with someone's guard being down, if indeed it was? Clever thinking by the enemy, if so, along with underwear bombs.

And what of our electronic eavesdropping? His father went to the authorities after a text message was received. Recently acquired statements from Imam Aulaqi come to mind. Then there's this.

All of which may be easily explained. The US national security apparatus fights a daily battle of finding needles in haystacks and they can't possibly find everyone beforehand. Maybe it would be a good time for the Commander-in-Chief to come out and grab their backs and explain some things as he loves to do with almost everything else. After all, conclusion jumping is not productive, and we've done some good things of late in Yemen.

MORE 12/27/09

So much for my vacation from blogging. The president is doing a much better job keeping his intact (tee times) despite the Detroit event. Instapundit sums up some competing views as to whether Obama should make a statement, including Marc Ambinder:
Obama of course will say something at some point. Had the terrorist blown up the plane, it's safe to assume that Obama would no longer be in Hawaii. In either case, the public will need presidential fortification at some point. But Obama is willing to risk the accusation that he is "soft" on terrorism or is hovering above it all, or is just not to be bothered (his "head's in the sand, "golfing comes first," )in order to advance what he believes is the proper collective response to a failed act of terrorism.
He's right, this is a strategy play. There would be nothing wrong with coming out to note and thank the hero passenger but that would also highlight that overseas contingencies might be coming onshore, not to mention the administration failure of letting this guy fly at all, so he's likely not going to be coming out. I think he should, but we're more likely to see another bombing run north of Sanaa (which is a good thing).

But I disagree on one point. Had the plane exploded and fallen out of the sky on approach it would not have immediately been called a terrorist attack. The POTUS might or might not speak, but if he did it would be to remind everyone about the hazards of jumping to conclusions. He would have likely remained on vaca in Hawaii. After all, surely it could have been wind shear or a spark in the fuel tank or some of Debbie Stabenow's AGW-induced turbulence (it was coming into Michigan, after all).

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Who to Believe on 253?

Various accounts of the Detroit wanna-be-terrorist are cropping up this morning. It's interesting to note that the government has a propensity to protect the population and commerce by calling such things what they aren't, the most recent example being the Major Hasan attack.

CNN seems to be starting a 'lone wolf with no connections' portrayal by questioning his connections and filing their story in the 'crime' section. Then again, they were slower to come off the 'firecrackers' cover story and were late with the Pope attack story on Christmas Eve (when others were accurately reporting that a woman had breached security and pulled the Pontiff down CNN was saying he had just fallen).

Fox was right on top of the Pope story and was among the first news orgs to throw out the firecracker story yesterday. They are staying with the connected wolf story, quoting Congressman Peter King:
King, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, said Mutallab "definitely has connections" to Al Qaeda.

King said Mutallab was not on any "no-fly list," but one source familiar with the investigation said the suspect did come up in another federal database after authorities checked his name on Friday.
The WaPo seems fair and balanced while the old Gray Lady tells readers:
The suspect is believed to be an engineering student at the University College London.
He probably has a poster of Ramzi Yousef on his wall. But he was clearly no Ramzi. ABC News is in the middle, providing anonymous leaks from both Republican and Democrat intelligence officials. Which news coverage would Obama approve?

The key here will obviously be the powder. If indeed he smuggled it aboard in Amsterdam there's a security problem. If he didn't that can only mean the material was left on the plane for him, which immediately proves he's not a lone nut and there's a wider conspiracy.

After 9/11 there were stories about box cutters being found on airplanes, apparently stashed by either ground crew or previous passengers. So it's possible the substance was left on board by a previous passenger on the last flight into Amsterdam on that airplane, which again would prove a wider conspiracy. But that would also prove a lapse in security somewhere else. The ground crew theory doesn't.

His seating assignment also might prove something. In the several attempts to take down 747s, terrorists have tried to get seats over the Center Wing fuel Tank so they could use a smaller explosive to blow a hole in the floor and ignite the fuel. His row, 19, was perfect for such a thing, and it was a jumbo jet.

But waiting until the end of the flight would not have maximized the fuel available, so apparently it was more important to crash the aircraft over America for symbolic effect. The problem with that is a successful crash wouldn't have necessarily been called a terrorist attack. Is it possible then the man was only playing with harmless pyrotechnics with no intention of bringing down the plane but with every intention of making news on the most important day in Christianity?

Finally, the Yemen connection could very well be bragging and disinformation after the fact but essentially groundless. That country has become a flashpoint of late and our possible take-down of Hasan's braggadocios Iman would be a big blow to their collective ego. Maybe this was their way to make an immediate statement--assuming it wasn't a tale told by a wanna-be failure trying to score brownie points with the big guys. Time may tell.

Then again, some might consider all of this rather chilling in context when considering several aviation stories in the news lately and a few predictions being made, which really haven't been making much national news at all.

A PAIN IN THE REAR? 12/26/09

There's one more possible way this man got past screening--he placed the powder in an inaccessible location, so to speak. Consider this from the CNN account:
Schuringa said he saw that Abdulmutallab had his pants open and he was holding a burning object between his legs.

"I pulled the object from him and tried to extinguish the fire with my hands and threw it away," Schuringa said. He said he managed to pull an object tucked between Abdulmutallab's legs.
Now, consider this:
After al-Asiri entered a small room to speak with Prince Mohammed, he activated a small improvised explosive device (IED) he had been carrying inside his anal cavity.
Interestingly, this "dirty bomber" had been hiding in Yemen, where the Saudi Army is currently engaged. Some may ask why he wouldn't have done the same--remotely detonated it with an electronic device--but perhaps such a thing isn't possible.

MORE 12/26/09

Amsterdam has full body screening so this appears to rule out the dirty bomber aspect. Which seems to lend more credence to the binary explanation, especially based on the coming restrictions from TSA (no leaving the seat 1 hour before arrival and nothing on the lap).

PETN? 12/26/09

That's the latest. Thirteen years ago a trace of that compound found on a downed jumbo jet caused the Clinton administration to beef up airport security:
Six days after the crash, President Clinton announced a series of security measures intended to bolster airport security. And on Monday, the President asked Congress for more than $1 billion for antiterrorism initiatives, including $430 million for airport and airline security initiatives, like the installation of bomb-detection screening systems at more than 50 American airports.
Actually, that was just to be on the safe side--the substance was not found until later. Like the Clinton admin the Obama TSA will be enacting more restrictions soon but at what point do the terrorists win without firing anymore shots? It's not a political question, nor answer.


Actually, ABC. Let's hope this doesn't mean what it seems to mean as to future TSA inspections.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Merry Christmas

A yuletide gift has been placed under the national tree this year. Some are happy, some didn't ask for it, some may wonder whether they accept returns.

And some might whimsically ask, "what would Jesus do" (ie, why are the wingnuts against helping the poor). Far be it for me to speak for the deity but it's doubtful the savior of humanity would show as much enthusiasm as Robin Hood Reid and his band of merry socialists, who claim to be saving America. "Render unto Caesar" was more about his role as the son of God as opposed to a rabble-rouser or politician. Jesus didn't levy a tax on Matthew to pay for healing the blind man.

He would probably ask each one of us what we've personally done to help the poor--with our own money. He might care about people being forced to contribute money towards abortion. And He might get a lot us told for letting ourselves get out of shape, which costs everyone. But chances are it would be boiled down to the one-on-one.

In the meantime I'll be taking a short break to celebrate the season with family, so Merry Christmas to all and thanks for dropping by (and putting up with my shoddy writing and bizarre ruminations) this past year..

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Franken: One Angry American

File this one in the dog bites man tray:
Jacobs said Franken must be careful not to engage in too many political brawls, or it could “reinforce for independent voters what they feared about him, that he’s a hot-headed partisan.”
Yes, those would be the same independents who voted him into office, apparently the only morons in America who didn't know Franken actually was a hot-head partisan. Apparently they missed his book or the fight with the LaRouche supporter. Just think of that a moment--it would be like electing Sean Hannity to the Senate then worrying that he might be a partisan loud mouth.

The story talks of Franken's latest dust-up with our junior Senator Bob Corker. He's also sparred with John Thune, which can be seen in part here:

No matter that Thune can clearly be heard saying "many" of the benefits don't kick in initially, Franken jumps right in and charges him with saying "none" then accuses him of having his own set of facts so he can blather on like any schoolyard bully. But it's a nice bellweather for the mood of the country right now, one which Katie Couric recently called angry.

Miss Katie also lamented the lack of respectful disagreement, although it's doubtful she was talking about Franken. More likely she's just ticked that all the legislation brought forth by Reid, Pelosi and the Jedi Knight don't sail through on unicorn wings, as if that's always been the way of things. Of course it has not. Naive? Hardly.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

It's the Holiday Season!

Time for some Chairman Mao Christmas ornaments! And hey, what says Christmas more than transvestites on the tree? Surely there was one with Jesus on it, somewhere.

Boy, some folks really know how to screw up the season. We have Roland Burris making political mincemeat of Clement Moore's famous poem (or was it?); an animated indoctrination film designed to program and scare children into environmentalism--starring Santa Claus; and now this. A rather fitting cap to the year, it would seem.

How about some music? Here's one from way back..

Merry Christmas, comrade!

Monday, December 21, 2009

Why Not Call It...

The vote to proceed with a federal pathway to taking over healthcare was reached on the Senate midnight shift this morning (do they get night pay?) via a party line 60 to 40 vote.

Just think, if only one Republican Senator from Alaska or Minnesota had been reelected this might not have happened. In light of that, perhaps they should call it the "Ted Stevens Memorial Health Care Bill". With all the chicanery, bribes and back-scratching by the Democrats it sounds like a fitting tribute.

MORE 12/21/09

From the JOM comments come this:
In effect, the onerous obligations under the Reid Bill would convert private health insurance companies into virtual public utilities. This action is not only a source of real anxiety but also a decision of constitutional proportions, for it systematically strips the regulated health-insurance issuers of their constitutional entitlement to earn a reasonable rate of return on the massive amounts of capital that they have already invested in building out their businesses.
Epstein argues the bill should not become law before being put to a constitutional test. Well, we have a constitutional law professor in the White House, don't we? How could he possibly sign something that might fail such a test.


As mentioned above, Senator Jim DeMint also questions the constitutionality of the insurance mandates in the bill and will force a vote on it. But isn't a ruling of unconstitutional really what the far left wants here?

If Congress manages to pass this convoluted behemoth then it gets ruled down perhaps plan B will be to pursue a form of single payer as an alternative, working off the disappointment some in the public (and media) will show. After all, the lack of single payer is why Olbermann and the rest of his far lefty friends are throwing their temper tantrum. We know Obama is on the record as wanting single payer eventually.


Senator Burris displays his main talent. Apparently he's forgotten that Santa, 1) doesn't levy taxes to produce the toys he builds, 2) doesn't charge for delivery, and 3) requires goodness, for goodness sake. He does have the fantasy part down, though.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

On Bringing KSM to New York

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and friends will be coming to court in New York soon, a controversial decision likely to produce a circus atmosphere with terrorist supporters, constitutional purists, conspiracy theorists, Biblical and Koranic prophets and charlatans, glory hounds and a host of others seizing the media spotlight at any given time.

Obama and his supporters insist it's necessary to "uphold our American values", making the reward worth the risk--the reward being a final rendering to Allah or wherever. At least that's the fatalistic impression the president seems to be leaving with any potential jury pool, which is rather odd since our values state that suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty. There are no exceptions for terrorists other than handling national security evidence.

This apparent dichotomy recently earned Barack Hot Air's "Obamateurism of the week" due to this exchange with NBC's Chuck Todd:
NBC: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — can you understand why it is offensive to some for this terrorist to get all the legal privileges of any American citizen?

Obama: I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

NBC: But having that kind of confidence of a conviction — I mean one of the purposes of doing — going to the Justice Department and not military court is to show of the the world our fairness in our court system.

Obama: Well —

NBC: But you also just said that he was going to be convicted and given the death penalty.

Obama: Look — what I said was people will not be offended if that's the outcome. I'm not pre-judging,
Not surprisingly, if a reader clicks on the NBC video of this exchange they will see an interesting edit (KSM part begins at 01:30 mark). After Obama says, "...death penalty is applied to him" they stop the interview and insert an announcer voice-over with a still photo backdrop of KSM to cover the awkward exchange. The unedited video is not easily located on You Tube.

NBC would only do this because the president was entirely snookered by Todd and his answer made no sense. KSM has to be called an 'alleged terrorist' and must be released if acquitted, they can't have it both ways. Obama and Holder should well understand this based on their legal backgrounds. So what's the deal?

The left might reply by moving the goalposts and saying the government has successfully tried terrorists in federal court before, so the deal is there is no big deal. But that depends on one's definition of success. KSM's nephew Ramzi Yousef was tried in Manhattan and are now trying suspected AQ terrorist Aafia Siddiqui in New York. Many other bombings and murders happened anyway, and information may have even leaked out of the MCC holding center while he was undergoing trial. Attorney Lynn Stewart will be going to prison soon for helping the Blind Sheikh kite messages out of the MCC to his followers in Egypt. There will be similar sympathizers with KSM, which represents the danger.

Yousef defended himself pro se and at one point proudly called himself a terrorist. Here's an old link to LGF about such things (before the proprietor crossed an ideological precipice).

So, ruling out sheer incompetency and rank stupidity the decision certainly has the air of politics. There's no reason to try AQ terrorists in separate systems since clearly every al Qaeda member is by nature a part of the criminal conspiracy to attack American targets, both military and civilian.

Holder's very presence as AG is a clue itself. Why were ex-Clinton officials the top candidates for that job? Shortly after Obama was elected they even tossed around Jamie Gorelick's name for Attorney General, another former Clintonite associated with the original KSM indictment and the 'wall' memo that got a lot of attention during the 9/11 commission hearings where she was a commissioner (some say she should have been a witness). Weren't there any other candidates?

Going even further back Gorelick was number two in the Justice Department when the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was bombed on April 19, 1995. Both McVeigh and Nichols got federal trials but many questioned whether others were involved. Since there was no 4/19 Commission America was left with only the FBI and Clinton administration version of events, quite similar to the previous worst terror attack on American soil on February 26, 1993. Neither were covered extensively by Gorelick's commission in 2004.

That vacuum of information has left some to see the circumstantial evidence as a link between 2/26, 4/19, and 9/11, which they hope the KSM trial will open to disinfecting sunshine.

Part of that sunshine would be to explain Yousef and his connections. Simon Reeve's 1999 book "The New Jackals" chronicled his life through capture in the 90s before America was shocked awake by 9/11 (it even mentions a secret program to sort through phone calls). The world was certainly different back then--no doubt few thought Reeve a kook when on page 20 he described New York's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) discussing the possible culprit(s) of the WTC attack:
Later it was proposed that the bombing was in quick retaliation for the US bombing of the Al Rashid hotel in Baghdad, Iraq, on 17 January 1993. The Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had invited a number of Islamic fundamentalist leaders from around the world to the hotel for a conference when the building was struck by a US missile.
Perhaps the JTTF's suspicions were peaked by the fact Yousef referred to himself as "Rashid the Iraqi" when working on the bomb in New York. Ever since the left successfully cemented a conventional wisdom that says Saddam had no relation to terrorism (a move that helped them gain absolute power in government) such a person would now be roundly dismissed.

Anyway, most who've been paying attention have heard the story--Yousef was captured in Pakistan in 1995 and rendered back to America where he predicted his friends would one day get the Trade Center, but few know he was in Cebu City, Philippines in 1994 (along with childhood friend Abdul Murad finding ways to hijack and explode airplanes and assassinate Bill Clinton and the Pope) at the same time Terry Nichols was there visiting relatives of his Filipino wife.

In 2006 Congressman Dana Rohrabacher used his House committee on International Relations to investigate possible connections between Yousef and Nichols and between Nichols and white supremacists. They found no smoking guns, but did find some smoke, such as the fact Yousef made several calls while in New York to a Filipina girl who lived in the same apartment building and was related to Nichols' wife Marife. Among the 'unanswered questions' in their draft report:
7 Why was Terry Nichols concerned for his personal safety when he traveled to the Philippines in November 1994?

8 Why did Terry Nichols leave $20,000 in a package at his ex-wife Lana Padilla's house before departing for the Philippines in November 1994? Where did Nichols get the money?

9 How did Terry Nichols, a man with no steady job or source of income, finance his five trips to the Philippines?

10 Why was an unaccounted-for leg found in the debris after the bombing?

11 Did Terry Nichols play a bigger role than he has admitted or has been thus far proven?

12 Why was there so little investigatory focus on Strassmeir and Hussaini?

13 Why the rush to rule out the existence of John Doe Two?
Now, the point of all this is to question whether a KSM trial could possibly dredge up all this old unanswered stuff and whether the Obama administration actually wants this to happen or not. One idea is they want everything except that evidence put forth at trial to get swallowed up in a maelstrom of twooferism, acting to diminish all of it (except the trial material, which will become the truth). But that would seem a bit hard to control, even with the MSM in their corner.

We all saw the way Bill Clinton reacted in his interview with Chris Wallace a few years ago when asked if he tried to get bin Laden. Surely there is no secret goal is to forever ruin the Clintons by doing this with Hillary now the Secretary of State. A tribunal would have likely kept all this old baggage circling on the carousel forever, all of which makes the decision so much more intriguing.

Investigative journalist Peter Lance is out in front on the potential for the KSM trial to open a sort of backdoor terrorism commission (read the 'cold case' on his front page). He will be coming out with a new book just as the trial likely gets started, which will no doubt once again ask questions of Justice as to why Ali Mohammed was allowed to remain free for so long. It will be interesting to see if any mainstream media outlets book him for interviews.

Others may pop up and ask what really happened with other notorious events, such as the al-Shifa aspirin plant bombing (Holder was around for that one, too) and why they linked it with Saddam Hussein, or why a guy the 9/11 Commission called an "WMD chief procurement agent" for AQ is still walking free after being interviewed by both the FBI and CIA in the Sudan after 9/11. Others might question the whereabouts of figures such as Abderraouf_Jdey, Abdul Yasin, Abu Ibrahim, and "Jafar the Pilot".

Perhaps the answer to all of this lies in a recent story about the DNC's strategy for the 2010 mid-terms: they plan to run against Bush. That's right--Bush, in 2010. It certainly explains the unprecedented way in which Obama never misses an opportunity to bash his predecessors when talking about, well, anything.

But this is obviously dangerous. A recent poll showed the blame rhetoric isn't really working, and by 2010 it could be a huge gamble to run against a previous president if the economy is still weak. And not only because the Dems gained control of Congress in 2006 and have increased spending by over 25 percent but because it would only solidify with the voters their sheer level of incompetence. Why should the people who broke the economy be rehired to fix it, etc?

Maybe the 'run against Bush' was just a trial balloon to gauge how much blame Obama and Congress are currently on the hook for, but the KSM decision seems irreversible. If the Obama folks aren't staging it to keep the focus on Bush for political reasons in 2010 (and beyond) and this isn't really about justice, then what on earth could they be doing?

MORE 12/21/09

Jamie Malanowski at True Slant reports about an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Bill Clinton on a trip to the Philippines in 1996. He boils it down, but misses an obvious point:
Why did Clinton not reveal that he was a target of this attack? Surely the incident, in combination with the embassy bombings and other attacks, could have helped create the basis for a vigorous response. In particular, why was this plot still a secret as late as 1998, when Clinton’s presidency was in jeopardy, and especially in August 1998, when the missile attacks he ordered on al Qaeda training bases were suspected of being a `Wag the Dog’-type ploy designed to deflect attention from his legal problems?
Indeed, not only did he not escalate the war but according to Scheuer he passed on several attempts to get UBL in the years afterward. And when he did finally attack in 1998 it was a pinprick on Afghan, a factory in Khartoum suspected of using Iraqi scientists to produce VX, and a hail of hundreds of cruise missiles to Baghdad. Go figure.

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Getting Something Done

Those socialist-loving Democrats really believe in raw capitalism when it comes to enacting socialism, don't they? 300 million to Louisiana Landreiu in trade for cloture to begin debate; a stocking with some happy talk on abortion for Nelson to reach cloture again; and even some pay-back to the Florida counties who lost 2000 for Gore--for the other Nelson. All of it on a credit card that is nearing default (it's as if they know it's nearing default but like crooks, are trying to keep using it until the bank finally closes it).

Yet despite the headlines, and despite the promises, Reid apparently doesn't have an actual bill for fellow Senators (or even us peons) to see yet. Like the ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, the bill is currently just a spirit floating around on a dark winter's night, garnering headlines. Come to think of it, this entire thing does kinda have that Dickens feel. But like Scrooge, Americans are being given a final chance...

Bottom line--some of this might be good and we do need reform, but any bill that has to be rammed through Congress in secret, based on bribery, during the holidays, under the cover of darkness, and without proper public vetting, must have something wrong with it. Something terribly wrong. This is an illegal procedure call on third and 20. It's time to punt. And punting isn't final--sometimes it can set up better field position later.

Side Tracks

Some Christmas cheer. Here's Ritchie Blackmore's Night...


And to all those who've stopped by to read this blog, thanks and...

What in the World?

From the London Telegraph via Russia:

Just last month this video was making the rounds. Your guess is as good as mine..

Flashpoint: Yemen

A lot seems to be happening in the Middle East as the world focuses on the just-completed kerfuffle in Copenhagen:
On orders from President Barack Obama, the U.S. military launched cruise missiles early Thursday against two suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen, administration officials told ABC News in a report broadcast on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.

One of the targeted sites was a suspected al Qaeda training camp north of the capitol, Sanaa, and the second target was a location where officials said "an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned."
Yemen is becoming an item lately. The administration is now saying six Yemenis will be repatriated soon, which could lead to more, yet at the same time they are calling it a failed state and an AQ reserve base. The Saudis are involved in a hot war in the north with Houthi rebels (a Shia brand), while the London Telegraph recently reported that US Special Forces were in-country training members of the Yemeni military. One has to wonder what kind of deals were made with Yemen in order to move those Gitmo guys.

There was also the killing of AQ kingpin Saleh al-Somali in Pakistan last week, a terrorist who was suspected of facilitating transfers of jihadies out of Africa and elsewhere. He had been high on the hit list since Black Hawk Down days.

Of course there was also the alleged Iranian Army attack on a dormant oil well in Iraq, and further east in Pakistan:
Islamist elements in Pakistan’s military unhappy with President Asif Zardari are reported to be plotting to remove their country’s civilian government and replace it with a military dictatorship.
And with that, we executed a major drone attack in Waziristan. Things really don't seem much different than when Bush was president, do they? No complaints here.

Friday, December 18, 2009

No Wonder They Walked Out..

Reports out of Copenhagen say India and China walked out of COP-a-buck-15, their main beef being the emission targets and monitoring thereof. To wit:
Obama said he was all for a mechanism to monitor emission reduction actions, exchange of information and transparency. He added that this should not be intrusive or impinge upon sovereignty.
Hey, maybe they've seen Or maybe actual monitoring of their emissions (rather than just taking our taxpayer dollars and spending on whatever) was always a deal-breaker and no matter how many sulfur-laden billion dollar bills Obama and Hillary dangle they're not worth the true accountability required to get them. Just sayin'.

By the way, here's the You Tube of Chavez's anti-capitalism speech and the accompanying round of applause:

And speaking of ghosts, here's Obama's presumed ghost writer from a few years ago:

Ayers is now reportedly upset, along with Hugo, both disappointed in Obama's apparent rejection of world socialist solidarity. Judging from the COP-15 reaction, so were many of the delegates (which shows the real 'cause' being discussed). All this should be a good thing for the president since only the far left stands in line with those fools and his poll numbers should go up by rejecting them. Yet he continues to snatch defeat by bullying Congressmen and frightening the population towards the precipice of a rather socialist-sounding agenda. Pure madness.

MORE 12/18/09

Obama has apparently pulled an agreement out of the fire, which saves the trip (he was faced with being 0 for 2 in Denmark). It sounds more like a face-saving agreement as opposed to anything meaningful; one designed to get them to the next meeting--in 2010. Now they can crank up the 747 and fly home to Andrews--to which a blizzard that way comes...
LOL, as they say (yes, we know weather is not climate, until a heat wave appears).

Iranians Reaching out to Obama

Except it's not with an open hand, it's with a full moon shot...
Iranian troops have crossed into Iraqi territory and seized an oil well that lies in a disputed area along the two countries' southern border, Iraq's deputy foreign Minster said Friday.
The price of oil has already gone up, which is likely part of this stunt. Another part is to force Obama's uber-deliberative hand on the same day he's scolding China and India on their refusal to allow the verify part of Reagan's famous statement. Just the other day the Iranians tested a missile capable of hitting Israel:
A day after threatening to "set fire" to Israel and American targets in the Gulf, Tehran test-fired nine ballistic missiles yesterday, including a long-range one capable of hitting Tel Aviv.
Then yesterday they most likely hacked Twitter, a warning to their own disgruntled pro-western population no doubt, so it looks as if Tehran is pulling out all the stops to embarrass and press Obama while he takes the world stage, mainly in response to this action:
The House of Representatives, on Dec. 15, passed a bill granting President Barack Obama authority to impose sanctions against any entity that provides the Islamic Republic of Iran with refined petroleum resources, or supports the regime’s ability to import such resources.

The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (H.R. 2194), expanding upon the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, passed by a vote of 412 to 12, with four present. The IRPSA comes as Iran remains committed to its uranium enrichment program, in defiance of repeated United Nations Security Council resolutions and U.S. and European overtures for negotiations.
They would love the price of oil to spike again. Obama has his holiday deliberation hands full, it would seem.

But don't think we Tennesseans will let the little sawed off Iranian ruin our Christmas--we live in the 4th happiest state!

Thursday, December 17, 2009

NTSB on NWA 188

The NTSB released their docket docs on Northwest flight 188, the one that overflew Minneapolis by 150 miles. The media tried hard to find a smoking gun, with USA Today even misrepresenting the facts:
The pilots told investigators that they had no idea anything was wrong until flight attendant Barbara Logan called on an intercom to ask when they would be landing. The pilot who answered told her he was "hosed" and hung up, Logan said.
Not quite. The pilot didn't say "he" was hosed, he said she was hosed in a joking manner and told her they would be landing at '1200 Greenwich (Greenwich Mean Time or GMT). The other flight attendant said that meant 9 PM CDT, which is also wrong--it's 7 AM CDT in Minneapolis. Just for the record. Not sure why he said that but it's not unlike a pilot to jazz a stew, whether he knew they were 'hosed' already or not.

The important question continues to be what caused their loss of situational awareness, and the report doesn't shine much light. The CVR could have provided some clues but the NTSB described it as follows:
It appears that the airplane’s electrical network was re-energized three separate times after the engine was shutdown, before the CVR was removed or deactivated. Each time, the CVR started and recorded for 5 minutes5, causing more than half of the recording to be overwritten. In agreement with the Investigator-In-Charge, a CVR group did not convene and a transcript was not prepared.
That doesn't sound good.

Still, in reading the narrative it's hard not to have sympathy for these two guys. They both came across as average 50-somethings leading normal lives, which will now be turned upside down (and for their innocent families as well) all over one streak of dumbness. Thing is, one streak of dumbness in a pressured aluminum tube flying along at 500 mph is sometimes one too many.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Bidding on Thomson

I'm not knee-jerk opposed to housing terrorists in a Supermax prison in the states--Yousef, Murad and Nichols (more on them in a following post) are still locked up in Colorado with very little problem. Yes, information will leak out at some point as it always does but as they say, dems the breaks. Such is the price Dick Durbin must pay for closing the "gulag".

I'm also not against the site of Thomson, Illinois since it's a remote area not close to any major interstates or other transportation (one rail line borders it).

My main question right now is how Thomson was chosen. This CNN article makes it sound like a plum:
The governor and other officials have said that such a deal could provide up to 2,000 jobs and up to $1 billion in federal money to the area.
What about America's other small towns in need of more bait shop and diner patrons? Was there a competitive bid process or is this the kind of thing the executive branch can simply do based on exigent needs? And if so, aren't we supposed to be appalled and sickened by no-bid government contracts regards the GWoT?

Monday, December 14, 2009

Newsweek's Gore Fantasy

Seriously, does anyone actually subscribe to this magazine anymore or is it being kept afloat by doctor's offices? This little fantasy piece about Al Gore becoming president, and how the world might have gone, is just begging to be fisked. So here's my take:
An August 2001 Daily Intelligence Briefing warns, "Bin Ladin [sic] Determined to Strike in the U.S.," which prompts the president to authorize the strategic bombing of targets in the Khost province of Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border.

Frank Wall, White House counterterrorism adviser: "We had it on better-than-reasonable authority that Osama bin Laden, or at least his top guys, were hiding out under the protection of the Taliban who, if you remember, had just blown up the Bamiyan Buddhas that April, which was a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Nasty guys. It didn't go over well. We were not greeted as liberators there, and here at home, the general consensus was that the president was trying to look manly. I still maintain it was the right thing to do. American interests haven't been attacked by Al Qaeda since the USS Cole in Yemen, but who can really judge if an endeavor is successful by something not happening?"
So bombing the Khost province in August would have killed Mohammed Atta and his 18 co-conspirators here in America who by most accounts were getting their marching orders via KSM in Pakistan? Had Gore succeeded where Clinton failed in killing bin Laden then why wouldn't Zawahiri have given the green light on 9/11 with everything already in place and ready to go? Besides, one could easily say a dead bin Laden becomes the great Islamic martyr, creating scores of wanna-be's and new terrorist recruits determined to take revenge on the great Satan.
June 2002: The president signs a bill giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, worth $1.35 trillion over 10 years. There are cries of foul from both left and right.
Why would the right cry foul? By the way, only Newsweek would use Andrew Sullivan as 'the right'.
the robust economy and no major foreign or domestic conflicts are enough to secure a second term for Gore-Lieberman in November 2004, beating out the McCain-Kemp ticket by 51 percent to 48 percent.
Peace in our time, all accomplished by bombing Khost province a month before 9/11. Wow.
March 3, 2005: At a Rose Garden ceremony, the president announces his health-care-reform package that includes a public option offering coverage to compete with private insurance. Polls indicate the American public is overwhelmingly in favor of such a program.
Hey, this is a hit-piece on Lieberman, isn't it?
Hurricane Katrina strikes Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama, with winds of up to 140 miles per hour. Although meteorologically one of the most significant storms in decades, the surge of water into New Orleans floods low-lying parts of the city to a depth of just three feet. Within hours, FEMA mobilizes supplies of food and water, and the Army Corps of Engineers shores up the levees and pumps out the flood waters within six days. Total mortality in New Orleans for the hurricane is just 17 people.
Newsweek doesn't say how Gore repaired the levees because in the real Katrina, the storm surge did not top the levees, it collapsed them. Wetland maintenance would have done little to affect the water level in Lake Pontchartrain, which leads directly into the Gulf--unless he's saying wetland maintenance would have lowered sea level. Hey--we're talking about Gore!

But he does have a point. With Gore in the White House neither Nagin nor Blanco would have any reason to drag their feet or blame GOP bogeymen and they would have been held fully accountable, so who knows how things may have turned out.

And apparently in this alternate reality Saddam Hussein, his maniacal sons, Hamas, Hiz'ballah, Iran, and North Korea somehow vanished into the ether as soon as Gore bombed the Khost province. Amazing.

As to global warming, of course Gore signs us onto the Kyoto protocol in 2001 but it doesn't predict whether the gridlocked Congress would have ratified it or what the global temperature would have done those eight years. Oh right--the global temperature would have been exactly the same as now.

Admittedly, the fantasy 2008 election was kind of funny with the Bush brothers against Hill-Billy. Also notice that Barack Obama ends up in the Supreme Court in this fantasy, which would have been a difficult sell in 2005 with his weak legal background and no anti-Iraq war speech in 2002. That's debatable of course, but is Newsweek trying to tell us something here by sticking Obama in a Spock-like environment with no political future?

Obama on 60 Minutes

Is this some kind of record for appearances for a first year? Before long he'll have his own commentator slot. Anyway, he sat down with Steve Kroft and answered some questions (again) on a range of subjects.

He spent a lot of time nuancing Afghanistan, defending his dithering and reminding everyone of the mess he inherited. But there seemed to be no passion or emotion in his discussion. Kroft nailed him for this at West Point, which he denied, but that same analytical nature was evident in this interview as well.

No surprises--he's doing what he has to do. He can't withdraw and risk another terror attack (even a small one) after campaigning that Bush failed to win Afghanistan. But it clearly does not elicit his passion.

Social issues are what stirs his passion, and nothing gets his dander up like discussing the evils of Wall St. Notice the change as Kroft brings it up:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

There's nothing unusual about a politician dragging up visions of old man Potter during Christmastime but with Obama there's something uneasy about his fixation and stark black and white thinking (no nuance here). The TARP loans are being paid back and yet he's pissed off because they gave bonuses? Excuse, but weren't we supposed to be worried about Bush's TARP loans never being paid back and the public getting screwed? Isn't the public benefiting from these paybacks?

Obama bizarrely and ironically ignores his own links to Fannie and the CRA/ACORN part of the housing meltdown when discussing this issue, telling Kroft these bankers 'still don't get it' and lecturing them on the coming draconian regulations. During the AIG crisis he once described his administration as 'the only thing standing between (them) and the pitchforks'. Pretty strong words and yet nowhere to be found when discussing our fanatical military enemies.

Curious, but not really, upon reflection. Many of Reverend Wright's sermons dealt with the evils of greed and Obama certainly heard a few and agreed. CBS described him as frustrated; perhaps his real frustration is the paypack gets these banks off the government teat and out from under his thumb, making it hard to regulate them so 'this never happens again'. Which is odd itself--how does he plan to control the business cycle? It's like Tiger's promise to never let an auto accident happen again, and just about as sincere. The only feasible way would seem to be radically altering our western system of free-market capitalism, which has always been susceptible to swings.

There were signs at the Copenhagen protests yesterday calling for an end to capitalism to stop global warming. Obama began his political career in Bill Ayers' living room, a man who's been battling to end capitalism his entire adult life. We know Obama is in favor of spreading the wealth around to solve many problems, including the so-called climate problem. At what point does two and two equal four?

MORE 12/14/09

"Goowd solid B+". I think a wise president should always pass on that kind of a set-up question. He could have easily said, "I'll leave the grading to others, but I'm doing the best I can under difficult circumstances". That would have been graceful and would have shown leadership.

He passed on that moment, deciding instead to show a trace of vanity and disgrace by once again shifting blame, not only to his predecessors (by the way, Bush initiated TARP, which has been the single most instrumental program to stop the next great depression, assuming anything has stopped anything), but to Congress for not passing the greatest social program since Social Security. In other words, he would have an A+, all things being equal.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Copenhagen Climate Protest

They are on. And they were anticipated. Many, such as the Power Line guys, wondered what kind of protesters would show up:
One wonders what sort of protests they are expecting. Will Lord Monckton throw Molotov cocktails, or Pat Michaels smash bank windows? I very much doubt it.
Well, the answer has arrived. But aren't most of the "demonstrators" actually supporters? It would seem, although a few overseas 'teabaggers' seemed to be there (one person was quoted as saying, "We want to be able to live our lives like we’ve always led them before — as free citizens in free democracies,"). He was probably dispatched to the dog pen as soon as the camera crew left.

Jammie Fool noticed their war for oil signs have apparently been misplaced as they are now simply taking the fight directly to capitalism itself through something called "climate justice" (something folks in northern climes would welcome right now). Many of their yellow signs smacked of being mass-produced rather than the magic-marker creations of real grassroots events, so it's prudent to wonder about funding connections.

The main organizer of these events appears to be, an organization founded by Vermont writer Bill McKibben. One monetary source is the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which brings to mind George Soros (connected according to this Muckety map) and Maurice Strong of 'oil for food' fame. Of course they'll claim that's crazy talk.

Anywho, in looking around for sign images this one popped up from July. How did we miss Obama up on Mount Rushmore?

It's nice to see the Greenpeace protesters responsible were arrested--they could have been AQ operatives with explosives looking for some symbolic revenge over white man's greed. Which is really the root of all of this phony-baloney climate protesting. The question is whether it can be stopped.

Saturday, December 12, 2009


Gotta hand it to Gillette regards their handling of their ballooning sponsorship problem with Tiger Woods:
"As Tiger takes a break from the public eye, we will support his desire for privacy by limiting his role in our marketing programs," said Gillette, a division of Procter & Gamble.
So yeah, they're actually supporting Tiger by canning him! Imagine the board meeting where this eureka defensive marketing strategy was concocted. Not only deceptively brilliant, but now they're out ahead of the other sponsors by laying claim to the defense so nobody else can use it. Let's hear it for good ole fashioned American ingenuity.

Side Tracks

Tis the season..

Friday, December 11, 2009

Obama and the Nobel

The conservative consensus seems to be that George W. Bush could have delivered Obama's speech in Oslo because it wasn't littered with the usual America-bashing. That's ridiculous--Bush would have never condemned himself like that.

There were a few positive things, summarized in bullet form below and free of charge (worth every penny):

1. He shocked and disappointed many of the pointyheads in attendance. You could see it on their stunned faces (well, except for the gorgeous blond in the front who seemed very impressed if you know what I mean and I think you do). His admission that war was justified and necessary had to be like a collective stroke for some of them. I think he did it on purpose--they don't vote, but according to polls back home the likely voters who do are getting increasingly pissed. Blowing off the day two festivities won't hurt him at home, either.

2. Everyone seems to think he kept his America-bashing at a minimum and he did, but his Bush bashing was sharp as a tack. No surprise there--it's why he won. It began when he talked of going "beyond self-defense" (Iraq). But he meandered, veering off to justify Clinton's war in the Balkans, a war for 'humanitarian purposes' that resulted in quite a bit of collateral damage deaths (including our bombing of the Chinese embassy and resulting cries of 'war criminal' towards General Wesley Clark).

This segued into him saying "inaction tears at our conscience and can cause more costly intervention later", which included the Balkans but also Darfur, evidently forgetting the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein, which somehow wasn't a humanitarian crisis until Bush invaded.

Then it was back to bashing when he said "militaries with a clear mandate", which Iraq didn't have in the eyes of old Europe despite the multi-national coalition.

He once again swerved into a veiled slap at Europe by making a guilt pitch towards getting more NATO troops in Afghanistan. Some audience members were beginning to drift towards sleep at this point but he was soon to wake them up when he dovetailed back into the Bush-bashing by bringing up the original Nobel winner and founder of the Red Cross and contributor to the Geneva Conventions, Henry Dunant, allowing him to figuratively waterboard Bush/Cheney over all the things they did he wouldn't do (evidently watching from the sidelines as the mushroom cloud envelopes a city?).

3. He then outlined three ways towards peace, including tough alternatives to change behavior such as real sanctions, which led him back into Euro slappy land. Translated, put up or shut up, folks--all this peace around the world doesn't happen without blood, sweat and tears and America can't do it alone. Cheers here!

Of course he followed that with a journey into his strawberry field of unicorns riding nukes off into the distance. Most presidents have unachievable goals--Obama has to top them all.

He got back to more war talk at this point and scored another body blow with "America has never fought a war against a democracy". It's worth a picture of the crowd reaction:

Surely a few pastors have seen those same faces before when preaching about sin.

4. Just as quick as he was on a roll he derailed when talking about the brave freedom-seekers, like those in Iran. Which he basically ignored. He promised not to again, in a lecturing tone.

5. "Economic security". Barack's happy zone. "True peace is... freedom from want". At this point global warming appeared, which was no coincidence since climate change is all about white men's greed in a world of need. He cloaked it in national security, in other words if we don't spread the wealth around the natives are liable to get restless and there are loose WMDs out there or something.

6. He got back to extremism, mentioning Islamists clinging to guns (backpack bombs) and Allah but felt compelled to condemn Christians by scolding them over the Crusades. Funny how they never scold over the first Caliphate. Like the enigma he is, he came roaring back to point out that no religious war is a just war because there's no restraint involved, anything goes, then threw in the golden rule, which was excellent, since it was a bin Laden/Zawahiri smackdown.

He ended by mentioning the Utopian dream all liberals aspire to, which garnered the second round of applause.

All in all, it was up and down, good and bad. Obama still has a tendency to float above the problems of the world in an almost god-like fashion or perhaps a teacher gently lecturing a group of students. He might not have been as critical of America as before in front of a foreign audience but he got off a number of Bush shots and managed to pucker a crowd of stuffy Euros with some cold, hard reality. Mission accomplished, I'd say.

Oh, and that strange spiral in the sky that coincidentally occurred over Norway on the very day Obama arrived, purportedly from a failed Russian Bulava missile test? Just a congratulatory gesture from Putey Poot, failed or not.

AQ's REPLY 12/12/09

Not a formal reply, but there's no doubt Adam Gadahn's Friday message..
"Those who have made the foolish decision to stand with America and its allies in their losing war against Islam ... you have not only betrayed Islam and Muslims and left the fold of faith, but you have also caused the destabilization of nations and the displacement ... of thousands of weak and oppressed people," Gadahn said.

"The blood of countless Muslims is on your hands, and the security and very future of the countries you claim to defend and serve has been placed in jeopardy because your external enemies are taking advantage of your heedlessness as you fight and kill your fellow countrymen for American dollars."
..was targeted to the very type of pinhead in attendance at the Nobel ceremony, the very same ones with looks of shock on their faces as Obama explained the way of the world as to war and peace. We'll see which way they go.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Palin and Ice Cores

What's the connection? Other than jokes nothing specifically, except the global warming connection, of which Palin has been taking heat from noted scientists Al Gore and now Tingles Matthews:
CHRYSTIA FREELAND, "THE FINANCIAL TIMES": Well, I was really surprised by one thing in her op ed, which was that she actually said that she isn`t sure that climate change is caused by human actions. So, that to me was really, really interesting, and quite a radical position for her to take. I think a pretty dangerous one, because --

MATTHEWS: Who`s writing this stuff for her, Randy Scheunemann or somebody? Is this some incredible ideologue -- she`s got to be smarter than this. I don`t care what you think of her politics. Doesn`t she know the reality of the ice cap? Doesn`t she see?
Somehow it's 'dangerous' for Palin to express uncertainty as to whether 'climate change' (meaning she acknowledges there is climate change) is 100 percent the fault of mankind? Wow. Do they not realize that every scientist isn't 100 percent sure either? Here's one, for instance:

Notice that Schmidt is the one who interrupts the most. BTW, that's courtesy WUWT, who also hosts another scientist with an interesting look at one of the Greenland ice cores and what it might say about climate over the last 40,000 years. Check out the big picture:

"In fact for the entire Holocene — the period over which, by some odd coincidence, humanity developed agriculture and civilization — the temperature has been higher than now, and the trend over the past 4000 years is a marked decline".

Does the graph, which shows many periods of cooling and warming greater than we're seeing now, prove whether man is affecting climate over the last 100 years or not? No. But it does show that variability is the rule of nature long before SUVs or even humans. The so-called enlightened set have tried to diminish the same kind of proxy data that shows the MWP by saying it wasn't global, although they accept current global warming even though not every weather site is warming.

With that in mind, is Sarah Palin's measured reply really so out of whack or is it the cacophony of group-think coming from lock step warmists and their shrill intolerance to anything but party line (and all the socialist-fascist mitigation entailed) that's actually more the example of 'political science'? Seems settled to me.

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Saving the World

The very end of Thomas Friedman's New York Times piece contains this blurb:
Maureen Dowd is off today
Actually, it was hard to tell.

Friedman probably thought he was pretty clever using that Cheney 1 percent doctrine on nukes applied to catastrophic long range temperature in order to twist those cwazy neocons into mental pretzels. Instead he ended up just another shill supporting a global socialist agenda to redistribute western wealth.

I could go on with the boring prose about all things climate but why not just get to the links? Here's the WaPo confirming the subterfuge needed to convince Joe Twelvepack to change the way he lives, which involves group-think and peer pressure psychology no doubt laced with Alinsky tactics.

Here's Al Gore being a dumbass again. Either that, or he's as arrogant as was Tiger Woods in believing nobody can see through him.

And here's what Copenhagen is the true culmination of. Surely many have seen this but I feel compelled to post it again for its sheer power.

Here's something going around now. It's a good overview of the points on both sides, which the author can only describe by saying "what a nightmare".

Finally, here's Karl Rove on TV last night making a rather startling statement about how the Bush administration's policies regards CO2 have caused our CO2 output to drop, and if continued would almost equal Obama's targets without the socialism.

Of course Bush dabbled in socialism with TARP, but right now it's the only successful bailout program going. Thanks for saving the world, president Bush.

Cheney on Hannity

Darth was on Hannity's show, and was his usual splendidly blunt self. Here's his take on KSM coming to Manhattan, among other things..

The seminal moment was probably this:
Hannity: Do you think part of this is to put our CIA on trial; to put you on trial; to put president Bush on trial. Or maybe if it's not designed to do that, ultimately will that happen?

Cheney: (with sly smile) I don't know. I don't know if that's a motive for them or not. It could be. It could be that Holder expects to be able to use this to go back and sort of review in depth the Bush Cheney policies in terms of what we did in terms of to prevent attacks against the United States. I think that's a loser for them...
It's stunning that a former Vice President would even remotely consider the possibility of this. The idea alone suggests KSM (or the govt prosecution) would be expected to dump a whole lot of sensitive data out on the public to prime the pump since they would need a popular buy-in to proceed. That brings to mind Holder's comment about using evidence nobody else has seen before.

In possibly related news, the administration is arguing for the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by terrorist Jose Padilla against former Justice Dept lawyer John Yoo over his findings on enhanced interrogation and confinement. Not because they believe he's necessarily innocent, but because they think any punishment would be more appropriate coming through the Justice department or the bar as opposed to advocacy cases in the courts.

This same premise basically holds true for all federal employees regarding judgment calls so it's not surprising they didn't want the precedent going forward. It does seem to put Yoo back in the hands of Holder, though.