The Taliban want to move the war to Pakistani cities

The Taliban know that the U.S. Military is fighting in Afghanistan with one arm tied behind their back. They know that if the war can be moved to Pakistani cities, that the U.S. troops will have to fight with both hands tied behind their back. The Taliban will continue to be barbaric and savage in their killing. They will intimidate citizens into supporting them and into sabotaging any effort by U.S. troops. The Taliban will just march forward until they control Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons.

When that happens, watch out for a war between India and Pakistan. The only reason a nuclear confrontation hasn't already happened between India and Pakistan, is because you currently have sane people on both sides who are in control of the weapons. That all changes on the Pakistani side if the Taliban take control.
Rees

April 27, 2009
Afghan-Pakistan: Al Qaida's new safe haven
By James Lewis

The Obama administration looks like it's going to acquiesce in the face of a nuclear-armed radicalized Pakistan, just as Jimmy Carter bowed down low in the face of Ayatollah Khomeini. Soon we will have two radicalized Muslim states with nuclear weapons and long-range missiles: A Shiite Iran, and a Sunni Pakistan.

Afghanistan is slipping out of control. But worse, Afghanistan is no longer the main battleground: a Taliban-controlled Pakistan is.

And in case you've forgotten, in the decade before 9/11 Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaida suiciders found safe haven with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Talibs are Islamist fanatics just like Ahmadinejad. They will die for Allah. That means they may not be rational actors in the Western sense. They certainly will stir up terror attacks in India and maybe Sri Lanka and the Philippines, just as the Iranians are sponsoring terrorist proxies in Lebanon, Gaza and Egypt.

Once they have nuclear weapons, they will have safe havens for further terrorist attacks. Expect nuclear weapons and long-range missiles to start spreading even faster.

Weakness? Our enemies have taken the measure of Obama and Hillary Clinton. They are not bothering to wait. They know this is Jimmy Carter II in the White House, and they are acting accordingly. Expect push, push, push on all the fronts: South America with Chavez, Noriega and the Castro brothers, now trying to control Brazil; Africa with Zuma, another mad radical now in control of the modern state of South Africa; the Sudan under its genocidal regime, backed by the Arab League and tolerated by the UN; Iran and Syria now within reach of their own nukes and missiles; and Russia, which will play big power games in the Middle East as long as it hurts the West.

The Taliban just accepted Pakistan's surrender in six provinces. They promptly moved on the seventh province, and are now within a day's drive of the capital of Pakistan. And the West? The West can't even hold down medieval terrorist pirates in little speed boats, who are making a good living off kidnapping Westerners and terrorizing Western shipping companies. The pirates are making the West pay for the Shabab Islamist rebellion in Somalia.

Remember Osama Bin Laden's strong horse and weak horse? Barack Obama is the weak horse. The Muslim world may have hated Bush, but they despise weakness.

Around the world radical Islamists will see the Talibanization of Pakistan, with its glittering jewels of nukes and missiles, as a sign of Allah's favor on their world-wide battle. They will see Tehran's nukes the same way. Europe's major cities are now majority Islamist.

Europe is frozen in fear, and reverting to traditional anti-Semitism to please the enemy at home. Even Britain is doing it.

The Obama crowd just refused to use our best radar facility merely to track North Korea's new missile launch. Tracking Kim's missile might have been "provocative". They are talking down missile defense, and failing to support our military. Instead, they are going to assault the Bush Administration's defense of America after 9/11. The only question is whether they will conduct that assault through the New York Times and the anti-American media, as the Democrats did during the Bush years, or whether they will do it by criminalizing members of the military and the intelligence agencies and actually putting them in the dock.

It will be the first time in American history that an administration has prosecuted its predecessor for defending the United States from enemies, foreign or domestic.
This going to be a very dangerous decade.
Click to read the article and comments

Liz Cheney vs. Norah O’Donnell: “The tactics are not torture”

You MUST view the entire clip. Liz Cheney asks a great question regarding what Obama did, or did not know.



Was Obama aware that the interrogation efforts had been effective? Did he make a decision to release those incredibly sensitive memo's without adequate information? If Obama chose to release the memo's before educating himself regarding all sides of the issue, it is at a minimum shameful on his part. He has basically destroyed the ability for our intelligence services to gather information.

This is a great article from Hot Air.com.
Rees

April 26, 2009
by Allahpundit
from Hot Air.com

A few days old but we’ve had a steady stream of requests for it. Hotline has the transcript; don’t quit before the end or you’ll miss her thoughts on Palin and Meghan McCain. Speaking of McCains, Maverick may differ with Cheney about whether waterboarding constitutes torture but they agree that a “truth commission” would be a very bad idea. A good question: “[Enhanded interrogation] was bad advice. But if you criminalize bad advice on the part of lawyers, how are you going to get people to serve, and what sort of precedent does that set for the future?”

Actually, here’s a better question: If we all know it’s going to happen anyway in certain circumstances, why not legalize it? Kathleen Parker, unsurprisingly, doesn’t get it:

In his book “Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age,” Dershowitz proposes that since torture is a given under those certain circumstances, then “torture warrants” should be issued by a judge.

He is right that most of us would do whatever necessary to save our child, possibly even torture a kidnapper. Likewise, if we stumbled upon someone trying to harm a loved one, we would kill the attacker if necessary to stop him.

But those are both darkly impassioned environments. It is by the cool light of day that we devise our laws. And it is by that same light that we judge our actions.

The law would protect you if you had to kill an attacker to stop him from killing, which is to say, it’s those “darkly impassioned environments” that law is most concerned with. Why leave a CIA agent in legal limbo if, however likely or unlikely it may be, he finds himself with a detainee in a ticking-bomb scenario?

Do yourself a favor after you watch the clip. Go listen to the archived audio here. Three minutes. Click to read the article and comments

A word about the soldiers - Could apply whether British, American or Israeli

This is great commentary. Could apply whether British, American or Israeli.
Rees

US should tell UN to shove it - UN laws do not trump US laws

from Breitbart.com
By VERONIKA OLEKSYN
Associated Press Writer

UN torture envoy: US must prosecute Bush lawyers

VIENNA (AP) - The U.S. is obligated by a United Nations convention to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who allegedly drafted policies that approved the use of harsh interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects, the U.N.'s top anti-torture envoy said Friday.

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama left the door open to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations. He had previously absolved CIA officers from prosecution.

Manfred Nowak, who serves as a U.N. special rapporteur in Geneva, said Washington is obligated under the U.N. Convention against Torture to prosecute U.S. Justice Department officials who wrote memos that defined torture in the narrowest way in order to justify and legitimize it, and who assured CIA officials that their use of questionable tactics was legal.

"That's exactly what I call complicity or participation" to torture as defined by the convention, Nowak said at a news conference. "At that time, every reasonable person would know that waterboarding, for instance, is torture."

Nowak, an Austrian law professor, said it was up to U.S. courts and prosecutors to prove that the memos were written with the intention to incite torture.

Nowak also said any probe of questionable CIA interrogation tactics must be independent and have thorough investigative powers.

"It can be a congressional investigation commission, a special investigator, but it must be independent and with thorough investigative powers," Nowak said.

On Thursday, Obama's press secretary suggested Obama does not care for an independent panel.

Last week, the Obama administration released secret CIA memos detailing interrogation tactics sanctioned under Bush.

The memos authorized keeping detainees naked, in painful standing positions and in cold cells for long periods of time. Other techniques included depriving them of solid food and slapping them. Sleep deprivation, prolonged shackling and threats to a detainee's family also were used.

Nowak said Saturday that Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA operatives who used questionable interrogation practices violates the same U.N. convention. But at that point he did not specifically address the issue of how the convention would apply to those who drafted the interrogation policy and gave the CIA the legal go-ahead.
Click to read the article and comments

Nancy Pelosi Knew about Waterboarding

Americans have to decide now - We can't have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets

from The Washington Post
By Porter J. Goss
Saturday, April 25, 2009

Since leaving my post as CIA director almost three years ago, I have remained largely silent on the public stage. I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can't have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets. Americans have to decide now.

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.

We must not forget: Our intelligence allies overseas view our inability to maintain secrecy as a reason to question our worthiness as a partner. These allies have been vital in almost every capture of a terrorist.

The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust. We have given our enemy invaluable information about the rules by which we operate. The terrorists captured by the CIA perfected the act of beheading innocents using dull knives. Khalid Sheik Mohammed boasted of the tactic of placing explosives high enough in a building to ensure that innocents trapped above would die if they tried to escape through windows. There is simply no comparison between our professionalism and their brutality.

Our enemies do not subscribe to the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury. "Name, rank and serial number" does not apply to non-state actors but is, regrettably, the only question this administration wants us to ask. Instead of taking risks, our intelligence officers will soon resort to wordsmithing cables to headquarters while opportunities to neutralize brutal radicals are lost.

The days of fortress America are gone. We are the world's superpower. We can sit on our hands or we can become engaged to improve global human conditions. The bottom line is that we cannot succeed unless we have good intelligence. Trading security for partisan political popularity will ensure that our secrets are not secret and that our intelligence is destined to fail us.

The writer, a Republican, was director of the CIA from September 2004 to May 2006 and was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 1997 to 2004.
Click to read the article and comments

Obama just got played by Iran's Ayatollah - you live by the sword, you die by the side

Wow! That one had to hurt!

Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei just dropped the "Anti-CIA" card on Obama. Yes, Obama. You bad-mouthed the CIA. You've convinced many Americans and the world that we are the bad guys and guess what happened? Low and behold, Khamenei tells the world that US Intelligence (CIA) is responsible for the attacks that killed Iranian Pilgrims.

How do you dispute that charge Obama? You can't. You've already made it so that all of our intelligence services and military are now "guilty until proven innocent."

Yes Obama, you own it! One more time. "YOU OWN IT!" Any questions before you slither back into the White House?

Thanks for the way you've been treating all the Patriots who are defending and protecting our Nation. (sarcasm) They are Americans who are Proud of Our Country (something you and your wife are not familiar with) and serve us honorably. You crapped all over them. Of course, what does it matter to you? They're not the type of people you hang with anyway are they are.
Rees

Ali Khamenei charges US military in Iraq, Israeli intelligence with attacks that killed Iranian pilgrims

DEBKAfile Special Report
April 25, 2009

"The main suspects in this crime and crimes similar to that are American security and military forces," said Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Satuday, April 25, of the string of deadly bombs that left 155 dead in Iraq including dozens of Iranian pilgrims.

"The growth of the poisonous grass of terrorism in Iraq will definitely be written in America's criminal record and US and Israeli intelligence bodies are the first suspects of that," he said.

DEBKAfile's Iranian sources report that the all-powerful ayatollah was not just accusing the US security and military forces in Iraq of the suicide attacks of the last 48 hours but of "similar" crimes.

The ayatollah's attack shortly after Hillary Clinton's unannounced arrival in Baghdad seems to signify a sudden sharp cooling in Tehran-Washington relations - hardly a hopeful starter for the dialogue sought by President Barack Obama.

Two suicide bombers struck separate targets Friday, April 24, killing at least 65 people at the important Shiite shrine of Imam Moussa al-Kadhim in the Kadhimiya district of Baghdad as people gathered for Friday prayers; seven died at a car dealership in Diyala. At least 149 were wounded in both incidents. Thursday, a suicide bomber killed 55 people, including 53 Iranian pilgrims, also in Diyala, while a female suicide bomber killed 28 people in Baghdad. More than 100 were wounded in both attacks.

Khamenei may have been irked by the encounter in Tokyo between US special envoy Richard Holbrooke and Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki at a donors' conference for Pakistan. What exactly happened between them is not known. When asked about a meeting, Holbrook said curtly: "No dialogue. I ran into the foreign minister as we were milling around and we said 'hello' and chatted for about a minute or two."
Click to read this and other great articles at the Debka File

Here is additional information from an article in The Jerusalem Post:
Iran blames Israel, US for Iraq attacks

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei blamed Israel and the United States on Saturday for recent suicide attacks in Iraq that have killed dozens of Iranian Shiite Muslim pilgrims.

"Dirty hands and evil brains that founded this blind and uncontrolled terrorism in Iraq should know that the fire will burn them, too," Khamenei said in a statement broadcast on state television.

"The American and Israeli intelligence services are the prime suspects," state television quoted the Iranian leader as saying.

Khamenei's comments come as US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was in Iraq and the Obama administration has said it wants to engage Iran after a 30-year diplomatic deadlock.

Clinton responded to Khamenei's allegations, saying it was "disappointing for anyone to make such a claim since it is clearly traced to the al-Qaida remnants and other violent groups who wish to disrupt the progress of Iraq."

"I condemn these violent recent efforts to disrupt the progress that Iraq is making," Clinton said, claiming the attacks were a sign that extremists are afraid Iraq's government is succeeding.
But she said the response by the government and its people was "firm and united in rejecting that violence and refusing to allow it to set Iraqi against Iraqi, which is obviously one of its intended goals."

Iran has sent mixed messages to Washington in response to President Barack Obama's overtures.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Iran was ready to forget the past and start a new relationship - but he also called Israel a racist country and blamed the US invasion of Iraq on a Zionist conspiracy.

US president Barack Obama has been trying a different approach to Teheran by offering to engage in dialogue with the Iranians, who have sent conflicting signals back to Washington.

On Monday at a UN anti-racism conference, Ahmadinejad called Israel the "most cruel and repressive racist regime," prompting diplomats from every European Union country to walk out. Click to read the article and comments

How Do You Spell Blackmail? H-I-L-L-A-R-Y

Hillary is basically telling Israel that you better do what we say, or else. It's the same message Obama issued said a few days ago.

Rees

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Israel on Thursday that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testifies on Capitol Hill before the House State and Foreign Operations subcommittee on Thursday.

Clinton said Arab nations had conditioned helping Israel counter Iran on Jerusalem's commitment to the peace process. [That's complete BS. That is what Obama and Hillary are trying to now start. my comment]

"For Israel to get the kind of strong support it is looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts. They go hand in hand," Clinton told the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.

She added that Arab countries "believe that Israel's willingness to re-enter into discussions with the Palestinian Authority strengthens them in being able to deal with Iran."

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is set to visit Washington in May and Clinton stressed she was not going to jump to any conclusions regarding Israel's stance until the upcoming talks with him.

"The prime minister will be coming to Washington in May, and we think that it is important not to prejudge what their view is and how that can best be approached," she said. [No, you're just basically firing a warning shot or Israel's bow with your comments - my comment]

Concerning a funding request for the Palestinians, Clinton said the State Department would ensure that no US taxpayer money goes to Hamas.

"No aid will flow to Hamas or any entity controlled by Hamas," she said.

Clinton repeated that any new Palestinian Authority government that included Hamas must recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by previous agreements.

However, she indicated that the US would not necessarily cut funding to the Palestinians even if Hamas joins the unity government and fails to meet the three above conditions, noting that the US continued to provide funds to Lebanon, whose government includes Hizbullah.

"We are doing that because we think, on balance, it is in the interest of the United States," she said.

The US secretary of state went on to defend US President Barack Obama's effort to engage diplomatically with Iran, calling it a reasonable alternative to what she called a failed Bush administration policy.

"We tried the policy of total isolation for eight years," she said in a rising voice, "and it did not deter Iran one bit. The nuclear program has continued unabated. They weren't supporting Hamas before. They are supporting Hamas now." [Unless Israel attacks Iran, I would be every penny I have that Obama will allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. - my comment]
AP contributed to this report

Click to read the article and comments

Saberi and Obama - Barry you're a pathetic wimp!

Hey Barry, I'll bet if you had just been falsely convicted and sentenced to 8 years in a Iranian prison, you'd be wanting the President of The United States to be doing a lot more than you've done. You've shown nothing but weakness regarding foreign policy since you've taken office. Every U.S. Citizen living overseas in an unstable country should be very nervous right about now.
Rees

The Sentencing of Roxana Saberi — and Obama's Tepid Reaction
from Pajamas Media
by Michael Ledeen
April 20, 2009

The president’s response to the sentencing of Roxana Saberi—eight years in prison—is a testament to the power of Iranian blackmail and Obama’s own pigheaded refusal to understand the nature of our enemies. His “disappointment” in the mullahs’ action (echoed almost to the letter by Secretary of State Clinton) suggests that he hoped, maybe even expected, something better from them. And that, in turn, demonstrates a refusal to see Iran for what it is.

If I were Saberi’s Iranian-American father, I would be furious, and I would be inclined to call a press conference to say that, while it may be interesting to know the President’s state of mind, and even a bit sad that he is disappointed, American presidents are not paid to share their emotions with us. Among other things, they are paid to defend us from our enemies. He has manifestly failed to do this in the case of Roxana. I would ask the president very publicly, “are you going to do anything for my daughter or not? Never mind ‘I’m disappointed.’ What will you do for her, and for the other Americans in the grips of the mullahs? Or are you going to wait until there are dozens of American hostages in Iranian hands?”

I think it’s a bit inconsistent for the president to take credit for the liberation of Captain Phillips—through the use of overwhelming military power—and then limit himself to expressing disappointment at the brutal treatment of an American journalist. Why is Captain Phillips worth the deployment of the U.S. Navy, while Ms Saberi is barely worth a sigh of disappointment?

The anwer seems to be: because the pirates weren’t Iranians. If they had been, the entire crew would be facing years in prison.

Obama is committed to the “talking cure” with Iran, and he seems destined to live through the humiliation to which his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, was subjected. He might go back and watch some of the old “Nightline” shows, beginning with a count of the number of days America was “held hostage.” That’s exactly where Obama is headed.

The president may well feel that this is all very unfair. He didn’t ask for this. Indeed, he thinks he has given Iran every reason to behave nicely towards him (he seems disinclined to think in terms of the nation, it’s all about him). He doesn’t seem to realize that all his sweet talk is very provocative, it plays into the mullahs’ fantasy world in which they are routing us all over the world (they know it’s all about us, not about him), and soon the American president will kneel to the Supreme Leader. He actually seems to believe that it is possible to convince the Iranian leaders to give up their nuclear program, when every major figure in the Islamic Republic has said that Iran will never, ever, abandon that program. The only thing they are willing to discuss is how we will accommodate to the fact of a nuclear Iran.

Meanwhile, their agents and proxies are killing Americans from Egypt and Saudi Arabia to Iraq and Afghanistan. And Obama does nothing in response, except to make gesture after gesture demonstrating his lack of will to confront those who have been killing Americans for thirty years. Click to read the article and comments

Iran says US Journalist Roxana Saberi trial over - awaiting verdict

Let's see: They have a 1 day trial, but it might be weeks before a verdict is reached. You don't think that Iran might use this pending verdict for political purposes do you? Iran? No, of course not. The Mullahs are concerned about Roxana and want to ensure that they deliver a fair and just verdict. /sarc
Rees

from Yahoo News
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran – An American journalist jailed in Iran and charged with espionage faced a court in a one-day trial behind closed doors and a verdict is expected within weeks, the country's judiciary spokesman said Tuesday.

The unusually swift trial in Iran's Revolutionary Court comes as the United States has publicly pressed for Roxana Saberi's release.

The 31-year-old dual American-Iranian citizen was arrested in late January and initially accused of working without press credentials. But an Iranian judge leveled a far more serious allegation against her last week, charging her with spying for the United States.

"Yesterday, the first trial session was held. She presented her final defense," judiciary spokesman Ali Reza Jamshidi told reporters. "The court will issue its verdict within the next two to three weeks."

The U.S. government has repeatedly called for Saberi's release and the charges against her and news of her trial were a setback — especially at a time when President Barack Obama has expressed a willingness to talk with Iran after many years of rocky relations under the former Bush administration.

It was unclear why the trial was moving at such a fast pace — especially because the charges leveled against Saberi were so serious. Under Iranian law, those convicted of spying normally face up to 10 years in prison.

Saberi's lawyer, Abdolsamad Khorramshahi, said he was not authorized to speak to the media about the trial, which he was permitted to attend. "I will comment only after the verdict is issued," he told The Associated Press.

Her parents, who traveled to Iran in a bid to help win their daughter's release, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Saberi, who grew up in Fargo, North Dakota, has been living in Iran for the last six years, working as a freelance reporter for organizations including National Public Radio and the British Broadcasting Corp.

An Iranian investigative judge involved in the case has alleged Saberi passed classified information to U.S. intelligence services but did not provide further details.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said last week the United States was "deeply concerned" about the espionage charges, which the department described as "baseless."

Jamshidi criticized the U.S. on Tuesday for saying Saberi was innocent and calling for her release.

"That a government expresses an opinion without seeing the indictment is laughable," he told a news conference.

Saberi's parents, who live in Fargo, visited their daughter last week in Evin prison, a facility north of Tehran that is well-known for holding political prisoners. The couple met Saberi for 30 minutes — the first time they had spoken to her since she called them on Feb. 10 to say she had been arrested.

Her father, Iranian-born Reza Saberi, said he would stay in Iran until his daughter was freed. He has said his daughter was finishing a book on Iran and had planned to return to the United States this year.

Human rights groups have repeatedly criticized Iran for arresting journalists and suppressing freedom of speech. The government has arrested several Iranian-Americans in the past few years, citing alleged attempts to overthrow its Islamic government through what it calls a "soft revolution."

Associated Press Writer Nasser Karimi contributed to this report.
Click to read the rest of the article

Why is Hillary laughing? Is it the "Man-caused seafaring disaster?" meh...

from Michelle Malkin.com
By Doug Powers
April 9, 2009



Hillary Clinton was commenting about the situation concerning the so-called “Somali pirates,” and during her remarks she let loose with a “let’s change the subject” laugh that she hasn’t made since a reporter spotted a cheerleader under Bill’s podium back in ‘93.

For those wondering about the reason for Hillary’s sudden cackle, I have five theories:

1) Nervous laughter because she suddenly realized she would be reprimanded for saying “piracy” instead of using a slight variation of the Administration’s preferred term, “Man-caused seafaring disaster.”

2) Desperately trying to suppress the urge to say “ARRRR!.”

3) Caught off guard by being asked about doing nothing about the Somali pirates when she was expecting to be asked about doing nothing about North Korea’s missile launch and Iran’s nuclear program.

4) Giddy because her “the world needs to come together to end the scourge of piracy” remark gave her a book idea: It Takes a Village to Erase a Pirate

And the most likely possibility…

5) The guy standing next to her looks an awful lot like somebody who just baked a Moroccan air biscuit, doesn’t he? - THE WINNER! DING! DING! DING!

One of the most disconcerting traits of the Obama presidency so far is that whenever something bad happens, the first response of the administration is to very sternly wonder why nobody else is doing anything about it. “Global consensus” is required to attack everything except our paychecks. Now that’s piracy.

Update: John Kerry says this serious “pirate” situation calls for immediate hearings! That should scare ‘em, Senator.

Here is a HILARIOUS preview of those Senate hearings:


(h/t for the vid link to Conservative Xpress)
Click to read the article and comments

UPDATE: Iran Charges American Woman With Spying and Treason

Roxana has been in Iran for 6 years. Iran is continuing with their nuclear program and the U.S. and Europe are trying to convince Iran to stop. Iran has thumbed their nose at everyone in the process and they have used every technique available to buy them more time. The Iranian nuclear program has reached a critical point where it must be stopped. If the U.S. and Europe won't stop it, Israel probably will. The timing of this is not coincidental. It's a diversion, plain and simple.
Rees

By FARNAZ FASSIHI
April 8, 2009

BEIRUT -- Iran's judiciary charged Roxana Saberi, a 31-year-old American freelance journalist, with espionage on Wednesday after detaining her in prison for more than two months.

The charge was outlined on state television Wednesday evening by the Revolutionary Court judge in charge of the prosecution of Ms. Saberi, who was arrested Jan. 31.

Judge Sohrab Heydarifard said that Ms. Saberi had been collecting interviews and documents from government circles under the cover of a reporter, sometimes working without an Iranian government press card, and then transferring the information to American intelligence services.

"This has been uncovered by the counterespionage section of the Information Ministry, and she has thus been arrested. She will stand trial in the course of the following week," said Mr. Heydarifard.

In Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she was deeply concerned by the reported charge against Ms. Saberi and demanded her immediate release.

According to Iranian judiciary officials, Ms. Saberi has admitted to the charge against her. However, her lawyer, Abdulsamad Khoramshahi, said that she is innocent and has been wrongly accused.

"My first goal is to get her out on bail as soon as possible and then prove to the court that she must be acquitted on all charges," said Mr. Khoramshahi in a telephone interview from her home in Tehran.

Allegations against Ms. Saberi have fluctuated since her arrest. Iranian authorities first said Ms. Saberi had broken the law by purchasing a bottle of wine. Then they said she was working without a valid press card, although working without such a permit isn't a crime under Iranian law. They said initially that she would be released within weeks, and then that it might take months or years.

"We are very concerned for Roxana and for her safety. There is a serious lack of information in her case. What is the evidence against her?" said Mohamad Abdel Dayem, the Middle East director for the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists.

Espionage is an extremely serious crime in Iran's penal code, and cases go to trial in the Revolutionary Court, a separate court system that also deals with such high-level crimes as treason and drug trafficking.

A senior public prosecutor in Tehran said that if Ms. Saberi were convicted of spying, she would face between three and 10 years in prison. If the court found her guilty of spying with intent to overthrow the government, she could face execution.

Over the past two months, as Ms. Saberi's case has received global attention, with petitions circling on the Internet for her immediate release, the U.S. Congress has lobbied on her behalf and Ms. Clinton said last week that the U.S. had sent Iran an official letter asking for her release. Iran denies receiving such a letter.

Ms. Saberi's case could complicate recent diplomatic gestures between Iran and the U.S., aimed at thawing ties severed in 1979. President Barack Obama has said he is ready to negotiate with Iran to try to resolve their differences. Tehran has said it too is willing to negotiate if it sees real policy change from the U.S.

Some analysts in Iran say that Ms. Saberi's case has taken a political tone and that she might be used as leverage to secure the release of three Iranian nationals arrested in Iraq in a U.S. military raid in 2007. The three Iranians are accused by the U.S. of spying for Iran's Revolutionary Guards but so far haven't been formally charged.

Ms. Saberi was born to an Iranian father and a Japanese mother in the U.S. and grew up in Fargo, N.D. She was an accomplished student, star athlete and a beauty queen who was crowned Miss North Dakota in 1997.

She moved to Iran six years ago to work as a freelance journalist and did broadcast and print stints for the BBC, National Public Radio, CBS and other media organizations. Two years ago, her press card was revoked, but she continued to work on personal projects, conducting interviews for a book on Iran.

Colleagues and friends in Iran say that she was mild-mannered and careful in her reportage and they were shocked to hear of her arrest. Ms. Saberi's parents flew to Tehran last week and met with their daughter in jail on Monday, according to her attorney. She was in better spirits, eating and exercising and was allowed to watch television and read books.

Her parents have appealed for her release to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, who is the only person in Iran possessing the power to pardon prisoners.
Click to read the article and comments

Obama and UN Take Bold Action against N. Korea

New York - After insistance by the Obama administration, the UN made an unprecedented bold, but risky move today, and actually took no action against North Korea. Yes, after all the bluster and stern words from President of the Universe Obama, nothing was done. Nada. Zero.

The Myth of 90 Percent

The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.

While 90 percent of the guns traced to the U.S. actually originated in the United States, the percent traced to the U.S. is only about 17 percent of the total number of guns reaching Mexico.

By William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott
from FOXNews.com
Thursday, April 02, 2009

EXCLUSIVE: You've heard this shocking "fact" before -- on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.
-- CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.
-- California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors ... come from the United States."
-- William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that "there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States."

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.
Click to read the rest of the article and comments

Breaking: Defense Sec. Gates announces new missle defense strategy

This administration is beyond incompetent. Obama's foreign policy, if one actually exists, wreaks of weakness, appeasement and outright recklessness. The lack of coordination between the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and our Military is frightening.
Rees

Monday, March 30, 2009
from Joshua Pundit

Secretary of Defense Gates Sends A Message To North Korea, Iran And Israel

In an interview with Chris Wallace on FOX last Sunday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was asked about North Korea's impending missile test and simply said "I would say we're not prepared to do anything about it."

This, after Gates admitted, "I don't know anyone at a senior level in the American government who does not believe this technology is intended to mask the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile."

In the same interview, Gates also danced around direct questions from Wallace about the Obama Administration's desire to severely cut funds allocated for missile defense.

There's a message here to a number of interested parties. The Mullahs of Iran now know that if the US is unwilling or unable to interfere with the North Koreans' ICBM test or take any effective action against their illegal nuclear program, the current occupant of the White House is certainly not going to interfere with Iran doing the same thing.

And the Israelis, if they're paying attention, should realize that the US either couldn't or wouldn't do anything to stop North Korea, they're not going to stop an Iranian missile strike on Israel either. And that any guarantees the Israelis get on that score are pretty much worthless.

Last but not least, of course is the message to the American people, who mostly aren't paying attention. Allowing rogue states to obtain and perfect nuclear weapons will eventually affect us severely, and the people supposedly in charge of dealing with this sort of thing apparently have more pressing concerns.
Click to read the rest of the article