PrairiePundit

...

... an animated gray-haired man had edged his way alongside the podium, and then he stepped onto it, sending whispers through the crowd. It was Garry Kasparov, the former world chess champion, who was in Sochi promoting the campaign of Mr. Pakhomov’s archrival, Boris Y. Nemtsov.
Mr. Kasparov, born to an Armenian mother, had been sitting quietly, signing autographs, for nearly two hours. He was mobbed by admirers, men in their 40s and 50s who had loved him since childhood. When an organizer for Mr. Pakhomov’s United Russia Party tried to get Mr. Kasparov removed from the premises, saying his presence amounted to political campaigning, the head of the village’s administration glowered and snapped, “He is my idol!”
Mr. Kasparov’s remarks began innocently enough. He made an offhand mention of Mr. Nemtsov, so subtle that it was easy to miss. Then he began to sling arrows at Moscow, saying Soviet Russia had supported Turkey at the time of the massacres.
Mr. Pakhomov, standing behind him on the podium, looked as if he had eaten a lemon.
Two minutes and 33 seconds into Mr. Kasparov’s speech, a local official stepped forward and said his time was up. Mr. Kasparov turned to the crowd with an incredulous look.
“What’s happening?” he said loudly. “I cannot speak? Maybe it’s better to be silent?”
They shouted “No!” and erupted into applause. He went on, at leisure, to criticize the rise of racist violence in Russia, saying that “genocide doesn’t just appear out of nowhere, and to put it mildly the government is doing very little to stop this debauch of nationalism.” He said Moscow had prevented generations of Armenians from connecting with their roots, and then he went further.
“The authorities are the source of problems,” he said. “The K.G.B. was behind the Armenian pogroms in Baku. The K.G.B. set nations against each other. We should never give in to these provocations.” He finished up — “I love you, and we are one family” — and the crowd applauded long and hard.
In the audience, Vartyan S. Mardirosyan, a lawyer, was chuckling delightedly at the spectacle. He said the authorities in Sochi had cracked down so hard on dissent that it reminded him of Soviet times, when people were too afraid to express their political opinions outside their own kitchens. The ceremony had been an “undeclared competition,” said Mr. Mardirosyan, 68, with Mr. Kasparov both the underdog and the undisputed winner.

...

It is an interesting competition with repression and openness. While Kasparov won this battle for talk time, it is still likely that the Kremlin will still steal the election. I was not aware of the Russian complicity in the Armenian genocide, but it sounds credible.

Bottom story of the day

From the Washington Post:

World Bank: Poor Still Need Help

I think it is safe to say that this will be the case both four years from now and eight years from now. The poor will keep on doing the things that make them poor despite any handouts from the World Bank or others. You can see today in an election in Ecuador where the people elected a man whose policies are guaranteed to make them stay poor.

Taliban hammered in Dir District near Swat

Times:

Pakistani troops backed by helicopter gunships fought Taleban militants yesterday after strong US pressure on the Government to confront the insurgents’ advance towards the capital.
The battle was raging in the Dir district, next to the Swat Valley in northwestern Pakistan, where the Government signed a controversial accord with the Taleban allowing the imposition of Sharia courts. The Government threatened to revoke the agreement.
Government forces shelled Taleban hideouts in Dir, killing 30 insurgents, including a commander. A soldier was killed and four others were wounded when an army convoy came under attack.
“Helicopter gunships are pounding militants’ positions in the hills,” said Ali Shah, a grocer in Timergara, the main town of Lower Dir district. “There has been intense fighting. A curfew has been imposed. We are now confined to our houses.”
Pakistani troops backed by helicopter gunships fought Taleban militants yesterday after strong US pressure on the Government to confront the insurgents’ advance towards the capital.
The militants, with Swat under their control, have been trying to extend their foothold into Dir, where they had faced stiff resistance earlier from local people. Their latest advances have given them control of about 11 per cent of the country.
...

We will have to wait to see if the Pakistan army sustains the attacks until the Taliban capitulates. Unfortunately, too often it has been the army that has backed down. Some of its Frontier forces have surrendered to the Taliban. What is troubling still is that the action has only been taken after pressure from the US and not on their own initiative.

Al Qaeda threatens to murder hostage if religious bigot cleric not released

Guardian:

Al-Qaida's North African wing has threatened to kill a British tourist taken hostage in the Sahara unless the radical cleric and terrorism suspect Abu Qatada is released within 20 days.
The kidnapped man was among four Europeans seized in January after their convoy was ambushed near the border of Niger and Mali, where they had been after attending a Tuareg festival. The Foreign Office has not released the man's name.
Qatada, once described by a Spanish judge as "Osama bin Laden's righthand man in Europe", is being held in Britain pending deportation to his native Jordan, where in 1999 he was convicted in his absence of conspiracy to cause explosions and sentenced to life imprisonment. The charges related to bombings at the American school and the Jerusalem hotel in Jordan. He was convicted a second time in 2000 over a plot to bomb tourists.
"We demand that Britain release Sheikh Abu Qatada, who is unjustly [held], for the release of its British citizen. We give it 20 days as of the issuance of this statement," the group al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) said in a posting on an Islamist website yesterday. "When this period expires, the mujahideen will kill the British hostage."
...

So her is a question for anti Bush libs. Did he ever do something like this. Do you notice that al Qaeda is not like us. We never threatened even mass murderers like KSM with something like this. Would you release the terrorist cleric knowing that doing so will only encourage more such demands and endanger more civilians who would be taken hostage? At this point the British government is refusing to submit to the demands of the terrorist.

Flight attendant fired for refusing to wear funny clothes in Saudi Arabia

Ben Smith and Jonathon Martin:

Lisa Ashton, who worked for BMI, was told that she was expected to wear the abaya, a long black robe that leaves only the face uncovered, when she was out in public in the Gulf state.
She was also told that she should walk behind male colleagues irrespective of their rank, in order to conform with the social codes of the conservative country.
Miss Ashton was instructed to consider the abaya as part of her uniform when flying to Saudi Arabia.
But she told her managers that she considered the requirement discriminatory, and was worried that Saudi Arabia was not safe to travel to because of the danger of terrorist attacks.
"It's not the law that you have to walk behind men in Saudi Arabia, or that you have to wear an abaya, and I'm not going to be treated as a second-class citizen," she said.
"It's outrageous. I'm a proud Englishwoman and I don't want these restrictions placed on myself."
Miss Ashton, 37, had been working for the airline for nine years when they began their service to Saudi Arabia in 2005.
She was earning £15,000 a year and flying to India, the Caribbean and the United States from her base in Manchester but was horrified to read details of the regulations for staff working on the new route.
Staff were given abayas and required to wear them when leaving the aircraft.
A document circulated to staff said: "It is expected that female crew members will walk behind their male counterparts in public areas such as airports no matter what rank."
...
An employment tribunal in Manchester earlier cleared BMI of sexual discrimination saying it was justified in imposing "rules of a different culture" on staff.
It ruled there was no evidence that women would regard BMI's requirements on wearing the abaya, or walking behind men, as "placing them under any disadvantage."
Although many western women do wear the abaya in Saudi Arabia it is not the law and many expats say it is a myth that women are expected to walk behind men.
...

Her union also refuse to support her position. The abaya is a symbol of oppression. It is also hideous. If it were really attractive people would wear it without being required to do so. I think the airline is wrong on this one.

I also think the Saudis understand that people from different cultures dress differently and have learn to respect those differences. They never required Secretary of State Rice to wear and abaya, not did they require First Lady Laura Bush to wear the funny outfits. It appears the airline decided on its own to agree to debasing its women employees with this requirement.

The case is another example of political correctness resulting in an injustice in the UK.

The spreading of the plague

TigerHawk has a graphic map that shows how quickly the bubonic plague spread in Europe. It is too bade that it does not show Asia too, since that is where the plague originated. It spread though the fleas on the backs of rats which hitched rides on Mongol trading caravans. It ultimately destroyed the Mongol empire and free trade with the East for centuries.

If you look at the chart you can see that it spread from the southern trade routes. One of his commenter's also points out the importance of controlling borders in controlling the spread of this type of epidemic.

Republican base rejects liberalism

A quick tour through the week’s headlines suggests the Republican Party is beginning to come to terms with the last election and that consensus is emerging among GOP elites that the party needs to move away from discordant social issues.

There was Sen. John McCain's daughter and his campaign manager who last week demanded that their fellow Republicans embrace same-sex marriage. Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman – the most devoted modernizer among the party's 2012 hopefuls – won approving words from New York Times columnist Frank Rich for his call to downplay divisive values issues. The party’s top elected leaders in Congress, meanwhile, spooked by being attacked as the “party of no,” were recasting themselves as a constructive, respectful opposition to a popular president.

But outside Washington, the reality is very different. Rank-and-file Republicans remain, by all indications, staunchly conservative, and they appear to have no desire to moderate their views. GOP activists and operatives say they hear intense anger at the White House and at the party’s own leaders on familiar issues – taxes, homosexuality, and immigration. Within the party, conservative groups have grown stronger absent the emergence of any organized moderate faction.

There is little appetite for compromise on what many see as core issues, and the road to the presidential nomination lies – as always – through a series of states where the conservative base holds sway, and where the anger appears to be, if anything, particularly intense.

"There is a sense of rebellion brewing," said Katon Dawson, the outgoing South Carolina Republican Party chairman, who cited unexpectedly high attendance at anti-tax “tea parties” last week.

That same sense is detectable in New Hampshire, where Union Leader publisher Joseph McQuaid – a stalwart of the base – warned in a column last weekend that the push for same-sex marriage in the state legislature was really about “forcing society to embrace and give positive reinforcement to their lifestyle and agenda in our schools and in every other area of public life imaginable.”

And it is perhaps most tangible in Iowa, where same-sex marriage will become the law this month in response to a state Supreme Court ruling. There, Republican activists and officials say the party is as resolute as ever, if not more so, on cultural issues – regardless of the soundings of some party elites.

Rep. Steve King, an outspoken conservative who represents all of rock-ribbed western Iowa and may run for governor next year, said he had held 11 town hall meetings across the state since the early April state Supreme Court decision.

"Of those 11 meetings, 10 of them were full. Most of them were standing room. The marriage issue was the No. 1 issue on their minds. No. 2 was the massive federal spending taking place. In every discussion, immigration came up."

...

"I’ve never seen the grass-roots quite as motivated, concerned and angry," said Steve Scheffler, the head of the Iowa Christian Alliance and the state's RNC committeeman.

The marriage issue and other traditional conservative litmus tests aren't likely to fade before the state's next presidential caucuses, either.

Asked about how a presidential candidate urging the party toward the middle on cultural issues would fare, Scheffler said flatly: “They’re not gonna go anywhere.”

In one sense, Republican leaders face the same challenge their Democratic counterparts did during the Bush years: how to effectively channel the deep emotion of the base while tamping down its excesses.

...

I don't think the Democrats tamped down the emotions of their kook base at all especially between 2004 and 2008. They did somewhat after Obama was nominated but that was because the kooks got their guy.

I think the conservatives will be the key to reviving the Republican majority. It requires passion to win and you just do not see many passionate "moderates."

Israeli security guards foil pirate attack on Italian cruise ship

Jerusalem Post:

Israeli private security guards exchanged fire with pirates who attacked an Italian cruise ship with 1,500 people on board far off the coast of Somalia, and drove them away, the ship's commander said Sunday.

Cmdr. Ciro Pinto told Italian state radio that six men in a small white boat approached the Msc Melody and opened fire Saturday night, but retreated after the Israeli security officers aboard the cruise ship returned fire.
"It felt like we were in war," Pinto said.
...

I am surprised more ship owners do not hire security guards. The Pirates of Somalia thrive on the lack of resistance. Even a modest amount of resistance appears to be effective. It looks like a good job for former Blackwater guards.

Stings at Planned Parenthood

LA Times:

The girl's voice in the videotape is tiny and tentative. She is talking to a nursing aide in a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bloomington, Ind. The girl wants an abortion.

The aide explains that the girl will need a parent's consent because she is only 13.

The girl balks; she does not want to name the father.

"Cause, I mean, he would be in really big trouble," says the girl. Her boyfriend, she explains, is 31.

The aide drops her head into her hands.

"In the state of Indiana," says the aide, "when anyone has had intercourse and they are age 13 or younger . . . it has to be reported to Child Protective Services."

There is a 60-second gap in the tape, according to the running timer on the video. What happens next is meant to be explosive.

"OK," says the aide, "I didn't hear the age. I don't want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that's child abuse."

"So if I just say I don't know who the father was, but he's one of the guys at school or something?" asks the girl.

"Right," says the aide, who has just stepped into a carefully laid trap.

As it happens, the boyfriend does not exist. The girl is not pregnant. Nor is she 13.

She is Lila Rose, a 20-year-old UCLA history major with a little voice and a bold plan to expose what she and many abortion foes see as Planned Parenthood's wrongdoings.

Since 2006, Rose has orchestrated undercover "stings" at Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles, Indianapolis, Bloomington, Tucson, Phoenix and Memphis.

...

On Wednesday, Tennessee lawmakers said they would seek to end a $721,000 contract with Planned Parenthood, citing outrage over what they saw in a video Rose had posted two days earlier from a Memphis clinic. She posed there in July as a 14-year-old impregnated by a 31-year-old; a Planned Parenthood staffer says, "Just say you have a boyfriend, 17 years old, whatever."

...

I think this is more likely to have an effect on the public funding of Planned Parenthood than the abortion laws. It is an easier target, particularly in conservative states. With Obama in the White House it is unlikely that he has any objections to providing abortions to young teens and ignoring the fathers completely. With his record on the Illinois born alive law he appears to not object to any form of abortion. I bet he is glad his mother did not make that choice.

Wind and solar for Iraqi border forts

MNFI:

In an effort to create a greener environment, Coalition forces are proposing to the Iraqis to build a reusable energy system with a combination wind turbine power plant and solar panels to support Iraqi border fort outposts around the country.
This will provide a reliable power source to the watch towers and it would require a minimal logistical chain to support the Iraqi Security Forces.

Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq (MNSTC-I) is developing a concept to utilize renewable energy for the future security of Iraq’s border, and using solar energy as a source of power for all the border outposts is a step in the right direction.

The proposed location for the test project is the Shiha Outpost South, recently built by the Government of Iraq and in excellent condition. The site has been previously wired, but it doesn’t have a power source installed. This location is accessible for trucks and can easily be monitored.

The cost associated with completing this project is $220K—including site prep, wiring of the tower, power controlling, inverter and batteries. Solar panels and controllers will be part of the cost component, with the majority of funding being allocated for mobilization, design, profit and fees.

This wind turbine is the most economical option for the Iraqis as a power source because it provides 2,000 watts of energy with average wind above 14 mph, 24 hours a day without a generator or associated logistics.

Solar panels will also be used because the location can provide 6 hours of full sunlight a day. There will be a portable room heater available for the winter months and equipment for cooling of electronics for the summer months. The batteries will provide backup power to the plant for 10 hours with no wind, and longer if power usage is conserved.

Currently, they use car batteries primarily to keep the radios operational. The inspection and maintenance on the wind turbine will occur yearly, with periodic inspections of the batteries, terminal lugs and other electronic devices used to assist in its operation. For optimal performance, the system should be kept in a clean, dry space between 50 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
...

This is an application that make sense. While I do not think either option is all that great for solving the US energy problems, in isolated locations like the Iraqi border forts they are actually a better economic alternative. The cost of infrastructure in getting power to the forts or in sending diesel to run generators is I think greater than the cost of putting in the wind and solar and the latter is more protected from enemy attacks.

The LA Times has a story on the research the US military is conducting on wind and solar applications for its remote locations.

The desert base, which houses the Army’s premier training center for troops deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, has become a testing ground and showcase for green initiatives that officials estimate could save the services millions, trim their heavy environmental "boot-print" and even save lives in the war zones, where fuel convoys are frequent targets.

...

I think the military will give us the most honest evaluation of these alternatives and they want be doing it because of some goo-goo theory about the environment despite what the story may suggest.

Iranian weapons ship sunk

Jerusalem Post:

An Iranian vessel, en route to Sudan in order to deliver weapons to Hamas in the Gaza Strip, was attacked by an Israeli or American ship and destroyed, according to a report Sunday in the Egyptian weekly Al-Usbua.

The report quoted sources in Khartoum as saying that all of the crew-members who were on board were killed in the incident, which occurred in the past two weeks.
"The ship was destroyed at sea near the Sudanese coast," the sources said, adding that the vessel's cargo was to be led through the Sudanese desert and the Sinai Peninsula.
...

This may be a followup report on a previous Israeli strike. The Iranian dog did not bark in this case because it knows it was in violation of a UN arms embargo against Gaza and Hamas. Sudan has the same problem.

Texas family under quarantine for swine flu

CNN:

As Hayden Henshaw was being rushed to the doctor's office after becoming ill, his father heard that his son's classmates had been struck with the deadly swine flu virus like the one sweeping through Mexico.

Patrick Henshaw called his wife immediately to have Hayden checked for it. Later, they received the bad news.
Hayden had become the third confirmed case of swine flu at his Texas high school. It is a virus that has killed 68 people in Mexico and infected at least eight people in the United States.
Health officials arrived at the Henshaws' house Friday and drew blood from the whole family, then told them to stay inside and away from the public, Henshaw told CNN.
The whole family is quarantined indefinitely, according to CNN-affiliate KABB. Henshaw said his family was shocked when they got the news about their son.
"Stunned. My wife was having a panic attack," Henshaw told the affiliate.
...
The new virus has genes from North American swine influenza, avian influenza, human influenza and a form of swine influenza normally found in Asia and Europe, said Nancy Cox, chief of the CDC's Influenza Division.
Swine flu is caused by a virus similar to a type of flu virus that infects people every year but is a strain typically found only in pigs -- or in people who have direct contact with pigs.
There have, however, been cases of person-to-person transmission of swine flu, the CDC said.

I assume there is an investigation underway to determine from whom or what these people contracted the flu. It has initially been reported as an offshoot of the swine flu which developed in China some time ago, but has mutated in Mexico.

It is unlikely that the same mutation could have spontaneously developed in Texas, Kansas and New York. It will be interesting to see what connection, if any these victims had with people or products from Mexico.

Unfortunately for Mexico, this is another reason, along with the criminal insurgency, for people to postpone visits to the country. President Calderon appears to be acting to prevent the spread of the disease.

The San Antonio Express-News says the Texas outbreak was in the Schertz-Ciblo area east of the city. At least one school has closed for the week and students have been told not to mingle. Two of the three students with suspected cases have already recovered. Schertz is pronounced "Shirts." When I worked for the Austin American-Stateman sports department we used to hve fun with headlines about the schools football team when they got defeated. "____ rips Schertz" was one of the favorites. I hope get "taken to the cleaners," in a good way with this current situation, of course.

Fragile Iran fears women

Amir Taheri:

For months, the state-owned media in the Islamic Republic in Iran has been whipping up frenzy about alleged plots to topple the regime. This was supposed to happen through a "velvet revolution," a "Freemason conspiracy," or "soft overthrow."

Last week, that frenzy found a new face: that of Roxana Saberi, a 31-year old former Miss North Dakota who has been in Tehran for years, working on and off as a reporter for Western media. Originally arrested on a charge of lacking a labor permit, she soon was transformed into a Mata Hari figure, a devious "spy" helping the American "Great Satan" undermine the world's first "truly Islamic system" since the Prophet's days in the 7th century. Last week a kangaroo court sentenced her to eight years in Tehran's dreaded Evin Prison.

Saberi is an ideal face for the sinister conspiracy campaign that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regards as essential to ensure his re-election in June.

To start with, Saberi is both an insider and an outsider. Her father is an Iranian who has lived in the United States since the revolution. Her mother is Japanese. She herself was born an American but was recently engaged to marry Iranian filmmaker Bahman Ghobadi.

Saberi is also a reporter, a profession the Islamist regime in Tehran hates. Since the creation of the Islamic Republic, by some counts, more than half of all Iranian journalists have spent some time in prison. According to Shamsul Waezin, himself a pro-regime journalist for years before joining the opposition, going to prison is part of a reporter's ordinary routine.

Next, and perhaps most significantly, Saberi is a woman.

The Khomeinist regime has always regarded women as one of its three worst enemies, the other two being Jews and Americans. The first demonstration against Khomeinism consisted entirely of women, and was held on International Women's Day, March 8, 1979 in Tehran, less than four weeks after the mullahs had seized power. Mrs. Shirin Ebadi, the first Iranian awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, has emerged as one of the most hated figures of the regime's loyal opposition. Since last January, scores of women fighting for women's rights have been arrested and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment.
...
According to the official statistic of the regime, published last week, over 60,000 women are in prison in Iran today, representing almost 10% of all inmates. Of these, some 30,000 are held on charges of anti-Islamic activities and/or violations of the notorious Islamic Dress Code passed by the Islamic Majlis (parliament) in April 2006.
...
"The enemies of Islam hide behind women because they think we will be soft on women," Ejehi said in a speech in Tehran in March 2007. "They are mistaken. We don't forget that the Prophet himself said that where there is woman, there is danger."

What a strange thing for a "prophet" to say. What an even stranger thing for religious bigot control freaks to believe. I am sure that this woman was not a US spy. I think she would not have access to information of value to the US. I do think that the fact that she was from the US and was a woman must of been really scary for such a fragile regime. When you are ruled by a bunch of guys who think a woman's hair puts off "sex rays" that cause men to lose control there is really no telling what else they might believe.

Racial spoils system on trial

George Will:

Wednesday morning, a lawyer defending in the Supreme Court what the city of New Haven, Conn., did to Frank Ricci and 17 other white firemen (including one Hispanic) was not 20 seconds into his argument when Chief Justice John Roberts interrupted to ask: Would it have been lawful if the city had decided to disregard the results of the exam to select firemen for promotion because it selected too many black and too few white candidates?

In 2003, the city gave promotion exams — prepared by a firm specializing in employment tests, and approved, as federal law requires, by independent experts — to 118 candidates, 27 of them black. None of the blacks did well enough to qualify for the 15 immediately available promotions. After a rabble-rousing minister with close ties to the mayor disrupted meetings and warned of dire political consequences if the city promoted persons from the list generated by the exams, the city said: No one will be promoted.
The city called this a “race-neutral” outcome because no group was disadvantaged more than any other. So, New Haven’s idea of equal treatment is to equally deny promotions to those who did not earn them and those, including Ricci, who did.
Ricci may be the rock upon which America’s racial spoils system finally founders. He prepared for the 2003 exams by quitting his second job, buying the more than $1,000 worth of books the city recommended, paying to have them read onto audiotapes (he is dyslexic), taking practice tests and practice interviews. He earned the sixth-highest score on the exam. He and others denied promotions sued, charging violations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law.
...

This system is bad not only because it denies jobs to the more qualified, it also denies the city the best service it can obtain. One of the reasons for this countries exceptional achievements is that the person who is best qualified usually gets the job. No one thinks that slow short white guys should have a quota in the NBA. They want the team the support to excel regardless of its racial composition. We should demand the same from our public servants.

Gitmo closure complicates war funding bill

President Obama's $83.4 billion war-spending bill is headed for an unexpectedly tough time on Capitol Hill, where Republicans are scrutinizing the funding priorities and rank-and-file Democrats want to include performance benchmarks for the Afghanistan mission.
Despite bipartisan support for Mr. Obama's war policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, Republicans are taking a stand against the more than $81 million requested to shut down the prison camp at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell last week railed against the administration's move to close the outpost without a plan to relocate the roughly 240 terrorism suspects now locked up on the island.
"Americans want some assurances that closing Guantanamo won't make them less safe, and for good reason," the Kentucky Republican said. "Guantanamo currently houses some of the most dangerous men alive. These are men who are proud of the innocent lives they've taken and who want to return to terrorism."
He noted that the Defense Department has confirmed that 18 former detainees had returned to the battlefield and at least 40 more are suspected to have rejoined terrorism networks.
...

The decision to close Gitmo was one of Obama's first major screw ups. It could lead to the release of terrorist in the US. There are already reports that the Chinese Uighurs who were being trained by al Qaeda will be released in the Washington, DC area.

The only reason Obama has given for the closure is his perceived PR benefits with people who don't have the same interests in our national security. It is a huge mistake that will make us less safe.

Pakistan begins offensive against Taliban

Reuters/NY Times:

Pakistani security forces launched an offensive on Sunday to stop the Taliban's advances in a troubled northwestern region, the military said.
The operation in the North West Frontier Province came amid growing worries in the United States about the stability of its nuclear-armed ally after militants began extending their clout.
"Intense exchange of fire is going on in Lower Dir," a military spokesman told Reuters.
He said scores of militants, including a commander, and a soldier had been killed in the operation.
A military official said the security forces captured the Lal Qila area from the militants after a fierce battle.
The operation began after militants opened fire on a convoy of paramilitary Frontier Corps in the region, wounding four soldiers.
"Helicopter gunships are pounding militants' positions in the hills. There has been intense fighting. A curfew has been imposed. We are now confined to our houses," Ali Shah who runs a grocery shop in Timergara, the main town of Lower Dir, told Reuters by telephone.
Lower Dir is part of Malakand division where President Asif Ali Zardari reluctantly sanctioned the imposition of Islamic sharia law aimed at ending militant violence.

...

Pakistan's allies want to see a coherent, decisive action by Islamabad against militants, and analysts say Zardari may want to show some steel before talks in Washington with President Barack Obama and his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai on May 6-7.
A militant spokesman in Dir said the government offensive was a violation of the peace pact and they would take revenge for it.
"We know the people who launched this offensive and they are on the top of our hit-list. We will not spare them," militant spokesman Dadullah Mansur said.

...

I will try to get a better handle on the geography of where the fighting is taking place, but it maybe in a part of Swat. Clearly Pakistan needs to have a more coherent strategy and it also needs to destroy the Taliban fighters. Failure to destroy them will lead to a large numbers of deaths and misery for anyone living under the religious control freaks.

CNN has this description of the location of the fighting:

...

This comes as Pakistan's Frontier Corps launched an offensive against suspected militants and their hideouts in Lower Dir, which neighbors the violence-plagued Swat.

The suspected militant hideouts targeted by the military are in Islampura and Lal Qila in Lower Dir. A "heavy exchange of fire" was reported at both Kala Dag and Lal Qila.
There were reports of many Taliban deaths, including an "important local commander." One security force member was killed and four others were wounded, the military said.
...

This puts the fighting near Swat. I will try to get more on the terrain and hopefully find a map of the area.

It is time to finish off terrorist Tigers of Tamil

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, one of the world's most violent terrorist outfits, are surrounded in northern Sri Lanka and about to be destroyed - but Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and European self-styled peacemakers are getting in the way of victory. The meddlers should let Colombo finish off this menace.
In desperation, the Tamil Tigers are using tens of thousands of locals as human shields. The Sri Lankan government declared a cease-fire and called on the Tigers to release their hostages, but unmanned-aerial-vehicle video footage shows the terrorists holding masses of innocents at gunpoint, refusing them freedom. Last week, Mrs. Clinton played into the hands of the terrorists by blaming the Sri Lankan government for the crisis. "The entire world is very disappointed" that they were "causing such untold suffering," she said.
Foreign governments and aid organizations are calling on Colombo to cease operations, fearing that further action will lead to a humanitarian calamity. Norwegian Environment Minister Eric Solheim has been the point man in trying to negotiate a new truce, but he has been denounced by both sides. In response to his unwelcome efforts, the Nation, a Sri Lankan newspaper, editorialized that "the caravan of military operations has to move on. The time has come to tell the salmon-eating international busybodies to mind their own business."
The Sri Lankan government is justifiably confused and angry at the international response to their progress. Sri Lanka has been fighting the Tamil Tigers for over 30 years. The Tigers pioneered the modern use of suicide bombing and have killed thousands of civilians....

...

The defeat of the Tigers is a great event in counterinsurgency warfare. One of the things that has prolonged the bloody conflict is the attempts of others to promote reconciliation rather than defeat of some bad people. The same folds who prolonged the conflict with the reconciliation strategy are now attempting to save the terrorist once again. Sri Lanka should ignore their advice.

On average counterinsurgency operations take about 11 years and they are about 90 percent successful. This one lasted much longer because the government did not have an effective strategy until leaders watched the US go after the insurgents in Iraq. After that the government started winning and has been hard nosed in its efforts. Similar strategic change took place in Colombia after the US helped them with counterinsurgency operations. Pakistan would be wise to accept that kind of help now too.

The Guardian reports that the government has rejected a unilateral ceasefire offer by the Tigers. It is demanding surrender. Good.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

The gangs of McAllen

Reuters:

As violence spirals across the border in Mexico, law enforcement officials on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande Valley in south Texas say they have not seen significant spillover.

But while American border towns have not seen anything remotely approaching the blood-stained carnage of some north Mexican cities where rival drug cartels are in a high-stakes war that killed over 6,000 people last year, criminal street and prison gangs have long been a way of life in south Texas.

And while the links they may have to the Mexican cartels are often murky there are concerns that the drug lords to the south can tap this ready-made criminal infrastructure for a range of nefarious purposes.

In semi-rural Hidalgo County which lies to the north of the Rio Grande River separating Texas and Mexico, Sheriff Guadalupe Trevino reckons that there are about two dozen hardcore gangs operating -- a staggering number for a county with about 750,000 people.

"We have a serious gang problem here and have for a long time ... I believe we have more gangs than any other county on the border," Trevino told Reuters.

The extent of the problem -- the gangs often keep their fighting among themselves -- is hard to comprehend driving past citrus orchards or down the busy roads leading to the border. Some of the towns here are among the safest in the country.

But driving in poor, run-down neighborhoods in an unmarked SUV, heavily armed members of Trevino's elite gang enforcement unit point out gang graffiti scrawled on the sides of ramshackle homes. "Brown Pride" and "Tri-City Bombers" are among the many gangs competing for local turf.
...
"In the United States the local gangs play a major role in the distribution of the drugs brought in from Mexico. In southern California there has been significant cooperation between the drug cartels and the gangs there," said Matthew J. Desarno, acting unit chief of the Safe Streets and Gang Unit at Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters.

"We believe that the gangs in Texas are following that (southern California) model to establish links with the cartels to expand their own business operations ... Gang members will do what is profitable," he told Reuters by phone.
...

These gangs were not active when I lived in San Benito south of McAllen, but that was several decades ago. I am not surprised that they exist now. I am more surprised that they are not more closely coordinated with the criminal insurgents in Mexico. The Mexican insurgents have corrupted several law enforcement officials along the border. I think it would be easier and less dangerous to further corrupt these gang members.

Market manipulation matters in Dem energy scam

Thomas Friedman:

...

Have no doubt, the president is off to a terrific start: His stimulus package will provide an incredible boost for all forms of renewable energy. The energy bill being drafted by House Democrats Henry Waxman and Ed Markey contains unprecedented incentives for energy efficiency and clean-tech innovation. And the ruling from Mr. Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency saying that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that threatens public health was courageous and historic.
But while all of that is hugely important, we must not fool ourselves, as we have done for so many years: Price matters. Without a fixed, long-term, durable price on carbon, none of the Obama clean-tech initiatives will achieve the scale needed to have an impact on climate change or make America the leader it must be in the next great industrial revolution: E.T., or energy technology. At this stage, I’d settle for any carbon price mechanism — cap and trade, fee-bates, carbon tax and/or gasoline tax — as long as it real and provides consumers and investors a long-term incentive to shift to clean cars, appliances and buildings.
Bob Lutz, a vice chairman at General Motors, offers a useful example of why price matters. When Congress demands that Detroit make smaller, lighter, better mileage vehicles, but then refuses to put a higher price on carbon — like with a gasoline tax — so more consumers will want to buy these smaller cars, said Lutz, it is the equivalent of ordering all American shirtmakers to make only size smalls while never asking the American people to go on a diet. You’re not going to sell a lot of size smalls.
Have no doubt: From right-wing tea parties to coal states to manufacturers, there is going to be a no-holds-barred campaign to kill any carbon price signal, including cap and trade. A vast army of lobbyists is already working against it. Only President Obama can blunt this. Only he has the platform for framing and elevating the issue properly and taking it to the American people with the passion and clarity needed to move the country. It will take more than one speech.

...

If the oil companies were trying to manipulate prices like this people like Friedman would be screaming bloody murder. In fact people like Markey and Waxman do just that every time market prices rise on their own. That is because greedy Democrats want to skim the money off the top and give it to people whose products are not as efficient or useful. If they were, there would be no need for these carbon scams.

So they have decided that the way to go is to introduce mechanisms that would get a stock broker thrown in jail if he tried them. Friedman is all for this fraud on the market place. Some of these scams are supposed to provide rebates back to consumers. if they meet the control freak agenda of people like Markey and Waxman. It is part of the left's anti freedom agenda.

Global Warming or climate change as they like to call it now fits neatly in their scheme to control both business and our lives. Personally, I would rather be warm and free than cold and controlled.

100 days and 100 mistakes

The NY Post has the list. It probably is an incomplete list. There are some pretty impressive screw ups so far that should help Republicans to power as voters become more familiar with them.

The polling on his progress is misleading and largely irrelevant. As the dimensions of his screw ups sink in, the polling will change.

US gave Pakistan ultimatum on Taliban aggression

Sunday Times:

AMERICA made clear last week that it would attack Taliban forces in their Swat valley stronghold unless the Pakistan government stopped the militants’ advance towards Islamabad.
A senior Pakistani official said the Obama administration intervened after Taliban forces expanded from Swat into the adjacent district of Buner, 60 miles from the capital.
The Pakistani Taliban’s inroads raised international concern, particularly in Washington, where officials feared that the nuclear-armed country, which is pivotal to the US war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and against Al-Qaeda, was rapidly succumbing to Islamist extremists.
“The implicit threat - if you don’t do it, we may have to - was always there,” said the Pakistani official. He said that under American pressure, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency told the Taliban to withdraw from Buner on Friday.
However, reports yesterday indicated that the Taliban withdrawal was less than total. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people in the district were still at the mercy of armed militants and their restrictive interpretation of Islamic law.
American military and intelligence forces already run limited ground and air operations on Pakistani soil along the border with Afghanistan. But an overt military operation such as that threatened in Swat, away from the border, would mark a major escalation.
The official said last week’s outspoken remarks by Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, were “calculated to ramp up the pressure on Pakistan” to take action. Clinton warned that the terrorists’ advance had created a “mortal threat” to world security.
She was one of several American political and military leaders to use unusually strong language about Pakistan’s failure to curb the Taliban. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who visited Pakistan, said he was “extremely concerned” about the developments and that the situation was “definitely worse” than two weeks ago.
General David Petraeus, of US Central Command, which oversees Afghanistan - to which America is about to commit 17,000 more troops - said Al-Qaeda and Taliban extremists in Pakistan posed an “ever more serious threat to Pakistan’s very existence”.
These remarks have stung Pakistan. Husain Haqqani, the ambassador to Washington, accused the Obama administration of making it harder for his country to fight the Taliban.
...
As in Swat, once his forces had established themselves, Khalil began to impose the movement’s repressive rules on what had once been a peaceful valley. He ordered girls over seven to wear veils and directed men to keep their women inside and to grow beards. He banned music. In several villages the Taliban were snatching mobile phones on the pretext that they had musical ring tones or photos of women on them.
The Taliban stole livestock, took vehicles belonging to government officials and ransacked the offices of some local nongovernment organisations. In a phone call, Khalil denied the Taliban were terrorists. He said: “We’ve raised the arms to spread the message of Allah. This is the responsibility of each and every Muslim.” But residents fear it is just a matter of time before their daughters are forced to marry Taliban commanders, a process that has begun already in Swat, along with public floggings.
...

The Pakistan ambassador to the US seems to think that anti Americanism is a big threat in Pakistan. He should be concerned about anti Talibanism in the US. I don't think the US is going to tolerate the further expansion of the Taliban disease in Pakistan. If Pakistan's people don't like that spread either, then they need to start acting like it including the government.

It appears that the government and the Taliban are back to the old double game of doing the minimum to keep the US from sending in troops. What we need to get across to them is that minimum is going to get much greater.

Taliban execute couple accused of adultery

Sunday Telegraph:

Their deaths were squalid, riddled with bullets in a field near their home by Taliban gunmen as the execution was captured on a mobile telephone.

In footage which is being watched with horror by Pakistanis, the couple try to flee when they realise what is about to happen. But a gunman casually shoots the man and then the woman in the back with a burst of gunfire, leaving them bleeding in the dirt.
Moments later, when others in the execution party shout out that they are still alive, he returns to coldly finish them with a few more rounds.

Their "crime" was an alleged affair in their remote mountain village controlled by militants in an area that was only recently under the government's sway. It was the kind of barbarity that has become increasingly familiar across Pakistan as the Taliban tide has spread.

But this time, with black-turbaned gunmen almost at the gates of Islamabad, the rare footage has shown urban Pakistanis what could now await them.
...

There is a video of the execution at the above link. The Taliban have become the barbarian horde of South East Asia. They are making life miserable for everyone under their domination which is spreading in Pakistan. This is just one of many acts of barbarity from corporal punishment to murder that the Taliban have inflicted. It is the type of brutality that was typical of their rule in Afghanistan and they are now terrorizing Pakistan with it. Unfortunately the government of Pakistan is not as appalled by this conduct as the rest of the world.

Mexican swine flu worries WHO

CNN:

A potentially deadly new strain of the swine flu virus cropped up in more places in the United States and Mexico on Saturday, in what the World Health Organization called "a public health emergency of international concern."

The most recent reports Saturday afternoon were of two confirmed cases of the virus in Kansas -- bringing the number of confirmed U.S. cases to 11.
Those joined nine confirmed cases in Texas and California and an apparent outbreak at a private school in New York City, where officials say eight children likely have the virus.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon on Saturday issued an executive decree detailing emergency powers of the Ministry of Health, according to the president's office.
The order gives the ministry with the authority to isolate sick patients, inspect travelers' luggage and their vehicles and conduct house inspections, the statement said.
The government also has the authority to prevent public gatherings, shut down public venues and regulate air, sea and overland travel.
The WHO's Gregory Hartl said the strain of the virus seen in Mexico -- which may have killed as many as 68 people there, according to that nation's health agency -- is worrisome because it has mutated from older strains.
"Any time that there is a virus which changes ... it means perhaps the immunities the human body has built up to dealing with influenza might not be adjusted well enough to dealing with this new virus," Hartl told CNN.
...
All of the eight U.S. patients in Texas and California have recovered, Dr. Richard Besser, the acting director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Friday. Two of the cases were in Texas, near San Antonio, and six of the cases were in southern California, the CDC said.
...

Flu pandemics usually start in China and spread. What is different about this one is it appears to be a mutant that evolved in Mexico. It would be interesting to know what connection the cases in the US may have had with Mexico. The NY Times is reporting eight possible cases in New York City. It appears that the US cases have so far received effective treatment.

How the Taliban took Buner

Initially, Buner was a hard place for the Taliban to crack. When they attacked a police station in the valley district last year, the resistance was fearless. Local people picked up rifles, pistols and daggers, hunted down the militants and killed six of them.

But it was not to last. In short order this past week the Taliban captured Buner, a strategically vital district just 60 miles northwest of the capital, Islamabad. The militants flooded in by the hundreds, startling Pakistani and American officials with the speed of their advance.
The lesson of Buner, local politicians and residents say, is that the dynamic of the Taliban insurgency, as methodical and slow-building as it has been, can change suddenly, and the tactics used by the Taliban can be replicated elsewhere.
The Taliban took over Buner through both force and guile — awakening sleeping sympathizers, leveraging political allies, pretending at peace talks and then crushing what was left of their opponents, according to the politicians and the residents interviewed.
Though some of the militants have since pulled back, they still command the high points of Buner and have fanned out to districts even closer to the capital.
That Buner fell should be no surprise, local people say. Last fall, the inspector general of police in North-West Frontier Province, Malik Naveed Khan, complained that his officers were being attacked and killed by the hundreds.
Mr. Khan was so desperate — and had been so thoroughly abandoned by the military and the government — that he was relying on citizen posses like the one that stood up to the Taliban last August.
Today, the hopes that those civilian militias inspired are gone, brushed away by the realization that Pakistanis can do little to stem the Taliban advance if their government and military will not help them.

...

There is more.

This is an example of the utter failure of the Pakistan government to protect its people and support those who could help it fight the Taliban. It is a massive failure of comprehension of the needs of a counterinsurgency operation. The laconic reaction to the aggression of the Taliban is hard for an outsider to comprehend. It makes no drama Obama look hyperactive.

The Taliban tactical retreat appears to be just for show to help the government handle the reaction of the US more than to really leave these people alone. The government still has not moved its forces into the area, although it is threatening operations in Swat from whence the Taliban came. Hopefully the troops will perform better this time, but if Pakistan is still keeping its best troops out of the battle, they are making a huge mistake.

'If I am corrupt, it is because I take care of my district.'

So powerful was Representative John P. Murtha at one time that he used to put up billboards in his Western Pennsylvania district declaring that “the P is for Power.” Few in Congress dared disagree: he doled out or withheld billions in federal money each year for lawmakers’ pet projects, better known as earmarks.

Now, however, a string of federal criminal investigations of contractors or lobbyists close to Mr. Murtha, the top Democrat on the defense appropriations subcommittee, are threatening to undermine his backroom clout.
In the weeks since the news that prosecutors had raided the offices of the PMA Group — a lobbying firm founded by a former Murtha associate that became a gateway to his office and his biggest source of campaign money — about two dozen rank-and-file Democrats have risked his wrath by calling for a House ethics investigation of the matter. One Democrat has even foresworn seeking earmarks for the military contractors in his district because of ethical concerns about the process.
In a private meeting with the chairman of the House appropriations committee, Mr. Murtha, the unofficial leader of the “old bulls” who oversee the subcommittees, was forced to accept a series of new restrictions on his authority to grant earmarks, Democratic aides briefed on the meeting said. In previous weeks he had already acquiesced to another steep cut in the volume of earmarks he dispenses, down by half this year from a few years ago. He had also accepted new disclosure requirements, including public hearings, that cramp his ability to cut last-minute deals.
Now Mr. Murtha lost another fight to block a new rule requiring competitive bidding on earmarked contracts. Furthermore, one of his usual lieutenants — Representative Peter J. Visclosky, Democrat of Indiana and member of the defense subcommittee who is chairman of the energy and water panel — unexpectedly switched sides to back the new restrictions, perhaps because he too is under new scrutiny for his ties to the PMA Group.

...

While past presidents often courted Mr. Murtha with phone calls and private meetings, President Obama has extended to him no such courtesies. On a visit to the White House, the lawmaker told senior defense officials that it would be “foolish” and “ridiculous” to cancel all of a $13 billion contract to buy new presidential helicopters, as he later recounted to a defense industry newsletter. But Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has insisted on scrapping the deal as a symbol of waste.

...

Mr. Murtha has continued his spring tradition of summoning military lobbyists to a big-ticket fund-raising breakfast just as he begins to oversee the year’s military spending bill. And he has vowed to continue steering military contracts to his constituents. “If I am corrupt,” he recently told The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “it is because I take care of my district.”

...

There is much more.

Smoke seems to be swirling around all connected to Murtha and his earmark factories. The investigations have made some Democrats gun shy about getting too close to him, but it is probably too late to avoid the taint that will flow from any prosecutions.

Murtha is a long time anti war puke who was diverting spending away from our war efforts to build unneeded businesses in his District. ABC recently did a story on his air port boondoggle. He has also been caught in using Marines involved in action in Iraq as props for his anti war stances. His downfall would be a good thing.

BTW, the military should look at using Osprey aircraft for Marine One presidential transportation. They appear to have the safety bugs worked out and the extra speed and maneuverability would make them an excellent choice.

Pakistan's weakness strategy

Brahma Chellany:

Pakistan has long proven adept at diplomatically levering its weakness into strength. Now it is using the threat of its possible implosion to rake in record-level bilateral and multilateral aid.

Bountiful aid has been pouring in without any requirement that Pakistan address the root cause of its emergence as the epicenter of global terrorism — a jihad culture and military-created terrorist outfits and militias. Even though the scourge of Pakistani terrorism emanates not so much from the Islamist mullahs as from generals who reared the forces of jihad, rewards are being showered on the procreators of terrorism.
The Mumbai terrorist attacks, far from putting Islamabad in the international doghouse, have paradoxically helped open the floodgates of international aid, even if involuntarily. Between 1952 and 2008, Islamabad received over $73 billion as foreign aid, according to Pakistan's Economic Survey.

But in the period since the November 2008 Mumbai strikes, the amount of aid pledged or delivered to Pakistan has totaled a staggering $23.3 billion. This figure excludes China's unpublicized contributions but includes the International Monetary Fund's $7.6-billion bailout package, for whose approval the head of U.S. military's Central Command, Gen. David Petraeus, unusually interceded with the IMF brass.

Just last week, Islamabad secured more than $5 billion in new aid at a donors conference — the first of its kind for Pakistan. At that conference, host Japan and America pledged $1 billion each, while the European Union promised $640 million, Saudi Arabia $700 million, and Iran and the United Arab Emirates $300 million each.

Add to this picture the largest-ever U.S. aid flow for Pakistan that has been unveiled by the Obama administration — $7.5 billion in civilian aid over five years ($1 billion of which was pledged in down payment at the donors conference in Tokyo), some $3 billion in direct military assistance, plus countless millions of dollars in reimbursements to the Pakistani military for battling jihadists, including those it still nurtures and shields.

Despite the glib talk that the new aid would not be open-ended but result-oriented, the Obama administration first announced major new rewards for Pakistan upfront, and then persuaded other bilateral donors to make large contributions, without defining any specific conditions to help create a more moderate Pakistan not wedded to terrorism.
The talk of "no blank checks" and "an audit trail" has proven little more than spin....

...

They are using the strategy because it works. The Palestinians are also masters of the weakness strategy and they pile on victimhood on top of weakness.

Businesses have also been using the weakness strategy to get help from government, but so far, the Obama team has been much tougher on them in the "no blank check" department.

The Obama ideology

Michael Scheuer:

...

Now, in a single week, President Obama has eliminated two-thirds of that successful-but-not-sufficient national defense troika because his personal ideology -- a fair gist of which is "If the world likes us more we are more secure" -- cannot tolerate harsh interrogation techniques, torture or coercive interviews, call them what you will. Surprisingly, Obama now stands alongside Bush as a genuine American Jacobin, both of them seeing the world as they want it to be, not as it is. Whereas Bush saw a world of Muslims yearning to betray their God for Western secularism, Obama gazes upon a globe that he regards as largely carnivore-free and believes that remaining threats can be defused by semantic warfare; just stop saying "War on Terror" and give talks in Turkey and on al-Arabiyah television, for example.

Americans should be clear on what Obama has done. In a breathtaking display of self-righteousness and intellectual arrogance, the president told Americans that his personal beliefs are more important than protecting their country, their homes and their families. The interrogation techniques in question, the president asserted, are a sign that Americans have lost their "moral compass," a compliment similar to Attorney General Eric Holder's identifying them as "moral cowards." Mulling Obama's claim, one can wonder what could be more moral for a president than doing all that is needed to defend America and its citizens? Or, asked another way, is it moral for the president of the United States to abandon intelligence tools that have saved the lives and property of Americans and their allies in favor of his own ideological beliefs?

Before enthroning Obama's personal morality as U.S. defense policy, of course, some dirty work had to be done. Last Sunday, Obama's hit man and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel led the charge by telling the American people that the interrogation techniques are a major recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and its Islamist partners. Well, no, Mr. Emanuel, that is not at all the case. The techniques surely are not popular with our foes and their supporters -- should that be a concern in any event? -- but they do not even make the Islamists' hit parade of anti-U.S. recruiting tools. That list is headed by Washington's support for Arab tyrannies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, its presence on the Arabian Peninsula and its unqualified support for Israel. Still, Emanuel's statement surely sounded plausible to Americans who have received no education about our Islamist enemy's true motivation from Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton or George H.W. Bush.

Next, the president used his personal popularity and the stature of his office to implicitly identify as liars those former senior U.S. officials who know -- not "argue" or "contend" or "assert" but know -- that the interrogation techniques have yielded intelligence essential to the nation's defense. The integrity, intellect and reputations of Judge Michael Mukasey, Gen. Michael V. Hayden and others have now been besmirched by Obama because their realistic worldview and firsthand experience do not mesh with the president's desire to install his personal "moral compass" as the core of U.S. foreign and defense policy. And after visiting CIA headquarters last week, the president made it clear that he rejected statements surely made by CIA officers who risked their careers to tell him how many successful covert operations against al-Qaeda have flowed from interrogation information. As with all Jacobins, Obama cannot allow a hard and often brutal reality -- call it an inconvenient truth -- to impinge on his view of how the world should and must be made to work.
...

Scheuer was in charge of the hunt for bin Laden under Clinton and is obviously no Republican partisan. I think his criticism of Obama is one that will resonate. His criticism of Bush is irrelevant at this point. His point on morality is one that have made often in this controversy. Is it more moral to allow mass murder of Americans or subject terrorist to some discomfort in order to avoid the mass murder?

Who is the enemy Obama?

Gerald Warner:

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.

"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them - or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.

So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.
...

There is more.

While Democrats may find this criticism unfair they should consider the unfairness of the Obama attacks on the decisions of the Bush administration. They should also consider how the revelations that Dick Cheney has called for will effect others opinions of their judgment in opening this debate.

Pakistan army maybe headed to Swat conflict

Bill Roggio:

The Taliban blocked a military convoy from moving into the main town in Swat as rumors swirl that the military will launch an operation in the region over the next two days.

The Taliban surrounded a military convoy as it attempted to enter Mingora, the administrative seat of Swat. The Taliban surrounded the convoy "from all sides," Dawn reported, and forced the military forces to retreat. The military "warned that if such a situation developed again, the armed forces would not hesitate to use force."

The Taliban's move against the military is the latest violation of the ceasefire agreement that put the Taliban in full control of Swat and consolidated their hold of the Malakand Division, an administrative region that encompasses more than one-third of the Northwest Frontier Province and includes the districts of Malakand, Swat, Shangla, Buner, Dir, Chitral, and Kohistan.

The peace agreement, known as the Malakand Accord, was implemented in the Malakand Division in mid-February. The agreement calls for the withdrawal of the Pakistani Army from Swat, the release all Taliban prisoners, the withdrawal of any criminal cases against Taliban leaders and fighters, and the imposition of sharia. President Asif Ali Zardari signed the sharia regulation into law even thought the Taliban killed and kidnapped security personnel and government employees and continue to bear arms and patrol the region.
...
The latest Swat incident comes as the Pakistani military is signaling it plans on launching a new operation against the Taliban. Military officials told Dawn that an operation will be launched against the Swat Taliban in the next two days. The paramilitary Frontier Corps and even some regular Army units are said to be mobilizing for an operation, US intelligence officials toldThe Long War Journal.

Since the summer of 2007, the Pakistani military was defeated in its three offensives designed to oust the Taliban, led by Fazlullah. These defeats prompted the government to promise the implementation of sharia and an end to military operations in exchange for peace.
...
There are other signs the government may move against the Taliban. Military forces are reported to have deployed to the village of Kalpani, Sufi Mohammed's home town in the district of Dir.

"Security forces have started consolidating their positions and military gunships continued flying over the Tehsil [subdivision]," Geo News reported. "The area has been declared sensitive by the government due to increasing cases of kidnapping for ransom and other crimes."

Also, the government removed Malakand division commissioner Syed Mohammad Javed from his post. Javed is a known Taliban sympathizer and is the architect of the Malakand Accord as well as the Taliban advance into Buner. Javed ordered police forces and the tribal militias organized to stand down as the Taliban moved into Buner.
...

People like Javed are one of the big problems Pakistan has in controlling the Taliban. The government needs to find other traitors who are more loyal to the Taliban than the people of Pakistan. If they think that is the same thing then there is something wrong with them.

While it is important for Pakistan to move against the sultans of Swat, it is also important for them to send army units that can and will win. In the past they have sent units that seemed more eager to retreat or surrender. They also need to quit objecting to US training of their troops in counterinsurgency warfare. Perhaps they can get some Iraqi units to come train them. The Iraqis are certainly much better at it than the Pakistani army has demonstrated to date.

Liz Cheney makes case for enhanced interrogation

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Her Dad is not the only Cheney with brains and common sense. I think she has a political future if she chooses to pursue it.

Taliban leave infestation behind in Buner

Reuters:

Taliban fighters remained in a Pakistani valley near the capital on Saturday, but many had pulled out after quitting their main base, officials said.
"They have gone, but left their germs here," Abdul Rasheed Khan, the district's top police officer, told Reuters. "Now we have about 200 local Taliban who can be seen on roadsides."
...
On Friday, guerrilla commander Fazlullah, ordered his men to pull back to the neighboring Swat valley, and his spokesman said around 100 fighters were being withdrawn.

Residents saw Taliban fighters abandoning their main base at Sultan Was village in the Buner valley.

A senior security official said the Taliban should lay down arms, allow the police to carry out their duties and allow new courts, known as qazi courts, to deliver justice according to sharia law.

"If they do not do any of this, the state will decide to go for an operation, and this time the operation will be on a larger scale," he said.
...

It is a major mistake for Pakistan to accept Shari'a Law. This barbaric code from the middle ages has no place in the modern world. It is also a mistake for the government to allow the Taliban to leave their "germs" behind in Buner. The government should be planning operations to destroy the Taliban movement and not to accommodate it. Their failure to do so will only increase the misery of the Pakistani people who must endure teh control reak religious bigots.

Preening is not patriotism or protection

Bill Kristol:

"We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history," President Obama said when he ordered the release of the Justice Department interrogation memos. Actually, no. Not at all. We were attacked on 9/11. We responded to that attack with remarkable restraint in the use of force, respect for civil liberties, and even solicitude for those who might inadvertently be offended, let alone harmed, by our policies. We've fought a war on jihadist terror in a civilized, even legalized, way. Those who have been on the front and rear lines of that war--in the military and the intelligence agencies, at the Justice Department and, yes, in the White House--have much to be proud of. The rest of us, who've been asked to do little, should be grateful.

The dark and painful chapter we have to fear is rather the one President Obama may be ushering in. This would be a chapter in which politicians preen moralistically as they throw patriotic officials, who helped keep this country safe, to the wolves, and in which national leaders posture politically while endangering the nation's security.

The preening is ridiculous, even by the standards of contemporary American politics and American liberalism. Obama fatuously asserts there are no real choices in the real world, just "false choices" that he can magically resolve. He foolishly suggests that even in war we would never have to do anything disagreeable for the sake of our security. He talks baby talk to intelligence officers: "Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes. That's how we learn."
At the same time, Obama throws the door open to years of lawsuits and investigations that will do injustice to those who've served the country and will demoralize those still seeking to do so. As the Washington Post's David Ignatius, no defender of the Bush administration, put it, "Obama seems to think he can have it both ways--authorizing an unprecedented disclosure of CIA operational methods and at the same time galvanizing a clandestine service whose best days, he told them Monday, are 'yet to come.' Life doesn't work that way--even for charismatic politicians. Disclosure of the torture memos may have been necessary, as part of an overdue campaign to change America's image in the world. But nobody should pretend that the disclosures weren't costly to CIA morale and effectiveness."

Meanwhile, Obama's director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, acknowledges to his colleagues in the intelligence community that the coercive interrogation methods outlawed by his boss did, in fact, produce "high value information" and "provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country." But, as part of the attempted infantilization of our public discourse, the DNI's conclusions about the results of coercive interrogations--in effect, that they worked--are removed from the public version of his statement.
...
So we appear to have a director of national intelligence whose moral vanity and political pliability lead him to make unsupported, indeed preposterous, assertions with a straight face. As Michael Hayden, the nonpartisan former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said last weekend, "the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work." Now the Obama administration has forgone those techniques (and denounced their prior use) because it would like to think we don't need them.
...

Obama and his team have put themselves in a situation they cannot win with an honest debate. Between Gen. Hayden and VP Cheney who have seen the evidence it is clear that it was useful and important in protecting lives. Those are lives that Obama and his team are willing to throw away to prevent the discomfort of terrorist. Voters are not going to support the Obama position.

Obama policies compare unfavorably to France

The Hill:

President Obama has created higher deficits and a worse energy situation than exists in France, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said in the Republican address Saturday morning.

"[W]e don’t want to be in the European Union. We’re the United States of America," Alexander said. "But French deficits are lower than ours, and their president has been running around sounding like a Republican -- lecturing our president about spending so much."

Alexander criticized the president for what the Republican said would be a massive tax hike under Obama's cap-and-trade program.

The Tennessee Republican, chairman of the Senate GOP conference, used his party's weekly response to compare Obama's spending and taxation plans unfavorably to those of France, usually a country Republicans love to hate.

"We Republicans didn’t like it when Democrats passed a budget that gave the French bragging rights on deficits," Alexander said. "So we’re not about to let the French also outdo us on electric and gasoline bills, clean air and climate change."

France is a major producer of nuclear power, a source of energy Republicans would like to increase and that Democrats have resisted. Nuclear power provides about 20 percent of American electricity, Alexander said, about a quarter of the amount it provides France.

Alexander's focus on energy comes as Congress prepares to tackle major energy legislation. Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) are crafting legislation that would impose a limit on carbon-based emissions, a so-called "cap-and-trade" system. The measure would be the first of its kind and a source of what Republicans are characterizing as a major tax hike.

...

The cap and trade bill would be a disaster for the US economy. It would drive up the cost of energy so high it would put us in a permanent recession. The cost estimates the Democrats are using are based on the false premise that the US will match France in the production of nuclear energy, about 80 percent of electrical supplies at this time. The Democrats actual oppose growing nuclear energy and they are placing all their bets on wind solar and magic. None of the three are currently competitive.

Petreaus says Pakistan needs to focus on counterinsurgency

Gen. David H. Petraeus warned yesterday that al-Qaeda and Taliban extremists in Pakistan are posing "an ever more serious threat to Pakistan's very existence," and he said that Pakistan's leaders must act to counter the challenge with a well-trained military counterinsurgency force.

Petraeus requested congressional support for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, a new, more-flexible spending stream that would permit more rapid and targeted U.S. training and provide more equipment to Pakistani forces that combat insurgents inside the country's lawless tribal regions.

"The Pakistani military has stepped up operations in parts of the tribal areas. Everyone recognizes, however, that much further work is required, and the events of recent days underscore that point," Petraeus testified before a panel of the House Appropriations Committee.

Specifically, Petraeus said, Pakistan must reconfigure its military forces to deal with counterinsurgency operations rather than to continue its conventional focus on traditional rival India.

The fund Petraeus seeks, with a budget of $400 million for the rest of fiscal 2009, would be channeled directly through U.S. Central Command, which he oversees. This arrangement would give Central Command greater control over how the money is spent, and the military could withhold equipment from Pakistani forces until they complete required training, according to an outline of the program.

The fund would be similar to those used to train and equip Iraqi and Afghan soldiers and police, Petraeus said, and would be tailored to Pakistani forces engaged in counterinsurgency.
...

It is a point I have made often lately and I am glad to see the Centcom commander holding the Pakistan military's responsible. The reluctance of Pakistan to deal with counterinsurgency operations is inexplicable. It is the central danger to the country and the government and army appear to be unconcerned about it.

Democrats end bipartisanship

Mark your calendar: April 21, 2009. That's when the Era of Bipartisanship died.
That's what some Republicans suggested after President Obama opened the possibility of a congressional investigation and prosecution of Justice Department lawyers who authorized "enhanced" interrogation techniques on terror suspects during the Bush administration.
If the coffin needs a final nail, it will come if Democrats decide to fast-track Obama's legislative priorities through a budget maneuver known as "reconciliation."
Democrats in the House and Senate agreed Friday on a budget framework that would protect Obama's health care plan from a Republican filibuster using the tactic.
Republicans and some Democrats oppose reconciliation because it would prevent a long debate on what they consider complex issues.
Bipartisanship was already on life support after Republicans largely opposed the president's economic policies, and it took a turn for the worse on Tuesday when Obama said it would be up to his attorney general to determine whether "those who formulated those legal decisions" behind the interrogation methods should be prosecuted.
Those methods, described in Bush-era memos Obama released last week, included tactics such as slamming detainees against walls and subjecting them to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.
Obama acknowledged the complexities involved with prosecuting Bush officials.
...

Going after the Bush officials would be a huge screw up. It would also be a political mistake with voters who support efforts to stop terrorist attacks even if it leads to discomfort for the terrorist. Republicans will probably respond with efforts to block the Democrat agenda at every turn. They will require the full reading of every bill and use the filibuster more routinely. In the House there will be other efforts to thwart the Democrat agenda. There will be efforts tp highlight the Democrat hypocrisy on the issue if CIA interrogations.

Capt. Phillips and the Pirates

Matt Lauer interviews Capt Phillips about his ordeal with the Somali Pirates:

...

“I was in deep trouble from day one,” Phillips said, but after the attempt “the atmosphere, the body language, yes, things changed from that point on. Yes they did.”
“They keep a gun on you more often?” Lauer asked.
“There was always a gun on me,” he said.
Feeling certain the standoff would end with his death, Phillips thought about his family.
...

There is more.

He gives all the credit to the SEALs and the Navy for his rescue. I think those three shots at the same time that killed the pirates will become part of the SEALs lore.

The waterboarding that saved Los Angeles

Terrence Jeffrey:

"Soon, you will know." That is the ominous statement an uncooperative Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, told his CIA interrogators when they initially asked him - after he had been captured - about additional planned al Qaeda attacks on the United States.
In March 2003, KSM became the third and final terrorist ever waterboarded by the CIA. The other two were Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. So few were waterboarded because the CIA applied very strict criteria in deciding when the technique could be used.
As CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo explained in a 2004 letter to then-Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the CIA would only resort to waterboarding a top al Qaeda leader when the agency had "credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent," "substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack" and "*ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit the information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack."
Mr. Rizzo's letter, as quoted here, was cited in a May 30, 2005, memo to Mr. Rizzo from then-Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury, also of the Office of Legal Counsel.
On Tuesday, the CIA confirmed to me that it stands by assertions credited to the agency in this 2005 memo that subjecting KSM to "enhanced techniques" of interrogation - including waterboarding - caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to stop a planned Sept. 11-style attack on Los Angeles. The previously classified memo was released by President Obama last week.
Before they were waterboarded, neither KSM nor Abu Zubaydah thought Americans had the will to stop al Qaeda, the 2005 Justice Department memo says, citing information from the CIA.
"Both KSM and Zubaydah had 'expressed their belief that the general U.S. population was "weak," lacked resilience and would be unable to "do what was necessary" to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals,' " the memo says. "Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, he resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon, you will know.' "
After he was waterboarded, KSM provided the CIA with information that enabled the U.S. government to close down a terror cell already "tasked" with flying a jet into a building in Los Angeles.
...

Those who think we should not waterboard are willing to accept the destruction of parts of Los Angeles and mass murder on a gigantic scale rather than cause discomfort to terrorist. That, I believe, is an immoral choice on their part. It is heard to look at these facts an think that President Obama and his administration is serious about protecting us from attack if they automatically reject methods that have saved thousands of lives.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Whose got your back at the CIA

Charlie Foxtrot looks at the differences between the analyst at the CIA who were stabbing Bush in the back and those in the operations area that Obama stabbed in the back.

This is a guy you have to root for

USA Today:

...

Meet Michael Oher (pronounced OAR), a 6-5, 309-pound All-America tackle from the University of Mississippi who is the subject of a best-selling book —The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game, which is being turned into a movie — but until a few years ago was legally Michael Williams.

Among 13 siblings from the poorest part of Memphis, he never knew his father, whose murder he learned of months after the fact in high school. His mother, Denise Oher, was addicted to crack cocaine. The kids were scattered about.

Michael attended 11 schools in nine years.If not in a foster home, he lived with friends. He was homeless.

"As I look back on stuff, it's crazy how I got here," he says. "But it didn't seem tough at the time. I just lived day to day, did the best I could."

A turning point came when Tony Henderson, who allowed Michael to crash on his sofa, brought him along when he took his son Steven to enroll at Briarcrest Christian School on the other side of town. Oher ultimately was admitted as a special-needs case.

Another pivotal moment occurred during his first Thanksgiving break, when Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy spotted Oher as they drove past a bus stop near the school. It was snowing. Oher, then 16, was dressed in a T-shirt and shorts.

Sean, then a volunteer assistant basketball coach at the school who had met Oher at the gym, says Leigh Anne grabbed the wheel. Next came a U-turn.

"She cried the second she met him, and it was over," Sean recalls.

The Tuohys took in Oher, allowing him a safety net in their home in upscale East Memphis two blocks from the school. For months he came and went as he pleased, and Leigh Anne worried when he didn't spend the night. They hired a tutor to address severe academic deficiencies, paid his tuition and gave him a wardrobe and other essentials. Sean says the generosity was not the result of any epiphany or even as much as a family meeting.

"We think God sent him to us," Sean says. "Earthly explanations don't make sense."
About a year later, Oher moved in permanently with the wealthy white family. Before Oher's senior year in high school, the Tuohys — with daughter Collins at Briarcrest and a younger son, Sean Jr. — became his legal guardians.

"They've got big hearts," Oher says. "To take somebody from my neighborhood into your house? Nobody does that. I don't think I'd even do that. I'd help you out, but with a daughter and with all the violence and drugs where I come from ... they didn't have to do that. I owe a lot to them."
...
I love you.

Oher surely remembers that statement. It came from Leigh Anne when he was 18, and it was the first time anyone ever uttered those words to him.

When he has kids, Oher says, they will hear it early and often.

This sentimental side he wears like body armor. As much as he aspires to become an NFL star, Oher envisions himself as a family man and supportive dad.

"He has such character and perseverance," says Collins Tuohy, 22, set to graduate from Ole Miss next month. "Obviously, he's changed and matured over the years. But we all do between the ages of 15 and 23."

Collins and Oher have a tight bond. It began when she helped him adjust to Briarcrest. It strengthened as they attended the same college. Oher took Collins to the hospital when she was ill and got the call when there was a flat tire.

"He mentors me; I mentor him," Collins says. "It just depends on the day."

As she prepared to accompany Oher to New York, where he is one of nine prospects invited to draft headquarters, Collins sounded like a typical sister.

"I'm a bit nervous," she said. "I really don't want him trucking off to some faraway place."
...

I will be interested to see where he is drafted on Saturday. It is a remarkable story.

The Pelosi interrogation dance

Michael Ramirez looks at Pelosi dancing around the issue of what she knew and when she knew it when it came to the CIA interrogations she now wants to investigate. For those paying attention at the briefings by the CIA there is little to add as Porter Goss makes clear in the post below. Click on the image for a larger view.

Democrat political amnesia

Porter Goss:

...

A disturbing epidemic of amnesia seems to be plaguing my former colleagues on Capitol Hill. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of the committees charged with overseeing our nation's intelligence services had no higher priority than stopping al-Qaeda. In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA's "High Value Terrorist Program," including the development of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers.

Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.

Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:

-- The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.

-- We understood what the CIA was doing.

-- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.

-- We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.

-- On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.

I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding. And for those who now reveal filed "memorandums for the record" suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately -- to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president's national security adviser -- and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted. And shifted they have.

Circuses are not new in Washington, and I can see preparations being made for tents from the Capitol straight down Pennsylvania Avenue. The CIA has been pulled into the center ring before. The result this time will be the same: a hollowed-out service of diminished capabilities. After Sept. 11, the general outcry was, "Why don't we have better overseas capabilities?" I fear that in the years to come this refrain will be heard again: once a threat -- or God forbid, another successful attack -- captures our attention and sends the pendulum swinging back. There is only one person who can shut down this dangerous show: President Obama.

Unfortunately, much of the damage to our capabilities has already been done. It is certainly not trust that is fostered when intelligence officers are told one day "I have your back" only to learn a day later that a knife is being held to it. After the events of this week, morale at the CIA has been shaken to its foundation.
...

The Democrats are doing great damage to our intelligence capabilities and to their own credibility when it comes to supporting the CIA. Watching Speaker Pelosi's disingenuous claims of a lack of knowledge about how the intelligence was gathered leaves me wondering how much longer Americans will have any confidence in what she says. She was like a weak imitation denying having sex with someone.

While the Democrats may get some political mileage out of this fiasco with their kook MoveOn base, I think the majority of voters will be on the side of the people trying to protect us from the terrorist instead of being on the side trying to protect the terrorist.

Army releases lightweight armor for Afghanistan

The Army has ordered that $3 million in new, lighter combat gear be sent immediately to two battalions preparing for duty in Afghanistan, officials disclosed on Friday.
The decision lifts a hold on the experimental effort that the Army ordered last month, when it halted a shipment of the lighter equipment that was intended for troops already in Afghanistan. The turnabout came after The New York Times reported last Saturday on the decision to halt the shipment and to recall an advance team that had been sent to Afghanistan, and after Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates asked the Army to explain the delay.
“Secretary Gates takes a special interest in all force protection matters,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. “He wanted to know why this latest body armor design had not yet been provided to our soldiers in the field. He asked his staff to get to the bottom of it.”
Army officials had said there was high-level concern that any combat deaths among troops using the lighter-weight gear during the assessment might bring public criticism. They had said that further reviews of the new equipment, and of body armor in particular, were to make certain that the entire set of protective vests, clothing, weapons and tools would be an “integrated system” and not put soldiers at risk during the assessment, to be carried out during combat operations.

...

As I pointed out in a post on the original story the Democrats were responsible for "high-level concern that any combat deaths among troops using the lighter-weight gear during the assessment might bring public criticism." They had been ragging the Bush administration about armor during the Iraq war. The criticism was mostly in bad faith as an excuse to attack Bush, but it had a negative effect on the Army's judgment in dealing with the issue. I think the lighter armor will make the troops more mobile and that will make them safer and more lethal.

$359 million to send National Guard to border

Day, Liebowitz and Pirrong:

The Pentagon and Homeland Security Department are developing contingency plans to send National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexican border under a $350 million initiative that would expand the U.S. military's role in the war on drugs, according to Obama administration officials.

The circumstances under which the troops could be deployed have not been determined, the officials said. They said the proposal was designed to give President Obama additional flexibility to respond to drug-related violence that has threatened to spill into the United States from Mexico and to curb southbound smuggling of cash and weapons.

The initiative, which was tucked into a supplemental budget request sent to Congress this month, has raised concerns over what some U.S. officials perceive as an effort by the Pentagon to increase its counter-narcotics profile through a large pot of money that comes with few visible requirements.

The broadly worded proposal does not mention troop deployments, stipulating only that the military is to receive up to $350 million "for counter-narcotics and other activities . . . on the United States' border with Mexico."

If contingency plans go unactivated, the money will be retained by the Defense Department for general operations and maintenance uses after September 2010, an administration official said.
...

I would use them to put a tight cordon around the area across from Juarez and Tijuana. That is the turf the criminal insurgents are spilling the most blood to control and they are doing so because they are the gateways to two major transportation corridors in the US. If we could control the flow of drugs through those two areas we could do great damage to the criminal insurgents in Mexico.

Taliban still in Buner despite retreat order

Independent:

Despite claims by Taliban leaders that the group had withdrawn from their new foothold in Pakistan's Buner Valley, scores of fighters continued to swagger about in public last night. Long-haired and thickly-bearded young men – wearing skullcaps and bulletproof vests, with grenades attached to their belts and rusty Kalashnikov rifles slung over their shoulders – patrolled the streets.

Police were nowhere to be seen, and the market place had emptied out since the Taliban seized this fresh territory, just 70 miles from the capital Islamabad. Mohammed Kabir's family has been running a shop selling women's clothes, shoes and bangles for the past 50 years. But the Taliban banned all women from the bazaar when they entered Buner. "Now there is no business, nothing," Mr Kabir said.
A few yards away, Lal Muhammad was mourning the fate of his barber's shop. The Taliban allow him to cut hair "but shaving beards is not allowed", he said, adding: "People do not feel safe to come out."
...
Yesterday, the Taliban scaled down their presence in Buner, clearing away checkpoints, but they were warned to pull back completely or face the threat of military action. Pakistan's military chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, said the army would "not allow the militants to dictate terms to the government".
In a mosque in the town of Daggar, negotiations were taking place last night between a local Taliban commander, Maulvi Khalil, and Sufi Mohammed, the hardline cleric that the government has asked to broker an agreement to end hostilities.
Yet even if the Taliban do retreat to Swat, there is no guarantee they will not return. Buner's residents fear the state is in no position to guarantee their safety. Over the past fortnight, they have been forced to look on helplessly as up to 1,000 armed militants poured in, seizing property, attacking security forces, and forcing residents to flee as they imposed their brutal brand of Islam on the area.
...

The Taliban's word is no good when it comes to deals with the government, so no one should assume they will leave or stop enforcing their ridiculous rules at the barbershop and other business. These anti freedom control freaks should be defeated and not appeased. Pakistan needs assert control over its territory or quit pretending it is exercising sovereignty. For some reason sovereignty is a big issue if US special forces are chasing bad guys, but if Taliban control freaks are taking over an area it is no big deal at all.

The Telegraph describes the Taliban move as a tactical retreat with many fading into the woodwork for now.

UK and the retired Gurkhas

Guardian:

Ministers were accused of "an act of treachery" today after rejecting demands for Gurkhas who retired from the army before 1997 to be given an automatic right to settle in the UK.
Campaigners and opposition politicians accused the government of ignoring a high court judgment that said its policy towards the former servicemen should reflect the "historic debt" owed them by the British people.
Gordon Brown said the new policy announced by the Home Office, which officials believe could lead to an extra 4,300 Gurkhas and 6,000 spouses and children being allowed to live in Britain, was "a big advance on where we were before".
There are 26,500 ex-Gurkhas receiving a Ministry of Defence pension in Nepal, and until 2004 they were not allowed to settle in the UK. The ban was lifted for Gurkhas who retired after July 1997, when the brigade HQ left Hong Kong, but soldiers who retired earlier were only given the right to stay in Britain in very exceptional circumstances.
Today, in response to the high court judgment last year that effectively branded the treatment of the older Gurkhas as unlawful, the Home Office issued new guidance on how applications from soldiers who retired before 1997 should be treated. There will be no automatic right to settle in the UK, but Gurkhas who meet certain conditions – such as having a bravery award, or an illness caused by combat – will qualify.
The announcement infuriated the Gurkhas, of whom 1,350 have applied unsuccessfully for settlement. Martin Howe, a solicitor representing many of them, said that fewer than 100 Gurkhas – mainly officers – would qualify under the new rules. "This is nothing less than an act of treachery," he said.
...

The UK is a country that has thousands of Muslim extremist who have migrated there and cannot be removed because of the peculiarities of British and EU laws, yest they seem to have some problem accommodating the desires of some of the bravest troops to ever wear their uniform. It just does not make any sense to exclude people who have done so much for Britian

Professors support concealed carry on campus

Mass public shootings are a horrific feature of modern life. Many of the bloodiest examples of this scourge have occurred on college campuses. As professors, we are particularly sensitive to this danger.

Despite this – no, because of this – we support a bill currently pending in the Texas Legislature that would permit the concealed carrying of firearms on college and university campuses in the state by holders of concealed-handgun permits.
Any public policy involving matters of life and death should be decided only after weighing carefully the competing risks. Examining the relevant facts and data indicates that permitting Texas permit holders to carry weapons on college campuses would improve safety because:

•The best available empirical evidence shows that concealed-carry laws reduce the incidence of mass public shootings.

•Mass public shootings occur almost exclusively in places – like universities – where concealed carry is proscribed.

•There are numerous examples of firearms owners acting to disarm would-be mass murderers, thereby saving lives.

•Concealed-handgun-permit holders are overwhelmingly law-abiding individuals.

If gun bans truly reduced the risk of mass public shootings, then gun-free zones would be refuges from such havoc. Sadly, the exact opposite is true. All multiple-victim public shootings in the United States with more than three fatalities have occurred where concealed handguns are prohibited. Moreover, the worst primary and secondary school shootings have occurred in Europe, despite its draconian gun laws.
...

They give more data to support their position. It is a counter intuitive position, but the fact show that concealed carry laws save lives. The opposition seems to be based on emotion and fear. Has there ever been a case where someone with a concealed carry permit has gone postal?

What is needed in Afghanistan and Pakistan

CNN:

Defeating extremists and stabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan will require a "sustained, substantial commitment," Gen. David Petraeus, the chief of U.S. Central Command, said Friday.

Afghanistan and Pakistan contain "the most pressing transnational extremist threat in the world," he told a House appropriations subcommittee, while expressing confidence that President Obama's strategy constitutes the type of commitment that is needed.
Obama last month announced a new plan for the region, calling for more U.S. troops, greater economic assistance, improved Afghan troop training and added civilian expertise.
Petraeus said Friday that although more military forces are clearly necessary, "they will not by themselves, be sufficient to achieve our objective."
"It is equally important that the civilian requirements for Afghanistan and Pakistan be fully met. To that end, it is essential that the respective civilian elements be provided the resources necessary to implement this strategy," he said, urging Congress to fully fund the State Department, the United States Agency for International Development and the U.S. Interagency Civilian Response Corps.
Building the Afghan security forces will be critical to long-term success, just as it was in Iraq, he said.
Asked if helping Afghanistan become self-sufficient and building up its security forces would move more quickly than it has in Iraq, Petraeus said Afghanistan poses some unique challenges.
"In many respects, Afghanistan represents a more difficult problem set," he said. "It does not have a number of the blessings that Iraq has, in terms of the oil, gas, land of two rivers, the human capital that Iraq built up over the years, the muscle memory of a strong government, albeit one that was corrupted over time."
Afghanistan is landlocked, rural and has a high illiteracy rate, he said.
"These kinds of difficulties make Afghanistan very, very hard. We have seen that and we will continue to see that. That's why, up front, I've said this is going to take sustained, substantial commitment."
...

If the State Department wants to hire a 64 year old lawyer to help them put a non Shari'a legal system in place they should send me an email. I also have vast experience at being a blogger and critic.

I think he has hit on some of the key problems in Afghanistan. The illiteracy is significant. Under the Taliban women were deliberately kept illiterate and many of the men were also illiterate. This has been a problem in just training Afghan troops who cannot read or write.

But the central problem in the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is the religious bigotry of the enemy. That will not be overcome by pretending they are moderate bigots. Most admit they are not moderate anyway.

It appears that much of the Taliban activity so far this Spring has been on the Pakistan side of the border. I think they fear the additional troops the US is bringing in to Afghanistan and think an indirect approach is Pakistan will be more effective. We need to have a contingency operation for clearing our supply lines into Afghanistan through Pakistan.

Levees aren't the answer for New Orleans survival

BBC:

Building bigger, stronger levees in New Orleans will not be enough to save the US city from another Hurricane Katrina, a report has said.
The risks of severe flooding in the city could "never be fully eliminated", said an independent panel of experts.

The report said the authorities should consider raising the level of buildings and even abandoning flood-prone areas.

More than 1,800 people died in the devastating 2005 hurricane, and about 80% of the city was flooded.

New Orleans has about 563 km (350 miles) of barriers, levees and other structures intended to protect the city.

But in August 2005, large sections of this system failed and much of the city was inundated by the storm surges brought by Katrina.

The report, from the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the National Research Council (NRC), said the disaster had exposed the "many weaknesses in the hurricane protection and preparedness systems" for New Orleans and surrounding areas.

It said there had been "undue optimism" about the ability of the protection systems to withstand the impact of a storm on the scale of Katrina.
The report said improvements made to the flood protection system since Katrina had "reduced some vulnerabilities".

But, it said that "the risks of inundation and flooding never can be fully eliminated by protective structures, no matter how large or sturdy those structures may be".

The authors advised that as there can be no absolute protection against storm surges and flooding, the authorities should consider encouraging people to move away from areas at risk.

Where this is not possible, "significant improvements in flood-proofing measures will be essential".

This would include raising the standard height for ground floors of properties, strengthening critical infrastructure such as power and telecommunications and improving evacuation plans.
...

It is too bad this report did not come out before everyone started blaming George Bush for what went wrong in New Orleans. I don't think any of the items listed fit his job description.

I have been saying for some time that it is a mistake to rebuild in areas that are below sea level. They need to rebuild on higher ground or raise the level of areas that would be underwater if the levees fail again.

Voters say Obama damaged national security with release of terror memos

Rasmussen Reports:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) believe the Obama administration’s recent release of CIA memos about the harsh interrogation methods used on terrorism suspects endangers the national security of the United States. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 28% believe the release of the memos helps America’s image abroad.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters now believe the U.S. legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights when national security is at stake. But 21% say the legal system is too concerned about protecting national security. Thirty-three percent (33%) say the balance between the two is about right.
...
Only 28% of U.S. voters think the Obama administration should do any further investigating of how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) are opposed. Democrats are evenly divided over whether further investigation is necessary. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party are against more investigating.

...

I think if Democrats try to push this issue they will see a huge back fire from voters who are more interested in national security than terrorist rights. Law professors and former ones may think that terrorist rights are important, but most voters do not. I think the release of the memos and Obama's vacillation on prosecutions of those responsible for the memos will be seen as a major screw up.

Stem cells without embryos

San Diego Union-Tribune:

A team of scientists led by Scripps Research Institute has pulled ahead in the race to develop embryonic-like stem cells that could be used for patient-specific therapies and models of disease, but that don't require destruction of an embryo.

The Scripps team, led by Sheng Ding, transformed fully formed fibroblast cells – precursors to skin cells – into primitive, embryonic-like stem cells without using any dangerous genes or viruses, a component that hampered previous research. The results appeared online yesterday in the scientific journal Cell Stem Cell.

Once they are embryonic-like, they can be coaxed into becoming many different cell types in the body, much the way human embryonic stem cells – the body's master cells – morph into the more than 200 types of cells in the body. This morphing ability is called pluripotency.

The hope for embryonic and embryonic-like stem cells is that they can be used to study the development and progression of diseases. Many people envision science harnessing the power of these pluripotent cells to create human tissue that can replace cells damaged by diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes.

Although such a therapy is years away, the work by Ding's team is a major improvement to a groundbreaking technique discovered three years ago by a Japanese team led by Shinya Yamanaka that inserted four genes into mature skin cells to convert them to an embryonic-like state.
...

There is much more. I hope the Obama administration will not discriminate against these guys because they did not use human embryos. For some reason they seem to be hung up on a use that many find offensive.

Democrats go squishy on Afghanistan, Pakistan

James Schlesinger and Robert Hirsch:

Congressional Democrats are voicing increased concern about the Obama administration’s plans to escalate military involvement in Afghanistan and to try to stabilize the rapid deterioration in Pakistan, complicating the push by the White House for $83.4 billion in war spending and other aid.

“I’ve got the sinking feeling we are getting sucked into something we will never get out of,” said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts.
The sentiment is increasingly echoed in both the House and the Senate. While it hardly signals that Congress is about to pull the plug on the war — leaders there are confident of a bipartisan vote to approve the administration’s request — it shows that even with a Democrat as commander in chief, his party’s longstanding qualms over the course of the war remain.
Indeed, the Obama administration may have a harder time than the Bush administration in resisting Congressional calls for some kind of strings attached to the spending, whether in the form of measurements for success, or something even more restrictive, if still undefined.
Even Representative David R. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat who as chairman of the Appropriations Committee will have to shepherd the money through the House, said Thursday that he was uncertain what his ultimate position would be.

...

This is one reason why I think Democrats should never be trusted with national security. At best they are wimps. They have a profound ignorance of counterinsurgency warfare and there fore assume that every operations is quagmire city. They tend to overrate our enemies and underrate the ability of our own forces. They were clearly willing to lose the war in Iraq which would have been a wonderful thing for al Qaeda, but a terrible thing for the people of Iraq and the Middle East. These guys need to spend more time with the Counterinsurgency Field Manual and less time talking with MoveOn.

The hidden cost of solar and wind energy

...

Because of this need for full fossil fuel backup, the public will pay a large premium for solar and wind -- paying once for the solar and wind system (made financially feasible through substantial subsidies) and again for the fossil fuel system, which must be kept running at a low level at all times to be able to quickly ramp up in cases of sudden declines in sunshine and wind. Thus, the total cost of such a system includes the cost of the solar and wind machines, their subsidies, and the cost of the full backup power system running in "spinning reserve."

Finally, since solar and wind conditions are most favorable in the Southwest and the center of the country, costly transmission lines will be needed to move that lower-cost solar and wind energy to population centers on the coasts. There must be considerable redundancy in those new transmission lines to guard against damage due to natural disasters and terrorism, leading to considerable additional costs.

The climate change benefits that accrue from solar and wind power with 100 percent fossil fuel backup are associated with the fossil fuels not used at the standby power plants. Because solar and wind have the capacity to deliver only 30 to 40 percent of their full power ratings in even the best locations, they provide a carbon dioxide reduction of less than 30 to 40 percent, considering the fossil fuels needed for the "spinning reserve." That's far less than the 100 percent that many people believe, and it all comes with a high cost premium.
...

They are both overrated, but I think solar is the most overrated at this point. Neither is competitive without the subsidies from governments. They just are not the answer for replacing fossil fuels and the greenies have not come up with any of Obama's magic energy sources that will create "green jobs."

Waxman offers free carbon credits for votes

Washington Examiner:

In exchange for votes to pass a controversial global warming package, Democratic leaders are offering some lawmakers generous emission “allowances” to protect their districts from the economic pain of pollution restrictions.

Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, represents a district with several oil refineries, a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions. He also serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which must approve the global warming plan backed by President Barack Obama.

Green says Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who heads the panel, is trying to entice him into voting for the bill by giving some refineries favorable treatment in the administration’s “cap and trade” system, which is expected to generate hundreds of billions of dollars over the coming years. Under the plan, companies would pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide, but Green and other lawmakers are angling to get a free pass for refineries in their districts.

“We’ve been talking,” Green said, referring to a meeting he had with Waxman on Tuesday night. “To put together a bill that passes, they have to get our votes, and I’m not going to vote for a bill without refinery allowances.”

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the top Republican on the energy panel, said Waxman and others are also dangling allowances for steel and coal-fired power plants to give political cover to Democrats whose districts rely on these companies.

Democrats so far have been unable to get enough support from their own members to pass the bill out of a small global warming subcommittee because most Republicans and many Democrats say the plan will raise energy rates, destroy jobs and increase prices on manufactured goods.

Republicans said Waxman and subcommittee chairman Ed Markey, D-Mass., are calling Democrats into their offices and offering allowances, also called credits, in exchange for votes.

Waxman told The Examiner he was not trading votes for allowances.
...

Waxman's bill would put the US into a permanent depression by driving up the cost of energy. The current recession was caused by the run up of energy prices last year, which was in turn caused by the Democrats' strangling of domestic energy production. Giving away carbon credits to a few districts is not going to stop the depression that will be caused by this legislation.

Kimberley Strassel says the bill is a case of liberal over reach that is being opposed by many Democrats who are not so suicidal on the issue.

The Democrat terror two step

Charles Hurt:

Those dramatic new moves you're seeing to the strains of polka music these days out of Washington are called the Tango with Terrorists.
It's become a favorite among Democrats from President Obama on down who want to be on both sides of every debate about how to protect the United States from terror.

They want to be strong and soft.

Tough and sweet.

Uncompromising and compliant.

As a top aide to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said incredulously yesterday: "What?"

The only thing concrete about how Democrats are fighting this war on terror is that nobody knows.

Led by Obama, Democrats have spastically embraced a pinwheel policy that seems to change by the day and leaves political opponents -- and certainly the terrorists -- scratching their heads.

They want to hunt the terrorists down and kill them in their tracks while treating them respectfully and giving them judicial rights enjoyed by American citizens.

They acknowledge that nasty and aggressive techniques for eliciting information from captured enemy combatants has turned up valuable intelligence but want to ban any of those unpleasant techniques.
...

To the extent that Democrats really want to fight terrorist their policy is incoherent. They would much rather fight Republicans. They are also much better at fighting Republicans than terrorist.

Clinton want support Israel action against Iran without concessions to Palestinians

Progress on establishing a Palestinian state must go "hand-in-hand" with efforts to stem Iranian influence in the Middle East, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday, implicitly rejecting the emerging position of the new Israeli government.

Aides to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said this week that the Israeli government will not move ahead on the core issues of peace talks with the Palestinians until it sees progress in U.S. efforts to stop Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon and limit Tehran's rising influence in the region. Netanyahu, who is skeptical of efforts to create a Palestinian state, plans to visit Washington next month; aides said he was preparing to outline his emerging policy to President Obama.

Asked about those comments during an appearance before a panel of the House Appropriations Committee, Clinton said she did not want to "prejudge the Israeli position until we've had face-to-face talks." But she then cautioned that Israel was unlikely to gain support for thwarting Iran unless there were visible efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood.

"For Israel to get the kind of strong support it's looking for vis-a-vis Iran it can't stay on the sideline with respect to the Palestinian and the peace efforts, that they go hand-in-hand," Clinton said.
...

This is a policy that makes no sense in the real world which is one where the Palestinians have no interest in a deal with Israel. It will require Israel to jump through hoops for nothing. The fact of the matter is that the Palestinians have nothing of value to offer Israel in any deal. The Palestinian Authority has neither the will or the means to stop attacks on Israel and Hamas want even recognize the state of Israel. Why are we ignoring these realities?

I think it is because many other Middle East rulers think a deal is important. The fact is it is not. The only thing that will come out of intense negotiations is more Palestinian attacks on Israel by those who do not want a deal. That is exactly what happened when President Bush sent his envoy Tony Zinni to Israel to try to restart the peace negotiations. His every trip was met with exploding Palestinians engaging in mass murder of Israelis.

The Clinton-Obama policy will waste Palestinian and Israeli lives and give Iran even more leverage to screw up a potential deal while they develop their genocidal polices toward Israel.

'Hegemonic modern human-rights discourse'?

Diana West:

What do Pakistan's Swat Valley and Harvard University have in common?
Their leading Islamic authorities uphold the Shariah (Islamic law) tradition of punishing those who leave Islam with death.
There are differences, of course. For one thing, Shariah actually rules the Swat Valley, while Shariah's traditions, as promulgated by Harvard Muslim chaplain Taha Abdul-Basser, retain a more or less theoretical caste. In a recently publicized e-mail, for example, Mr. Abdul-Basser approvingly explained to a student the traditional Islamic practice of executing converts from Islam.
As the chaplain put it: "There is great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment), and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human-rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand."
Certainly, one should not dismiss Mr. Abdul-Basser out of hand - or the chilling implications of what it means to have a religious leader at Harvard validate the ultimate act of Islamic religious persecution. But dismissing - or, rather, ignoring - this controversy is precisely what Harvard is doing in what appears to be an institutional strategy to make it go away. No one from the public-affairs office I contacted would answer questions or return phone calls. The lady who unguardedly answered the phone at the Harvard Chaplains' office couldn't get off fast enough, offering by way of answers a faxed "On Inquiry Statement" prepared by Mr. Abdul-Basser in which he issued a raft of denials unrelated to the e-mail statements in question.
"I have never called for, advocated or otherwise supported the murder of anyone - ever," he wrote. Nope, he didn't, especially since under Shariah, death for apostasy is not considered "murder."
"I have never expressed the position that individuals who leave Islam ... must be killed." True. Indeed, in the original statement, Mr. Abdul-Basser specified the unworkability of death for apostasy "in our case here in the North/West" because, for one thing, it "can only occur in the domain and under supervision of Muslim governmental authority and can not be performed by nonstate, private actors."
...

Shari'a Law is an abomination that should be condemned and not excused. I think most people fear doing so because they think they might be killed by those who want to impose this abomination on the rest of the world. The control freaks of radical Islam are rarely challenged by people like Abdul-Basser. Nor are they challenged by the political correct leftist at Harvard. That is to their shame.

Cheney as Secretary of Defense of Bush policies

...

In the three months since leaving office, Mr. Cheney has upended the old Washington script for former presidents and vice presidents, using a series of interviews — the first just two weeks after leaving office — to kick off one last campaign, not for elective office, but on behalf of his own legacy. In the process, he has become a vocal leader of the opposition to President Obama, rallying conservatives as they search for leadership and heartening Democrats who see him as the ideal political foil.
Even before Mr. Obama released secret memorandums on the interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration, Mr. Cheney, as part of researching his memoir, had asked the National Archives to declassify two other documents he contends would show that harsh interrogations produced useful information, according to his daughter Liz, who is helping him organize and write the memoir. The documents do not reveal specific tactics, Ms. Cheney said.
When the Obama administration released the memos, Mr. Cheney asked the archives to expedite his request and made a splash this week by announcing it on Fox News in an interview with Sean Hannity.
Former President George W. Bush has said that Mr. Obama “deserves my silence,” but Mr. Cheney, who told Mr. Hannity he has spoken with Mr. Bush just once since leaving office, does not share that view.
“I think he feels compelled to make clear why, particularly related to national security issues, it is so important that we don’t abandon those policies and that we remember the fact that we are at war,” Ms. Cheney said Thursday. “When he sees the current administration making decisions that he believes are making the nation less safe, he does not believe there is any obligation under those circumstances to be silent.”
At a time when his party has no high-profile leaders on Capitol Hill, Mr. Cheney is in effect the ranking Republican speaking out against Mr. Obama. His message has been amplified — on television, in op-ed pieces and elsewhere — by an informal band of supporters, including Ms. Cheney.
Mr. Obama has repeatedly repudiated the Bush administration; in the interviews, Mr. Cheney has hit back. Speaking to Politico in February, he warned of a “high probability” of another terrorist attack. On CNN, he suggested that Mr. Obama was using the economic crisis to justify a big expansion of government. On Fox, he agreed when Mr. Hannity asked if Mr. Obama was “telegraphing weakness.”
To Democrats, Mr. Cheney is the perfect person to remind the nation of all the reasons Republicans were turned out of office. “I think the country has rendered a pretty clear verdict last fall on Cheney and Cheneyism,” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod.

...

That last quoted paragraph tells you much about the dishonest debate the Democrats have been pushing for the last nine years. They don't want to debate the issues. They want to demonize and marginalize individuals. Note that Cheney never makes personal attacks. He attacks judgment and issues and he attacks with facts.

Axelrod on the other hand attacks Cheney personally as Democrats have since Cheney's election. Ever since Newt Gingrich the Democrat playbook has been to demonize any spokesman for Republican ideas. After Newt they did the same thing to President Bush and Cheney.

This low road politics has rarely been challenged by the media or even the Republicans, but it should because it has delivered to the US a left wing government that is incapable of making sound political decisions. They rely on emotion based talking points which are not supported by the facts.

I am glad to see Cheney speaking out and defending policies that helped us defeat a wicked enemy. The problem with the Democrats is that they see Cheney and Bush as the wicked enemy in stead of al Qaeda. They would rather see the people who kept us safe punished than the enemy trying to kill us.

We must speak out about the administrations attempt to return us to the failed policies of the Clinton administration and its lawfare approach to terrorism.

Left wing kook at DOD

President Obama is surrendering national security with a radical appointment at the Defense Department. Rosa Brooks, this month made adviser to Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, will be in a position to do significant damage to U.S. security.
This position is unknown to most outside the Beltway but is at the critical locus of defense policymaking. The undersecretary for policy's office is the nerve center producing most of the Defense Department's strategic documents and governing policies. According to a George W. Bush-era occupant of that office: "If she wanted to write her wacky ideas into policy controlling the entire defense establishment, that would be the place to do it."
A review of Ms. Brooks' published work reveals her hard-left, rabidly ideological positions on defense matters. She regularly referred to Mr. Bush as a war criminal, and argues that Bush-era policies on terrorism - which prevented any major attacks on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001 - made America less secure. Referring to Mr. Bush and former Vice President Richard Cheney, she wrote, "They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment." She has called al Qaeda "little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs" and wrongly predicted that the surge in Iraq was "a feckless plan" that would prove "too little, too late." Putting her in the policy shop "is like Lyndon Johnson making Jane Fonda a senior adviser on Vietnam," the former Pentagon adviser says. She frequently criticizes what she sees as a pro-Israel bias in U.S. policy.
The immediate worry is the influence Ms. Brooks can have on the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review. The review sets strategic priorities for the department. Strategic documents frequently start as consensus documents in which various components independently submit their take on a given issue, then the differences are ironed out. Who holds the pen is critical at the latter stages of this process. Subtle changes in the language - a word changed here or there, a sentence added or deleted - can have dramatic impact.
...

Her appointment raises serious questions about Obama's judgment. She is a Soros plant at the heart of US defense policy. Soros is not a guy who has this nations interest at heart. He is aligned with the left wing hate America crowd as is Brooks.

Taliban pull back to Swat?

Taliban officials, facing a wave of international criticism and intense pleading from the Pakistani government, said Friday they would pull back from northwest Pakistan district they had entered days earlier. But some hardliners vowed not to leave the Buner district until strict Islamic law is introduced there.
The conflicting messages underscored the volatility of the situation in this nuclear-armed nation, where Islamists are consolidating their power in some remote areas and threatening to wrest control of other regions from the secular, democratically elected government.
...

The Taliban in Pakistan have demonstrated that their word is no good. Any pull back is just a tactical retreat that is convenient to the Taliban and the government while resolving nothing. It is still not clear that this government has the stomach to stop these religious bigots who want to impose their weird beliefs on everyone within their reach. That the government would even consider at deal with them that would permit the cruel and unusual punishments of Shari'a Law raises questions about their commitment to the rule of law.

Pelosi's lave excuse on waterboarding

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday said she had no recourse to stop the use of enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding after receiving a classified briefing from the CIA in 2002 - an explanation the top Republican on the House intelligence committee called "the lamest of lame excuses."
As scrutiny over who knew what about the controversial tactics has turned back to Congress, Mrs. Pelosi sought to distance herself from revelations that she and other key Democrats were kept in the loop by the CIA between 2002 and 2006.
"But don't leave anybody with the impression that some of the things that they were doing, that there was something that was tacitly or in any way received approval from us," she said.
Mrs. Pelosi, who was briefed by the agency as the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, suggested that the current system - in which sensitive information is shared chiefly with only the top members of the House and Senate intelligence committees - needs tweaking so that all members of the committees have the same information.
"They don't come in to consult. They come in to notify," she said. "You can't change what they're doing unless you can act as a committee or as a class."
As for charges the lawmakers could have sought to cut off funding if they disapproved of the tactics, she noted that the Appropriations Committee ultimately has that authority.
But Rep. Peter Hoekstra, currently the ranking Republican on the House intelligence panel, described her comments as the "lamest of lame excuses," saying she could have gone to then-Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt to discuss her concerns.
"The minority leader has the same type of clearances that she has," said Mr. Hoekstra, of Michigan. "Guess what - so does the president."
Within the past three years, Mr. Hoekstra said he "can think of at least specifically three or four cases" in which he raised concerns about an issue with Minority Leader John A. Boehner or former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert. In a couple of instances, he was granted an audience with then President Bush.
...

So was Pelosi afraid they would waterboard her? Or was she afraid that her objections would not be politically viable because voters wanted to stop attacks by terrorist? It clearly was the latter. She new that votes would reject a terrorist rights agenda and that Democrats would look weak if they pushed one.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Obama ignores foreign distractions, focuses on politics

Con Coughlin:

The Taliban continues its menacing advance on the Pakistani capital. The Iranian president reiterates his hateful anti-Israeli rhetoric, while Israel's newly elected Right-wing prime minister makes veiled threats about launching military action to prevent a second Holocaust. Yet the only subject that appears to concern Barack Obama is whether or not senior officials from the previous administration should face prosecution for the harsh interrogation techniques used against terror suspects in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
Mr Obama has attracted much international goodwill since he took up residence in the White House – not least in Europe, where his youthful charm and conciliatory approach are seen as a refreshing change from his predecessor's hectoring and arrogant attitude. But even the most propitious honeymoons have to end sometime, and that moment seems to be fast approaching, as Mr Obama finds that his international standing has been weakened by a domestic scandal of his own making.
Mr Obama no doubt believed that by exposing some of the darker secrets from the annals of the Bush administration, he might be able to consolidate his moral authority. Instead, he has found himself mired in a made-for-Washington controversy over waterboarding and other dubious techniques employed by the CIA against al-Qaeda detainees five years ago.
It is not just the damage this unnecessary intervention has inflicted on the CIA's morale that gives cause for concern. Whether a president supports a policy of hard power, as did George W Bush, or one of soft power, which appears to be Mr Obama's preferred option, it is nevertheless important that the White House projects the sense of global leadership that goes with being the world's largest military superpower.
This is particularly true in the current climate, in which there is no shortage of rogue nations and terror groups seeking to challenge America's global hegemony. The dramatic territorial gains made by the Taliban this week in North-West Pakistan, which have brought the radical Islamist group to within 60 miles of the Pakistani capital, is a good example of what happens when there appears to be an absence of strong and decisive leadership in Washington.
...

No doubt the Taliban would rather see Washington tearing itself apart while it gobbles up territory. But Obama can't be distracted by the real world.

Al Qaeda on trial in Houston Federal Court

Houston Chronicle:

The U.S. Army is out, but al-Qaida and other insurgent forces may still be in three lawsuits alleging that KBR knowingly sent civilian contractors into an active Iraq battle zone where some were killed and others injured, a judge ruled today.

U.S. District Judge Gray Miller ruled on KBR’s request that it be allowed to bring both the U.S. Army and insurgents into the lawsuit as responsible parties for the jury to consider in a trial scheduled for 2010.

“The court finds that submitting the Army’s actions in Iraq to a judicial proceeding—even with no liability attached—is beyond the authority and competence of the court,” Miller wrote.

Miller originally threw out all three suits, saying that courts lack the authority to second-guess wartime military decisions. But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed the cases back, ruling it may be possible to try the cases without making a “constitutionally impermissible review of wartime decision-making.”

Miller also ruled Thursday that al-Qaida, the Badr Brigade, cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army may be blamed by KBR as responsible parties, though he cautioned KBR faces further legal hurdles before it can claim the insurgents are responsible for what happened.

The cases center on an April 2004 insurgent attack on a KBR convoy of military supply trucks, which killed six civilian truck drivers and wounded 14. The Army contracts with KBR to provide supplies and other logistical support.

Two workers injured and the family of one killed in the attack allege that KBR told the workers when they were recruited that they’d be kept out of combat areas, but sent the convoy on a route known to be dangerous.
...

I don't think anyone could credibly believe they would not be a combat zone in Iraq during the given period. Supply trucks were an obvious target of an enemy using a logistic strategy. The drivers could not be naive enough to think they were getting the high pay they received and not be in any danger. Even the Green Zone came under attack during this period.

How are the parties going to get service on al Qaeda? Perhaps they can do it by publication, or they may just hand the court papers to the guy just captured in Iraq. The Iraqi government claims he is the head of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Gates warns Pakistan on Taliban moves

BBC:

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has warned Pakistan that relations with the US will be threatened unless Islamabad combats the rise of the Taleban.
His comments echo a warning from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Mrs Clinton said on Wednesday that Pakistan poses a "mortal threat" to the world by abdicating to the Taleban.
...
Speaking at a US military base in North Carolina, from where American marines are about to be deployed to Afghanistan, the US defence chief said some Pakistani leaders recognise the "existential threat" facing the country's government, but needed to act swiftly.
"It is important they not only recognise it [the threat], but take the appropriate actions to deal with it," Mr Gates said.

"The stability and the longevity of democratic government in Pakistan is central to the efforts of the coalition in Afghanistan," he added.

"And it is also central to our future partnership with the government in Islamabad.

The Obama administration is clearly stepping up the pressure on Pakistan's government and security forces to do much more to combat the Taleban, the BBC's Jonathan Beale reports from Washington.
...

I have yet to see any sense of urgency on the part of the Pakistan government in dealing with this threat. The troops they have sent to Buner are inadequate and ill equipped for dealing with the Taliban. There seems to be no answer for why the real army has not been engaged so far. There are several possibilities for why the army is not engaged and none of them are good. The two most obvious reasons is that the government fears ordering them into action for some reason or the army has told the government that it is not going to engage. I can think of no strategic or tactical reason for not having the army drive the Taliban out of Buner and Swat.

Is Yemen keeping Gitmo open?

The Obama administration’s effort to return the largest group of Guantánamo detainees to Yemen, their home country, has stalled, creating a major new hurdle for the president’s plan to close the prison camp in Cuba by next January, American and Yemeni officials say.

“We’re at a complete impasse,” said one American official who is involved in the issue, speaking without authorization. “I don’t know that there’s a viable ‘Plan B.’ ”
The Yemeni government has asked Washington to return its detainees and has said it would need substantial aid to rehabilitate the men. But the Obama administration is increasingly skeptical of Yemen’s ability to provide adequate rehabilitation and security to supervise returned prisoners. In addition, American officials are wary of sending detainees to Yemen because of growing indications of Al Qaeda activity there.
The developments are significant for the Obama administration because the 97 Yemeni detainees make up more than 40 percent of the remaining 241 prisoners. The question of what to do with them “is integral to the process of closing Guantánamo,” said Ken Gude, a scholar at the Center for American Progress who has written about closing the prison camp.

...

There is reason for concern. Many of the Saudi Arabia Top 100 wanted terrorist are hanging out in Yemen and the government has not been willing or able to bring them in. It has a record of releasing those it does bring in. I suspect the Saudis are as concerned with turning these guys loose in Yemen as the more responsible members of the US government are.

What this really points out is what a bad idea it was for Obama to close Gitmo to begin with. It was a PR play done in the vain belief that it would make people like us. I don't think it has or will work and it makes more sense to keep the terrorist in Gitmo than to turn them loose anyway. We can turn them loose after the war is over, if they live that long.

Credit card crisis?

USA Today:

President Obama pledged Thursday to support legislation to protect credit card borrowers from unfair rate increases and abusive fees, and to crack down on issuers who engage in deceptive lending practices.

Obama met Thursday with 14 leading credit card executives to discuss the impact of issuers' practices on consumers and the economy. The President was joined at the White House meeting by economic adviser Lawrence Summers, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett.

The administration said it also wants credit card companies to use clear language in disclosures to consumers, and to provide adequate information so consumers can compare products online.

"I trust that those in the industry who want to act responsibly will engage with us in a constructive fashion, and that we're going to get this done in short order," Obama said after the meeting.
...

I stopped using credit cars over 10 years ago and it has been a wonderful experience. So I have no personal experience with the current problems that the President is discussing, but I do have some speculation why the rate for credit card services have gone up despite the cut in other interest rates.

We are going though a time of economic stress which means people are getting behind on payments are just not paying. In an attempt to stay profitable the companies are raising rate of the customers who are paying. Now why didn't Obama think of that?

Lt. Gen. Austin saved the battle of Basra

Michael O'Hanlon:

...

As you might expect, the offensive was initially a catastrophe. Iraqi police melted away; the newly formed 52nd brigade of the Iraqi army, just out of basic training and without any embedded coalition mentoring teams, got bogged down in serious fighting. It appeared — at the price of being indebted to Iran's Quds force thereafter. Meanwhile "special groups" in Sadr City began their most intense barrage ever of Baghdad's Green Zone, driving embassy personnel from their trailers and back onto cots inside fortified buildings.
American commanders really thought the battle might be lost.
Into this mess stepped Lt. Gen. Austin. Within 48 hours of the start of the battle of Basra, when even the city's airfield was being pounded, Austin flew in from Baghdad. He promptly established a tactical operations center of some 100 people to gather intelligence, direct air strikes and team up with Iraqi units on the scene. He authorized Marines based in Anbar province to deploy southward with the Iraqi units they were advising. He helped Iraqi leaders modify their previously impulsive battle plan. Within about two weeks, the tide had turned because of a battlefield victory rather than a submissive appeal to Tehran.
Things took longer in Sadr City, involving more U.S. ground forces and, subsequently, more American casualties. Block by block, however, Iraqi/American security units cleared the part of Sadr City closest to Baghdad's center and built a huge concrete wall to seal it off from the rest of the militia strongholds (which were later cleared, too). But as I can attest, having visited Baghdad barely a month later, the turnaround was dramatic.
It's not an overstatement to say that these battles provided a make-or-break moment for the U.S.-led surge of troops into Iraq. In the ensuing months, and even today, Gen. Petraeus has been correctly hailed as the man who led our soldiers back from the brink. Yet as operational commander, Lt. Gen. Austin — even more than Petraeus — was responsible for the detailed decisions necessary to pacify Basra and Sadr City. His vision proved crucial.
...

The effort the US put into training the Iraqis paid off, despite poor planning and coordination by Iraqi leaders. It paid off because we had someone like Lt.Gen Austin to step in and provide leadership. Hopefully the Iraqis can develop that type of leadership before Obama pulls all the US forces out.

Obama put politics ahead of national security

Stephen Hayes:

Porter Goss, former CIA Director and past chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, blasted the Obama administration for releasing Justice Department memos on harsh interrogation techniques. “For the first time in my experience we’ve crossed the red line of properly protecting our national security in order to gain partisan political advantage,” Goss said in an interview.

Goss, a former CIA operative, has made few public comments since leaving his post as DCI in September 2006. In December 2007, he told a Washington Post reporter that members of Congress had been fully briefed on the CIA’s special interrogation program. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” Goss told the Post. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”

In a letter to his intelligence community colleagues last Thursday, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair described those briefings. “From 2002 through 2006 when the use of these techniques ended, the leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to Executive Branch policymakers and to members of Congress, and received permission to continue to use the techniques.”

That passage from Blair’s letter – along with another confirming that the interrogations produced “high-value information” that provided a “deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization attacking this country” – was dropped when language from the letter was released publicly. A spokesman for Blair attributed to the omission to normal editing procedures.
...

There is more about putting political operatives out to defend the disclosures rather than intelligence professionals. The evidence continues to build against this political use of intelligence operations. It is also building against the hypocrisy of members of Congress who knew the truth all along and now act like they are shocked.

Al Qaeda run out of Afghanistan too

Strategy Page:

The Afghan government believes that al Qaeda is not present in Afghanistan in any significant numbers. Foreign military commanders, often advised by U.S. Army Special Forces operators who have been working in the country since late 2001, tend to agree. Al Qaeda's problem in Afghanistan is that they are greatly disliked. This all goes back to the early 1990s.
Back then, the Taliban were out to establish a religious dictatorship in Afghanistan . The one flaw in this plan was that the Taliban enforced Islam as interpreted by a few the Pushtun tribes in southern Afghanistan. The Pushtuns were only 40 percent of the population, and the Pushtun tribes the Taliban came from, were a fraction of that. Resentment began to build so that by the late 1990s most Afghans hated the Taliban. In addition, non-Pushtuns in northern Afghanistan (the Northern Alliance) continued fighting the Taliban. Fortunately for the Taliban, they had given Osama bin Laden, and his al Qaeda organization, sanctuary in 1994. Bin Laden arrived as the Taliban were still in the process of fighting for control of most of Afghanistan. From the beginning, al Qaeda provided the Taliban with technical support, and gunmen who were more ruthless and deadly than your average Afghan warrior. By the late 1990s, the al Qaeda brigade was a principal means of enforcing Taliban rule in many parts of the country.
But for seven years, al Qaeda had a place to set up shop. This included training camps, support activities and a safe place for terrorists to rest up between missions. The training camps were out in the hills, but many senior al Qaeda officials hung out in Kabul and other cities.
By the late 1990s, the Taliban were becoming increasingly unpopular because, basically, the Taliban represented the religiously conservative Pushtun tribes of southern Afghanistan. Unlike previous Afghan governments, the Taliban were not interested in working out deals. You did things their way, or they sent their brigade of al Qaeda gunmen to straighten you out. The use of the foreigners as enforcers was the last straw for most Afghans. The al Qaeda brigade was composed mostly of foreigners (mainly Arabs). The Arabs were contemptuous of the Afghans, whom they viewed as a bunch of ignorant country bumpkins, and the Afghans picked up on this.
...

Is this about the hatred of foreigners? Why would they tolerate the same abuse from the Taliban. The same question needs to be asked about the current situation in Pakistan. It appears that the Taliban and al Qaeda have largely retreated from Afghanistan with the announcement of increased US forces much as they did in Iraq. They are now concentrating in Pakistan and the government of Pakistan has been rather inept in dealing with them.

What Pakistan needs to do is let the US and NATO forces help them fight a common enemy. Their reluctance to do so makes less and less sense as more of their territory is overrun by the enemy.

Taliban pushing past Buner toward Islamabad

Bill Roggio:

The Taliban are pushing past the districts of Swat and Buner and are threatening Islamabad, a senior Islamist member of parliament said at a briefing.

The Taliban have consolidated control over the district of Buner and are moving on Mansehra and Haripur. These two regions, which are just on the outskirts of Islamabad and Rawalpindi, have been relatively spared from the violent Taliban insurgency that has plagued the Northwest.

The Taliban have entered the district of Mansehra and are threatening to take of the Tarbela Dam in neighboring Haripur district, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the chief of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Fazl, an Islamist political party said during a debate in parliament.

"If the Taliban continue to move at this pace, they will soon be knocking at the doors of Islamabad as the Margala Hills seem to be the only hurdle in their march towards the federal capital," Fazl said, according to a report in The News. "After occupying Buner, they have reached Kala Dhaka and may also be taking over the water reservoir of the Tarbela Dam."

Pakistan has reportedly rushed paramilitary forces into Buner today, but some units were attacked by the Taliban stationed there. Six platoons of Frontier Constabulary forces were sent into Buner to secure government buildings. One policeman was reported killed after the Taliban ambushed a convoy, The Associated Press reported. The military claimed the Taliban only control 25 percent of Buner, but Taliban fighters have been reported in all of the major regions in the district.
...

There is more.

The forces the Pakistani government has sent to Buner are clearly inadequate in numbers and capability to the challenge of removing the Taliban. A few hundred Frontier Corps troops will have trouble defending themselves much less the people of Buner. They very likely will be captured or surrender to the Taliban. That has been their history in previous conflicts with the Taliban. The Pakistan army needs to send its best troops to deal with this problem and it needs to do it quickly.

Update: The NY Times confirms much of what is in this post.

It appears to me that the Taliban Spring Offensive is in Pakistan this year and not in Afghanistan where we are sending our additional troops. Al Qaeda and the Taliban appear to be making an all out effort in Pakistan which has resisted US assistance in fighting them. What is really troubling is the lack of reaction on the part of the Pakistan army. I have seen no explanation for them staying away from the fight. Their inaction is bad news for the government.

Obama's poisonous politics

Opinion Journal:

Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that he and the country will live to regret.

Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama's victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.

If this analogy seems excessive, consider how Mr. Obama has framed the issue. He has absolved CIA operatives of any legal jeopardy, no doubt because his intelligence advisers told him how damaging that would be to CIA morale when Mr. Obama needs the agency to protect the country. But he has pointedly invited investigations against Republican legal advisers who offered their best advice at the request of CIA officials.
...

As I point out in post below, Clinton administration policies enacted by Jaime Gorelick and Janet Reno led to our inability to discover the 9-11 plot which resulted in thousands of our citizens being murdered. The Bush administration policies under attack led to the discomfort of some terrorist and the failure of their plots to engage in more mass murder. Which is the more morally reprehensible?

The pardon my predecessors tour

Karl Rove:

President Barack Obama has finished the second leg of his international confession tour. In less than 100 days, he has apologized on three continents for what he views as the sins of America and his predecessors.

Mr. Obama told the French (the French!) that America "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe. In Prague, he said America has "a moral responsibility to act" on arms control because only the U.S. had "used a nuclear weapon." In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy" -- as if that were a bad thing. And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors" because we "failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas."

By confessing our nation's sins, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that Mr. Obama has "changed the image of America around the world" and made the U.S. "safer and stronger." As evidence, Mr. Gibbs pointed to the absence of protesters during the Summit of the Americas this past weekend.

That's now the test of success? Anti-American protesters are a remarkably unreliable indicator of a president's wisdom. Ronald Reagan drew hundreds of thousands of protesters by deploying Pershing and cruise missiles in Europe. Those missiles helped win the Cold War.

There is something ungracious in Mr. Obama criticizing his predecessors, including most recently John F. Kennedy. ("I'm grateful that President [Daniel] Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old," Mr. Obama said after the Nicaraguan delivered a 52-minute anti-American tirade that touched on the Bay of Pigs.) Mr. Obama acts as if no past president -- except maybe Abraham Lincoln -- possesses his wisdom.

Mr. Obama was asked in Europe if he believes in American exceptionalism. He said he did -- in the same way that "the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks in Greek exceptionalism." That's another way of saying, "No."

Mr. Obama makes it seem as though there is moral equivalence between America and its adversaries and assumes that if he confesses America's sins, other nations will confess theirs and change. But he won no confessions (let alone change) from the leaders of Venezuela, Nicaragua or Russia. He apologized for America and our adversaries rejoiced. Fidel Castro isn't easing up on Cuban repression, but he is preparing to take advantage of Mr. Obama's policy shifts.
...
Mr. Obama is downplaying the threats we face. He takes comfort in thinking that Venezuela has a defense budget that "is probably 1/600th" of America's -- it's actually 1/215th -- but that hasn't kept Mr. Chávez from supporting narcoterrorists waging war on Colombia (a key U.S. ally) or giving petrodollars to anti-American regimes. Venezuela isn't likely to attack the U.S., but it is capable of harming American interests.
...

President Obama clearly does not understand the asymmetrical nature of the threat that we face. Al Qaeda's spending is probably less than Venezuela, but they have cost enormous damage as well as the expenditure of enormous amounts to defeat them.

What Rove reveals is that Obama is failing in one of his fundamental jobs as President. Obama is just not a good president at this point.

Republicans try to block Gitmo Closing

NCT:

A group of Republican lawmakers wants to block the Obama administration from getting $80 million to close the detainee prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and relocate terror suspects to U.S. soil.

The effort led by Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-El Cajon, has the backing of at least 17 other GOP lawmakers, including North County Reps. Brian Bilbray, R-Solana Beach, and Darrell Issa, R-Vista.

In a letter being delivered to the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday, the lawmakers say spending any money to close the prison absent any congressional hearings is wrong.

The lawmakers also object to any of the detainees being transferred to U.S. military bases such as Camp Pendleton north of Oceanside and Miramar Marine Corps Air Station in north San Diego.

"Our gravest concern with providing this funding is the lack of a clear and comprehensive strategy for the closure and the relocation," the lawmakers say in their letter.

"If the administration is serious about closing Guantanamo Bay without jeopardizing our security, then the administration needs to work directly with Congress to create a detention process that keeps detainees off U.S. soil."

Hunter, Issa and Bilbray also have introduced a bill that would prevent the transfer of any detainees to Camp Pendleton or Miramar and forbid using federal funds to enhance detention facilities on those bases to house terror suspects.

...

I think these guys will be more successful in making a political point than actually stopping the Democrats' bad policy on detention of enemy combatants. The Democrats are wrong to want to close Gitmo and they will endanger our national security in the process. It is idiotic to suggest that the detention facility endangers our security because a bunch of terrorist rights wackos in Europe and elsewhere don't like it.

Pakistan responds to Taliban in Buner

Pakistani authorities on Thursday deployed special constabulary forces to a strategically important district only 70 miles from the capital, Islamabad, that has come under the effective control of the Taliban in the last several days, police and residents said.

Four platoons of the Frontier Constabulary, a paramilitary police force, moved into the district at the request of the civilian commissioner of the area on Thursday, following four platoons that arrived Wednesday. At least one officer was killed and another seriously wounded in a clash with Taliban militants during the deployment, police said.
The fall of the district, Buner, did not mean that the Taliban could imminently threaten Islamabad. But it was another indication of the gathering strength of the insurgency and it raised new alarm about the ability of the government to fend off an unrelenting Taliban advance toward the heart of Pakistan.
Buner, home to about one million people, is a gateway to a major Pakistani city, Mardan, the second largest in North-West Frontier Province, after Peshawar. The deploying platoons, each with about 40 officers, will be used to increase the Pakistani security presence in the region, but the poorly paid, poorly trained force was not expected to immediately challenge the Taliban militants, who, armed, with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, have erected checkpoints and intimidated local police, residents said, forcing them into their stations.
“They take over Buner, then they roll into Mardan and that’s the end of the game,” a senior law enforcement official in North-West Frontier Province said. He asked that his name be withheld because was not authorized to speak to the news media.

...

This seems like a very weak response. The forces that were sent in are not very strong and the numbers sent are obviously inadequate to control the space in the face of a Taliban insurgency. It appears to be another halfhearted effort on the part of a weak government. Pakistan is going to have to do much more and soon. It needs to pull its troops from the India Kashmir border area and put them where the real threat to its existence lies.

3rd paternity challenge for Paraguay President

The clamor over Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo's behavior is getting louder, one crying baby at a time.

For the third time in less than a month, a woman came forward yesterday saying that Lugo, a former Roman Catholic bishop, is the father of her child.

A single secret out-of-wedlock child by any president would make headlines. But in this heavily Roman Catholic country, the revelations about a man who had sworn chastity vows as a priest has stirred deeper concerns that some say could have serious repercussions for his government.
...
Lugo's admission of paternity has prompted widespread discussions not only about his loyalty to his vows to the Catholic Church but also about his credibility on other matters. During the campaign, he did not admit to having children.
...

He appears to be chastity challenged. He also appears to be a man more interested in spreading his sperm than in looking for a lasting relationship. He looks like just another left winger who thinks the rules are for others.

McClatchy has more on the chastity challenged former priest.

Al Qaeda in Iraq leader arrested?

CBS News reports that Iraqi officials make that claim. It is one they have made many times before, and so far CBS has not been able to confirm it.

All the enemy has to fear is ...

From Debra Saunders:

U.S. Foes Have Only Bad Lawyering to Fear

She points out the results of the Obama's return to the failed lawfare policies of the past. He seems to forget that lawfare failed to stop 9-11.

Here is another question for the Democrats. Should Jamie Gorelick and Janet Reno be prosecuted for setting up the wall that prevented intelligence sharing that could have stopped 9-11? That policy led to thousands of innocent Americans being murdered. The Bush administration's policy on interrogation led to the temporary discomfort of some terrorist.

Tortured debate

Cliff May:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind behind the terrorist atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001. If U.S. intelligence operatives had spotted him in a remote area of Pakistan and killed him with a Predator missile, most people would have said: “That’s justice.”

Instead, of course, KSM was captured in an urban area of Pakistan by U.S. intelligence operatives who then interrogated him — including through use of the technique known as waterboarding — thereby leaving him alive and eliciting from him information about other terrorist plots in which innocent Americans had been targeted. Why are so many people insisting that’s an injustice, a scandal, and a crime for which intelligence operatives and former government officials ought to be prosecuted?

During a time of asymmetrical war, such questions deserve serious debate. But the current administration doesn’t appear to have the patience, and most of those in the mainstream media don’t seem to have the interest.

...

On the same day those memos were released, Obama’s national intelligence director, Adm. Dennis Blair, told colleagues in a private memo that the now-banned EITs did indeed “produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.”

Over the weekend, the Washington Post ran a front-page piece on “ethicists” alleging that psychologists and physicians who supervised CIA interrogations “broke the law and shame the bedrock ethical traditions of medicine and psychology.”

Left unexamined was the likelihood that these health professionals — who had been tasked with ensuring that interrogations did not cross reasonable legal, medical, and ethical boundaries— judged that the interrogations did not reach the point that they would “shock the conscience” which, as former CIA director Michael Hayden told Fox News’s Chris Wallace, is the “American standard” for torture. Hayden added: “You have to know the totality of circumstances in which something takes place before you can judge whether or not it shocks the conscience.”

Among the released memos is one from then-assistant attorney general Jay Bybee emphasizing that waterboarding “will be stopped if deemed medically necessary to prevent severe mental or physical harm.” Another memo makes clear that supervising physicians were empowered to stop interrogations “if in their professional judgment the detainee may suffer severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” What’s severe? Again, circumstances matter and judgments may differ. Attempting to criminalize such differences is appallingly unethical — not least when done by people who call themselves “ethicists.”

Former Justice Department attorney David Rivkin has pointed out that the EITs described in the memos had been adapted from a U.S. military training program “used for years on thousands of American service members with the full knowledge of Congress.” That meant also that there was a large body of information on which to draw regarding both the effectiveness and the physical/psychological impact of the techniques.

What’s more, extraordinary measures were taken to protect even the vilest subjects. Al-Qaeda terrorist Abu Zubaydah was slammed against only a flexible wall, with cushioning around his neck to prevent neck injury. In the end, he provided the intelligence used to capture KSM who in turn “yielded critical information” — according to one of the released memos — that helped foil additional terrorist plots including a “Second Wave” with Los Angeles as the target.

Terrorists are not criminal defendants with a “right to remain silent.” They are not prisoners of war obligated only to recite only name, rank, and serial number. They are “not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention.” Those are the words of Eric Holder, Obama’s attorney general (on CNN, January 2002) who added that had Mohamed Atta “survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.”

...

Obama has made a mess here that cannot be cleaned up with another speech. It can't be cleaned up with a speech at the CIA. He has shown consistenetly poor judgment on the subject and his fellow Democrats in Congress have shown even worse judgment.

They may think that people in the push administration chose policies they disagree with. But when you compare the policies chosen by Jamie Gorelick and Janet Reno that set up the wall that prevented intelligence from being shared that could have stopped the 9-11 attack would they want to see prosecutions for those policies.

The results of the two different policies are stark. The Gorelick-Reno policies led to thousands of Americans being murdered. The results of the bush administration's policies led to the discomfort of some terrorist and the prevention of the mass murder the terrorist intended.

Congress knew

Peter Hoekstra:

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair got it right last week when he noted how easy it is to condemn the enhanced interrogation program "on a bright sunny day in April 2009." Reactions to this former CIA program, which was used against senior al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003, are demonstrating how little President Barack Obama and some Democratic members of Congress understand the dire threats to our nation.

George Tenet, who served as CIA director under Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, believes the enhanced interrogations program saved lives. He told CBS's "60 Minutes" in April 2007: "I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us."

Last week, Mr. Blair made a similar statement in an internal memo to his staff when he wrote that "[h]igh value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country."

Yet last week Mr. Obama overruled the advice of his CIA director, Leon Panetta, and four prior CIA directors by releasing the details of the enhanced interrogation program. Former CIA director Michael Hayden has stated clearly that declassifying the memos will make it more difficult for the CIA to defend the nation.

It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.

Last week, Mr. Obama argued that those who implemented this program should not be prosecuted -- even though the release of the memos still places many individuals at other forms of unfair legal risk. It appeared that Mr. Obama understood it would be unfair to prosecute U.S. government employees for carrying out a policy that had been fully vetted and approved by the executive branch and Congress. The president explained this decision with these gracious words: "nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past." I agreed.

Unfortunately, on April 21, Mr. Obama backtracked and opened the door to possible prosecution of Justice Department attorneys who provided legal advice with respect to the enhanced interrogations program. The president also signaled that he may support some kind of independent inquiry into the program. It seems that he has capitulated to left-wing groups and some in Congress who are demanding show trials over this program.

Members of Congress calling for an investigation of the enhanced interrogation program should remember that such an investigation can't be a selective review of information, or solely focus on the lawyers who wrote the memos, or the low-level employees who carried out this program. I have asked Mr. Blair to provide me with a list of the dates, locations and names of all members of Congress who attended briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques.

Any investigation must include this information as part of a review of those in Congress and the Bush administration who reviewed and supported this program. To get a complete picture of the enhanced interrogation program, a fair investigation will also require that the Obama administration release the memos requested by former Vice President Dick Cheney on the successes of this program.
...

This witch hunt is going to backfire big time on the liberals in congress who are pushing it. Their buddies at MoveOn, who refuse to MoveOn, on this issue will not be able to help them when the back draft begins. Will they be willing to prosecute Nancy Pelosi too?

Looking for love, Obama looks weak

Ed Rollins:

Like so many politicians I have known, the man we elected president wants to be loved. He wants to be loved passionately and daily by the 69 million who voted for him and even some of the 60 million who voted for John McCain.
He wants to be loved by the Democrats on the Hill and even the Republicans who have still not given him any love.
He wants to be loved by the Europeans who have made a career out of badmouthing U.S. presidents and their policies.
The real example of searching for love in all the wrong places was last week's lovefest south of the border when, in effect, he appeared to be hugging Castro, Ortega and Chavez who have spent their lives fighting everything the United States stands for.
The problem, President Obama will find out as time goes on, is that he is not a rock star or a celebrity. He is certainly famous, and for the foreseeable future everyone will want to see him, touch him and hear him. But the job of president is about making choices. And right now he has the toughest job in the world at one of the toughest times in U.S. history. Every time he makes a choice, he will make the losing side mad.
This last week was the best example. The president decided, as he promised in the campaign, that he would ban torture -- a decision I agree with but many don't. Then he decided to release four Bush-era Justice Department memos that gave legal guidelines to the executive branch on "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Many wanted these documents released, and the president, after a month-long internal debate, gave them up. At the same time he said he had no intention of prosecuting the drafters of those memos or anyone else in a federal agency, mainly the CIA, who followed those guidelines.
The Right went nuts over the release of the documents. The CIA felt betrayed. The Left went nuts over the contents of the memos and pressed to have the authors -- high Justice Department officials in the Bush administration -- prosecuted, investigated and maybe even tortured! The president went to the CIA and gave them a cheerleading speech.
The next day he reversed himself and said it's up to Attorney General Eric Holder and the Congress to determine if any laws were violated by the former officials.
He waffled big time. Now all sides are mad at him and he looks weak. Weakness is the death knell for a president. With 1,366 days to go before this term is up, Obama's got to get tougher or he will be viewed as a personality who reads well from a teleprompter.
...
We were playing under a new set of rules and in a way making it up as we went along. What I am trying to say is the CIA doesn't need to be handcuffed again or demoralized. It needs to know its mission.
...
Releasing the Justice memos opened a door and the contents repulsed many people. But these were not evil men who drafted the memos. These were not evil people who carried out the methods authorized by them. They were our fellow citizens who were trying to protect us from the real evildoers.
...

Rollins gets to the essence of the anger at Obama, at least on the right. The left is looking to prosecute the people that were trying their best to defend us. In the jury of public opinion the moral preening on the left is going to be a loser if a witch hunt is pursued.

Left would prosecute the patriots

Ralph Peters:

WITH the ugly sanctimony of those who never had to make hard decisions, the American left demands show trials of those who kept us safe after 9/11. Wrapping themselves in repugnant self-righteousness, the MoveOn.org set wants political prosecutions. Should President Obama acquiesce, he won't be furthering the rule of law, but dismantling it.

Show trials have long been popular with leftists. Those who don't conform to each jot of doctrine become "enemies of the people." From Stalin down to Putin, and from Mao to Castro, vengeance disguised as law has been a mega-hit.

Those on the left don't want justice. If they did, they'd be protesting the murderous torture prevalent in Iran, the Gaza Strip, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and Russia. Instead, our leftists want us to show the leaders of those terror states more respect.

The left is out for revenge. It always is. Hatred of those who think differently is the left's unifying principle. Leftists don't need God, but they see devils everywhere.

When President-for-Life Hugo Chavez called President George W. Bush "el Diablo," our leftists agreed. Hatred of the last administration grew so irrational that any terrorist, no matter how monstrous, became no more than a victim of Bush-Cheney.

Now the left wants an Inquisition for heretics who failed to share its worldview. Men and women who, in their capacity as public servants, wrestled with difficult legal issues in the course of our battle with terrorists are now to be tried and shamed because the left disagreed with their legal opinions and actions. No matter that most Americans wouldn't view the methods of our interrogators as torture when applied to hardened terrorists (despite the media's ceaseless effort to convince us otherwise). No matter that foreign leaders championed by the left use vastly more brutal techniques.
...
... This is purely about political differences. During the Bush administration, leftists warned repeatedly that actions they didn't like put our country on a "slippery slope." Well, once we initiate show trials of government officials who did their best to protect us, we'll have skipped the slippery slope and leapt to the bottom.
...
If the Obama administration fails to keep us safe and our citizens are attacked at home or abroad, shall we then prosecute those who dismantled our safeguards and gutted our intelligence effort?
...
The left has nothing against torture. It just wants to choose the victims.
...

This is just the beginning of the criticism that the left will face in these show trials they want. What they are going to find is that voters are more interested in stopping the terrorist than giving them lawyers to thwart our defenses. I think the left is going to find itself on the defensive over this issue before the enemies next attack.

What we got from interrogations

Even the most exacting truth commission may have a hard time determining for certain whether brutal interrogations conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency helped keep the country safe.

Last week’s release of long-secret Justice Department interrogation memorandums has given rise to starkly opposing narratives about what, if anything, was gained by the C.I.A.’s use of waterboarding, wall-slamming and other physical pressure to shock and intimidate Qaeda operatives.
Senior Bush administration officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney and cheered by many Congressional Republicans, are fighting a rear-guard action in defense of their record. Only by using the harshest methods, they insist, did the intelligence agency get the information it needed to round up Qaeda killers and save thousands of American lives.
Even President Obama’s new director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, wrote in a memorandum to his staff last week that “high value information came from interrogations in which these methods were used,” an assertion left out when the memorandum was edited for public release. By contrast, Mr. Obama and most of his top aides have argued that the use of those methods betrayed American values — and anyway, produced unreliable information. Those are a convenient pair of opinions, of course: the moral balancing would be far trickier if the C.I.A. methods were demonstrated to have been crucial in disrupting major plots.
For both sides, the political stakes are high, as proposals for a national commission to unravel the interrogation story appear to be gaining momentum. Mr. Obama and his allies need to discredit the techniques he has banned. Otherwise, in the event of a future terrorist attack, critics may blame his decision to rein in C.I.A. interrogators.
But if a strong case emerges that the Bush administration authorized torture and got nothing but prisoners’ desperate fabrications in return, that will tarnish what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have claimed as their greatest achievement: preventing new attacks after Sept. 11, 2001.

...

That assessment stands in sharp contrast to many assertions by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who on Fox News on Sunday said of the methods: “They did work. They kept us safe for seven years.”
Four successive C.I.A. directors have made similar claims, and the most recent, Michael V. Hayden, said in January that he believed the methods “got the maximum amount of information” from prisoners, citing specifically Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief 9/11 plotter.
Many intelligence officials, including some opposed to the brutal methods, confirm that the program produced information of great value, including tips on early-stage schemes to attack tall buildings on the West Coast and buildings in New York’s financial district and Washington. Interrogation of one Qaeda operative led to tips on finding others, until the leadership of the organization was decimated. Removing from the scene such dedicated and skilled plotters as Mr. Mohammed, or the Indonesian terrorist known as Hambali, almost certainly prevented future attacks.

...

The fact that Cheney is not cowering from the confrontation suggest he is right about what came from the interrogation. The fact that the Obama administration tried to edit out what was uncovered by the interrogation suggest they want to avoid that subject.

The Obama position appears to be one based on moral preening more than judgment about the efficacy of the interrogations. Then you have Pat Leahy who thinks he is above the law on national security issues like secrecy, pretending his is searching for the "truth" when it is clear he is searching for witches to burn.

People who acted with patriotic motives are being maligned by people who want to send lawyers after the enemy rather than fighters. They conveniently forget the failure of lawfare under the Clinton administration is what led to 9-11.

Taliban ruining life in Lahore

Fear of Taliban rules and retribution has descended on this cosmopolitan city near the Indian border, with militants taking aim at fashion shows, nightclubs, sports and other entertainment that made Lahore the cultural capital of Pakistan.
With recent terrorist attacks and more subtle threats from black-bearded strangers in turbans and skullcaps, the city's artists and performers have stopped appearing in public. University coeds are being warned to cover their faces, and merchants are pulling CDs and DVDs from store shelves.
Faizaan Peerzada, chairman of the Rafi Peer theater workshop, which used to manage and arrange shows for more than 200 artists, said his clients "have become petrified."
"They don't want to sign up to do gigs, and people don't want to attend these events for fear of bomb threats," he said. "The result is at this time in Lahore, almost no cultural events are taking place."
One musician who used to be the drummer for a Pakistani band said he took a company job under duress from his mother.
...
"This was the best city in the whole world," said event manager Aamir Mazhar, 29. "There was an energy, an enthusiasm and a life to Lahore which no other city could rival."
A terrorist attack last month targeting a visiting cricket team from Sri Lanka has jeopardized future sports events in the city. The specter of Talibanization is of particular concern to women and girls. The city is home to some of the best private girls schools in the country; in 2008, more than 50 such schools received bomb threats.
Last week, two girls studying at Kinnaird College - Lahore's premier higher-education institute for young women - were accosted on the street and told to wear burqas.
...

There is much more.

The Taliban are some of the worst people in the world. They are control freaks in the extreme. The real Question in Pakistan today is whether anyone has the stomach to fight them. So far the answer appears to be no.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Does Pakistan have a strategy for dealing with Taliban?

Taliban militants have established control of a strategically important area only 70 miles from the capital, law enforcement officials said Wednesday. The move is part of an unrelenting push by the Taliban toward the heart of Pakistan.
Heavily armed militants were patrolling villages and local police had retreated to their station houses in much of the city of Buner, a rural area adjacent to Swat, where the Taliban seized control from the Pakistani army in February, they said. Buner is a gateway to a major Pakistani city, Mardan.
“They take over Buner, then they roll into Mardan and that’s the end of the game,” a senior law enforcement official in the North West Frontier Province said.
The expansion of the Taliban into Buner comes 10 days after the government of President Asif Ali Zardari agreed to the introduction of Sharia law in Swat, a move that the Obama administration has criticized as too much of a concession to the Taliban.
On Wednesday Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she was concerned that Pakistan was allowing the Taliban to spread and emboldening the militants by giving into their demands.

...

The takeover of Buner is particularly significant because the people there have tried in the past year to stand up to the Taliban by establishing small private armies to fight the militants. Last year when the militants encroached into Buner, killing policemen, the local people fought back and forced the militants out.

...

There is little to see in terms of a response from the government. Adm. Mullen is back in Islamabad, and he is probably also asking what their plan is.

The UK Times says:

...

The militants, carrying rocket launchers and machineguns, also set up checkpoints to search vehicles as many residents fled the area. Local security forces remained confined to police stations and camps.

The fundamentalist movement struck a peace deal with Islamabad recently after a terror campaign in the neighbouring Swat Valley. Under the agreement the militants were allowed to establish an Islamist administration and Sharia courts. In return it was supposed to disarm but has failed to do so.
The Swat Valley has been transformed into a Taleban stronghold from which the movement is extending its influence towards Pakistan’s urban heartland.
Critics said that the deal between the Taleban and President Zardari risked increasing a potent insurgency and threatened the Government’s already tenuous control in other areas.
In Buner, a region with a population ofabout 500,000, the Taleban have established bases at mosques and banned music and television. They have stopped women from entering the popular shrine of a Muslim saint and now want to introduce Islamic law.
...

The government needs to find a way to protect the people of Buner at a minimum. They seem to want to resist the Taliban and a good counterinsurgency operation to protect the people would have a good chance of success. The main problem is that the government has resisted to date US training for counterinsurgency operations. It is time to start resisting the Taliban instead of US offers of training. Hopefully Mullen is making that point.

Czech special ops refuses 'dangerous' Afghan mission?

Members of the Czech Republic's elite Special Operations Group lost the trust of British forces after withdrawing from several operations because of the heavy fighting involved.
On one occasion when ordered to launch an attack by a British officer, the unit's commanding officer said "we're not going: it's dangerous", before ordering his men to their vehicles to drive back to base, the report claimed.
On another operation, they provoked anger by refusing to take part in fighting, saying that too many of them were on leave.
After their experience with the Czechs, British commanders preferred to co-operate with a Danish contingent, the daily Mlada fronta Dnes claimed. It quoted one former member of the unit who said the "British and the Danes laughed at us contemptuously" as they left on combat operations.
"I find it hard to recover from the news I got about this unit," Vlasta Parkanova, Prague's defence minister, told the paper. She has launched an investigation into the unit's behaviour, saying that some of its personnel could be dismissed.
But Petr Krcmar, the unit's commanding officer, has claimed that the accusations are nothing more than an excuse to dissolve the group, which operated under British command during a tour of Afghanistan that ended last year.
The scandal, which has damaged the reputation of the Czech armed forces, reflects deep-seated problems within the Special Operations Group and its relationship with the defence ministry, the paper claimed. Some of its members have complained that they lacked clear rules for their Afghan deployment, explaining that on one occasion they refused to take part in a British operation because it apparently was at odds with their mission.
...

I appears the Czechs have a discipline problem with their unit in Afghanistan which they need to address. I can understand the Brits lack of confidence in working with a unit that cannot be depended upon when the going gets tough.

House Republicans say Napolitano should go

Politico:

House Republicans are calling on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to step down or be fired in the wake of a controversial department memo that has sparked indignant battle cries from conservatives and some veterans.

“Singling out political opponents for working against the ruling party is precisely the tactic of every tyrannical government from Red China to Venezuela," said Texas Rep. John Carter, a member of the party's elected leadership who has organized an hour of floor speeches Wednesday night to call for Napolitano's ouster. “The first step in the process is creating unfounded public suspicion of political opponents, followed by arresting and jailing any who continue speaking against the regime.”

In particular, conservative members of the Republican Study Committee raised repeated concerns about the report and Napolitano's subsequent defense of its findings on Wednesday, calling on party leaders to raise the issue with President Barack Obama during a White House meeting on Thursday.

...

Napolitano has also come under criticism by both Canada and Mexico for her comments on the borders. John Carter is a smart guy whose was a judge before being elected to Congress. His comments on arresting and jailing political opponents is also applicable to the torture debate. It is ironic that some one like Patrick Leahy who thinks he is above the law with it comes to national securities would be pushing this latest witch hunt. I have minimum respect for the guy.

60% of al Qaeda info came from interrogations

Five years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, 60 percent of the knowledge of the U.S. intelligence community about Al Qaeda, its leadership structure and its operations came from enhanced interrogation techniques.
That's what former CIA Director Michael Hayden told FOX News late last year.
Other U.S. officials told FOX News on Tuesday that they stand by a May 2005 memo that said that enhanced techniques used in interrogations "have led to specific, actionable intelligence as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding Al Qaeda and its affiliates."
...

This is information that Obama and others in the media have been trying to hide since it does not fit their narrative.

The torture narrative at the NY Times

Byron York:

If you go to Memeorandum, the most talked-about story on the Web today, or at least as of 11:20 this morning, is Peter Baker's New York Times piece, "Banned Techniques Yielded 'High Value Information,' Memo Says." The story begins:

President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.
Baker's story attracted a lot of attention soon after the paper posted it on its Web site. In addition to a link on Drudge, it is, according to Memeorandum, the talk of PowerLine, JustOneMinute, The Daily Dish, The Plum Line, Hot Air, Commentary, RedState, Political Punch, AmSpecBlog, and lots of other places on the Web.

In fact, it appears there is just one place you won't find Baker's story: the print edition of the New York Times.

I read the story on the Web last night and, going through the actual newspaper this morning, noticed that it wasn't there. Instead, there were a few graphs devoted to Baker's material placed deep inside another story, "Obama Won't Bar Inquiry, or Penalty, on Interrogations," by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, on page A-15.

I asked Richard Stevenson, who is the Times' deputy Washington bureau chief, what was going on. He told me Baker got the Blair information late in the day Tuesday, and there just wasn't room for it in the paper. "We already had three stories on this subject," Stevenson explained, "and it was late, there was no more space to do this separately…We just didn't have the space to put it in the print newspaper."

The other interrogation stories the Times published in the paper were, "In Adopting Harsh Tactics, No Inquiry Into Past Use; Interrogations Based on Torture Methods Chinese Communists Used in '50s" on the front page; "Report Gives New Detail on Interrogation Approval," on A-14, and Stolberg's, on A-15.

...

What makes this news judgment questionable is that Baker's story is the only one that cut against the torture narrative being pushed by the liberal Democrats and the Editorial Board of the Times. Stevenson's response to York's question is as weak as the response of the spokeswomen who left out the details to begin with. All you have to do is go to Real Clear Politics to see that Mathew Yglesias (Torture Still Doesn’t Work) is still pushing the narrative that the harsh interrogation did not work when it is clear from Blair statement that it did.

What is also clear is that who oppose the harsh interrogations want to say it does not work, and those who say it helped to keep us safer make the case that it provided valuable information. The fact that it did provide such information is far more important than the stories the Times put forward on the history of the interrogations. Those histories are only relevant to those looking for an reason not engage in harsh interrogations. The Baker story cut against that narrative.

Chavez's idiots Bible

Alvaro Vargas Llosa:

Hugo Chavez's gift to President Obama at the recent Summit of the Americas -- a copy of Eduardo Galeano's "Open Veins of Latin America" -- has many people wondering what the fuss is about.
A decade ago, I and the other two co-authors of the "Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot" devoted a chapter to refuting the historical and ideological fallacies contained in Galeano's tract, which we called the "idiot's bible." Everything that has happened in the Western Hemisphere since the book appeared in 1971 has belied Galeano's arguments and predictions. But I guess Chavez has given it the kiss of life and, since people are asking, here I go again.
The author claims that relations between Latin America and rich countries have been so pernicious that "everything ... has always been transmuted into European -- and later United States -- capital." Actually, for years that relationship has transmuted into the exact opposite: Latin American capital. In the last seven years alone, Latin America has benefited from $300 billion in net capital flows. In other words, a lot more capital came in than went out.

The book rails against the international division of labor, in which "some countries specialize in winning and others in losing." That division of labor in the Western Hemisphere has not changed -- Latin American countries still export commodities -- and yet in the last six years, poverty in the region has been reduced to about one-third of the population, from just under half. This means that 40 million were lifted out of that hideous condition. Not to mention the 400 million pulled out of poverty in other "losing" nations worldwide in the last couple of decades.
...

The author of the book does not understand economics nor does Hugo Chavez. It is a whiny book by someone who does not deserve the notoriety received as the results of Chavez's using a naive Obama.

Politicizing intelligence

Stephen Hayes looks at what the Obama administration tried to hide behind its mask of moral preening. It is the Democrat politics of fraud at its worst.

I would like to see a movie made of Vince Flynn's Extreme Measures, to counter the nonsense coming out of the Obama administration and liberal Democrats with their terrorist rights agenda.

How Obama is hurting intelligence gathering

David Ignatius:

At the Central Intelligence Agency, it's known as "slow rolling." That's what agency officers sometimes do on politically sensitive assignments. They go through the motions; they pass cables back and forth; they take other jobs out of the danger zone; they cover their backsides.
Sad to say, it's slow roll time at Langley after the release of interrogation memos that, in the words of one veteran officer, "hit the agency like a car bomb in the driveway." President Obama promised CIA officers that they won't be prosecuted for carrying out lawful orders, but the people on the firing line don't believe him. They think the memos have opened a new season of investigation and retribution.
The lesson for younger officers is obvious: Keep your head down. Duck the assignments that carry political risk. Stay away from a counterterrorism program that has become a career hazard.

Obama tried personally to reassure the CIA work force during a visit to Langley Monday. He said all the right things about the agency's clandestine role. But it had the look of a campaign event, with employees hooting and hollering and the president reading from his teleprompter with a backdrop of stars that commemorate the CIA's fallen warriors.

But by Tuesday, Obama was deferring to the attorney general whether to prosecute "those who formulated those legal decisions," whatever that means.

Obama seems to think he can have it both ways -- authorizing an unprecedented disclosure of CIA operational methods and at the same time galvanizing a clandestine service whose best days, he told them Monday, are "yet to come." Life doesn't work that way -- even for charismatic politicians. Disclosure of the torture memos may have been necessary, as part of an overdue campaign to change America's image in the world. But nobody should pretend that the disclosures weren't costly to CIA morale and effectiveness.

Put yourself in the shoes of the people who were asked to interrogate al- Qaeda prisoners back in 2002. One former officer told me he declined the job, not because he thought the program was wrong, but because he knew it would blow up. "We all knew the political wind would change eventually," he recalled. Other officers who didn't make that cynical but correct calculation are now "broken and bewildered," says the former operative.

For a taste of what's ahead, recall the chilling effects of past CIA scandals. Back in 1995, then-Director John Deutch ordered a "scrub" of the agency's assets after revelations of past links to Guatemalan death squads. Officers were told they shouldn't jettison sources who had provided truly valuable intelligence. But the practical message, recalls one former division chief, was: "Don't deal with assets who could pose political risks."
...

There is much more.

I think Obama is so naive that he cannot comprehend the damage he has done to our ability to gather intelligence on our enemies. It is the same old moral preening that goes back to the Church committee which ruined earlier CIA operations. Obama's moral preening is going to get Americans killed.

Gen. Geek needed for cyber command

The Obama administration is finalizing plans for a new Pentagon command to coordinate the security of military computer networks and to develop new offensive cyber-weapons, sources said last night.

Planning for the reorganization of Defense Department and intelligence agencies is underway, and a decision is imminent, according to a person familiar with the White House plans.

The new command would affect U.S. Strategic Command, whose mission includes ensuring U.S. "freedom of action" in space and cyberspace, and the National Security Agency, which shares Pentagon cybersecurity responsibilities with the Defense Information Systems Agency.
...

I think this is needed. I would like to see develop counter attacks for cyber attacks that would automatically find the sources of the attack and disable the computers making the attacks. They would need to look behind the zombie computers used by the aggressor and hone in on those responsible for the attacks. It is the kind of job that will take some first class geeks.

Westhawk has more thoughts on a cyber command.

CBS has a good story on the nature of the threat and its persistence.

The destructive cost of cap and trade

John McCormick:

It's just another inconvenient truth: If Americans want any of the government remedies that would supposedly save a planet allegedly imperiled by global warming, it's going to cost them.

Just how much it will cost them has been a point of contention lately. Many congressional Republicans, including members of the GOP leadership, have claimed that the plan to limit carbon emissions through cap and trade would cost the average household more than $3,100 per year. According to an MIT study, between 2015 and 2050 cap and trade would annually raise an average of $366 billion in revenues (divided by 117 million households equals $3,128 per household, the Republicans reckon).
...
But, as the saying goes, a lie can make its way halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on. During a lengthy email exchange last week with THE WEEKLY STANDARD, MIT professor John Reilly admitted that his original estimate of cap and trade's cost was inaccurate. The annual cost would be "$800 per household", he wrote. "I made a boneheaded mistake in an excel spread sheet. I have sent a new letter to Republicans correcting my error (and to others)."
While $800 is significantly more than Reilly's original estimate of $215 (not to mention more than Obama's middle-class tax cut), it turns out that Reilly is still low-balling the cost of cap and trade by using some fuzzy logic. In reality, cap and trade could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year.

The $800 paid annually per household is merely the "cost to the economy [that] involves all those actions people have to take to reduce their use of fossil fuels or find ways to use them without releasing [Green House Gases]," Reilly wrote. "So that might involve spending money on insulating your home, or buying a more expensive hybrid vehicle to drive, or electric utilities substituting gas (or wind, nuclear, or solar) instead of coal in power generation, or industry investing in more efficient motors or production processes, etc. with all of these things ending up reflected in the costs of good and services in the economy."

In other words, Reilly estimates that "the amount of tax collected" through companies would equal $3,128 per household--and "Those costs do get passed to consumers and income earners in one way or another"--but those costs have "nothing to do with the real cost" to the economy. Reilly assumes that the $3,128 will be "returned" to each household. Without that assumption, Reilly wrote, "the cost would then be the Republican estimate [$3,128] plus the cost I estimate [$800]."
In Reilly's view, the $3,128 taken through taxes will be "returned" to each household whether or not the government cuts a $3,128 rebate check to each household.
...

I really doubt the government will return any cost of cap and trade dollar for dollar. If they did it would be just an expensive money swap. To the extent the government does return any money you can bet that it will be based on conduct they want from people and not unconditionally. They will be imposing their choices on American families and their lifestyles.

The article explores the attacks from the left on the validity of the the $3,128 figure. Polifacts discounted the number and then refused to correct their miscalculation while they waited for their Pulitzer Prize. Leftist used the disputed calculation to attack Republicans who had used the larger number. I tend to think the larger number still does not account for all the added cost of cap and trade. It will impose myriad costs to the economy as people are forced to forego goods, services and travel.

SC ponders where to hide your stuff at school

The United States Supreme Court spent an hour on Tuesday debating what middle school students are apt to put in their underwear and what should be done about it.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, for instance, said it struck him as “a logical thing” that adolescents seeking to hide pills “will stick them in their underwear.”
Adam B. Wolf, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, disagreed, invoking what he called the “ick factor.”
His client, Savana Redding, had been subjected to a strip search in 2003 by school officials in Safford, Ariz. She was 13 and in eighth grade at the time.
The officials were acting on a tip from another student and were looking for prescription-strength ibuprofen, a painkiller. They made Ms. Redding strip to her underwear, shake her bra and pull aside her panties. The officials, both female, found no pills.

...

Justice Breyer elaborated on what children put in their underwear. “In my experience when I was 8 or 10 or 12 years old, you know, we did take our clothes off once a day,” he said. “We changed for gym, O.K.? And in my experience, too, people did sometimes stick things in my underwear.”
The courtroom rocked with laughter, and the justice grew a little flustered at having apparently misspoken.
While Supreme Court arguments can often be bone-dry exercises in statutory exegesis and doctrinal refinement, Tuesday’s session was grounded in vivid facts: school snitches, drugs, underwear and body cavities.

...

This is a case they should not have taken. If they restrict the searches to certain pieces of clothing or underwear, every middle school student in the country will know where to hide their stuff in the area that cannot be searched. In other words, they will guarantee that contraband will be hidden in underpants if they say that it cannot be searched. Some things are better left ambiguous.

Taliban control area near Pakistan capitol

CNN:

Taliban militants who implemented Islamic law in Pakistan's violence-plagued Swat Valley last week have now taken control of a neighboring district.

Control of the Buner district brings the Taliban closer to the capital, Islamabad, than they have been since they started their insurgency. Islamabad is 60 miles (96 km) from the district.
"Our strength is in the hundreds," said Moulana Mohammad Khalil, as heavily armed men openly patrolled the roads in pickup trucks, singing Islamic anthems.
The militants had taken control of the area to ensure that Islamic law, or sharia, is properly imposed, Khalil said.
The government called the advance into Buner a breach of a recently-signed peace agreement.
"Now Taliban are violating the peace agreement, and if they continue the government will take strict action and not allow the Taliban to create a parallel government in that area," said Mian Iftikhar, a spokesman for the regional administration in the North West Frontier Province, where Buner is located.
...

Taliban bad faith should be notorious by now, but the Pakistan government still acts like Charlie Brown trying to kick a football controlled by Lucy. Will the government now recognize that there is no agreement that the Taliban will keep and act accordingly before it is too late? There is little reason for optimism at this point and the weakness of this government is inviting either a Taliban coup or an army one and the latter would be the best for the people at this point.

Bill Roggio has more on the Taliban's expansion of its operations.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Texas to waste $500 million on solar plan

Houston Chronicle:

Solar energy could have a brighter future under a Texas Senate-passed bill that would invest half a billion dollars into the industry over the next five years.
The investment would come through rebates for solar installations, from homeowners’ rooftop panels to large-scale projects envisioned for West Texas. The bill, passed by a vote of 26 to 4, now goes to the House.

Money for the rebates would be raised through monthly fees on electric bills. Homeowners would pay 20 cents, small businesses $2 and industries $20.

“We took baby steps to start with to jump start the industry,” said Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, who authored the bill.

The Public Utility Commission would determine the amount of the rebates, with $30 million a year going to homeowners and up to $70 million for utility-scale solar projects.
...
Environment Texas Director Luke Metzger said despite the progress of solar technology, the cost of a home or commercial solar system in Texas is still too high to make long-term financial sense. But the U.S. Department of Energy said that improvements in the next five years could put solar on parity with traditional electricity sources.
...

The Metzger comment was buried, but the fact of the matter is that the payback on solar is still longer than the lifetime of the purchaser and most of their children. It is just not very efficient and even with the subsidies, it is still more costly than what you would pay your electricity provider. I don't think it is a good investment even with the subsidies. What this bill means is that we are going to have money added to our utility bills so that others can buy inefficient alternative energy. We would be better off spending that money on offshore exploration. BTW, I am not in the oil business and never have been.

Navy may run short of fighters

The Hill:

A debate over how large the Navy’s tactical aircraft fleet should be is heating up in Washington this year, with lawmakers concerned that the Pentagon is not planning for enough fighter jets.

Navy officials have told lawmakers that they anticipate a shortfall of more than 200 jets over the next decade, based on the age of their current fleet and the projections for purchasing new aircraft.

This comes at a time when Boeing, one of the nation’s two producers of fighter jets, is in danger of getting out of the business because it hasn’t yet been offered a multiyear contract for its F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet fighter jet.

Some defense industry executives now worry that the aircraft industry and its suppliers find themselves under extreme duress in the aftermath of Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s budget announcement for fiscal 2010, which they fear could leave Lockheed Martin as the sole domestic fighter jet producer.

Beyond lawmakers’ parochial interests and Boeing’s bottom line is a debate about strategy and resources that could eventually allow Boeing to hang onto the fighter business for a while longer.

Congressional aides anticipate a fierce debate in coming weeks over the troubling shortfall — which in Boeing’s terms translates into more money for its supersonic Super Hornet planes.

The debate over the Super Hornets could lead to tension between Congress and the Pentagon and leave the Navy in the awkward position of trying to support a tighter defense budget while worrying about a diminished fleet needed for missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

...

It appears to me that the Pentagon is placing all its bets on the F-35 which is behind production schedule already. I personally believe that as long as Obama is wasting money on foolish stimulus programs, he has lost the moral authority to challenge defense spending which is much more valuable in sustaining jobs and technology. It also makes it easier to defend the country.

Interrogations produced significant info

President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.
Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.
Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”
A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement.
...

I don't believe Admiral Blair's spokeswoman. It seems pretty clear the material was cut because it was inconsistent with the message the Obama team was trying to present about the memos. It made it more difficult for the President to do his moral preening on the issue.

The thing to do now is to release the information that was discovered through the interrogations and let us all decide whether the effort was productive and saved lives. I somehow doubt that Obama will have the courage to do so. I think the production would also undermine the arguments of those who want to prosecute some lawyers for their legal opinions on the subject.

CNS News also reports that:

The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

...

Obama's story on releasing the memos is not holding up well at this point. I think this is going to be an issue that will work against the Democrats in future elections.

Doug Ross also has a round up of significant information from the interrogations.

Al Qaeda workout tips

Complete with photographs of men in white robes with scarves covering their faces performing a variety of squats and sit-ups, it advises supporters to keep in shape so that they can "strike hard" against their enemies.

There is also a warning against visiting "un-Islamic" western gyms including LA Fitness with their "music, semi-naked women, free mixing and the danger of showing off".
And there is advice against using weights because of their unavailability on the front line in places such as Afghanistan.

The advice is contained in Jihad Recollections, an English language online magazine believed to be published in the United States which openly supports al-Qaeda and contains an article purporting to be written by Osama bin Laden

Jihadists fighting the Americans and the "Nato Crusading Army" – a reference to the international coalition in Afghanistan which includes British forces – are advised to take long walks to strengthen their legs for "carrying weapons and other equipment".

In order to build up arm strength, readers are told to do up to 150 press-ups a day and try to walk on their hands.
...

It is not clear to me whether "press up" is Brit speak for push ups are pull ups. There are also diet tips that recommend dates and crackers as well as water. Yuck. That sounds like they are carbo loading.

I am glad they are not showing off.

Prosecutions of legal opinions?

President Obama answered the call of the left Tuesday by opening the door for prosecution of the Bush administration lawyers who wrote the so-called "torture memos," which cleared the way for the CIA to use harsh interrogation methods when questioning suspected terrorists.
But that doesn't mean those attorneys will end up facing prison sentences any time soon.
Some legal analysts doubt the Obama administration and Attorney General Eric Holder have the stomach for taking on their predecessors. And others question whether the Justice Department would pursue a case that amounts to prosecuting a legal opinion.
"My prediction is you'll never see prosecutions," said Doug Burns, a former federal prosecutor. He said Obama was merely backpedaling Tuesday to blunt the political backlash he was facing from the left.
Though the president has said that CIA agents will not be charged for following legal guidelines for interrogations, some Democrats have pushed him to support prosecution of the lawyers who drafted the legal ground for such interrogations. Obama said Tuesday that he will defer to Holder on those potential charges.
...

These raise the important question of whether the Democrats are nuts?

Do they really want to go down this road, when they have lawyers framing opinions for the terrorist which if followed could result in getting Americans killed? Do they want to make the ACLU attorneys liable for opinions they assert which could set the guilty free to kill again? I think Holder is too smart to fall into this trap. If he is not he should be looking over his shoulder when his term is over and Republicans take power again.

Taliban infestation spreads from Swat to Buner

BBC:

Taleban militants operating in Pakistan's Swat region who agreed a peace deal with the government have expanded operations into nearby Buner.
Dozens of militants have been streaming into bordering Buner to take over mosques and government offices.

Buner is part of the Malakand region, which has just seen the implementation of Sharia law under the peace deal.

But the Taleban have mainly operated in Swat, where they fought the army from August 2007 until this year's deal.

Under the deal the Taleban were expected to disarm.

Buner district is only about 100km (62 miles) from the capital, Islamabad.
...

I knew the Swat deal was a disaster, but even I did not expect it to be so apparent so soon. Pakistan and its army better be ready to destroy the Taliban in Buner if they are going to stop the spread of the Taliban disease. They should also be prepared to go back into Swat and repudiate the deal since the Taliban appear to be in clear violation of the disarmament provisions. I don't know why Pakistan thought they would honor such conditions since their word has clearly been no good on previous deals.

Hackers use contractor access to secrets of F-35

Reuters:

Computer spies have repeatedly breached the Pentagon's costliest weapons program, the $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.

The newspaper quoted current and former government officials familiar with the matter as saying the intruders were able to copy and siphon data related to design and electronics systems, making it potentially easier to defend against the plane.

The spies could not access the most sensitive material, which is kept on computers that are not connected to the Internet, the paper added.

Citing people briefed on the matter, it said the intruders entered through vulnerabilities in the networks of two or three of the contractors involved in building the fighter jet.

Lockheed Martin Corp is the lead contractor. Northrop Grumman Corp and BAE Systems PLC also have major roles in the project. Lockheed Martin and BAE declined comment and Northrop referred questions to Lockheed, the paper said.

The Journal said Pentagon officials declined to comment directly on the matter, but the paper said the Air Force had begun an investigation.

The identity of the attackers and the amount of damage to the project could not be established, the paper said.
...

This looks like another Chinese intrusion. Contractors need to find ways to fight these intrusions. I am surprised they have not gotten a DOD contract to build a system to fight off the intrusions and counterattack. A system with an automatic counterattack would seem to be very valuable to the government as well as a deterrent to future intrusions.

The link to the Wall Street Journal article is here.

Bloody hands of the Hamas death cult

Richard Cohen:

Some residents of Gaza were taken from their homes and shot in the legs or feet. Some were brutally beaten, and some were simply murdered, sometimes after hideous torture. If you are expecting -- based on everything that has happened -- that the awful Israelis did this, guess again. It was Hamas, the authentic and genuine government of Gaza. Well, no one's perfect.

The information about the shootings is taken from a report issued yesterday by Human Rights Watch. It says that "Hamas security forces or masked gunmen believed to be with Hamas" executed 18 people, most of whom were accused of collaborating with Israel, sparing the expense and bother of a trial. Others were shot, maimed or beaten, not for allegedly collaborating with the enemy -- or, as is often the case, having a house or woman that a snitch covets -- but for belonging to the opposition political party, Fatah.

Many of these murders and assaults took place during Israel's recent pummeling of Gaza. Yet, as Human Rights Watch goes to some pains to document, at no time did Hamas's security forces lose control of Gaza, so the murders and maimings were not a consequence of chaos but of government policy. Whatever the case, the murders, shootings and beatings continued even after the hostilities ended. Since then, at least 14 more people have been executed extrajudicially, which is to say murdered. Some were also tortured.
You can only imagine what would happen if Israel dealt with its internal political enemies or dissenters in such a fashion. Last month, for instance, Israel got a heap of criticism and abuse when it was reported in the Israeli media that some Gaza civilians had been unjustifiably shot by Israeli soldiers. The report was widely cited, not just for its shocking allegations but also because it was supposedly indicative of the sort of place Israel has become. The government said the allegations were based on hearsay. We shall see.

No doubt the Human Rights Watch report will be ignored or dismissed in the greater cause of demonizing Israel. This has been the trend of late. No doubt, too, some will excuse Hamas's criminality as the inevitable result of Israeli actions -- the Officer Krupke School of Behavior made famous by the singing gang members of "West Side Story." But as much as some would like to criticize Israel -- and I have done so myself -- they still have a minimal obligation to acknowledge the difference in core values between Israel and its enemies.
...

When you consider the demonization of Israel at the so called Human Rights conference in Geneva this reports is pretty clear evidence of hypocrisy. In fact Israel is faced with a wicked enemy without inhibitions.

Cheney says release results of interrogations

Now that the memos showing the rulings of interrogation techniques have been released, the Obama administration should release additional documents that show what the interrogations yielded to make it an "honest debate," former Vice President Dick Cheney told FOX News on Monday.
In an interview with FOX News' Sean Hannity aired on "Hannity" Monday night, Cheney questioned the point of releasing the legal decisions behind the interrogations but not the outcome of them.
"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort," Cheney said.
Cheney said he's asked that the documents be declassified because he has remained silent on the confidential information, but he knows how successful the interrogation process was and wants the rest of the country to understand.
"I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country," Cheney said. "I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was."
...

I think releasing the information at this point would not damage our security and it would tells us who is right about the value of the information obtained. Perhaps that is why it was not released.

The Democrats use government to target political opponents

"I regret that in the politicization of everything that happens in Washington, D.C., some took offense." That's Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano's latest non-apology for her department's report that veterans are a threat to the country. Obviously she doesn't get it. The central issue is not about anyone taking offense but of rights being violated.
Several recent reports suggest an emerging pattern of systematic abuse of federal law enforcement and intelligence assets to target law-abiding Americans engaged in the peaceful expression of political views. The target groups are not domestic terrorists but those who make known certain opinions on abortion, same-sex marriage, guns, immigration, foreign trade, job outsourcing, the federal relationship with states and America's role in the international community. Their crime is that they disagree with Obama administration policies.
The Department of Homeland Security is not the only government agency engaging in intrusive behavior. The New York Times reported that the National Security Agency has been intercepting domestic e-mail and phone calls "on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress." The overcollection was described as "significant and systematic." The Wall Street Journal reported on the FBI's Operation Vigilant Eagle, which is a domestic program focusing on veterans involved in extremist groups. The FBI says that tripwires are in place to protect civil liberties, but there is no need for such an investigation when the FBI itself reported in July 2008 that just 19 veterans of the war on terrorism became involved in extremist movements between 2001 and 2008.
There must be better uses for the FBI's limited resources, yet the Canada Free Press and Northeast Intelligence Network report that directives were issued to all 56 FBI field offices to "coordinate and conduct, either at the field office level and/or with the appropriate resident agency, covert video surveillance and data collection of the participants of the TEA parties ... independently and outside of the purview of local law enforcement." Such monitoring represents a significant abuse of power against law-abiding Americans freely exercising their First Amendment rights - in this case against massive government spending.
...

Democrats sure seem frightened of dissent which used to be the highest form of patriotism. It is a waste of resources. It is likely to continue until our real enemies strike again. We can then expect that conservatives will be blamed for distractions by the Obama team.

Angry left still angry after their guys won

Byron York:

These should be happy times for liberals and the Democratic party as a whole. They control the White House and both houses of Congress, while opposition Republicans are leaderless and lost. So why do some Democrats, particularly those farther to the left, appear so angry?

If you doubt it, just watch a few minutes of MSNBC, where the recent nationwide series of "tea parties" to protest federal spending and taxes set off an angry, almost manic response. The most telling came on Keith Olbermann's program, during which the actress Janeane Garofalo, who plays an FBI computer geek on “24,” denounced the tea parties as "racism straight up."

"Let's be very honest about what this is about," Garofalo said. "It's not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes…This is about hating a black man in the White House."

Garofalo linked the tea parties to what she described as a peculiar feature of the conservative brain. "The limbic brain inside a right-winger, or Republican, or conservative, or your average white power activist -- the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person," she explained. "And it is pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring." (The limbic brain is the deep portion of the brain that mediates, controls and expresses emotion.)

Now, it's possible Garofalo was joking; she used to do comedy. But she didn't seem to be joking, and her comments were consistent with a long and dishonorable history of attributing political conservatism to mental abnormality. And as she spoke about the alleged anger on the right, Garofalo herself seemed visibly angry. Why were she, and Olbermann, and many others on the left, so apparently troubled by a virtually powerless opposition?

I asked William Anderson, a friend who is a political conservative, a medical doctor, and a lecturer in psychiatry at Harvard. "They are angry, but I think they are also scared, and I think it's because they have a sense that their triumph is a precarious one," Anderson told me. Democrats won in 2008 in some part because of the cycles of American politics; Republicans were exhausted and it was the other party's turn. Now, having won, they are unsure of how long victory will last.

"They see that they have a very small window of opportunity to do all the things they want," Anderson continued. "They see the window of opportunity as small because they know in their deepest hearts that the vast majority of the American people wouldn't go for all of the things they want to do." So they are frantic to do as much as possible before the opposition coalesces. And the tea parties might be the beginning of that coalescence.
...

I think he is right. There is also the fact that much of their new power came from their dishonest attacks on the Bush administration, and now that they are in power that dishonesty is being revealed on a daily basis, as the administration has to adopt Bush administration positions in the courts and in foreign policy. When the deviate from Bush policy as in the CIA interrogation memos, it does not buy them the political effect they expected.

Feinstein's husband to profit from foreclosures?

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.
Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.
...

There is much more.

It is interesting to see how the husband of liberal women manage to profit from their political position. You get the impression they are using them. What will be more interesting is whether the senate ethics committee and the mainstream media will get as interested in these matters as they do when they go after conservatives. I kind of doubt it.

Obama's false premise on the interrogation memos

Marc Thiessen:

In releasing highly classified documents on the CIA interrogation program last week, President Obama declared that the techniques used to question captured terrorists "did not make us safer." This is patently false. The proof is in the memos Obama made public -- in sections that have gone virtually unreported in the media.

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

The memo notes that "[i]nterrogations of [Abu] Zubaydah -- again, once enhanced techniques were employed -- furnished detailed information regarding al Qaeda's 'organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi' and identified KSM as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks." This information helped the intelligence community plan the operation that captured KSM. It went on: "Zubaydah and KSM also supplied important information about al-Zarqawi and his network" in Iraq, which helped our operations against al-Qaeda in that country.

All this confirms information that I and others have described publicly. But just as the memo begins to describe previously undisclosed details of what enhanced interrogations achieved, the page is almost entirely blacked out. The Obama administration released pages of unredacted classified information on the techniques used to question captured terrorist leaders but pulled out its black marker when it came to the details of what those interrogations achieved.

Yet there is more information confirming the program's effectiveness. The Office of Legal Counsel memo states "we discuss only a small fraction of the important intelligence CIA interrogators have obtained from KSM" and notes that "intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of the [Counterterrorism Center's] reporting on al Qaeda." The memos refer to other classified documents -- including an "Effectiveness Memo" and an "IG Report," which explain how "the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah and others . . . has yielded critical information." Why didn't Obama officials release this information as well? Because they know that if the public could see the details of the techniques side by side with evidence that the program saved American lives, the vast majority would support continuing it.
...

I don't think the public has ever supported the Obama position on interrogation. Those who would rather see innocent Americans killed than cause the enemy any discomfort are living in a fantasy world if they believe the voters of this country would support such a position in a real life situation. What Thiessen is demonstrating is that Obama is ignoring the actual evidence in order to support his bad decision.

Eliminate the Air Force?

Paul Kane:

ROBERT GATES, the secretary of defense, has proposed a budget overhaul that will go a long way toward improving our national security, but more can be done to meet his long-term goal: creating the right military for the 21st century.
Not since Henry Stimson’s tenure from 1940 to ’45 has a defense secretary been faced to the same degree with simultaneously fighting a war and carrying out far-reaching reforms. Yet there are three major changes Mr. Gates should add to his agenda, and they deserve President Obama’s support.
First, the Air Force should be eliminated, and its personnel and equipment integrated into the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. Second, the archaic “up or out” military promotion system should be scrapped in favor of a plan that treats service members as real assets. Third, the United States needs a national service program for all young men and women, without any deferments, to increase the quality and size of the pool from which troops are drawn.
At the moment, the Army, Navy and Marine Corps are at war, but the Air Force is not. This is not the fault of the Air Force: it is simply not structured to be in the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Army, Marine and Navy personnel have borne the brunt of deployments, commonly serving multiple tours, the Air Force’s operational tempo remains comparatively comfortable. In 2007, only about 5 percent of the troops in Iraq were airmen.
Yes, air power is a critical component of America’s arsenal. But the Army, Navy and Marines already maintain air wings within their expeditionary units. The Air Force is increasingly a redundancy in structure and spending.
War is no longer made up of set-piece battles between huge armies confronting each other with tanks and airplanes. As we move toward a greater emphasis on rapid-response troops, the Army has tightened its physical fitness regime and the Marine Corps has introduced a physically grueling Combat Fitness Test for all members. Yet an Air Force study last year found that more than half of airmen and women were overweight and 12 percent were obese.
Next, the current military personnel system is a peacetime bureaucratic construct that serves neither national security nor those who wear the uniform. Congress sets the level of manpower for each military service. Within this constraint, military planners have to decide how many riflemen, mechanics, cooks, medics, pilots and such there should be within the military’s job types, known as Military Occupational Specialties. Then the Pentagon has to decide how many people will be retained in the ranks or promoted.
The result is an “up or out” system that demands service members move up the ladder simply to stay in the military. Any soldier passed over for promotion twice must leave or retire.

...

What this analysis overlooks is the air superiority mission of the Air Force. The Navy and Marines can't land F-22's on aircraft carriers. I think we also need to give the Air Force credit for adapting to the current mission. Keeping the A-10 in service has been critical to the success of our mission in Afghanistan. The arrival of the A-10 or F-16 over a firefight with the Taliban usually ends the debate over control of the real estate.

The Air Force is finally adapting to the need for more UAVs which have been a difference maker in Iraq and in the Afghan-Pakistan theater. This is an area of growing importance that gives us the persistence needed in counterinsurgency warfare. The UAVs act as a force multiplier at a time when when need all the force we can put into the theater.

I don't have a dog in the fight over the up and out promotion system. I think we need more troops and if we add more troops that problem will take care of itself.

Liberals make their health care demands

As Congress returns to begin an intense debate over reshaping the nation's $2.2 trillion health-care system, prominent left-leaning organizations and liberal House members are issuing a warning to their Democratic allies: Don't cave on us.

The early skirmishing -- essentially amounting to friendly fire -- is perhaps the clearest indication yet of the uphill battle President Obama faces in delivering on his promise to make affordable, high-quality care available to every American.

Disputes over whether to create a new government-sponsored insurance program to compete with private companies shine a light on the intraparty fissures that may prove more problematic than any partisan brawl.

More than 70 House Democrats recently warned party leaders that they will not support a broad health reform bill that does not offer consumers a government-sponsored policy, and two unions withdrew from a high-profile health coalition because it would not endorse a public plan.

"It's way too early" to abandon what it considers a central plank in health reform, said Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union. He said the organization pulled out of the bipartisan Health Reform Dialogue because it feared its friends in the coalition were sacrificing core principles too soon. "You don't make compromises with your allies."
...
During last year's campaign, Obama proposed offering a government-sponsored plan as a low-cost alternative for Americans who are having trouble purchasing insurance in the private market. Proponents say it would reduce costs because it would not need to make a profit or pay large executive salaries.

Many Republicans and industry executives say that any program modeled after Medicare -- with its power to set prices -- would have an unfair advantage over private-sector competitors and eventually force some companies out of business.

"The sacred cow on the left and the right is the public plan," said former senator Thomas A. Daschle, who was Obama's first choice to oversee the reform effort.
...

One of the false premises of a government plan is that eliminating the "need to make a profit or pay large executive salaries" will create efficiencies. Usually the opposite happens when profit motivation is eliminated. The guy with the best product or service at the best price no longer gets the deal. The government further causes deterioration of services by cutting cost arbitrarily. Then there is the problem of doctors and other providers refusing to participate in the government scheme which does not cover their costs.

Democrats plan control freak rationed health care

It doesn't matter what your doctor says; the Obama administration plans to decide if you will have cancer treatment or heart surgery.
Appearing on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Lawrence H. Summers, President Obama's chief economic adviser, stated, "Whether it's tonsillectomies or hysterectomies ... procedures are done three times as frequently [in some parts of the country than others] and there's no benefit in terms of the health of the population. And by doing the right kind of cost-effectiveness, by making the right kinds of investments and protection, some experts ... estimate that we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system."
Let's be clear - Mr. Summers is talking about rationing. Total health care expenditures in the United States in 2008 came to $2.5 trillion. The implication of his statement is that health care expenditures can be cut by almost 30 percent. That's a major amputation to the system. Mr. Summers tried to kill the pain by saying it all wouldn't have to be cut right away. That's only comforting if it's not your loved one's transplant that bureaucrats reject.
The hypocrisy is enough to make a heart stop. A White House that doesn't think government should intervene between a doctor and a woman deciding whether to have an abortion has no problem telling doctors whether they can perform tonsillectomies or hysterectomies.
...

They give some interesting stats on abortions compared to the stats that Summers gives. Abortions are rarely if ever about the health of the mother.

I am somewhat surprised that the administration is being as honest as Summers in admitting to their control freak agenda of rationing health care. Rationing is the only way they can cut cost, but it takes the decisions about the procedures you need out of your hands and those of your doctor.

Obama and his grinning at abuse of US

Ralph Peters:

MY president went to Trin idad and Tobago, and all I got was this lousy Che Guevara T-shirt.

At a Caribbean resort, Obama grinned through a semi-erotic encounter with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, then failed to answer a "strategic rape" charge lodged against America by ex-Sandinista Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua (who knows plenty about rape).

Ignoring America's allies in favor of photo ops with anti-American leftists, such as Ecuador's Rafael Correa and Chavez, Obama blamed the United States for Latin America's problems.

Whoa! Plenty of US policies toward Latin America have been misguided and myopic. But the primary causes of political, economic and social failure from the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego have been homemade.

Until Latin American states accept responsibility for what generations of corrupt, oppressive leaders did to their own countries, they won't progress beyond their self-destructive cultures of blame.

It's easy to chant, "Yanquis, go home!" Well, the Yankees went home. And only such countries as Chile, Colombia and, increasingly, Brazil, which have taken responsibility for their own futures, are making progress.

Obama was exactly right on one point: Our relations with Latin America must be a partnership in which all are treated as equals, based upon mutual respect.

But how do the lurid, screwball attacks on us by the likes of Chavez, Ortega or Bolivia's Evo Morales -- a racist demagogue -- count as examples of mutual respect? Doesn't our country deserve some slight defense from our president?

Obama needs to get up off his knees. Foreign leaders have already pegged him as the wimpiest metrosexual this side of the men's grooming-products counter at Barney's.

As for our southern neighbors, blaming the gringos is easy. And it's satisfying. And suicidal. Take just two tragic examples of today's self-destructive "populism" in South America.

...

He goes on to give details on problems in Argentina and Venezuela, both ruled by incompetent control freaks who do not trust the free market. What is really disgusting about Obama's performance is that he thinks he can be friends with people who don't respect him or us. He is not going to get respect by taking a supine position while under attack.

Adequate force to space quells Juarez violence

A few months ago, the mayor of the most violent city in Mexico would sometimes sleep across the border in El Paso for safety. Now, with the military firmly in control of Ciudad Juarez, an entire day can pass without a single drug-related killing.

Violence has plummeted here since President Felipe Calderón dispatched thousands of soldiers to take over public security, a strategy designed to crush the drug gangs that turned Juarez into a symbol of lawlessness.

In the first two months of this year, 434 people were killed in drug violence in the city, accounting for nearly half of all homicides nationwide. After 5,000 additional troops were sent to Juarez in early March, the number of deaths dropped to 51 last month. Twenty-two people have died in drug violence so far in April.

The military occupation of Juarez, an industrial city of 1.3 million across the Rio Grande from El Paso, is the most extreme example of Calderón's high-risk strategy of using the army to confront Mexico's powerful drug cartels. Besieged city officials signed an agreement surrendering responsibility for civilian law enforcement to the military.

The Juarez police department is now under the command of a retired three-star general and a dozen top military officers handpicked by Mexico's defense secretary. Soldiers are the cops -- they write traffic tickets, investigate domestic disputes, arrest drunks and run every department, including the jail, the training academy and the emergency call center.

More than 10,000 soldiers and federal agents patrol Juarez's gritty streets. Dressed in green camouflage and carrying automatic weapons, they stage raids, detain suspects, and search travelers at the airport and border crossings, assuming unprecedented law enforcement duties.
The steep decline in killings here has been accompanied by a spike in human rights complaints. A Juarez government office created last month to monitor the army's conduct received 170 complaints in its first three weeks, including allegations of illegal detentions and beatings. Last week, the attorney general opened separate investigations into the cases of two men who were killed while allegedly in the army's custody.

"Ciudad Juarez, right now I'd say it's the safest city in Mexico," said Jorge Alberto Berecochea, a former lieutenant colonel in the air force who was called out of retirement last month to run one of the city's six district police stations.

Berecochea and other officials described a "cockroach effect" in which drug traffickers have scattered under the glare of the military. One night last week, he led a patrol through Casas Grandes, a slum where smeared blood and splintered glass still cover the floor of a guard station where a police officer was killed in December by assailants firing AK-47 assault rifles.
...
"The cartels are basically wiped out here now," Berecochea said. "They're not operating, at least not in Juarez."
...

There is much more.

When you have an adequate force to space ratio it is impossible for the criminal insurgents to move to contact without being detected and stopped. That is the reason they have left or stopped their operations. It should also be having an effect on their ability to transport contraband into the US through Juarez which is one of the main gateways into the US.

I am somewhat suspicious of the human rights cases brought since the army has moved in. It would not surprise me if they were brought by members of the cartel trying to inhibit the work of the army. It sounds suspiciously like Taliban claims of civilian deaths in our operations against them in Afghanistan. I think the attorney general should be looking at the people filing the complaint as closely as he investigates the substance of their claims.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Al Qaeda trained kids for human bomb attacks

Times:

Iraqi security forces have arrested four children who were allegedly part of a group of youngsters being groomed by al-Qaeda to become suicide bombers, an Iraqi army general said.
The children, who were detained in a village near the northern city of Kirkuk, were part of a cell known as the “Birds of Paradise” and were being specially trained to avoid detection as they carried out attacks, security officials said.
“Special forces units have arrested an organisation of children consisting of four individuals under the age of 14 who call themselves the 'Birds of Paradise',” said General Abdelamir al-Zaidi, the commander of the Iraqi army division in Kirkuk. “The group relies on children and is connected to al-Qaeda. It works to recruit children and young people to carry out suicide attacks and to aid the terrorist groups in detonating roadside bombs.”
Al-Qaeda groups have previously used Iraqi children to carry out attacks on US and Iraqi security forces, even using them in one instance as a cover to sneak a car bomb past a Baghdad checkpoint before detonating the device with the youngsters still inside. Militants have also been accused of using mentally disabled women as suicide bombers.
...

This is another example of the depravity and wickedness of our enemy. Why do people follow these monsters?

Obama tries to buck CIA morale after bad decision on memos

Times:

President Obama visited the CIA headquarters yesterday to placate officials dismayed by his decision to release top secret “torture” memos, a move that has provoked accusations that he is willing to compromise America’s safety out of political correctness.
Mr Obama’s first visit to the CIA, to boost morale there and shore up his own reputation, came as his decision to release the memos detailing brutal interrogation sessions of terror suspects continued to attract criticism.
There were claims from inside the agency’s ranks that the move had undermined its ability to extract vital intelligence from America’s enemies, and could even blow the cover of some secret operatives.
Michael Hayden, who ran the CIA under President Bush, said before Mr Obama’s visit that the release of the memos had compromised the CIA’s intelligence gathering work and, in effect, aided America’s enemies.
...

The description of his remarks in the NY Times sounds like the old expression about gentlemen not reading others mail. Is was all moral preening trying to disguise and cover up some extraordinary bad judgment on his part that has rightly angered many who work at the CIA.

Obama seems to think that his mere presence makes everything OK. A few words from his mouth and the effects of his poor judgment are supposed to be washed away. Out in the real world our enemies are pleased with his decisions.

Let me be clear. The Times does a straight report on his remarks. I am giving my own impression of them. I think it is also clear that he would not have bothered to make the trip if there were not a lot of people out there who thought he screwed up.

Dubai syndicate laundering Somali pirate cash?

Independent:

Organised piracy syndicates operating in Dubai and other Gulf states are laundering vast sums of money taken in ransom from vessels hijacked off the Horn of Africa.

Investigators hired by the shipping industry have told The Independent that around $80m (£56m) has been paid out in the past year alone – far more than has previously been admitted. But while some of this money has ended up in the pirate havens of Somalia, millions have been laundered through bank accounts in the United Arab Emirates and other parts of the Middle East.
The so-called "godfathers" of the illicit operations, according to investigators, include businessmen from Somalia and the Middle East, as well as other nationalities on the Indian sub-continent. There have also been reports that some of the money from piracy ransoms has gone to Islamist militants.
...
Investigators have discovered that the pirate gangs are exploiting information available to the shipping industry to plan their attacks. Front organisations are believed to have signed up to the Lloyd's List ship movement database, and sources such as Jane's Intelligence, to ascertain protective measures being undertaken by the shippers. In addition they have bought equipment to monitor radio traffic.
A few well-funded pirate syndicates have experimented with a "stealth" paint such as AR 1, invented by a German scientist living in the UAE, which is credited with making boats difficult to spot via the long-range radar of cargo liners.
It is not clear whether the use of the paint has been effective in helping hijackings, but its use, say the security companies, shows that the pirates are seeking out advanced technology and have the means to acquire it.
Andrew Mwangura, a piracy expert in the Kenyan port of Mombasa, says the gun-wielding Somalis who are fighting and dying in the hijackings are the just the front men of larger syndicates. "They are just the small fish. The big sharks operate out of places like Dubai, Nairobi and Mombasa," he said.
...

This story suggest a criminal enterprise that the FBI maybe able to run to ground. They are very good at tracking the flow of funds in a criminal enterprise. Most of the ransoms that I am aware of were paid in cash. There was one recent story where some of the pirates drowned becasue the cash caused their boat to swamp. The Dubai connection is worth looking into.

Paraguay President, prolific priest?

Mr Lugo, 57, did not confirm nor deny fathering the 6-year-old boy, but read a brief statement promising to "act always in line with the truth" before appealing for privacy and referring all questions about paternity claims to his lawyer.
Two of Mr Lugo's cabinet ministers started judicial proceedings against their boss on the second woman's behalf, and vowed to order DNA tests if Mr Lugo does not recognise paternity.
When Mr Lugo admitted last week that he fathered a 2-year-old boy with a different former parishioner, saying he would "assume all responsibilities" for the boy, analysts predicted that his forthright response would disarm the potential scandal, despite the feeling of at least one bishop that it was a "slap in the face" of the Catholic Church.
But a second paternity claim will inevitably give his opponents more ammunition.
Benigna Leguizamon, an impoverished soap-seller, said she decided to go public with her affair with the former bishop after Mr Lugo acknowledged his relationship with Viviana Carrillo, the 2-year-old's mother, last week.
"I decided to make this claim through the media before going to the courts after seeing that last week Viviana Carrillo got President Lugo to recognise their child," she said.
Both women said they were just teenagers when they first met Mr Lugo. And Miss Leguizamon said he privately acknowledged fathering her son at the time of his birth.
...

The allegations suggest Lugo was a predator priest, who was not particularly concerned about vows of chastity. It certainly sounds like he breached a trust also.

Lugo is another one of those socialist recently elected in South America. He is not someone I expected much from and he has fail to exceed by low expectations.

Pirate mom begs Obama for mercy

BBC:

The mother of a teenage alleged pirate held over the hostage-taking of a US sea captain this month has appealed to US President Barack Obama to free him.
Adar Abdurahman Hassan told the BBC her son, Abde Wale Abdul Kadhir Muse, was innocent and just 16 years old.

He was held over the seizure off Somalia of Richard Phillips, captain of the Maersk Alabama cargo ship.

While her son was allegedly negotiating on a US warship, naval snipers shot dead three pirates holding the captain.

The mother of the teenager, who is facing trial in New York, said she wanted to be present in court if the case goes ahead.
...

I have to wonder what kind of defense the BBC thinks this guy has that they are calling a guy caught in the act an alleged pirate. Why not just say that he was caught in the middle of an act of piracy? It looks like his mom is looking for a trip to New York. That should present an opportunity for further circus atmospherics for a lawfare trial.

In fairness, there are a lot of moms out there who think their sons are incapable of some of the things they have done. But this guy will face a lot of witnesses who will put him in the act of piracy I suspect.

Who knew?

From the Telegraph:

Tax hike will encourage rich to hide wealth

Unfortunately I don't have that problem, but if I did I would be structuring my life to avoid as much taxation as legally possible. Now don't go challenging my patriotism.

Obama's illusive foreign policy dreams

David Paul Kuhn:

Candidate Barack Obama was dogged by charges of naiveté. President Obama has done little to disprove the accusation. He has been championed as a realist. But he has acted the ungrounded idealist.

It was a young John Kennedy who described himself as "an idealist without illusions." But Kennedy proved otherwise early on. The Bay of Pigs undercut US power nearly 48 years ago to the day.
Obama is more cautious than Kennedy. He is also more taken with illusions of the green diplomatic sort: that popularity wins policy or kindness woos kindness.

The damage has been limited to theatrics. But as Kennedy learned, weak theatrics can induce aggression. And Obama is accumulating some weak theatrics.

A North Dakota native was sentenced this weekend to eight years in prison for espionage. The conviction was by secret trial. It came a month after Obama committed himself to a new era of engagement with Iran that is "honest and grounded in mutual respect."

Meanwhile, Iran is undeterred in its effort to construct the ultimate deterrent. The White House continues to push for talks with Iran. Iran continues to master the nuclear fuel cycle. The West looks resigned to an Iranian bomb. It hopes to contain a rising regional power after it has nuclear weapons. Look how well that worked with Pakistan and North Korea.
Earlier this month Obama spoke of "a world without nuclear weapons." That same day nuclear North Korea test fired a ballistic missile. "I am not naïve," Obama responded to the atomic irony.

Obama subsequently doubled down on his naiveté. He spent political capital by assigning his U.N. ambassador to win a "resolution with some teeth." Obama came up all gums, as Kimtologists foretold. Russia and China were not suddenly moved to reverse policy and agree to seriously punish Pyongyang. The U.N. issued a statement. Tempered caution led North Korea to act most intemperate. Kim Jong Il left the six-nation disarmament talks and restarted his nation's nuclear weapons program.

...

Democrats have been in this alternate universe for most of the Bush administration and upon being slapped with reality, they seem to be saying, "Thanks. May I have another."

Ahmadinejad's message rejected at UN meeting

BBC:

Diplomats have walked out of a speech by the Iranian president at a UN anti-racism conference after he described Israel as a "racist government".
Two protesters, wearing coloured wigs, briefly disrupted the beginning of the speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but he continued speaking.

Shortly afterwards a stream of Western delegates walked out when he attacked the creation of the state of Israel.

France, whose ambassador walked out, described it as "hate speech".

Some of those who stayed clapped as Mr Ahmadinejad continued his speech.

The walkout is a public relations disaster for the United Nations, which had hoped the conference would be a shining example of what the UN is good at - uniting to combat injustice in the world, says the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.
...

I question Imogen's premise about what the UN is good at. This conference is clearly something it is not good at. When a bunch of religious and ethnic bigots get together to beat up on Israel, it is the UN at its worst. Ahmadinejad's message or revisionist history and hate is bad for the UN and those who embrace his message.

Gateway Pundit has more on the speech and the reaction to it.

Ammo shortage gets worse

Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

Most days are like Christmas for Glen Furtardo.
When he opens boxes sent to the Winchester Gallery gun store in east Fort Worth, he finds out what ammunition he’ll have to stock his shelves with that day as demand for weapons and ammo soars. Reports of heavy sales at gun stores began around the time of Barack Obama’s election as president, and months later, dealers are facing ammo shortages nationwide.
"People are panicking and buying," said Furtardo, assistant manager. "The crime rate is high, and they are flat scared of what is going to happen in the next few years with the economy and the country. Manufacturers weren’t prepared for this."
Retailers and consumers say there may be several reasons gun stores are running out of ammunition — and the cost of what is available is rising.
There’s a widespread expectation that Obama’s administration will follow through on a campaign promise to reimpose an assault weapons ban. Some people fear that taxes on ammunition, guns and other firearms-related materials might drastically increase, as they have on cigarettes.
...

There is more.

There is a big difference between what Democrats would like to do and what is politically possible. They probably have the votes to put restrictions on the guns and ammo, but they know that they will lose enough seats to threaten their majority if they push the issue. They will try to be more nuanced and deceitful in their approach. You can already see the deceit in their discussion of Mexican weapons and the 90 percent myth about them coming from the US.

In the end this is going to hurt their credibility with voters.

It is happening in Illinois too the Chicago Sun-Times reports.

Green jobs myth grows faster than real jobs

San Diego Union-Tribune:

When National University asked more than 125 local companies to showcase green jobs at an Earth Day event in Kearny Mesa, some businesses jumped at the chance.

But as it turns out, only one of them is looking for an employee.

That's the rub of the emerging green economy: Its potential is widely praised, yet real-life opportunities for job seekers have been elusive. There are questions about how many new positions are really being created, and there's no unified timeline for the industry's growth.

Environmentally friendly careers are getting unprecedented attention in the walk-up to Earth Day on Wednesday, thanks partly to more than $80 billion in stimulus funding that Congress approved in February for developing alternative fuel sources and other eco-conscious initiatives. Lawmakers, economists and business leaders increasingly view expansion of the green industry as one way out of the nation's deep recession, and seemingly no educator or employer wants to be left out.

President Barack Obama has pledged that his “clean energy” plan will help create 5 million jobs over the next decade. In March, he named Bay Area author and activist Van Jones as a special adviser on green employment.
...
San Diego is one of the nation's 10 largest centers of green jobs, with about 12,000 positions in the metropolitan area, according to an October study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

“I don't think we have seen an explosion in the area yet,” said Mark Cafferty, CEO of the San Diego Workforce Partnership, which runs employment centers countywide.

“We don't want to downplay the expectations because we think this could be great for the regional economy, but we are also trying to be real,” he said. “We need to figure out what jobs will be created first and at what skill levels, and then work with higher education, labor and other partners to craft programs that will match the needs of this new and exciting industry as it grows.”

Other marketplace watchers have sounded a note of caution as well; they criticize early projections for the green industry as too rosy.
...

There is much more.

In the UK where they have been pushing green jobs longer, they are actually laying off people, because the products they are producing are not competitive. The only likelihood of growth in this sector at this point is probably government jobs for research that is unlikely to change much.

Making better smaller weapons

LA Times:

A 5-pound missile the size of a loaf of French bread is being quietly tested in the Mojave Desert north of Los Angeles as the military searches for more deadly and far more precise robotic weapons for modern warfare.

In the next month or so, researchers at the Naval Air Warfare Center at China Lake expect to test a 2-foot-long Spike missile that is about a "quarter of the size of the next smallest on the planet," said Steve Felix, the missile project's manager.

Initially intended for use by ground troops against tanks, these small guided missiles have been reconfigured to launch from unmanned airplanes to destroy small vehicles. In the test, the missile will be fired from a remote-controlled helicopter and aimed at a moving pickup truck.

If the test is successful, it will mark another milestone in the development of weapons for unmanned aircraft, a nascent field reminiscent of the early days of flight nearly a century ago when propeller-driven biplanes were jury-rigged with machine guns.

In recent months, the U.S. has used Predator robotic planes equipped with video cameras to carry out search-and-destroy missions against Al Qaeda hide-outs in Pakistan and Afghanistan. These attacks highlighted the rapidly changing face of warfare. But it was no big deal at China Lake, where weapons have been getting smaller, more precise and more powerful for a decade.

The new missiles being developed here are minuscule compared with the older, 100-pound Hellfire missiles in use today in Central Asia. A Predator, which can carry two or three Hellfires, would be able to hold as many as a dozen Spikes, extending its capabilities.

At the same time, experts say, smaller unmanned planes that could not carry weapons before could become deadly attack aircraft.

...

Engineers at the sprawling China Lake complex, one of the nation's largest weapons test facilities with 6,600 workers, are hoping to be at the forefront.

"We're sort of at the same stage as we were in 1914 when we began to arm airplanes," said Steven Zaloga, a military analyst with the Teal Group Corp.

Pentagon officials say robotic planes have been particularly effective. As a result, demand for them has climbed sharply and Pentagon planners have rethought how they develop and deploy new weapon systems, analysts said.

That's because the threat to U.S. security isn't from superpower rivals with state-of-the-art fighter jets and nuclear submarines, but from international terrorists who are more likely to engage in smaller-scale, guerrilla-type warfare, they said.

In such warfare, robotic planes, originally intended to provide video images of potential threats, are becoming one of the more effective weapon delivery systems, they said.

The aircraft can circle over an area for extended periods -- up to 24 hours in some cases -- looking for elusive targets. Once a target is identified, remote operators can launch a missile to destroy it within minutes.

...

The Spike, which uses commercially available computer chips and components, is expected to cost about $5,000 a pop, compared with more than $100,000 for the current generation of guided missiles.

"You can put them on smaller UAVs and thus have more of them," Pike said.

He noted that the fast-paced advances in computers and electronics have helped weapons developers. "That's why there have been such amazing outbursts of creativity in munitions."

War is a creative process that stimulates advances that were not anticipated before it breaks out. When you break down the combinations of warfare they basically fall into four groups--heavy and light infantry and heavy and light cavalry. Stalemates can occur when the machinery of warfare makes it impossible to effectively use all four. That is what happened between the Civil War and World War I. Towards the end of World War I tanks became an effective heavy cavalry alternative and planes became an effective light cavalry alternative. This is why warfare in World War II was dramatically different.

When we have enemies who cannot deal with our superiority in combined arms, they use a raiding style of warfare in an insurgency. To defeat an insurgency you need a higher force to space ratio than in combat persisting oeprations. What these light UAVs bring to the battle is a combination of persistence, invulnerability, and accurate lethality. By making smaller weapons to fit on the UAVs we increase their persistence and there ability to carry more weapons.

The article is right in seeing this as like the early stages of planes as a weapon. I have made the observation several times before. I think they will get smaller, lighter and more accurate.

Zawahiri not fond of Obama's Afghan strategy

CBS:

Al Qaeda's deputy commander, Ayman Zawahri, has issued another scathing attack on President Obama in a new audio tape released on jihadi Web sites.

Zawahri argues that the U.S. president is following the same policies as his predecessor, George W. Bush.

"America brought us a new face, trying to deceive us yet again. A face that calls for change, but it’s rather calling for us to change, to give up our faith and our rights,” says Zawahri, adding that Mr. Obama’s victory in the U.S. presidential election was an acknowledgement by the American people of, “the failure of the policies of Bush and his gang.”

Zawahri warned that Mr. Obama's "surge" of troops to Afghanistan will only make things worse. “What Obama is seeking to do by increasing the U.S. forces in Afghanistan and continuing to bomb Pakistan will only add more fuel to the fire and expose your soldiers to more killings and injuries."

"What Obama has claimed about negotiating with moderate Taliban is an illusion that he is fooling you or himself with,” added bin Laden's deputy.

...

There is more Zawahiri rant in the story.

I think Zawahiri is right about negotiating with "moderate" Taliban. He is definitely wrong about the surge of forces into Afghanistan. That is bad for his side and not ours.

Zawahiri is also trying to deal with the Obama message, but time will take care of who is right on that point. In the end, the message will be irrelevant and the policy will determine who wins and loses. I tend to think at this point Obama has not sent enough troops which will mean teh war will last longer.

Danger Room notes a part of his rant that suggest concern about the US and Iran getting together. "The more you cooperate with Iran, the more hatred you will generate from Muslims."

An interesting comment for someone who wants to generate more hatred for the US by Muslims. I think what he is letting slip is his bigotry toward Shia Muslims is as great as his bigotry toward non Muslims.

Is Obama cutting the stimulus?

CNN:

President Obama returned to Washington on Sunday night with his eye back on his domestic agenda and a plan to save government money.

On Monday, Obama will gather his full Cabinet together for the first time as president and challenge it to cut a total of $100 million in the next 90 days, two senior administration officials said.
The officials spoke anonymously because the announcement had yet to come from the president, who returned Sunday from the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago.
The agencies would have to report how they saved on expenses after 90 days, the officials said.
A senior administration official described the edict as part of Obama's "commitment to go line by line through the budget to cut spending" and "reform the government."
As House and Senate lawmakers return from recess this week, they are expected to start reconciling their versions of the fiscal 2010 budget resolution. The president's budget request is $3.67 trillion.
...

This sounds like a convenient attempt to respond to the Tea Party complaints about spending. The $100 billion sounds like a big number until you look at it in the context of Obama's $3.67 trillion budget on top of his trillion dollar "stimulus."

Despite all the snide media comments about the Tea Party demonstrations, it appears that some are getting the message on spending. so far the only real cuts from the Obama administration ahve come from defense which is more than passing strange in the middle of a war. We actually need to be increasing defense spending to increase the size of the military as well as replace equipment that has been worn out during the war as well as building equipment that the war has shown we need such as more UAVs.

For a guy who responded to questions about wasteful spending in the stimulus package by saying that all spending is a stimulus, can we really take him serious on the proposed cuts. When he endorses boondoggle spending on one day and cuts to existing rpograms on the next it is easy to come to the clusion that Obama is not really paying attention to the details of the budget.

The mass killings of baby girls

Trent Franks:

The most recent U.S. census reveals that abortion clinics are engaged in an insidious form of racial and sex-based discrimination.
In a report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Columbia University economic researchers Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund said they found a significant gender imbalance between males and females within immigrant populations in the United States, which they think provides "evidence of sex-selection, most likely at the prenatal stage."
The data revealed unnatural sex-ratio imbalances within segments of certain immigrant populations, including those originating from India, Vietnam, Thailand, Armenia and especially China, where government-enforced "one child" policies and a culturally engrained "son preference" have made sex-selection abortion so prevalent that boys outnumber girls by as much as a 2-to-1 ratio in rural communities.
One Harvard University economist estimated that more than 100 million women were "demographically missing" from the world because of widespread and underreported practices of prenatal sex selection, an astonishing figure.
Regardless of one's position on abortion, this form of discrimination should horrify every American. The idea of killing a baby simply because she is a girl is reprehensible. Unsurprisingly, a March 2006 Zogby International poll found that 86 percent of Americans supported a prohibition on sex-selection abortion. Indeed, what good are the hard-won liberties of voting and other women's rights if babies may still be aborted simply for being girls?
...

The data also shows a disproportionate number of black abortions. There is something very wrong with this.

It is hard for me to imagine not wanting a baby because of its sex. Girls are a precious blessing to our lives. We should not deny them the opportunity for life because they are girls.

Public pension management by shakedown

Opinion Journal:

President Obama's auto fix-it man, Steven Rattner, is in the news as one of the Wall Street financiers hit up for big money as part of New York state's unfolding pension-kickback scandal. The White House says he's done nothing wrong, and there's no public evidence that he broke any laws.

But Mr. Rattner's high profile is nonetheless useful in drawing attention to the real story here, which is the growing evidence of corruption by officials who use their power over public pension funds to shake down private companies. This is the same political class that has been blaming banks for "greed" in the financial crisis. The pension fund scandal exposes the myth of the superior virtue of the public and nonprofit worlds. Greed is universal. And the opportunity for corruption is enormous when political discretion is tied to vast sums of public money.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and the Securities and Exchange Commission allege that investment firms paid politically connected "placement agents" in return for a piece of New York's $122 billion pension fund. The AG has indicted three politicos for kickbacks, but the media have focused on the private firms that hired some of these political agents. Thus the attention on Mr. Rattner, who as co-founder of the Quadrangle investment firm met with a consultant about paying a finder's fee for pension cash.

The motive and knowledge of these private investors need to be explored, but the main culprits are the public officials and their agents. Former New York Comptroller Alan Hevesi resigned in 2006 after pleading guilty to unrelated charges of defrauding the government. But his office served as exclusive manager for the pension fund that is one of the world's biggest institutional investors. What the New York scam is laying bare is the extent to which officials allegedly leveraged those taxpayer dollars to enrich themselves and increase their political power.
...

This is a form of corruption regardless of the law. It is a distortion of the free market where the person with the best product at the best price gets the business. In this case it si the public getting the business from corrupt officials.

The failure of the blame Bush foreign policy

Jackson Diehl:

New American presidents typically begin by behaving as if most of the world's problems are the fault of their predecessors -- and Barack Obama has been no exception. In his first three months he has quickly taken steps to correct the errors in George W. Bush's foreign policy, as seen by Democrats. He has collected easy dividends from his base, U.S. allies in Europe and a global following for not being "unilateralist" or war-mongering or scornful of dialogue with enemies.

Now comes the interesting part: when it starts to become evident that Bush did not create rogue states, terrorist movements, Middle Eastern blood feuds or Russian belligerence -- and that shake-ups in U.S. diplomacy, however enlightened, might not have much impact on them.

The first wake-up call has come from North Korea -- a state that, according to established Democratic wisdom, would have given up its nuclear weapons years ago if it had not been labeled "evil" by Bush, denied bilateral talks with Washington and punished with sanctions. Stephen Bosworth, the administration's new special envoy, duly tried to head off Pyongyang's latest illegal missile test by promising bilateral negotiations and offering "incentives" for good behavior.
North Korea fired the missile anyway. After a week of U.N. Security Council negotiations by the new, multilateralist U.S. administration produced the same weak statement that the Bush administration would have gotten, the Stalinist regime expelled U.N. inspectors and announced that it was returning to plutonium production.

When the inspectors were ousted in 2002, Democrats blamed Bush. Now Republicans blame Obama -- but North Korea's strategy hasn't changed in 15 years. It provokes a crisis, then demands bribes from the United States and South Korea in exchange for restoring the status quo. The Obama team now faces the same dilemma that bedeviled the past two administrations: It must judge whether to respond to the bad behavior by paying the bribe or by trying to squeeze the regime.

A second cold shower rained down last week on George Mitchell, Obama's special envoy to the Middle East. For eight years Democrats insisted that the absence of progress toward peace between Israel and its neighbors was due to the Bush administration's failure at "engagement." Mitchell embodies the correction. But during last week's tour of the region he encountered a divided Palestinian movement seemingly incapable of agreeing on a stance toward Israel and a new Israeli government that doesn't accept the goal of Palestinian statehood. Neither appeared at all impressed by the new American intervention -- or willing to offer even token concessions.

...

There is more.

He points out that the change in policy toward Russia has not changed their aggressive conduct toward Georgia. What I think this all points out is that the Democrats were dead wrong in their criticism of Bush over the last eight years and now that they have the com, they are finding that their criticisms were invalid. Having to take responsibility is a terrible thing when you lack real constructive ideas.

It took multiple waterboarding to break some al Qaeda

Scott Shane:

C.I.A. interrogators used waterboarding, the near-drowning technique that top Obama administration officials have described as illegal torture, 266 times on two key prisoners from Al Qaeda, far more than had been previously reported.

...

The fact that waterboarding was repeated so many times may raise questions about its effectiveness, as well as about assertions by Bush administration officials that their methods were used under strict guidelines.

...

I think the fact that it took repeated application suggest that it was not nearly as scary for the al Qaeda operatives as it critics have alleged. We know it is not life threatening because we still use it in training some of our own operatives.

I would have a simple test for what constitute torture. If it is something that we use in training our own people it is not torture. That would include sleep deprivation, and stress positions. By the definitions used by some in the media, football practice is torture.

Who are the worst human rights violators

NY Post Editorial:

If nothing else, President Obama's decision to overrule his own intelligence officials and release Bush-era legal memos justifying what The New York Times sanctimoniously described as the CIA's "brutal" interrogation techniques proves what a bunch of pushovers we Americans are.

Al Qaeda kidnaps Americans, tortures them, then decapitates them on TV.

We deprive captives of sleep, push them into walls and put harmless caterpillars that we say are poisonous in their cells.

Then we're the ones who are condemned as the worst human-rights violators on the planet.
...

I think they should have ended the last paragraph with a question mark. The double standard is striking and all the left can say is that we should not measure our conduct by the enemies. But does that mean that the enemy conduct gets a pass? This is not a frivolous question. When it comes to the war in the media battle space it has become a one sided US bashing and taht gives the enemy an advantage he doe snot deserve. As I often say, the media's job is to put facts in perspective and they are not doing a good job on this issue.

Gun facts and perspective

The "liar, liar pants on fire" argument usually isn't the most effective. But when it comes to guns, President Obama is lying through his teeth.
On Thursday, while on a visit to Mexico, the president continued his Blame America First tour. "This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States," he said, referring to the drug wars that are tearing apart our neighbor to the south. "More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lay in our shared border."
It is completely untrue that 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico are from America. The Mexican government separates guns it confiscates that were made in the United States and sends them here to be traced. U.S. weapons are easy to identify because of clear markings.
Of the ones sent here to be traced, 90 percent turn out to be from America, but most guns recovered in Mexico are not sent here so are not included in the count. Fox News reported that 17 percent is a more accurate number.
Democrats aren't alone in repeating phony gun statistics. The New York Times, CNN and numerous networks continue to repeat the 90 percent figure with no reporting to back it up. The hysteria is used to create the notion that a major problem exists with American guns - and Mr. Obama is anxious to step in to solve that problem with a $400 million program to stop U.S. guns from going to Mexico. That initiative would include clampdowns on U.S. gun shops.
...

It is not surprising that Democrats would use this distortion of facts to push their anti gun agenda. The media's job is to put facts in perspective and expose distortions like this. It appears that some in the media would rather embrace the distortion because it aids their own agenda rather than tell the whole truth to their readers and viewers.

This is a big lie that will not stand. All who use it will see their credibility diminished.

What was the Civil War about?

The Washington Post ask the question today and comes up with many answers. While slavery was certainly an issue, it was not begun as an attempt to eradicate slavery in the South. That was Constitutionally impossible before the war started and only became possible because the South rebelled against the Lincoln administration's plan to prohibit the expansion of slavery to new states.

That opposition in the North was not always altruistic. I think a majority opposed slavery, but there were also some who opposed the expansion of slavery, because they opposed moving the black population into the new territories.

The South saw this as a long term threat if eventually two-thirds of the states opposed slavery. One of the ironies of the war, is that by seceding they hastened the day when there would be a two-thirds majority to pass the amendment to the Constitution to abolish slavery.

For Lincoln the war was about preserving the Union. He had little concept of what the country would be like without slavery, and to the extent he thought about it at all, he thought in terms of Liberia as a solution of what to do with freed slaves, although his thinking on the matter evolved as the war dragged on. The Emancipation proclamation was basically a punitive act against the rebelling states. It did not apply to slaves held in the non rebelling states.

After nearly 150 years, it is clear that we all won the Civil War. There is still a tendency by some to treat parts of the South as occupied territory, instead of part of the nation as a whole. But, there is little resentment of that occupation today.

7 top Afghan drug dealers caught