When I heard we killed the terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki with a Predator drone strike in Yemen, my first reaction was "good, we got another one !" When it comes to killing al Qaedans, I'm on-board with the idea, mainly because al Qaedans are on-board with the jihadist idea of killing us. If it's going to be us or them, I want it to be them. Putting them on the 72 Virgin Express is fine by me. Better that than the Capitol Bldg. blowing up.

But this is 2011, and even killing a terrorist bent on killing Americans is not without controversy. Here's Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX):

“That’s not a good way to deal with our problems,” [Paul] said of the drone strike in Yemen that killed Awlaki. “He was born here,” said Paul. “He is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged with any crime. Nobody knows if he killed anyone." Paul said the precedent of striking against Americans, even those suspected of being terrorist masterminds, is not a good one. “If the American people accept this blindly and casually – have a precedent of an American president assassinating people who he thinks are bad. I think it that’s sad,” he said.

Ron Paul is not the only member of the political right who sounds a lot like Glen Greenwald on this matter. There are several others. Here's Kevin Williamson of National Review:

Awlaki was obviously in the camp (metaphorically and then literally) of our mortal enemies. If propagandizing on behalf of a mortal enemy were enough to justify the assassination of a U.S. citizen, then we would have shot half the faculty of Harvard and 93.8 percent of the Motion Picture Academy a few decades back. But this is wartime, the argument goes. So was Korea, Vietnam, and much of the second half of the 20th century, but we managed to get through it without ordering the assassination of I. F. Stone, and his beloved Soviets were a far greater threat to this nation than is al-Qaeda.

If the Authorization for Use of Military Force does indeed permit all this, then it is only a law legalizing lawlessness. Citizenship, as I have argued before, is my main concern here. If citizenship in a republic means anything, it means that raw political clout is not the only thing standing between the citizen and arbitrary violence on the part of the state. The extrajudicial killing of American citizens — not on a battlefield, mind you, and not in the course of combat — fundamentally changes the relationship between citizen and state. I have my doubts that any sensible person would have let himself freeze to death at Valley Forge to establish such a government.

Yes, Awlaki is an American citizen. He was born in New Mexico.

And yes, we do have that piece of paper known as the U.S. Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. American citizens are supposed to be covered under the Constitution, and the Bill Of Rights contains a Fifth Amendment, which states the following – "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The President Of The United States is sworn to uphold the Constitution. The question reduces down to this – Have we set a very dangerous precedent where the government can now execute an American citizen without any due process, or are the President's actions justified by the Fifth Amendment exception for "service in time of War or public danger ?" When it comes to battling enemies of the United States and national security, that's about the only time I give our government any constitutional leeway, so I'm inclined to give the President the benefit of the doubt here…but my inner libertarian is scolding me, calling me a fool to ever trust the government to hold it's own expanded power in check. History has shown that when you give government an inch, it takes a mile. A great deal of my personal political philosophy is based upon the tendency of governments toward tyranny. The idea of limited government is a lot more than some right-wing or libertarian talking point. It's an essential prerequisite to a free society.

I find myself in a dilemma. I'm wary of the precedent we're setting here…but I'm still glad we took Awlaki out.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on the matter.

Looks like I have some time to kill until President Obama unveils his jobs plan next month (no rush, Mr. President), which I'm certain will save the nation (satire intended) unless those "terrorist" (Biden's word), "un-patriotic" (Pelosi's word), "radical" (Reid's word) House Republicans put "ideology above country" (Obama's phrase) and shoot it down for partisan reasons (irony apparent to everyone except liberals). The President will be putting the finishing touches on his plan to get re-elected save America while vacationing at Martha's Vineyard, lifestyle choice of the rich and famous. Champagne wishes and caviar dreams, Mr. President.

But not to worry, this President will never forget his roots (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, etc). Even though Obama now farts through silk, he once knew the heavy weight of oppression, like when he was asked to repay his student loans from Harvard Law School. One can only imagine how he must have suffered. I used to think George Washington and his men had it rough at Valley Forge until I heard Obama talk about his student loans. Now I know what real pain must feel like. With such tribulations in his past, it's a wonder Obama didn't become a blues singer instead of going into politics. Lucky for us, eh ? Therefore, I have no doubt he will remain in touch with the common man (his waiters, bellhops, maids, sommeliers, drivers, etc).

But what am I supposed to write about while I wait around for Obama to save me next month ??? How can I drive my ship without my Captain, my rudder ? What are we supposed to do while we wait around for Obama to produce some jobs for us ? I feel your pain, liberals. Without Obama around to take care of me, I might have to…think for and take care of myself ??? No way, Jose. The heck with that. What is this, Somalia ??? That's way too scary a proposition.

But maybe, I'll give it a try just this once until O Captain! My Captain! returns from his self-imposed exile in paradise. Let's see, what should I write about without The One's guidance ??? Hmmm…

I could write about the government-dependent low-class warriors who are rioting in England, where the mob is expressing it's moral outrage by…stealing flatscreen televisions ??? Btw, don't believe for a second that the British riots are about the police shooting someone. They aren't, just as the 1992 L.A. riots weren't really about Rodney King. Those putative "causes" merely serve as excuses for the thugs to behave like thugs.

I could write about how John King, a non-union electrical contractor in Toledo, Ohio, was shot and had the word 'scab' written on his truck, and about how he was repeatedly threatened, intimidated, and abused by union thugs. But you know, after a few thousand incidents of union-perpetrated and other assorted violence from the left, you kind of become numb to it. I know the mainstream media is numb to it, because you'd think the common left-wing violence was non-existent in this country if you listen to the mainstream media. They are too busy trying to convince us that the far rarer instances of violence from the right are the existential threat, even if they have to manufacture that "threat" out of whole cloth, as they tried to do when that crazy liberal pothead shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killed several other people. Our "reporters" in the media insanely tried to pin that one on Sarah Palin's crosshairs election map, without a shred of evidence that the deranged metalhead anarchist kid had ever even heard of it, let alone seen it or acted on it. Our mainstream media is just "responsible" like that. Liberals calling for toning down the "violent political imagery and rhetoric" from a frigging campaign election map was all the rage among liberals for five minutes, but now the top Democrats in the country are calling Republicans anti-American terrorists and radicals. It truly boggles the mind how quickly liberals forget all about what they said yesterday. Obama's recent specialty has been calling for toning down partisan rhetoric, which he immediately follows up with twenty minute speeches filled to the brim with partisan rhetoric. I don't know how his speechwriters can keep a straight face when they conjure up this stuff.

I could write about the gang of hundreds of blacks youths beating up white people at the Wisconsin State Fair. That event has also been mysteriously scrubbed from the media, but I guarantee you if the reverse had happened, we'd have an army of reporters and a national conversation on race taking place, with massive protests, Al Sharpton, and President Obama jumping into the fray to figure out where we had gone so wrong as a nation. Stronger hate crime legislation would be called for. Lest you should think this is a one-time event, it is not. The same type of thing happened recently in Illinois, South Carolina, and other places. The fact is, black on white crime is far greater than the reverse, even though you'll never hear that from our politically correct mainstream media either. The subject is taboo, and I guarantee you some liberal reading this is thinking I must be some kind of racist for even mentioning it. That's how conditioned and brainwashed they've become.

I could write about a recent study from Duke University/UNC, that concluded only 6% of American terrorists were Muslims from 1980-2005. Liberals have been using that study to bash concerns about Muslim violence here, but in typical liberal fashion, they entirely miss the point. The study actually shows that Muslims are the most demographically prone-to-terrorism group in America by a wide margin, but liberals forget to tell you that part. They focus on the 6% number instead. They don't bother to mention that Muslims are only 0.6% of the population, making that 6% number a very high percentage indeed for such a small group of Americans. Plus, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda really didn't start operating until the 1990's, and the study starts from 1980.

Even more interesting is who the study said DOES commit terrorist acts in America. Here's the pie chart:

According to the study, which comes from FBI statistics on terrorism, Latinos are the most terrorist group, at 42%. I assume that is due primarily to violence associated with the drug wars. In second place for the most terrorist acts is, drumroll please, LEFT-WING GROUPS, at 24% (29% when you include communist groups). I don't even see a category for right-wing terrorism, which means there aren't enough terrorist acts from the right to qualify for it's own category.

Here's a political thought experiment for you. Look at all the terrorist groups in the above pie chart, as well as the examples I cited in my post, and ask yourself, do these groups vote for Democrats or Republicans ??????? The answer is pretty obvious. They vote for Democrats.

So tell me, WHOSE POLITICAL RHETORIC NEEDS TO BE TONED DOWN BECAUSE OF THE VIOLENCE IT MIGHT INSPIRE ?????????????? The media pretends it's the rhetoric of the right, but reality says it's the rhetoric of the left.

All over the Leftosphere, I'm hearing a huge pile of manure being shoveled regarding former President Bush and Osama Bin Laden. The Leftos are saying Bush didn't care about getting Bin Laden and wasn't even looking for him (I'm not even counting the crazed Lefto conspiracy theorists who think Bush was protecting Bin Laden for some reason). They mainly cite two facts to support their inane hypothesis. First is a statement Bush made in a 2002 press conference:

Second is the fact that Bush closed the CIA "Bin Laden Unit" that was tasked specifically with finding Bin Laden. That unit operated from 1996-2005.

At this point you might be thinking, 'Well gosh, King, it DOES sound like Bush wasn't looking for Bin Laden'.

Yes, I suppose it does…if these two bits of information are all you look at, as the Leftos would have you do. The truth, however, is much different than what the Leftos are shoveling.

Let's start with the obvious fact that Bush wasn't really the one looking for Bin Laden, and neither was Obama. That job was done by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. If Bush said he didn't think much about Bin Laden in 2002, well, the people who count, such as the CIA's Bin Laden Unit, WERE thinking about Bin Laden, and were still looking for him until at least 2005, when the unit was disbanded. This leads to the second fallacy of the Leftos. They are intentionally trying to mislead us into believing the disbandment of the Bin Laden Unit meant Bush (America) was no longer searching for Bin Laden. This is untrue (and the Leftos know it). Here are the facts about the end of the Bin Laden Unit, as reported at by the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. Bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."

The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.

"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."

You'd have to be crazy to think any American President wouldn't be trying to find the man behind the 9/11 attacks. Of course they were looking for Bin Laden. We never stopped looking for him. We were looking for him for 15 years before we finally got him. In fact, Bush sent the might of the Ameican military after Bin Laden following 9/11. We invaded Afghanistan to get him and remove the state Al Qaeda-supporting Taliban from power. If that wasn't about disrupting and apprehending Al Qaedans, I don't know what would be. We nearly got Bin Laden at Tora Bora, but he slipped through our fingers, partly due to a bad decision on our part to outsource some of the job to Afghanis. We got lots of other high-level Al Qaeda terrorists from that invasion, along with a treasure trove of information about Al Qaeda. In my last post, I provided some information about how the interrogations of Al Qaeda members captured in Afghanistan provided us with early information about Bin Laden's couriers. That was one brick in the wall that led to finally getting Bin Laden.

In 2003, Bush took a detour into Iraq, but Bin Laden's trail had gone cold again by then. I thought the Iraq War was a mistake, and I thought so before the wmd intelligence (which was also not gathered by Bush, Leftos) turned out to be wrong. I'm glad Saddam's gone, and I think the Middle East is a better place without the Butcher Of Baghdad, but I wouldn't have made the same call Bush did. If anything would be an argument in favor of the Lefto proposition that Bush stopped looking for Bin Laden, it would be the Iraq War. That diverted resources away from Afghanistan, as the Leftos are quick to point out, but as we all know now, Bin Laden wasn't in Afghanistan. He was in Pakistan. Also, I'm pretty sure we can conduct a war and still have the CIA looking for Bin Laden. I do believe we are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. I mean, you didn't ever not get your IRS tax refund because the government was too busy with the Iraq War, right ? Our mammoth federal government can do more than one thing at a time.

In the wake of Bin Laden's killing, I'm hearing criticism from Right-wingers of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to investigate potential illegal activity by the Gitmo CIA interrogators. The Righties say this will demoralize the CIA, and they also point out that those interrogations provided all kinds of valuable info about Al Qaeda. The Leftos have responded by saying…there is no such investigation by Obama, as if right-wingers are lying ?!?!?!? Huh ? Here's what ThinkProgess maintains:

[Former VP] Cheney also echoed former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and chastised Obama for “prosecuting” the intelligence officers who tortured detainees. “These men deserve to be decorated, they don’t deserve to be prosecuted,” he told Wallace, calling it “an outrage that we would go after the people who deserve the credit for keeping us safe for seven and a half years.” While the Obama administration in fact decided long ago not to prosecute any CIA agents involved in torture, Cheney nevertheless suggested Obama has been so relentless in going after those responsible that “these guys…have to look over their shoulder.”

Who is telling the truth here ? Hint – It's not ThinkProgress (no surprise there). While Obama did say he wants to look forward and not backward regarding the CIA interrogations, Attorney General Eric Holder appointed a Special Prosecutor in August 2009 to look into possible illegal activity by CIA interrogators. That investigation is ongoing, and ThinkProgress is misleading it's readers, as usual.

I understand why Left-wingers are so misinformed. They make the gigantic mistake of believing whatever phlegm the Leftosphere coughs up on any particular day, not realizing it is nothing but a collection of conjecture, half-truths, and outright lies. I only wonder why Left-wingers are gullible enough to believe it all (other than because they want to). I read ThinkProgress for two minutes and realize it's a bunch of crap. Why don't they ? They have an entire internet to ferret out the truth. Why don't they ? When crap comes from the Right, like with the Birther stuff, I check into it and find out it's crap. Why can't Lefties do the same ? It's not very difficult.

There's been a hypothesis floating around that the enhanced interrogation techniques implemented by President Bush following 9/11 may have helped get Osama Bin Laden. If you ask the politicians, you get two answers – 1) politicians who are against enhanced interrogation techniques say they didn't help, and 2) politicians who favor enhanced interrogations say they did help. That's about what I'd expect from politicians. They promote their own beliefs.

Politicians do what politicians do, but what do the facts say ? I did some checking.

Everyone following the Bin Laden story knows by now that we found Bin Laden by tracking one of his couriers. That is unquestioned. That courier's name is Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. I'll let NPR take it from here:

To find Osama bin Laden, U.S. officials first had to find the man who served as his courier. But the operation that killed the al-Qaida leader has stirred up some controversy: Some of the information about the courier may have come as the result of harsh CIA interrogations.

NPR has learned that the courier was a Kuwait-born Pakistani who went by the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. It was in his house that U.S. forces found and killed bin Laden.

We tracked al-Kuwaiti and found out Bin Laden was living at al-Kuwaiti's house, or at least we were pretty sure Bin Laden was living there before we attacked. The key question then becomes – how did we find out about al-Kuwaiti ? Back to NPR:

The Guantanamo documents describe al-Kuwaiti as a senior al-Qaida facilitator and courier. The footnotes reveal how — and when — this information was acquired.

Some of the first leads came from detainees who were interrogated while in CIA custody; this is where the controversy arises.

About a third of the CIA detainees were subjected to what the agency euphemistically called enhanced interrogation techniques.

Among those who provided information while under CIA control was Hassan Gul, a senior al-Qaida operative from Pakistan. According to the detainee documents, Gul told interrogators that Kuwaiti traveled with Bin Laden. A senior U.S. official says the information Gul provided was key to identifying al-Kuwaiti as Bin Laden's courier.

But he may have provided it under stress.

A 2005 document indicates that Gul was one of the CIA detainees subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques." He is now free.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [KSM], a mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and one of three CIA detainees subjected to waterboarding, indirectly confirmed information about Kuwaiti.

It's clear we gained information leading ultimately to Bin Laden from detainees at Guantanomo Bay. It's also clear that detainee Hassan Gul, who identified al-Kuwaiti as Bin Laden's courier, and detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confirmed that information, underwent enhanced interrogation techniques. The link between enhanced interrogations and Bin laden is getting pretty strong, but this still isn't absolute proof. Critics could say it wasn't the enhanced interrogation techniques that got the detainees to talk. They could say this:

Critics of "enhanced interrogation techniques" say they are tantamount to torture, and they argue that intelligence gleaned from those interrogations is unreliable. They also point out that some of the most useful information that came from Mohammed and others was obtained only after the harsh interrogations ended.

Former CIA director Michael Hayden agrees, BUT….

"I'm willing to concede the point that no one gave us valuable or actionable intelligence while they were, for example, being waterboarded," he said. "The purpose of the enhanced interrogation techniques was to take someone who was refusing to cooperate with us and to accelerate the process by which we would move from a zone of defiance to a zone of cooperation."

In other words, the CIA would use the enhanced interrogation techniques to "break" Al Qaeda detainees, and after that they would talk to us. Saying that detainess only talked AFTER the enhanced interrogation techniques is actually proof that those techniques worked. It's not like Al Qaeda members were eager to give Americans high-value intelligence on their operations. Al Qaedans wouldn't want to tell us anything, which is why enhanced interrogation techniques were used in the first place.

Current CIA director Leon Panetta practically admitted inadvertently that enhanced interrogations gave us info leading to Bin Laden:

"They used these enhanced-interrogation techniques against some of these detainees, but I'm also saying that the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches, I think, is always going to be an open question," Panetta said.

By saying maybe we COULD have gotten the information with other approaches, isn't Panetta in effect saying we DID get the information with the enhanced interrogations approach ? Sounds like it to me.

Former chief speechwriter for President Bush, Marc Thiessen, confirmed the Hassan Gul/Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to al-Kuwaiti to Bin Laden connection, and added some more depth to the subject last night on Fox News:

THIESSEN: Well, the headline is CIA interrogations work. I mean, the fact is in the period after 9/11, we knew absolutely nothing about the enemy who attacked us. We did not know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11. We didn't know who his key operatives were. We didn't know what they had planned. And then we started capturing these terrorists. We captured Abu Zubaydah [Da King here - Zubaydah was one of the three who were waterboarded at Gitmo], who was a key Al Qaeda facilitator, and he gave us information that led us to Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was one of KSM's key operatives. And they together led us to KSM. And KSM was resistant when he came into the — when he was captured by the CIA. When they asked him about new plots, he said soon you will know. And he said I will tell you everything when I — when I get to New York and see my lawyer. And he didn't see a lawyer. He was put under enhanced interrogation techniques and he went — once he went through those, he made a decision to cooperate. And when he was done, he was running a graduate level class on Al Qaeda operations for the CIA…

THIESSEN: Well, I mean, they — we had very little information about Al Qaeda's courier networks. What happened was first — Abu Zubaydah and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who were the first guys brought into the program, gave us some general information about couriers and some code names for those folks. When KSM was interrogated after he underwent waterboarding; not during it, afterwards. When he was going — when he was being questioned, he acknowledged that he — they had given us the name of this fellow al-Kuwaiti which was a nom de guerre and KSM admitted that he knew him. Then in 2004, we captured a fellow named Hassan Ghul who was a senior Al Qaeda operative. He was captured in Iraq, and he told us that this courier al-Kuwaiti was a key lieutenant of KSM's successor Abu Faraj al-Libi…

O'REILLY: Now, did he do that under duress — let me just — did he do that under duress or did he just tell us?

THIESSEN: Well, this is the thing that people don't understand. You're hearing a lot of the left is trying — the deniers of this program are trying to say, well did they use — did they tell us this under waterboarding or under standard interrogation later and that misunderstands how interrogation works. Enhanced interrogation was never used to get intelligence; it was used to get cooperation. So you took a detainee like KSM, who is in the state of total resistance, and you used the enhanced interrogation techniques to bring him to a state of cooperation. And when he's under enhanced interrogation techniques, they are asking him questions they already know the answers to in order to gauge whether he had stopped lying and made the decision to cooperate. And then, once he starts cooperating, the technique stops. In most cases with enhanced interrogation, the detainees went under them for a couple of days. And KSM — he was a really tough, tough guy. He was — he went for about a month. But once that month ended, the interrogation, the enhanced interrogations stopped and we had a — they had a conversation with him like you and I are speaking today.

O'REILLY: All right. So you are convinced then that the information provided by KSM and then the other guy Ghul who was captured a couple of years later…

THIESSEN: Yes.

O'REILLY: …pinpointed for the CIA this courier and then they started to tail him and that led to bin Laden's demise. Is that correct?

THIESSEN: Well, actually, yes, well, Abu Faraj, I'm sorry Hassan Ghul told us that he was a key operative of Abu Faraj al-Libi, who was KSM's successor after he was captured. So they capture Abu Faraj in 2005 and he's brought into the CIA interrogation program. He's not waterboarded, but he undergoes enhanced interrogation and was resistant, brought into a state of cooperation. And then, he starts giving them information about the courier networks and he's identifying individuals and giving them information about how the couriers operate, where the drops are and so on and so forth. And then they ask them about al-Kuwaiti, and he says I don't know him. And you know, people say that's proof that he, well, he lied. But we knew that he knew him because Abu — because Hassan Ghul had told us that he was his key deputy. So one — that was the red flag that told the CIA this is the guy he's protecting. This is the guy we have to go after. So if it had not been for that process, starting with Abu Zubaydah in 2002, identifying the names; KSM confirming the name; Hassan Ghul telling us he was Faraj's deputy and then Faraj denying that he even knew the guy, then they — the CIA would have never known this is the guy to zero in on and they went after him, found him and it took years to do it. Found him and eventually followed him to bin Laden's lair.

Aside from the multiple spellings of Hassan Ghul's last name, the stories of NPR and Marc Thiessen on Fox News match. Thiessen provides more detail. I think we can safely conclude that enhanced interrogation techniques resulted in us getting tons of information about the Al Qaeda terrorist network, and the link is very strong between those techniques and intelligence leading eventually to Bin Laden, from all the facts I've read. Could we have gotten the information another way ? Maybe, but if so, I'd like somebody to tell me what that way is, and I'd like them to tell me how many other terrorist attacks and deaths would have been acceptable had we done things the "nice" way. There are two sides to that morality coin. When somebody is trying to kill innocent Americans, as is Al Qaeda, I tend to err on the side that favors saving American lives. But that's just me.

As always, if anyone has credible information contradicting what I've written here, I'm all ears.
===
Breaking News – President Obama launched a predator drone attack in Yemen on thursday in an effort to kill another high-level terrorist, the American born Anwar al-Awlaki. This is the second time Obama went after Awlaki. The attack was done with the cooperation of the Yemeni government, but Awlaki escaped.

President Obama has decided not to release photos of dead Osama Bin Laden.

I can hear conspiracy theorist minds grinding away already.

Here is the President's reasoning:

"It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool,” Obama said in a taped interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes.”

“That’s not who we are,” the president said, according to quotes from the interview that White House press secretary Jay Carney relayed at the daily news briefing Wednesday. “We don’t trot out this stuff as trophies.”

“We don’t need to spike the football, and I think that, given the graphic nature of these photos, it would create some national security risk,” Obama said.

The president told “60 Minutes” that releasing the photos might lead to a backlash and would not dissuade conspiracy theorists.

I'm not sure I agree with the President. If anything will be used as a propaganda tool and an incitement to violence against us, it will be that we killed Bin Laden in the first place. I don't think the terrorist sympathizers need photographic proof as confirmation. Bin Laden's death ain't exactly a secret. In addition, while releasing the photos may not dissuade all conspiracy theorists, not releasing them will certainly add lots of fuel to the conspiracy fire. As for the gruesome nature of the photos, some gruesome photos of the attack on Bin Laden's compound have already come out. The Blog Of Mass Destruction has a link to them posted already. Here's another link to the photos. A couple of them are graphic, so be forewarned.

What will further fuel the conspiracy theorists is the fact that so many of the initial White House statements about the attack on Bin Laden's compound are turning out to be wrong. Here are some of the mistakes made by senior officials:

—White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan told reporters Monday that bin Laden's son Khalid was killed in the raid. When the White House released a transcript of Brennan's briefing, it substituted the name of a different son, Hamza. The White House said that was a transcription error.

—Brennan said bin Laden's wife died while shielding the terrorist leader from U.S. gunfire. Carney said Tuesday that the wife hadn't died and was merely shot in the leg, although another woman did die. But it wasn't clear that either of them was trying to shield bin Laden.

—Brennan and other officials suggested that bin Laden was holding a gun and even firing at U.S. forces. Carney said Tuesday that bin Laden was unarmed.

—Officials have offered varying accounts of how President Barack Obama and his team in the White House Situation Room were able to monitor the raid. Without providing details on the technology involved, Brennan said that "we were able to monitor in a real-time basis the progress of the operation from its commencement to its time on target to the extraction of the remains and to then the egress off of the target."

CIA Director Leon Panetta told PBS on Tuesday that "Once those teams went into the compound, I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes that we really didn't know just exactly what was going on."

—The night of the raid, administration officials held a telephone briefing for reporters. "During the raid, we lost one helicopter due to mechanical failure," one of the administration officials said. Later in the same call, another official contradicted that: "We didn't say it was mechanical."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, clarified Tuesday that the explanation was more technical: The air temperature in the compound was hotter than expected and the helicopter was too heavy to stay aloft under that condition.

It's being reported extensively that Bin laden was unarmed, but here's what the Assocated Press said yesterday:

Several weapons were found in the room where the terror chief died, including AK-47 assault rifles and side arms, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity as they offered the most recent in a series of increasingly detailed and sometimes-shifting accounts of bin Laden's final minutes after a decade on the run.

Officials have said [Bin Laden] was unarmed but resisted when an unknown number of commandos burst into his room inside the high-security compound.

The officials who gave the latest details said a U.S. commando grabbed a woman who charged toward the SEALs inside the room. They said the raiders were concerned that she might be wearing a suicide vest.

If I was a Seal, I wouldn't wait until Bin Laden picked up one of those weapons and pointed it at me to shoot him either. It sounds like Bin Laden WAS armed, but he didn't have one of the weapons in his hands when the Seals burst into his room…unless you want to believe Bin Laden's daughter and/or Pakistani officials:

Senior Pakistani security officials said Osama bin Laden’s daughter had confirmed her father was captured alive and shot dead by the US Special Forces during the first few minutes of the operation carried out at the huge compound in Bilal Town, Abbottabad.

Pakistani officials also said nobody at Bin Laden's compound fired at the U.S. forces, which is contradicted by several other sources.

I'm hearing some rumbling from the left about how the United States doesn't have the right to assassinate someone like Bin Laden, that they should have brought him to trial instead. You may or may not remember how left-wing icon Seymour Hersch smeared Seal Team Six, the ones who took out Bin Laden, calling them Dick Cheney's personal "assassination ring". Here's former left-wing apparatchik Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. Olby referred to operators like Seal Team Six as Bush and Cheney's "death squads":

Seal Team Six is part of the Joint Operations Command that Hersh and Olby were calling illegal and unconstitutional. Except now it's Barack Obama's personal assassination ring. And Democrats are ecstatic about it. They are all trumpeting Bin Laden's death as the most significant achievement in the war on terror….the same war on terror that Democrats vilified during the Bush years. Go figure. Ain't politics grand ?

Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder sure doesn't seem to believe anything illegal was done in getting Bin Laden:

The killing of Osama bin Laden was legally justified, and would have been even if the al-Qaida leader had made some sign that he wished to surrender, Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday.

"The operation in which Osama bin Laden was killed was lawful," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "He was the head of al-Qaida, an organization that had conducted the attacks of September 11th. He admitted his involvement and he indicated that he would not be taken alive. The operation against bin Laden was justified as an act of national self defense."

Holder is right. I don't know what universe you have to inhabit to believe the United States isn't allowed to kill it's sworn enemies, such as Bin Laden and other terrorists who have carried out attacks against us and killed thousands of our citizens, but lots of left-wingers, such as Hersh and Olbermann, DO inhabit such a universe. Sorry, lefties, but you are out to lunch again. The War Powers Resolution, which was passed with bipartisan approval in 1973, gives the President the power to initiate military action under certain circumstances:

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have carried out many attacks against the United States. If they aren't a threat to our citizens and our national security, I don't know who would be. Our federal laws give Obama the power to do exactly what he did to Bin Laden, an enemy who declared war against the United States on multiple occasions.

At long last, over 9 1/2 years after the 9/11 Al Qaeda attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon killed nearly 3,000 Ameicans, Osama Bin Laden has been killed by U.S. special forces. HOO-RAH !!! Justice has been served.

Here's President Obama making the announcement last night:

Obama's words are music to my ears. This is great news.

The most surprising thing is that Bin Laden was not hiding in a cave in the tribal regions of Waziristan as was widely believed. No, he was hiding in Pakistan in a tourist town named Abbottabad in a million dollar high-security compound. Abbottabad is the home of the Pakistani Military Academy. Bin Laden wasn't exactly keeping a low profile by living in the largest mansion in the area, which makes me wonder how much help he was getting from the Pakistanis.

ABC News has some details on the special forces operation that got Bin Laden:

Osama Bin Laden was killed not by a drone strike, but up close during a firefight with U.S. troops Sunday. He was not living in a cave when he died, but in a million-dollar mansion with twelve-foot walls less than 100 miles from the Pakistani capital.

The U.S. had been monitoring the compound in Abbottabad for months after receiving a tip in August that Bin Laden might be seeking shelter there. He had long been said to be in the mountainous region along the Afghanistan, Pakistan border, hiding in a cave as the U.S. sought to kill him with drone strikes from above. Instead, he was in a house eight times larger than its neighbors, with walls more than 12 feet tall and valued at $1 million. The house had no phone or television and the residents burned their trash. The house had high windows and few points of access, and U.S. officials concluded it had been built to hide someone.

According to U.S. officials, two U.S. helicopters flew in low from Afghanistan and swept into the compound late Sunday night Pakistan time, or Sunday afternoon Washington time. Twenty to 25 U.S. Navy Seals under the command of the Joint Special Operations Command in cooperation with the CIA stormed the compound and engaged Bin Laden and his men in a firefight, killed Bin Laden and all those with him.

Two Bin Laden couriers were killed, as was one of Osama Bin Laden's sons and a woman reportedly used as a shield by one of the men. Other women and children were present in the compound, according to Pakistani officials, but were not harmed. U.S. officials said that Bin Laden himself fired his weapon during the fight, and that he was asked to surrender but did not.

One of the U.S. helicopters, a CH47 Chinook, was damaged but not destroyed during the operation, and U.S. forces elected to destroy it themselves with explosives. The operation took 40 minutes, much of it spent searching the residence for intelligence.

The Americans took Bin Laden's body into custody after the firefight, taking it back to Afghanistan by helicopter, and confirmed his identity. A U.S. official said he was buried at sea in accordance with Islamic practice.

Congrats to the Navy Seals who carried out this operation, our intelligence and counterterrorism people who confirmed Bin Laden's location, and to Obama for giving the order to pull the trigger. Well done.

Pakistani officials are saying this was a joint operation between America and Pakistan, but only Americans were involved in the raid, and Obama said he called the Pakistani President AFTER the raid to inform him. From what I've read, it sounds like it was America all the way.

The Examiner describes the years of work that went into getting Bin Laden, which started with information provided by Guantanamo Bay detainees:

Sunday afternoon’s raid by U.S. forces that killed Osama bin Laden was the “culmination of years of careful and highly advanced intelligence work,” senior administration officials said in a conference call, describing the genesis of an operation that sounded like it was right out of a “Mission Impossible” movie.

Some time after Sept. 11, detainees held by the U.S. told interrogators about a man believed to work as a courier for bin Laden, senior administration officials said. The man was described by detainees as a protégé of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and “one of the few Al Qaeda couriers trusted by bin laden.”

Initially, intelligence officials only had the man’s nickname, but they discovered his real name four years ago.

Two years ago, intelligence officials began to identify areas of Pakistan where the courier and his brother operated, and the great security precautions the two men took aroused U.S. suspicions.

Last August, intelligence officials tracked the men to their residence in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a relatively wealthy town 35 miles north of Islamabad where many retired military officers live.

“When we saw the compound where the brothers lived, we were shocked by what we saw,” a senior administration official said.

The compound was eight times larger than any other home in the area. It was surrounded by walls measuring 12 feet to 18 feet that were topped with barbed wire. There were additional inner walls that sectioned off parts of the compound and entry was restricted by two security gates. And the residents burned their trash instead of leaving it outside for pickup. There was a three-story house on the site, with a 7-foot privacy wall on the top floor.

While the two brothers, the couriers, had no known source of income, the compound was built in 2005 and valued at $1 million. That led intelligence officials to conclude that it must have been built to hold a high-value member of Al Qaeda.

Further intelligence gathering found that there was another family who lived on the compound which had a size and makeup that matched the bin Laden members who would have most likely been with Osama.

After exploring every angle for months, they concluded that all signs pointed to this being bin Laden’s residence.

President Obama was made aware of the compound when it was discovered last year. By mid-February, the intelligence was solid and since mid-March, Obama led five meetings with the National Security Council regarding the issue.

Intelligence officials worked with the U.S. military to plan the operation and a small team accepted the risk and began to train for it.

On April 29, this past Friday, Obama gave the final go ahead.

The U.S. team conducted a helicopter raid of the compound Sunday afternoon. It was described as a “surgical raid” that took less than 40 minutes, during which time the team did not encounter any local authorities.

In addition to bin Laden, the team killed three men, believed to be the two couriers as well as Osama’s adult male son. One woman was killed when she was used as a shield by one of the male combatants. All other non-combatants were removed safely.

One of the helicopters was lost in the raid due to mechanical failure, but the team escaped in the other helicopter.

No other country, not even Pakistan, was informed of any of this intelligence until after the raid to protect operational security.

I don't know how much truth there is to this, but a National Journal source tweeted that the Navy Seals built a full-scale mockup of Bin Laden's compound and spent weeks practicing the raid before the actual operation was carried out.

That's all I have for now, but I'm sure there will be much more on this later. This is huge news. In closing, all I can say is, I'm happy that when the time finally came for Bin Laden to be taken out, it was Americans doing the taking.

Representative Peter King (R-NY) heads the House Committee On Homeland Security. It's his job to look into security threats to the United States Of America. As part of that job, King is holding hearings titled "The extent of radicalization in the American Muslim community and that community’s response”.

That was all it took for King to come under attack, for accusations of McCarthyism to be fired at him. His critics accused him of being on a "witch hunt". He was accused of being Islamophobic by what I'll call the Political Correctness Police (PCP for short), because he was singling out one group, Muslims, as the target of his hearings. The following letter, signed by over 50 progressive groups, was sent to Rep. King's office:

We are organizations that support the fundamental American values of civil rights and civil liberties for all. We write to strongly object to the House Homeland Security Committee’s plans to hold hearings on the “radicalization” of American Muslims. Our concern is that these hearings will serve to further promote the demonization and scapegoating of millions of American Muslims, while providing little valuable insight into the prevention of domestic terrorism. While we all take the threat of terrorism seriously, we see no productive outcome in
singling out a particular community for examination in what appears to be little more than a political show-trial. American Muslims, like all Americans, want to keep our country safe, and to cooperate with law enforcement when they are aware of criminal activity. Yet many elected officials have chosen to demonize all American Muslims,
denigrating their religion and questioning their patriotism. We fear that these hearings will only add to this toxic climate of suspicion toward American Muslims and may hinder the important efforts to maintain trust and mutual respect between American Muslims, law enforcement, and public officials. We commend your interest in exploring the roots of violent extremism, but we urge you to do so in a way that does not demonize millions of Americans for no reason but their faith.

Allow me to translate – The concerned citizens on PCP "take the threat of terrorism seriously", but they don't want Rep. King or anyone else telling people who the terrorists are, where the terrorists come from, how the terrorists are created, or what steps might be taken to prevent the creation of future terrorists in America. That's how damn serious those on PCP are about terrorism, by golly, as in…they aren't serious at all.

Those on PCP might desire to whitewash the radical Islam out of terrorism, but the people trying to prevent future attacks on this country don't have that luxury. The problem with the "witch hunt" charge of these PCP groups is that the charge is only valid if the witches don't exist. Remember, in Salem, Massachusetts, there were no witches. In the case of radical Islam, the witches are real. Anwar Al-Awlaki, Nidal Hassan, and Faisal Shahzad are all terrorists, and they are all American citizens. There are plenty of others. Here's what Attorney General Eric Holder said in December about the threat of homegrown terrorism, as reported by ABC News:

What was uppermost on [Holder's] mind…is the alarming rise in the number of Americans who are more than willing to attack and kill their fellow citizens. "The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens — raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born," he said.

In the last 24 months, Holder said, 126 people have been indicted on terrorist-related charges, Fifty of those people are American citizens.

"I think that what is most alarming to me is the totality of what we see, the attorney general said. "Whether it is an attempt to bomb the New York City subway system, an attempt to bring down an airplane over Detroit, an attempt to set off a bomb in Times Square … I think that gives us a sense of the breadth of the challenges that we face, and the kinds of things that our enemy is trying to do."

Holder says many of these converts to al Qaeda have something in common: a link to radical cleric Anwar Al Awlaki, an American citizen himself.

Rep. Peter King isn't making the homegrown terrorist threat up, folks. He's trying to come up with way to address it.

But the PCP crowd is more worried about being seen as Islamophobic than a growing terrorist threat, despite the fact that Rep. King has said repeatedly that this isn't an indictment of all Muslims, as anyone with a non-PCP affected brain (aka, a functioning brain) would readily understand. It's beyond obvious to most of us that because the terrorists are Muslims, it doesn't follow that all Muslims are therefore terrorists. We know this. We can think. We shouldn't have to keep pointing it out for the benefit of the PCP-impaired slow learners. I mean, I'm of primarily German descent, but I don't get my panties in a wad when somebody points out that the Nazis were Germans. I don't run around hollering "Germanophobia !" The Nazis WERE Germans, just as the terrorists ARE Muslims. That doesn't mean I'm a Nazi, just as it doesn't mean my neighbor and friend Mohammed is a terrorist. Let's stipulate that and move on.

We should coin a new word to describe the attitude of the PCP'ers. It isn't Islamophobic to recognize there is a Muslim terrorist threat, no matter how many times the PCP'ers pretend it is. That isn't Islamophobia, that is acknowledging reality. What the PCP'ers are concerned with is the perception of being Islamophbic. It's about appearances, not reality. The PCP'ers are using that to play upon our fears of being called Islamophobic. It's a sort of Islamophobia-phobia they are pushing, for lack of a better term.

Those on PCP pretend King is being Islamophobic because his hearings focus exclusively on the Muslim terrorist threat, while ignoring the terrorist threat from other groups, such as those radicalized Boy Scouts, or those jihadist Mothers Against Drunk Driving, I guess. Why do we continue to play this PCP charade ? The charade is why we make 80-year-old blue-haired grandmothers remove their shoes at the airport when there is no reason for it.

Now for the irony that inevitably appears when dealing with radical Islam and these reality-denying PCP folks. As a result of holding hearings about radical Muslims, Rep. Peter King has been getting death threats from radical Muslims, which pretty much proves King's point about terrorism, not that the point is still subject to debate. It is not. The verdict is in, PCP'ers, and it's not a perception. It's a reality.

There's so much happening on the political front that I couldn't settle on which issue to write about today. So instead, I'll write about all of them.
—
Birther News: Hawaiian governor Neil Abercrombie said he wanted to put to rest all the craziness surrounding President Obama's birth certificate, so he set out to prove once and for all that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. However, I fear his findings will only increase the volume of the Birthers (link):

Abercrombie said on Tuesday that an investigation had unearthed papers proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. He told Honolulu's Star-Advertiser: 'It actually exists in the archives, written down,' he said. But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate. And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. He said efforts were still being made to track down definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii.

Now we know why we didn't see Obama's original birth certificate…there may not be one. Countdown to renewed Birthermania…..3…2…1…
===
ObamaCare repeal: The House Of Representatives voted to repeal ObamaCare by a vote of 245-189. Three Democrats voted with the GOP for repeal. (link). One Representative did not vote – Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who is recovering from a gunshot wound after being attacked by either A) the mentally deranged 22-year old Jared Loughner, or B) Sarah Palin's crosshairs map. It depends who you ask (sane people select option A). And yes, the GOP actually did calls it's repeal effort 'Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act'. Give us a break already. That political rhetoric is a bit precious. I would have called it the 'Repealing The End Of The World As We Know It Act'. Just kidding. I'm for health care reform, just not ObamaCare. I can't even make sense of the government's Bureau Of Motor Vehicles rules, much less think of them dictating the health care rules for all Americans. I've seen Congress in action. It ain't pretty.
===
Spending Cuts: GOP Representatives are announcing plans for $2.5 trillion in discretionary spending cuts over the next 10 years (link):

Jordan’s “Spending Reduction Act” would eliminate such things as the U.S. Agency for International Development and its $1.39 billion annual budget, the $445 million annual subsidy for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the $1.5 billion annual subsidy for Amtrak, $2.5 billion in high speed rail grants, the $150 million subsidy for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and it would cut in half to $7.5 billion the federal travel budget.

But the program eliminations and reductions would account for only $330 billion of the $2.5 trillion in cuts. The bulk of the cuts would come from returning non-defense discretionary spending – which is currently $670 billion out of a $3.8 trillion budget for the 2011 fiscal year – to the 2006 level of $496.7 billion, through 2021.

Rep. Jordan of Ohio said “Unless we begin to cut spending immediately, massive tax hikes or national bankruptcy will rob people of the chance to reach for the American Dream". I couldn't possibly agree more with that statement, but these discretionary cuts only get us part of the way there. Non-discretionary spending (mostly entitlements) is the lion's share of the federal budget, and also must be addressed. President Obama has proposed $78 billion in defense spending cuts that some GOP'ers appears to endorse. Good. We're going to need both parties to come together to get this done. This is a start.
===
Obama Poll Bounce: Has anyone else noticed that since Obama has started to sound more centrist following the fall elections, his poll numbers are going UP ??? His approval rating is now 53%, according to a recent NBC/WSF poll (link). Not too long ago, he was at 40%. I call this the anti-left effect. It strikes me that the more the left complains about Obama, the better his chances for a second term will be.
===
Gitmo Commissions Back On: Speaking of centrism, not to mention common sense, President Obama has reversed his 2008 campaign promise about military commissions trials at Gitmo. This is also a de-facto reversal of his campaign promise to close Gitmo. Military commission trials will proceed. Obama lifted the ban on military commissions after Congress stopped the transfer of prisoners to the United States. (link) Finally, change I can believe in.
===
Abortionist Charged With Eight Murders: This story is sickening: (link)

A West Philadelphia abortion doctor, his wife and eight other suspects are now under arrest following a grand jury investigation. Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

Gosnell is facing charges of murder in the third degree for the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar. Mrs. Mongar died on November 20, 2009, when she was overdosed with anesthetics prescribed by Gosnell. He is also facing seven murder charges for the deaths of infants who were killed after being born viable and alive during the sixth, seventh, or eighth month of pregnancy. Gosnell is also facing numerous other charges.

Because left-wingers have been making such a fuss over political rhetoric lately, and trying to connect that rhetoric to violence, I ask them – whose political rhetoric would lead a doctor to believe it was okay to murder babies like this ?????? Whose political rhetoric shows no regard for the unborn ??????? I'd like to know. And this isn't some crazy person carrying out these murders. It's a professional physician, who allegedly lives by the Hippocratic Oath to treat patients ethically.

This is going to be a short post, because the solution to this issue is so obvious.

Here's TSA on the job:
- After 9/11, airline passengers were forbidden to carry sharp objects.
- After the shoe bomber, airline passengers had to take off their shoes.
- After the underwear bomber, airline passengers have to undergo full body scans and pat-downs of their private parts.
- After the recent cargo bombs, the TSA decided they should scan cargo.

Given all these reactive policies, what's going to happen after the first rectal bomber hides his bomb where the sun don't shine ? Pre-flight colonoscopies ? How far down the rabbit hole of political correctness are we going to go before we admit that we know the profiles of these attempted bombers ?

Now, I don't have any embarassment issues associated with the nude full body scans, and I have no problem going through one…but I don't want to be patted down like a criminal suspect just because I've decided to take a trip to Las Vegas, especially when I've lived in the United States my entire life and have never committed any crimes (no major ones, at least. Don't ask. I'm not telling). I know the TSA's job is to keep the airplanes safe. It's the government's job to keep the public safe, but I can assist the government in significantly slimming down the airline bomber suspect pool.

Here's how you identify a potential terrorist bomber boarding an airplane, sans political correctness:

1. He/she comes from a Muslim country. Using this advanced identification technique would eliminate 95% of airline passengers right off the bat.
2. He/she is a Muslim.
3. See #1 and #2.

I'm not saying every Muslim should be pulled aside for questioning and a pat-down at the airport. That would be as dumb as what we are doing now, and it would be racist as well. 99.9% of Muslims have no desire to blow up an airplane. Let them go through the body scan just like everyone else. What I am saying is that through a combination of standard security techniques, background checks, and scrutiny of passenger behavior, which includes (gasp!) PROFILING, we can avoid groping the genitals and breasts of 70-year old Aunt Ruth who had a mastectomy and wears a prosthetic breast, and who just wants to go see her children and grandchildren for Christmas.

Or we can continue to act as if we're clueless. It appears the Obama administration, as well as the previous administration, is choosing clueless.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani is an Al Qaida terrorist. He took part in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings that killed hundreds of people. He was the first Gitmo detainee tried in civilian court, Attorney General Eric Holder's test case. Yesterday, Ghailani's trial in New York City ended. Ghailani was convicted on only one charge out of the 280 charges brought against him. He was not convicted of a single murder. He was convicted only of conspiracy to destroy property. This murdering son of a b*tch nearly went free because the Obama administration chose to try him in civilian court rather than the military tribunal system Congress approved to try international terrorists as enemy combatants. I sincerely hope this near disaster puts an end to the debate, and that Ghailani is the last high-level Gitmo detainee tried in civilian court.

Ghailani and his lawyers claimed Ghailani was an innocent dupe of Al Qaida operatives. Lest anyone should be tempted to believe that steaming pile, allow me to provide some background on this guy.

Ghailani was given explosives training by Al Qaida, and, according to the New York Times, the prosecution's evidence against Ghailani in the embassy bombings was as follows:

…the evidence showed that he helped to buy the Nissan Atlas truck that was used to carry the bomb, and gas tanks that were placed inside the truck to intensify the blast. He also stored an explosive detonator in an armoire he used, and his cellphone became the “operational phone” for the plotters before the attacks, prosecutors contended.

A key witness against Ghailani was excluded by the judge at trial, because the witness was uncovered while Ghailani was undergoing enhanced interrogation techniques (hey, I guess those interrogations DO work. Of course, we already knew that, despite what our liberal friends would have us believe). That witness was going to testify to this:

The witness, Hussein Abebe, would have testified that he had sold Mr. Ghailani the TNT used to blow up the embassy in Dar es Salaam, prosecutors told the judge, calling him “a giant witness for the government.”

The day before the embassy bombings, Ghailani and other Al Qaida operatives boarded a flight from Africa to Pakistan. Ghailani went to an Al Qaida training camp, and served as one of Osama bin Laden's bodyguards, along with others, including some of the 9/11 hijackers. Following that, he became a forger for Al Qaida.

Ghailani was on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Terrorist List since that list was established in October 2001. There was a $5 million reward for his capture. Ghailani fought for the Taliban against U.S. forces, and was finally captured in Pakistan in 2004 after an eight-hour gun battle. He was transferred to a secret CIA prison overseas before being transferred to Gitmo.

Innocent dupe, my aunt fanny.

The DOJ's reaction to the Ghailani verdict ? Oh, they are "pleased".

Yeah. They're pleased. That's close to what I was thinking, except, rather than being pleased, I'm disgusted.

Note to the President – Leave Gitmo open until you can try the rest of the high-level terrorists in military tribunals there, where the tribunal courts have already been built. Once those terrorists are all dealt with, preferably via firing squad, then we can look at closing Gitmo. Stop screwing around. This isn't the time for partisan political games. This is national freaking security. This is war, and Al Qaida is the enemy. Al Qaida declared the war, not us. Let's treat them accordingly, instead of affording them all the Constitutional protections and rights granted to regular American citizens. Stop trying to be Miss Congeniality, and start acting like the Commander In Chief.

Pictured above are a "handful" of Muslims in Pakistan calling for the murder of a Danish cartoonist who drew a cartoon containing Mohammed's picture. That is punishable by death in IslamoCrazyTown. Westegard was the one who drew the cartoon with the picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. In response, IslamoCrazyTown thugs went on a rampage of violence (thus reinforcing Westegard's point).
===
We have learned that FBI officials visited the wannabe Koran-burner, Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center. The FBI warned Jones, according to NPR:

According to officials familiar with the situation, the FBI visited Pastor Terry Jones several times. There is no law against what he wanted to do, they told him, but they were concerned about what might happen to HIM if he went ahead with his Koran Bonfire. They talked to him about being a potential target for violence and threats and told him the story of the Danish cartoonist and other people who have had their lives changed by making this kind of bold statement. They also told him they were concerned that civil rights violations and hate crimes might grow out of what he was planning to do and they wanted him to understand that.

As a result of the uproar over his planned Koran-burning, and possibly a realization of what he might be getting himself into by offending the murderous IslamoCrazyTown thugs, Pastor Jones has received a new message from God – don't burn the Koran, "not today, not ever," according to Jones.

Thank you, God, for turning down the heat on this issue. If it's not too much trouble, could you spare a minute to tell Imam Feisal Rauf to build his mosque somewhere other than Ground Zero ? That would turn down some more heat. That's my prayer. Amen.

What amazes about the Koran-burning episode is how many high-level people got involved. Hotair.com has a partial list:

…people who’ve weighed in thus far on Terry Jones’s publicity stunt turned mega-clusterfark: The U.S. Secretary of State, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, the presidents of Afghanistan and Indonesia, the prime minister of Iraq, the home minister of India, the Pakistani ambassador to the U.S., the FBI, Interpol, the Vatican — and now, inevitably, the president of the United States.

In one way or another, ALL the high-level people above reached the same conclusion – DON'T STIR UP THE RESIDENTS OF ISLAMOCRAZYTOWN. Bad things happen will happen if you do, doubly so if dirty infidels are the ones doing it. Ask Theo Van Gogh, the 9/11 victims, or Muslim women who can't go outside their homes without wearing head scarves and being escorted by a male in certain parts of IslamoCrazyTown. IslamoCrazyTown isn't big on human rights.

The IsalmoCrazyTown message of intimidation has been received again, just as it was received regarding the Danish cartoon. Most media outlets self-censored that cartoon of Mohammed, fearful of what the IslamoCrazyTown thugs might do if they didn't. We let that intimidation and fear trump our freedom of speech. Maybe it was wise, but it doesn't sit too well. I'm not in favor of Koran-burning, naturally, but I'm even less in favor of threats of violence and death. In the U.S., our rights require us to endure speech we don't like, even speech we find repulsive. I find a lot of political speech repulsive (like the phony 'Tea Party is racist' trash put out by the left), but I don't threaten to kill the people who engage in it. Instead, I defend their right to be despicable lying douchebags. I'm sure I just offended some people on the left by calling them despicable lying douchebags, but so what ? That's my right. Plus, they richly deserve it.

Because we seem to keep submitting to the intolerant IslamoCrazyTowners, I'm going to post a video that the politically correct, 'diversity and tolerance above all' types among us might call divisive. I think there are some important points being made in this video. It's from a British man named Pat Condell:

Opinions ?

Just when I thought the Democratic party couldn't possibly alienate me any more than they already have, they proved me wrong and alienated me further.

Near the fifteenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, former President Bill Clinton couldn't help himself. He just had to politicize it. Bubba joined into the Democrats non-stop version of the Willie Horton ad by warning that those scary Tea Partiers could inspire another Timothy McVeigh. In typical Dem fashion, Clinton also lashed out at other conservative speech, including the internet and talk radio.

Lions, and tigers, and bears. Oh my. Could this possibly be any more tired ?

There are a couple critical differences between the Republicans Willie Horton ad and the current Democrat version trying to scare the country over the Tea Party movement.

First is that Willie Horton was actually a criminal. He raped, robbed, and killed people. The Tea Party has done nothing but protest out-of-control government spending, excessive government instrusion, and spiraling deficits and debt, which threaten the future of this country.

Second is that then-presidential candidate Michael Dukakis DID release Willie Horton from prison. While serving a life sentence for murder, Dukakis granted Horton a furlough. Horton never returned, and subsequently committed assault, armed robbery, and rape.

Democrats were outraged that the Republicans used Willie Horton to illustrate that Dukakis was soft on crime, but they have no problem at all with turning peaceful protesters at the Tea Parties into scary boogeymen who will bring about domestic terrorism. Can you say 'hypocrites' ? Also evident is that Democrats don't remember their own heated rhetoric during Dubya's administration. Is there a word that means 'more than hypocrites' ? If not, there should be. The Democrats fit the requirements.

I'm also left to wonder why Democrats never blame themselves for the violence. What inspired Timothy McVeigh was the Waco tragedy, where seventy-six died (including 19 children) in a fire during a siege by the Clinton administration ATF/FBI. But of course, the Democrats don't blame themselves. Instead, they blame a book McVeigh read. I guess being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry.

There has been so much fearmongering by the Democratic violence pimps that I'm beginning to think they WANT something bad to happen, so they can point and say 'see, we told you so.' There is even a group of left-wing nuts called CrashTheTeaParty who want to create phony Tea Party incidents. These folks are PRAYING for real examples of violence by the Tea Party movement, and if they can't find any, they'll just make some up. Such integrity.

While I'm on the subject of the Tea Parties (which the media never lets us get too far away from), here is someone the media tells us doesn't exist, a black Tea Party member. Politico actually has the nerve to ask him if he's nervous being at a Tea Party event. His answer, already known to any of us who have been involved in the movement, will only surprise Kool-Aid drinking liberals who ignorantly believe the Tea Parties are about racism:

Btw, conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart's $10,000 reward for proof of previous Tea Party racism has grown to $100,000. It still has not been collected. Hmmm. Imagine that in this day and age, when most people carry videocameras around in their cell phones, and every notable event is filmed.

The only thing I can conclude is, Democrats are VERY worried, and it has driven them and their pet media insane (more insane than usual, I mean).

Republican Scott Brown's improbable Senate victory in the bluest of all blue states, Massachusetts, has sent the Democrats reeling. Their reflective navel-gazing has begun. I look at this as a wakeup call for the Democratic party. Will they now "get" it, or will they remain in denial ? Will they continue pushing policies the American people do not want ? If so, they will continue to isolate themselves, and they will continue to lose, as they have in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia this year.

It's too soon to make that call, but early indications are not promising. This morning I heard Robert Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, say the Dems just need to "retool their message." Wrong. That's not it. The people understand the message of the Democrats all too well. That's not the problem. The problem is, the people don't agree with the Democrats message. I heard MS-NBC's Norah O'Donnell blame the loss on Coakley not taking the campaign seriously enough. That's waaay wrong. Nobody takes a Senate seat lightly, and Martha Coakley certainly didn't. O'Donnell then said Coakley lost due to anti-incumbent sentiment. That's a pretty bizarre statement, considering Coakley wasn't the incumbent.

The excuses will continue, but Coakley lost because the American people are turning against all the divisiveness, the catering to special interests, the corruption, the partisan business as usual, and the wasteful big government arrogance of Washington D.C. Scott Brown tapped into America's dissatisfaction, and the silent majority (independents) went with him, overcoming the Democrats 3-1 voter advantage over Republicans in Massachusetts. Nowhere is the dissatisfaction of the American people more evident than in the Tea Party protest movement (which the Democratic party has arrogantly denigrated to the nth degree), and Scott Brown got that support, by saying things like this, from his victory speech:

Most of all, I will remember that while the honor is mine, this Senate seat belongs to no one person and no political party – and as I have said before, and you said loud and clear today, it is the people’s seat…When I first started running, I asked for a lot of help, because I knew it was going to be me against the machine. I was wrong, it was all of us against the machine… I go to Washington as the representative of no faction or interest, answering only to my conscience and to the people.

I certainly hope Scott Brown means it when he says he will represent no faction or interest, but rather the American people. We shall see. He's certainly right that it is all of us against the machine. This government is, after all, supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's not supposed to be for Goldman Sachs, the health insurance companies, the lawyers, the unions, or any other particular special interest. We are all in this together. We should pursue policies that are responsible for the nation as a whole. That means, first – national security. Second – fiscal responsibility.

Brown also tapped into the disagreement the American people have with some of the policies of the Democrats, and to this, the Democrats SHOULD take heed (and the Republicans too, for that matter):

In every corner of our state, I met with people, looked them in the eye, shook their hand, and asked them for their vote. I didn’t worry about their party affiliation, and they didn’t worry about mine. It was simply shared conviction that brought us all together.

One thing is clear, voters do not want the trillion-dollar health care bill that is being forced on the American people.

This bill is not being debated openly and fairly. It will raise taxes, hurt Medicare, destroy jobs, and run our nation deeper into debt. It is not in the interest of our state or country – we can do better.

When in Washington, I will work in the Senate with Democrats and Republicans to reform health care in an open and honest way. No more closed-door meetings or back room deals by an out of touch party leadership. No more hiding costs, concealing taxes, collaborating with special interests, and leaving more trillions in debt for our children to pay.

In health care, we need to start fresh, work together, and do the job right. Once again, we can do better.

I will work in the Senate to put government back on the side of people who create jobs, and the millions of people who need jobs – and as President John F. Kennedy taught us, that starts with an across the board tax cut for individuals and businesses that will create jobs and stimulate the economy. It's that simple!

I will work in the Senate to defend our nation’s interests and to keep our military second to none. As a lieutenant colonel and 30-year member of the Army National Guard, I will keep faith with all who serve, and get our veterans all the benefits they deserve.

And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation – they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.

Raising taxes, taking over our health care, and giving new rights to terrorists is the wrong agenda for our country. What I've heard again and again on the campaign trail, is that our political leaders have grown aloof from the people, impatient with dissent, and comfortable in the back room making deals. And we can do better.

They thought you were on board with all of their ambitions. They thought they owned your vote. They thought they couldn’t lose. But tonight, you and you and you have set them straight.

Dissent is the lifeblood of any democracy, which the Democrats should pause to consider before they viciously and falsely attack the Tea Party movement, and last night in Massachusetts, dissent won. Big time.

This morning on the Blog Of Mass Destruction, my friend the Reverend, a liberal by anyone's standard, reminded me that Thomas Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic party……..as if the current Democratic party bears any resemblance whatsoever to the one Jefferson represented. It certainly does not, and I'll leave you with the following Jefferson quote to explain exactly why not:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government." – Thomas Jefferson

Does that sound like any current Democrat you know ? Not by a country mile. The current Democrats see almost no bounds for the government (except maybe in granting terrorists the full civil rights of American citizenship). They want the government to intrude on everything and everyone. THAT is the problem, and that is the Massachusetts and Tea Party message.

We hope the Democrats are listening.

For the second time since the underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, tried to bring down Northwest flight 253 with liquid explosives, I find myself shaking my head in disbelief at comments from an Obama administration official. The first time was when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stupidly claimed "the system worked" in the aftermath of the bombing attempt, leaving me to wonder if Napolitano was imbibing LSD along with her morning coffee. Now comes this from John Brennan, President Obama's assistant for counterterrorism and homeland security, who is reviewing the intelligence lapses that allowed the underwear bomber to get on a plane bound for Detroit with explosives and a valid U.S. visa:

"There is no smoking gun," Brennan said on "Fox News Sunday." "There was no single piece of intelligence that said, 'this guy is going to get on a plane."'

Hmmm. Let's see. I'd say when Abdulmutallab bought an airline ticket, that pretty much signaled his intent to get on a plane, but maybe that's just me. There were also several other "smoking guns" known to intelligence officials that should have tipped them that the underwear bomber might be boarding with bad intentions. Among them:

1. The underwear bomber's own father warned the U.S. embassy of his son's increasing Islamic radicalization.
2. The underwear bomber was on a terrorist watch list.
3. The underwear bomber was banned from the United Kingdom.
4. The underwear bomber trained with Al Qaeda in Yemen.
5. John Brennan himself was briefed on Al Qaeda underwear bombing by Saudi officials in october. The Saudis specified that those bombers were being trained IN YEMEN, where Abdulmutallab trained.

If there wasn't a smoking gun here, there were an awful lot of bullets in the chamber, surely enough to PROFILE Abdulmutallab, revoke his visa, and prevent him from entering the United States. That is certainly preferable to the new TSA security procedures, which are something like 'keep your tray tables in the locked and upright position and don't go to the bathroom during the last hour of an eight hour flight' (btw, NONE of the new TSA procedures would have stopped Abdulmutallab).

John Brennan went on to say the following:

"What we need to do as an intelligence community, as a government, is be able to bring those disparate bits and pieces of information together so we prevent Mr. Abdulmutallab from getting on the plane."

Yes, excellent idea, Mr. Brennan. If only we had some sort of government agency that could oversee all our disparate bits and pieces of intelligence and gather them together…..hey, wait a minute. We DO have that government agency. It's called the Department Of Homeland Security, which was created after 9/11 in order to accomplish the very task Mr. Brennan describes. Yet, eight years after 9/11, we're having the same lapses we had prior to 9/11.

Brennan wasn't done yet. He went further:

[Brennan] said there "were no turf battles" between agencies.

"There were lapses. There were human errors. The system didn't work the way it should have … but there wasn't an effort to try to conceal information."

Whew. That's a relief. It's sure good news that our intelligence agencies aren't actively working AGAINST each other by concealing information. It's just that they are, you know, incompetent.

It turns out that the Brits knew about Abdulmutallab's radical ways three years ago. It appears we not only don't share information among our own intelligence agencies, but we don't share information with our number one allies in the world either. Sigh. I just can't believe it.

Former 9/11 Commission co-chair Tom Kean sums it up:

“It’s exactly the language we heard when we were making recommendations for the 9/11 report. That was five years ago. We made our recommendations based on the fact that agencies didn’t share information and it seems to be the case that, once again, they didn’t share information. It’s very discouraging.”

Very discouraging, to say the least. When it comes to the ever-evolving terrorist threat, you'd think we'd at least err on the side of caution and keep someone like Abdulmutallab, with his host of red flags, out of our country. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

But nobody can accuse us of being politically incorrect. There's that bit of cold comfort.

When a 23 year old Nigerian terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, smuggled more than 80 grams of PETN (a nitroglycerin-related liquid explosive used by the military) onto Northwest flight 253 in an attempt to blow up the plane, the only reason his Christmas day suicide bombing attempt failed was because of a faulty detonator. Mutallab did detonate his explosive device on the flight. It just didn't work properly, or many innocent people would now be dead. In addition, Mutallab was on a terrorist watch list, though not on the no-fly list. He had a valid U.S. visa, even though his own father alerted the U.S. embassy six months ago that his son was a religious extremist who posed a danger to the United States. The AP is reporting that an anonymous official said the U.S. suspected Mutallab had terrorist ties over two years ago.

ABC news has reported the following:

The plot to blow up an American passenger jet over Detroit was organized and launched by al Qaeda leaders in Yemen who apparently sewed bomb materials into the suspect's underwear before sending him on his mission, federal authorities tell ABC News.

According to the authorities, Abdul Mutallab says he made contact via the internet with a radical imam in Yemen who then connected him with al Qaeda leaders in a village north of the country's capital, Sanaa.

Authorities say they do not yet know if the imam was the same one who was in contact with Maj. Nidal Hasan prior to his alleged attack on soldiers at Fort Hood last month. American-born Anwar Awlaki has lived in Yemen since 2002 and is considered a major recruiter for al Qaeda by U.S. authorities. He survived a U.S.-backed air strike earlier this week.

The suspect in the Northwest Airlines attack told FBI agents he lived with the al Qaeda leader in Yemen for about a month and was not allowed to leave as he was trained in what to do and how to do it, authorities said.

At some point, according to the account, Abdu Mutallab said he was joined by a Saudi citizen whom he described as an al Qaeda bomb maker.

After all this, our Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, went on CNN and proclaimed that the incident proves "the system worked." Napolitano went on to add that there was "no suggestion that [the suspect] was improperly screened."

The freaking system worked ?!?!?!? I guess it did, if our system is comprised solely of counting on the incompetence of suicide attackers to carry out their missions. Some system. What Napolitano should be saying is that the system failed miserably, just as it did with the Fort Hood massacre. It failed because somebody (Napolitano ?) is not taking the terrorist threat seriously enough, and Americans are being killed and/or put in considerable danger because of it.

Now, new ineffective airport security measures are being taken, such as not letting passengers leave their seats during the last hour of a flight, and limiting carry-on baggage. These measures will not make any difference, but will further inconvenience innocent passengers. What WILL make a difference is to KEEP PEOPLE ON TERRORIST WATCH LISTS OFF OF AIRPLANES, AND CANCEL THEIR U.S. VISAS.

I can't wait to hear Napolitano's response to terrorists wearing suicide underwear. After the shoe-bomber Richard Reid attempted an attack, we had to take off our shoes at the airport. Will we have to take off our underwear now ? Fly naked ?

A passenger on Northwest 253 said another man tried to help Mutallab board the flight without showing a passport. That happened in Amsterdam, but it should have raised a red flag. I don't know whether it did or not, but obviously, Mutallab boarded the flight, and only dumb luck kept a disaster from taking place.

The system did not work at all, and if Napolitano thinks it did, we should be looking for another Homeland Security Secretary.

1. How can President Obama hold a jobs summit and not invite the Chamber Of Commerce ? That's like holding a football game and forgetting to invite the offense.

2. How can the unemployment rate drop from 10.2% to 10% when 11,000 more jobs were lost in november 2009 ?

3. From 1776 to 1913, the value of the dollar increased by 13%. In 1913, the Federal Reserve was implemented. Since 1913, the value of the dollar has dropped by 92%. Why do we have a Federal Reserve ?

4. Why would the President announce a withdrawal date of july 2011 from a war that is not yet won ?

5. Why would President Obama call the november 2009 jobs report "the best jobs report since december 2007" and talk about White House administration officials hugging each other in joy over the good news, when the november unemployment rate is 10% and the december 2007 unemployment rate was 4.9% ? FYI – the january 2008 unemployment rate was also 4.9%.

6. Why are the extramarital affairs of golfer Tiger Woods a big news story ?

7. If the Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air, backed by nothing, in order to, say, lend $85 billion to AIG, and then AIG pays back that money from profits, isn't the net effect nothing but a devaluation of the dollar ?

8. Isn't a devaluation of the dollar nothing but a hidden tax on the assets of all Americans ?

9. If a citizen continually spends more money than he/she makes, he/she will go bankrupt. How is it any different when the government does the same thing, except that the government will take all the citizens down along with it ?

10. Why would we hand health care over to government control when the part of health care the government does control (Medicare/Medicaid) is already so far in the red ?

11. How can the Obama stimulus possibly be working when it is based upon money borrowed or printed out of thin air, backed by nothing, and is therefore entirely artificial ? (See questions #3, #7, and #8).

12. If question #11 is too confusing, perhaps this will help simplify the matter. Does a man up to his neck in credit card debt improve his financial situation by getting more credit cards ?

13. What is wrong with asking the President of the United States to produce his original birth certificate ?

14. Is there any major Obama policy that is supported by the American people ?

15. Why don't we just put Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in front of a firing squad and save everyone a lot of time and money ?

16. How do tax increases ever help the private sector economy ?

17. Shouldn't there have to be at least one act of Tea Party-related violence (from the Tea Party side) before the media denounces the crazy, violent, extremist Tea Partiers ?

18. On the same subject, why is it considered crazy and extreme to be in favor of fiscal responsibility, liberty, and the U.S. Constitution, as the Tea Partiers are ? What does that say about the state of our country ?

19. On the jobs front, which Obama policies are pro-business ?

20. Why are Democrats now in favor of cutting Medicare, when they've been against Medicare cuts for four decades ?

Democratic Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) says those opposing terror trials in New York City for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other 9/11 plotters are unamerican:

"[Republicans] see this as an opportunity to demagogue," he said. "They will seize on any opportunity to do that, and that means they'll even take a stand that's un-American."

"It's un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial," Moran added. "It's against our principles as a nation."

The feeble-minded Moran is demagoguing the issue even as he accuses others of the same thing. The "unamerican" opposition wants the 9/11 plotters tried, they just want them tried by military tribunals, instead of putting on media circus show trials in the Big Apple.

A CNN poll showed that 64% of Americans want KSM and friends tried by military tribunals. Who knew there were so many unamerican Americans ?

Among the unamerican Americans…..

The family of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter who was beheaded by KSM:

"We are sorry to learn of the Justice Department decision to try KSM in a NYC Federal Court.

We are respectful of the legal process, but believe that giving confessed terrorists a worldwide platform to publicize their ideology sends the wrong message to potential terrorists, inviting them in essence, to resort to violence and cruelty in order to gain publicity.

We believe that justice is better served if the trial of KSM, the confessed murderer of Daniel Pearl, be held in closed session."

Another unamerican American is the Democratic Governor of New York, David Paterson, who told the Daily News:

"This is not a decision that I would have made…Our country was attacked on its own soil on Sept. 11, 2001, and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost. It's very painful; we're still having trouble getting over it. We still haven't been able to rebuild that site, and having those terrorists tried so close to the attack is going to be an encumbrance on all of New Yorkers."

In my last post on this subject, I wrote about the hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who oppose holding the trials in NYC…what a bunch of lousy unamerican sob's they are.

To make all us unamericans feel even better, ACLU attorneys are saying it's probable that KSM and company will serve as their own attorneys during the trial. Fan-freaking-tastic !

"The chances are excellent that he [KSM] represents himself," said Ron Kuby, a defense lawyer known for taking on controversial clients.

"[KSM's] goal in the legal system is not to beat the rap. His goal is to use the legal system as a forum for his own ideas and to embrace martyrdom through that system."

"It's quite possible that these defendants will undertake to represent themselves," Ben Wizner said. "They've been trying to fire their lawyers the whole time so they can be executed."

Nothing like giving KSM his own personal soapbox, so he can serve as an inspiration to terrorists everywhere.

Noted defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz chimes in with some KSM defense strategy:

Lawyers could seize on the time it's taken to prosecute the accused terrorists, arguing that they were denied their constitutional rights to a speedy trial.

A crafty defense lawyer might also employ a tactic called "graymailing," demanding reams of classified information in the hope that prosecutors refuse to release them. That provides an opening for a lawyer to request the indictment be dismissed.

Torture is also likely to play a central role in the case.

That Mohammed was waterboarded more than 180 times by CIA investigators is no secret.

"The first thing they're going to do is challenge all of the evidence and say all of it is the fruit of waterboarding," Dershowitz said.

Some intrepid reporter somewhere has to ask Attorney General Eric Holder or President Obama if they plan to release KSM if he is acquitted. I'd love to hear the answer to that question.

Returning to Congressman Moran's statement about it being unamerican to hold detainees indefinitely without any type of trial, I'm wondering, which people are recommending such a thing ???

Well, there's THIS guy:

President Barack Obama has quietly decided to bypass Congress and allow the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without charges…Such a decision allows the president to unilaterally hold "combatants" without habeas corpus — a legal term literally meaning "you shall have the body" — which forces prosecutors to charge a suspect with a crime to justify the suspect's detention. Obama's decision was buried on page A 23 of The New York Times' New York edition on Thursday…"The administration will continue to hold the detainees without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban," the Times' Peter Baker writes. "In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies."

Looks like Congressman Moran, in his overzealous haste to attack Republicans, has inadvertently called his pal Obama unamerican. Oops.

“After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York—New York — to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks from where the twin towers once stood.” – Attorney General Eric Holder.

Eric Holder is mistaken. Those terrorists coming to New York for trial were brought to justice years ago. They aren't on vacation down there in Guantanamo Bay. They are prisoners of a war Al Qaeda declared against the United States in 1996. Self-confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured in 2003. All five of the terrorists coming to New York for trial were already set to be tried before military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. What Holder has done is to grant foreign warriors the full rights of American citizenship by putting them into our civilian court system. Holder is seeking the death penalty, but KSM also faced the death penalty under the military commissions system.

What is to be gained from this ?

It isn't to console the families of 9/11 victims. Hundreds of them are already protesting this decision:

“Families are furious about this,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother Chic Burlingame was the American Airlines pilot of one of the planes hijacked on Sept. 11. She said more than 300 family members have implored the administration not to move the trial to New York. “They know we don’t support this. We support military commissions but they are going to see a wave of fury, and I don’t think they’re prepared for it,” she said Friday after the decision became public.

Bringing the terrorists to New York and trying them only blocks away from the World Trade Center site will guarantee one thing – a media circus, perhaps unlike any we have yet seen. Won't it be fun to watch the terrorists exercise their new array of civil rights ? I know I can't wait for KSM's attorneys to say he should be freed because we didn't read him his Miranda rights. I also can't wait for his lawyers to ask for the evidence against him to be thrown out due to the enhanced interrogation techniques, aka torture. I can't wait for KSM to become the victim. I definitely look forward to KSM taking the stand to urge his followers to continue their jihad against the Great Satan, and having the media instantly spread his message across the globe. And what will happen when KSM's attorneys request access to classified intelligence materials as part of his defense ? There's a reason crimes and wars are treated differently, even if Eric Holder and Barack Obama don't know there is a difference.

Last week, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) tried to pass legislation that would have forced the administration to try 9/11 plotters in military courts. Democrats voted that legislation down by a vote of 54-45. We've spent years insuring that the military commissions pass Constitutional muster, and Obama has said he will try terrorism cases with military commissions, but then he brings the highest profile cases possible into federal court. Why ?

It's not that I think we can't try terrorists in federal court. We've done that before successfully lots of times, and in KSM's case we should be able to prevail, though how we'll get an impartial jury blocks away from the WTC site should be a circus all it's own. It's just that WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THIS. We could have avoided the circus.

UPDATE**

Here's President Obama from earlier this year:

"When this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who’ve received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States. Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture — like other prisoners of war — must be prevented from attacking us again."

Obama admits KSM and company are prisoners of war who will not be released. Sooooo, why bring them into civilian court ? You know darn well that KSM will NEVER be released. That would be political suicide for Obama and the Democrats. This decision makes no sense to me.

I use the word "jihadist" in this post, seeing as how our liberal friends objected so much to the accurate use of the word "terrorist" in my last post about the Fort Hood terrorist jihadist. I know how delicate are the sensibilities of our liberal friends. They are easily offended by words, unless the subject is conservatives, of course. Then, any and all pejorative language is highly recommended.

But….the Fort Hood terrorist jihadist is a Muslim, not a conservative, so maybe the word "jihadist" is too harsh for liberal sensibilities as well. I apologize for using the term. To avoid any possibility of liberals experiencing feelings of victimization and sadness, which sends them into desperate searches for moral equivalency and results in them defending mass murderers, I will also refrain from using the word "jihadist." Instead, I will refer to the Fort Hood terrorist jihadist mass murderer as "cuddly bunny."

According to ABC News, the FBI knew Nidal M. Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist jihadist cuddly bunny had been trying to contact Al Qaeda several months ago:

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.
It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said.

I assume it's not standard operating procedure for a U.S. Army Major, a psychiatrist, to be trying to contact Al Qaeda, even if he is merely a cuddly bunny. ABC could be referring only to the 10 to 20 e-mails cuddly bunny sent to the radical imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, which the FBI said was consistent with cuddly bunny's research project (huh ??), but ABC said cuddly bunny was trying to contact "people" in Al Qaeda, as in, more than one. The FBI said it never delved into cuddly bunny's communiques with Al-Awlaki because there was no indication that cuddly bunny was planning any violence. I guess soldiers contacting Al Qaeda associates is hunky-dory with the FBI, as long as you don't say "I plan to kill a whole bunch of Americans" in your e-mail message. Oy vey.

On the morning of his mass murder, Hasan the terrorist jihadist cuddly bunny handed his neighbor a copy of the Koran and told her, "I’m going to do good work for God.” Note that terrorists jihadists cuddly bunnies think that killing infidels IS doing good work for God.

The aforementioned radical imam Al-Awlaki was quite impressed with the way cuddly bunny did God's work at Fort Hood. Here's Al-Awlaki's complete statement about cuddly bunny's Fort Hood "heroics":

"Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn't exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges.
Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.

The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former. The Muslim organizations in America came out in a pitiful chorus condemning Nidal's operation.

The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right -rather the duty- to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy.

Allah(swt) says: Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment – Those who take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek with them honor [through power]? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah entirely. (al-Nisa 136-137) [Koran 4:136-137]

The inconsistency of being a Muslim today and living in America and the West in general reveals the wisdom behind the opinions that call for migration from the West. It is becoming more and more difficult to hold on to Islam in an environment that is becoming more hostile towards Muslims.

May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance and steadfastness and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act. Amen"

Al-Awlaki is someone cuddly bunny greatly admired. A colleague said cuddly bunny's "eyes lit up" when he talked about Al-Awlaki.

Not only did the military and FBI fail to connect the dots here, but judging from the comments to my last post, liberals don't even want to admit there are any dots to connect (unlike the runup to 9/11). Even President Obama said we shouldn't leap to any conclusions (unlike the Henry Louis Gates case, where Obama leapt to conclusions).

Sorry libs, but cuddly bunny is a jihadist terrorist, much as it might pain you to hear it. Allah Akhbar.

Now cuddly bunny is lawyered up, and is apparently speaking. I'm sure cuddly bunny expected to die gloriously at Fort Hood, and is probably disappointed that he hasn't gotten to his 72 virgins yet. Maybe that was the way cuddly bunny chose to get the wife he couldn't find here on earth, I don't know. I only wonder if cuddly bunny will have the courage of his jihadist convictions, or if he will punk out and claim temporary insanity, as his legal eagle is probably advising him to do.

As for my opinion………..can we still use firing squads ?

Then it probably is Islamic terrorism.

Here's the evidence.

1) The American-born fundamentalist Muslim, Major Nidal Hasan, shouted "Allahu Akhbar" (God is great) as he opened fire on soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 and wounding 38. This is corroborated by several witnesses.

2) Hasan allegedly made internet postings sympathetic to Muslim suicide bombers, even calling such bombers herioic. These postings came to the attention of federal authorities six months ago, but were not pursued.

3) Hasan considered the war on terror to be a war against Islam, and considered himself to be a Muslim first and an American second.

4) Hasan gave a presentation on the Koran where he said the Koran commands infidels to be decapitated, burned, etc.

5) According to the London Telegraph, Hasan attended a mosque in Virginia in 2001 that was led by the radical imam Anwar Al-Awlaki. The mosque was attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers during the same period. Charles Allen, a former under-secretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, described al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, as an "al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers… who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen".

6) Hasan gave away copies of the Koran to neighbors prior to his murderous shooting spree.

Got the picture yet ?

Hasan told relatives that he was horrified at the thought of going to Afghanistan later this year, and he was trying to get discharged from the Army.

With so many signs that this was an Islamic terrorist attack, the Lame Stream Media initially called it Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, even though Hasan had never been in combat (maybe they should have tried out Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a brand new condition). Or, as Chris Matthews of MSNBC said, "we may never know if religion was a factor at Fort Hood." I assume MSNBC is still considered a news network, per the White House definition. The Lames shied away from the word "terrorist," for some reason. If only Hasan had a copy of Glenn Beck's book on his nightstand, then the Lames probably would have figured out this was a terrorist act.

Let me issue the standard caveats here. Lord knows I don't want to be politically incorrect. Just because Major Nidal Hasan killed a bunch of people due to his religious beliefs doesn't mean that all Muslims are terrorists. The vast majority of us know this already, but certain political leaners with short left legs get very uncomfortable if we don't point it out every time there's a terrorist attack. There are a billion Muslims in the world, so obviously, only an infinitesimal percentage of them are terrorists. We should never condone any reprisals against Muslim people in general due to the actions of a few. That would be bigotry. It would be like hating the entire Catholic church due to a few pedophile priests, or hating the entire Tea Party movement because one or two protesters carried signs comparing Obama to Hilter. Only irrational folks like the Reverend at the Blog Of Mass Destruction do things like that.

Here we preach tolerance.

We also don't have a problem with calling something what it is, and what happened at Fort Hood was an act of religious-based terrorism. The biggest question we have to answer is why the military missed so many red flags with Nidal M. Hasan, especially after 9/11, when we started looking specifically for those exact red flags.

1. Japanese officials were executed for waterboarding prisoners during World War II.

Wrong. Japanese officials were executed primarily for mass murder and for waging war against other countries. Torture was among the charges, and among the numerous torture charges was Japanese water torture (aka, water cure), not waterboarding. The two are not the same thing. Water torture involved putting a hose down a prisoner's throat and pumping water into him until his insides burst or nearly burst, often resulting in death. In addition, the Japanese usually executed the prisoners following water torture and/or other forms of torture. Even without water torture, those Japanese officials would have been executed.

2. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge was pressured by the Bush White House to raise the terror alert level prior to the 2004 elections for political reasons.

This one is debunked by Tom Ridge himself, who said he was never pressured to change the terror alert level.

"There was no pressure at all. There was a judgment call on their part and on my part," Ridge, 64, a former Pennsylvania governor and an Erie native, told the [Erie-Times News] newspaper.

In addition, there was a threat made by Bin Laden prior to the 2004 election, which Ridge himself thought might be to disrupt our presidential elections, just as Al Qaeda bombed trains in Madrid three days before Spain's elections.

Not to mention that the terror alert level was NOT raised (and it probably SHOULD have been). The charge made for a nice phony left wing attack du jour, however.

3. George W. Bush is a chickenhawk who went into the Air National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam.

The truth is, Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam, but he didn't have enough flying hours, so other pilots were sent instead. In addition, CBS producer Mary Mapes, who did the phony partisan hit piece on Bush with anchorman Dan Rather, which was based upon forged documents, KNEW Bush had volunteered, but never mentioned it. Remember, the thrust of the CBS Rather/Mapes hit piece was that Bush was a coward who was trying to avoid combat. And it was THIS NEWS STORY that attempted to influence an election, coming shortly after the 2004 Republican convention.

4. The federal government is efficient.

This one doesn't really require an explanation, but what follows is a letter to the federal government from an irate citizen that has been making it's way around the internet. I have no idea if the letter is authentic, but it sure is funny, and it sure does illustrate exactly how efficient our federal government isn't. That would be the same federal government to whom we are about to hand over our entire health care system, not that anything could possibly go wrong there.

Warning – there is profanity.

Dear Sirs,

I’m in the process of renewing my passport, and still cannot believe this. How is it that Radio Shack has my address and telephone number and knows that I bought a cable t.v. from them back in 1987, and yet, the Federal Government is still asking me where I was born and on what date.

For gosh sakes, do you guys do this by hand? My birth date you have on my social security card, and it is on all the income tax forms I’ve filed for the past 30 years. It is on my health insurance card, my driver’s license, on the last eight damn passports I’ve had, on all those stupid customs declaration forms I’ve had to fill out before being allowed off the plane over the last 30 years, and all those insufferable census forms that are done at election times.

Would somebody please take note, once and for all, that my mother’s name is Maryanne, my father’s name is Robert and I’d be absolutely astounded if that ever changed between now and when I die!

I apologize, I’m really pissed off this morning. Between you an’ me, I’ve had enough of this bullshit! You send the application to my house, then you ask me for my address!

What is going on? You have a gang of Neanderthal asses workin’ there! Look at my damn picture. Do I look like Bin Laden? I don’t want to dig up Yasser Arafat, for crying out loud! I just want to go and park my ass on a sandy beach.

And would someone please tell me, why would you give a shit whether I plan on visiting a farm in the next 15 days? If I ever got the urge to do something weird to a chicken or a goat, believe you me, I’d sure as hell not want to tell anyone!

Well, I have to go now, ’cause I have to go to the other end of the city and get another blasted copy of my birth certificate, to the tune of $60. Would it be so complicated to have all the services in the same spot to assist in the issuance of a new passport the same day? Nooooo, that’d be to damn easy and maybe makes sense. You’d rather have us running all over the place like chickens with our heads cut off, then find some ass to confirm that it’s really me on the damn picture – you know, the one where we’re not allowed to smile (bureaucratic ignorant morons)! Hey, you know why we can’t smile? We’re totally pissed off!

Signed
An Irate Citizen.

P.S. Remember what I said above about the picture and getting someone to confirm that it’s me? Well, my family has been in this country since 1776, I have served in the military for something over 30 years and have had security clearances up the ying yang. However, I have to get someone ‘important’ to verify who I am – you know, someone like my doctor WHO WAS BORN AND RAISED IN INDIA!

Sincerely,
You Sure In The Hell Should Know Who.

With the release of the CIA Inspector General's (IG) 2004 report about Bush-era interrogation of terrorists, I assume you've all heard what the media wants you to hear – that one terrorist was threatened with a loaded gun and a power drill, that a pretend execution of a terrorist was carried out to get another terrorist to talk, that a threat was made against a terrorist's children, that a threat was made against a terrorist's mother. None of these threats were carried out, of course. They were just CIA interrogator mindgames being played to scare terrorists into talking. Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate any CIA interrogation techniques that were not authorized, that went beyond what was outlined in the DOJ memos. President Obama has basically washed his hands of the matter, leaving the decision for prosecutions of CIA personnel up to Holder, who repeated his promise that there will be no prosecutions of CIA personnel "who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by" Bush administration lawyers.

Because you are sure to hear every lurid detail of every allegation being made against our interrogators, I'll skip spelling any more of that out for now. It is worth noting that the CIA IG report does admit that most of the allegations are uncorroborated. From the report:

For all of the instances, the allegations were disputed or too ambiguous to reach any authoritative determination regarding the facts. Thus, although these allegations are illustrative of the nature of the concerns held by individuals associated with the CTC Program and the need for clear guidance, they did not warrant separate investigations or administrative action.

Exceptions from the above are two incidents involving a CIA debriefer (not a trained interrogator) who was singled out by the CIA IG for special investigation. These incidents involved threats made against Abd al-Nashiri, the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing and other terrorist attacks. This CIA debriefer made the gun, power drill, mock execution, and mother threats against al-Nashiri (and all al-Nashiri did was murder 17 American sailors and others. How dare we scare the poor dear ?).

What our media hasn't bothered to tell you is that the early interrogation and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT's) used against terrorist monsters like al-Nashiri, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Abu Zubaydah worked, just like former VP Dick Cheney said they did. Cheney was ridiculed endlessly for saying that, but the CIA IG report leaves no doubt. Here are the IG's conclusions on the interrogations:

The detention of terrorists has prevented them from engaging in further terrorist activity, and their interrogation has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists, warned of terrorist plots planned for the United States and around the world, and supported articles frequently used in the finished intelligence publications for senior policymakers and war fighters. In this regard, there is no doubt that the Program has been effective. … Detainee information has assisted in the identification of terrorists. For example, information from Abu Zubaydah helped lead to the identification of Jose Padilla and Binyam Muhammed–operatives who had plans to detonate a uranium-topped dirty bomb in either Washington, D.C. or New York City. Riduan "Hambali" Isomuddin provided information that led to the arrest of previously unknown members of an Al Qa'ida cell in Karachi. They were designated as pilots for an aircraft attack against the United States. Many other detainees, including lower-level detainees such as Zubayr and Majid Khan, have provided leads to other terrorists, but probably the most prolific has been Khalid Shaykh Muhammad. He provided information that helped lead to the arrest of terrorists including Sayfullah Paracha and his son Uzair Paracha, businessmen whom Khalid Shaykh Muhammad planned to use to smuggle explosives into the United States; Saleh Almari, a sleeper operative in New York; and Majid Khan, an operative who could enter the United States easily and was tasked to research attacks [redacted]. Khalid Shaykh Muhammad's information also led to the investigation and prosecution of Iyman Faris, the truck driver arrested in early 2003 in Ohio. [redacted]

Detainees, both planners and operatives, have also made the Agency aware of several plots planned for the United States and around the world. The plots identify plans to [redacted] attack the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan; hijack aircraft to fly into Heathrow Airport [redacted] loosen track spikes in an attempt to derail a train in the United States; [redacted]; blow up several U.S. gas stations to create panic and havoc; hijack and fly an airplane into the tallest building in California in a west coast version of the World Trade Center attack; cut the lines of suspension bridges in New York in an effort to make them collapse; [redacted].

This Review did not uncover any evidence that these plots were imminent. Agency senior managers believe that lives have been saved as a result of the capture and interrogation of terrorists who were planning attacks, in particular Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Zubaydah, Hambali, and Al-Nashiri.

Now, knowing some of my left-leaning readers as I do, I'm sure y'all will jump on that last sentence about the plots not being imminent. To those readers, I can only say, it's a lot better to uncover and prevent plots BEFORE the planes are in the air, BEFORE the suicide bomber is in the market with explosives strapped to his chest. Stopping attacks before they are imminent is called SUCCESS.

The CIA IG report also goes into the specific effectiveness of the EIT's, which included waterboarding:

The waterboard has been used on three detainees….
Prior to the use of EITs, Abu Zubaydah provided information for [redacted] intelligence reports. Interrogators applied the waterboard to Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times during August 2002. [The report explains that each application of water is counted separately, and most of the 83 applications lasted less than ten seconds.] During the period between the end of the use of the waterboard and 30 April 2003, he provided information for approximately [redacted] intelligence reports. It is not possible to say definitively that the waterboard is the reason for Abu Zubaydah's increased production, or if another factor, such as the length of detention, was the catalyst. Since the use of the waterboard, however, Abu Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative.
With respect to A-Nashiri, [redacted] reported two waterboard sessions in November 2002, after which the psychologist/interrogators determined that Al-Nashiri was compliant….Because of the litany of techniques used by different interrogators over a relatively short period of time, it is difficult to identify exactly why Al-Nashiri became more willing to provide information. However, following the use of EITs, he provided information about his most current operational planning and [redacted] as opposed to the historical information he provided before the use of EITs.

On the other hand, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete.

The EIT's worked, whether we like them or not. Was it worth it ? Was it worth providing temporary discomfort to terrorists to save innocent lives ? That's what we did, and that's why we did it. I'll leave the answer to those questions for you to decide.

At least some CIA personnel knew they were on shaky ground from a legal standpoint. From the report:

During the course of this Review, a number of Agency officers expressed unsolicited concern about the possibility of recrimination or legal action resulting from their participation in the CTC Program. A number of officers expressed concern that a human rights group might pursue them for activities [redacted]. Additionally, they feared that the Agency would not stand behind them if this occurred.
One officer expressed concern that one day, Agency officers will wind up on some "wanted list" to appear before the World Court for war crimes stemming from their activities [redacted]. Another said, "Ten years from now we're going to be sorry we're doing this…[but] it has to be done." He expressed concern that the CTC Program will be exposed in the news media and cited particular concern about the possibility of being named in a leak.

That last quote was prescient, and I'm willing to bet the leaks of CIA interrogator names will begin in 3, 2, 1………

Just as the New York Times leaked the name of CIA operative and KSM interrogator Deuce Martinez back in 2008, against the CIA's wishes. You may not remember that leak, because somehow, it didn't generate years of media coverage, investigations and criminal accusations, as did the leak of CIA analyst Valerie Plame's name by Bob Novak. You see, it's DIFFERENT when liberals leak classified information. The Times leaks classified information all the time. It's only a crime when a Republican does it. The reason it's DIFFERENT is because………..well, I have no idea why. I guess it's because liberals are the good guys and the Republicans are evil, or something. I can't figure it out. It all just seems like an enormous double standard to me.

An 88-year old racist cretin named James von Brunn opened fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. on wednesday, killing one of the security guards, Stephen Tyrone Jones. Sigh. Another senseless tragedy committed by another senseless idiot, the third act of domestic terrorism by an individual gunman in the last couple weeks.

Brunn appears to be your classic white supremacist, neo-Nazi, Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying bigot, the kind who worships Adolph Hitler and believes the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion is proof positive that the Jews are involved in some dark conspiracy to take over the world.

In other words, he's a dumb-ass. Now he's a murderer too. I can't believe such people still exist in this country.

Speaking of dumb-asses, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann wasted no time in politicizing the tragedy. Brunn's attack was Olby's lead story last night, and he called Brunn a "right-wing extremist" about 700 times to make sure his viewers got the message that 'it's them thar nasty conservatives what dun it.' Somehow, he even managed to blame the shooting on Rush Limbaugh (not kidding). Using that unique Olbermann anti-logic of his, Keith-boy said something to the effect of "Limbaugh criticizes Obama by using words, others hear words, so then they go kill Jews at the Holocaust Museum." I'm paraphrasing, of course. Olby wasn't quite that coherent. By tonight's show, I expect Keith Olbermann will obtain affirmative proof that James von Brunn is the de-facto head of the Republican Party.

For the life of me, I don't know why anyone watches that show (other than someone like myself, who watches it on occasion for blogging ideas. Olby's lunacy is an inspiration in that regard). For a guy who raves on about alleged right-wing haters non-stop, nobody pushes more hate than Olby (btw, last night's Worst Person In The World wasn't James von Brunn. It was Michelle Bachman (R-MN), who misspoke in a speech by saying the word "economists" where she should have said "economics." That made her worst in the world. Again, not kidding).

But enough about K. Ubermoron. I only brought him up as an example. The real question Olby brings to mind is:

Why are neo-nazis always referred to as right-wingers ?

This has never made the slightest bit of sense to me. The Nazis were the National SOCIALIST Party in Germany. That's what 'nazi' means. Socialists are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from right-wingers. Socialists (and fascists and communists too) are all about government control. Right-wingers are about limited government. Socialists are about the supremacy of the collective good, as was Adolph Hitler. "Third Reich" translates to "Third Empire." Right-wingers are about the supremacy of individual liberty. When you talk about right-wing extremism, you should be talking about anarchist types, or at least anti-government types, like Timothy McVeigh. Brunn has some of those characteristics, but the neo-nazi stuff doesn't fit. Neither does some other stuff Brunn wrote, which you'll hear about later. Brunn often ended his political diatribes with "Heil Hitler." That kind of stuff makes my head want to explode.

A racist like James von Brunn is a person advocating for his collective, white people, over the interests of others. Racism IS identity politics, and it's not right-wingers who are it's primary practitioners. That comes from the other side.

It isn't right-wingers who are against the Jews either. Conservatives support Israel to a much greater extent than do liberals (though the majority of American Jews voted for Obama. Go figure). The examples of anti-semitic sentiment from the left are rife, but the latest comes from Obama's former pastor, the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In a recent interview, Wright was asked if he has talked to Obama recently. Wright's reply was, "them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me."

Such a man of God, that one.

The Republican party was founded by Abraham Lincoln as the anti-slavery party, and during the civil rights era of the 60's, it was southern Democrats who still supported Jim Crow laws and fought against integration, not Republicans. A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats.

In spite of all this, scumbags like James von Brunn are always labeled as right-wing extremists. I don't get it. Maybe it's because the ones doing the labeling come from the left. I don't know.

James von Brunn's political views can be tracked, because Brunn has a number of unhinged political diatribes scattered around the internet. Brunn hated Obama, like any white supremacist would, and there is evidence he belonged to the Obama Birther movement, which claims Obama has never produced valid evidence of his American citizenship, thus disqualifying him from being President. Brunn apparently detested Marxism, lending credence to the right-wing label, but he also hated Bush, neoconservatism, and Bill O'Reilly (along with LOTS of other people. Brunn was a veritable buffet of hatred). Neoconservatism is equated with Jews by folks like Brunn. Brunn was also into conspiracy theories, including the 9/11 Truther movement. If you want to delve into this guy's twisted brain, you can find some if his writings at the above link, or read one of his sick tirades here.

If you read James von Brunn's lunacy, make sure to take a shower afterward, so the filth doesn't stick. This is a public service announcement and a warning. I don't want to be accused of promoting violence by some fool like Keith Olbermann.

Conclusion – James von Brunn exhibits some traits of right-wing extremism, but he also exhibits some traits of left-wing extremism. In the end, he's just a twisted horse's you-know-what, as is Keith Olbermann and the rest of the dishonest political philosophizers (yeah, I said 'philosophizers.' I'm the Worst Person In The World too). But I won't be blaming Olbermann for anyone's murder. I still believe in free speech. I only blame James von Brunn. It's called personal responsibility, as opposed to partisan hogwash. If I was into partisan hogwash, I'd be asking the same questions liberals asked of Bush following 9/11 – Why isn't President Obama stopping these domestic terrorist attacks by known radicals ? Why is he asleep at the switch ? Why doesn't he care ? Because I'm not into partisan hogwash, I won't ask those questions. Oops, too late.

Osama Bin Laden, the world's leading terrorist (or "freedom fighter," as Michael Moore would call him), has released a new tape, saying President Obama is sowing "new seeds of hatred and revenge against America." Apparently, Bin Laden's Dish Network package doesn't include MSNBC, or Bin Laden would know that everything changed the day Obama took office. We're closing Gitmo, have banned EIT's, are pulling out of Iraq, are apologizing to the world for our bad behavior in fighting terrorists, etc, etc.

Or maybe Bin Laden doesn't really care about any of that. It seems he doesn't.

On the tape, Bin Laden says President Obama is "walking the same road of his predecessors to build enmity against Muslims and increasing the number of fighters, and establishing more lasting wars."

Say what ? President Obama is INCREASING the number of terrorist fighters ???? Say it ain't so. Our liberal media has been telling us for years that it was Gitmo and Iraq that increased the number of terrorist fighters. Quick, somebody send Bin Laden a subscription to the New York Times, so he can be told what to think. Seriously. Just send the Times to Al Jazeera. I'm sure somebody there can ensure it gets forwarded to Bin Laden.

Another terrorist video, this one from terrorist recruiter Abdullah al-Nafisi, a Kuwaiti dissident and friend of Bin Laden, declares that Al Qaeda is looking to smuggle weapons of mass destruction across the Mexican border to inflict severe damage on America. Here's al-Nafisi:

"Four pounds of anthrax – in a suitcase this big [about 2 feet wide]- carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S. are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour if it is properly spread in population centers there," the recruiter said. "What a horrifying idea; 9/11 will be small change in comparison. Am I right? There is no need for airplanes, conspiracies, timings and so on. One person, with the courage to carry 4 pounds of anthrax, will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this 'confetti' all over them, and then we'll do these cries of joy. It will turn into a real celebration."

How do you feel about sealing the southern border now, liberals ? I hope you can at least stop saying the only reason for it is that GOP is so darned raaacist. Secured borders are a matter of national security. Period.

On the vigilante front, an anti-abortion extremist, Scott Roeder, was arrested for the murder of late-term abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller. Following this heinous act, President Obama immediately condemned it and announced that security would be enhanced at abortion clinics across the country. In response to Tiller's murder, liberals immediately blamed all conservatives and called for the removal of their free speech rights. Ubermoron Keith Olbermann blamed Bill O'Reilly and Fox News for Tiller's death, and said O'Reilly should be "quarantined." Fellow MSNBC'er Rachel Maddow called Tiller's death "terrorism," as did many other liberal groups. The favored phrase among liberals is to say conservative speech "foments violence" by opposing abortion. That's a complete bunch of crap (did liberals foment violence by opposing Bush ?), but that's what they are saying.

Two days after Tiller's murder, a young black man, a Muslim convert who opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, who was anti-military and anti-American, attacked an Army recruiting center in Arkansas, killing one recruiter and wounding another. Following this heinous act, there was no immediate condemnation from President Obama. There was no tightening of security announced at Army recruiting centers. And there was no condemnation of all liberals by conservatives. Nor was there a call to end liberal free speech rights by conservatives. I bet Bill O'Reilly didn't blame it on Keith Olbermann either. I can't think of one conservative who said liberal speech "foments violence."

And that, my friends, is the difference between reasoned people and lunatics.

P.S. – Sorry I've been away for a few days, but I've been having some problems with my knee that prevent me from sitting down at the computer (you know you're getting old when it's tough to sit). I don't know if it's my "knee-jerk" reactions that caused the problem, but I should be back to normal pretty soon. As normal as I can be, anyway.

President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney both gave speeches about national security on thursday. Obama was critical of the Bush administration's policies, and Cheney was critical of Obama's policies while defending the Bush era actions. There's nothing wrong with that. People can differ over important issues, and national security is about as important as it gets. Here is a transcript of Obama's speech. Here is a transcript of Cheney's speech. They are both interesting reading, and when stood side by side outline seemingly stark policy differences. I think a fair assessment of the two men's differing positions regarding the terrorist threat could be summarized as follows – Obama says "let's adhere to our values as we fight terrorism," and Cheney says "let's do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism."

Which of the two men is right, or whether both of them are partially right depends on your viewpoint and priorities, I guess, but I found many of Obama's statements contradictory. For instance, Obama talks about how imprisoning detainees indefinitely at Guantanomo Bay makes us less safe, goes against our values, and violates the rule of law, but his own administration is arguing that detainees may be imprisoned at Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan indefinitely without contesting their detainment. The Obama administration is arguing against a U.S. court ruling on this matter. The court ruled that the detainees must be granted habeas corpus, and the Obama administration is arguing otherwise. The Obamans are arguing that U.S federal court has no jurisdiction over the Bagram detainees, directly in opposition to Obama's stated opinion about Guantanomo Bay detainees. If keeping prisoners in Gitmo makes us less safe, goes against our values, and violates the rule of law……doesn't the same hold true in Bagram ? Not to mention that Obama's own Gitmo closing strategy includes one option to keep dangerous terrorists who could not otherwise be prosecuted in prison. From Obama's speech:

Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people…a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States…a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States…We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

Obama says he wants to construct some type of (unnamed) new legal framework for these detainees, but the message is clear – Obama doesn't want to release dangerous terrorists, just like the Bush administration didn't want to. He'll keep them in prison without trial, just like Bush did. The only difference will be where he keeps them. It won't be in Gitmo. It will be somewhere else. How that is the least bit different than Bush is completely lost on me. It isn't different. It's just semantics.

After all is said and done, and all the partisan fighting amongst ourselves is waged, we end up with a new president from another party, Barack Obama, who will keep dangerous terrorists in prison without trial for the sake of national security (as Bush did), who will release others not deemed to be so dangerous (as Bush did), who will conduct military commission trials for some (as Bush did), and who will try those few who they can make a criminal case against in civilian court (as Bush did).

So, what was all the arguing about ?

Ain't politics grand ?

I'm also willing to bet that if there's another successful major terrorist attack in the U.S., god forbid, and we capture the mastermind while other plots are still in the works, as happened with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and two others following 9/11, Obama will probably reinstate those enhanced interrogation techniques quicker than greased lightning too, because there's been one overriding concern for every U.S. president we've ever had – national security means keeping Americans safe, above all else. All the introspective wailing, gnashing of teeth, and mea culpas come later. If you don't believe me, read some history books.