CSI: THE WORLD - Starring Barack Obama

image by rees

article from Investor's Business Daily
June 3, 2009

War? What War?

War On Terror: The phrase is actually now a misnomer. Iraq and Afghanistan have been rebranded the "Overseas Contingency Operation," and lawyers are being deployed to fight the real battles.

The strategy of the new administration looks a lot like the course the Clinton administration set us on before Sept. 11, 2001. And we know how that turned out: Clinton relied on prosecutors to fight terrorists, mistakenly treating terrorism as random crime rather than the grave national security threat that it is.

After each al-Qaida attack that occurred on his watch, Clinton dispatched FBI agents and lawyers overseas to collect evidence. This simply bought Osama bin Laden and his henchmen more time to launch their "Big Bang," as counterterrorism officials call 9/11.

Astonishingly, this administration seems to have adopted that failed strategy, which could leave us exposed to an even bigger bang. According to the Los Angeles Times, the Justice Department will now have "a central role in overseas counterterrorism cases."

The administration has expanded its authority to question foreign suspects and gather evidence "to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option." In other words, the FBI is in, the CIA is out, and the Pentagon is gradually being stripped of its war. The Global War on Terror is now a global crime scene. The real battles going forward will be waged inside courtrooms.

The FBI played a lead role in international terrorism investigations before 9/11. Its intelligence proved lousy. The Pentagon and CIA, meantime, have taken the fight to the enemy in their backyard, keeping them off balance. Yet they're being edged out, and the White House has even directed the Pentagon to stop calling what it's doing in Iraq, Afghanistan and other terror fronts a "war."

In a recent e-mail to Pentagon staffers, the Defense Department's office of security review noted "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror.' (GWOT.) Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' " Contingency is code for reacting to trouble, and not going on the offensive — though the aggressive strategy has kept the country free from a major attack for eight years.

In another throwback to the Clinton era, the White House has redirected law enforcement to focus investigations on white supremacist groups.

According to a recent internal report by the Department of Homeland Security, the administration thinks Timothy McVeigh types pose a greater domestic threat than radical Muslims, even though several homegrown terrorism cases have popped up in the last month alone — including Monday's shooting of U.S. soldiers in Little Rock by one Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. DHS was set up after 9/11 to protect the country from Islamic terrorism.

All this comes on top of the administration's plan to close Gitmo and transfer al-Qaida terrorists into the U.S. court system, treating them as if they were criminal defendants and not the enemy combatants they are.

With each passing month, the administration seems to backslide deeper into a dangerous pre-9/11 mentality that puts the nation at increasing risk of attack.
Click to read the article and the comments

Here's Obama's Cairo Speech - Or at least the speech he should give

June 02, 2009
from American Thinker
by Robert Spencer

As Barack Obama prepares to give his long-anticipated major address to the Islamic world from Cairo, as a public service I here offer the speech he should give:

Dear friends,

I have said that in this speech I would offer my personal commitment to engagement with the Islamic world, based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. Establishing peace between the forces of the global jihad and America and her ally Israel is something that I would very much love to do. The first thing I must acknowledge, however, is that much as I would love to see this peace dawning over the world, it is not within my power to achieve this.

That may surprise many of you. You have grown accustomed to thinking that the tensions between Muslims and the United States - tensions that boiled over on September 11, 2001 and on the occasions of many other acts of jihad terrorism as well - are entirely the fault of the United States. Americans have been told that we are hated because of our support for Israel, and because of our attempts to bring freedom and stability to the overwhelmingly Muslim people of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are hated because we have spent American treasure to try to secure a better life for Muslims the world over, spending billions of dollars in aid for Egypt, Pakistan, and other Muslim countries.

I must speak honestly with you. It puzzles and pains Americans to see ourselves vilified and hated for trying to help others. Now, unlike the Islamic Republic of Iran and other Islamic entities, we seek no apologies, no restitution. We do not ask for a word of thanks for our numerous attempts to help Muslim societies become safe, prosperous places to live for all their citizens. We do not ask for your approval. But at this point we are going to cease efforts to build bridges of understanding with the Islamic world that have turned out to be fruitless, and even self-defeating.

We have showered billions on Pakistan to enable the Pakistani government to fight the Islamic jihadists, only to see a great deal of that many being funneled to those same jihadists, who are now stronger than ever.

We have tried to establish democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, only to see non-Muslim minorities treated worse than ever, such that they have been streaming out of Iraq in unprecedented numbers, while the few that remain in Afghanistan are subject to increasingly violent persecution.

We have brokered peace treaty after peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians - from Camp David to Oslo to the Road Map for Peace - only to see the Palestinian side again and again trample upon its commitments to recognize and respect Israel's basic right to exist.

I have offered you America's outstretched hand. In doing so I have followed a path blazed by my predecessors. But that gesture of conciliation has never been reciprocated. And so now, even as my good will is still extended to you, I must act more realistically.

Pakistan and other Muslim countries will not receive another penny of American aid unless and until they demonstrate - in a transparent and inspectable fashion - that they are working against, not abetting, the forces of the global jihad. This will include instituting comprehensive nationwide programs to teach against the jihad doctrine of Islamic supremacism, teaching that Muslims and non-Muslims must live together as equal citizens on an indefinite basis, without any attempts by Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law.

I trust you will understand that we cannot continue to fund the cutting of our own throat.

Afghanistan and Iraq must immediately guarantee the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims, or American arms will no longer devote themselves to keeping regimes in power that do not guarantee those rights.

I will call upon Israel to make no further territorial concessions. The withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 demonstrated only that such concessions whet, rather than sate, the appetites of Islamic jihadists for more concessions. The assumption that territorial concessions will bring peace ignores not only recent history, but also the stated goal of the jihadist movements arrayed against Israel: the destruction of the Jewish state.

That state is an American ally - a more reliable one than any Islamic state has ever been. And we will do whatever is necessary to preserve and defend that ally.

Our hand is outstretched, but we are not unrealistic about the nature of the world. The animus between us is as much, if not more, the result of the doctrines of jihad and Islamic supremacism as it is a result of American policy. I am telling you today that we understand this, and will be acting accordingly. Ultimately a policy based on realism will be much better for both of us than policies based on the fantasies and half-truths that have hitherto prevailed.

Thank you, and may God bless you.

Click to go to the article and read the comments

Iraq considers 5 day waiting period for purchasing suicide vests

Hey Obama, this is what military leadership really is...

from the blog Dear Mr. President
Sunday, May 10, 2009

Dear President Obama: In case you're wondering what military leadership really is.

So far, you've been a clueless idiot about most all things military.

In everything from lying during your campaign about troop withdrawals, to blowing off the Medal of Honor Reception on your inauguration, to trying to get us to pay for our own wounds by sticking it to our own insurance companies, you've been an utterley loathsome Commander in Chief.

Well, Mr. President, here's another clue in the clue bag as to what it takes to lead. It's about courage. It's about sacrifice. It's about honor.

And frankly, Sir, you seem to lack any clue about any of those tenets of leadership. So here's a video, from CBS of all people, that may give you a glimpse of what you're in charge off.

No con job like your last photo op with screened military supporters. But the real deal.

So, watch this, Mr. President. Get a grip. And get a clue. This is the kind of leadership YOU should aspire to.

from the blog This Ain't Hell But You Can See It From Here
May 8th, 2009

The Warriors Code, Part II

Maybe not for you guys, but this one comes with a hankie warning for me anyway. Nah, who am I kidding, even if you have a Grinch pre-whoville 2 sizes too small heart, this one will choke you up.



Click image or this link to watch the video - it plays automatically

Brian Brennan is a fellow alumnus of The Citadel, and a brother of mine, in arms if not in blood. He is a recipient of the Arland D. Williams Award, and a true American Hero.

I just feel so humbled by men like Brian.

Here is his website

H/t to Hawkeye and the VA

Hey Obama - How's That Search For Osama Bin Laden Going?

We're all curious as to the status. All of us rember your bravado, the chest thumping, your declaration during the campaign that you would be the one to actually capture or kill him, unlike the evil George W. Bush was unable to do.

Well, the airways have been absent any mention of Obama. Just make sure you let us know when you find him, OK? Thanks!
Rees




Following is a statement from Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton in response to the Republican debate in Des Moines this morning.

"The fact that the same Republican candidates who want to keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of a civil war couldn't agree that we should take out Osama bin Ladin if we had him in our sights, proves why Americans want to turn the page on the last seven years of Bush-Cheney foreign policy."

and this:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.

and this:

"For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just “muddle through” in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell – but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives.

and this:

"AL-QAEDA leader Osama bin Laden should be executed, if he is ever captured alive, US Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama said in interview excerpts released yesterday."

The Illinois senator told CNN that the accused mastermind of the September 11 attacks in 2001 should face the full weight of US and global justice.

"I am not a cheerleader for the death penalty," Senator Obama said. "I think it has to be reserved for only the most heinous crimes, but I certainly think plotting and engineering the death of 3000 Americans justifies such an approach.

"I think this is a big hypothetical, though - let's catch him first.

"We have failed to seriously go after al-Qaeda over the last five years because of the distraction of Iraq.

"I think we are now seeing the consequences of that in Afghanistan."

February shooting was "definitely an anomaly" - not anymore - Iraqi soldier kills 2 US soldiers, wounds 3

My heart goes out to our military who make the ultimate sacrifice.

Try to imagine this: First of all, you can't identify the enemy in Iraq. They don't wear a uniform like in a normal war. This enemy walks aground dressed like any other Iraqi civilian. You don't know if they're carry a weapon, or worse, are wearing a suicide belt.

You really want to know what torture is? Try patrolling the neighborhoods of Iraq under those combat conditions.

If our troops could choose between being waterboarded and patrolling a Bagdad street, the choice would be simple, you won't die from waterboarding.
Rees

from Yahoo News
May 2, 2009
By BRIAN MURPHY
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD – An Iraqi soldier opened fire on a U.S. military team Saturday, killing two American soldiers and wounding three, the U.S. military said, in an attack that could sharpen worries about the extent of militant infiltration in Iraq's security forces.

Iraqi officials described the attacker — who was killed in the gunbattle — as a soldier who also served as a Sunni Muslim preacher for his unit near Mosul, which is one of the last urban strongholds for Sunni insurgents.

Such an ambush could increase pressure on the Shiite-led government to try to root out possible turncoats and slow efforts to bring Sunni militiamen into the police and military as rewards for helping battle al-Qaida in Iraq and other insurgent factions.

But any possible slowdown of the Sunni outreach will meet resistance from Washington, which sees the sectarian reconciliation as essential for Iraq's stability and to keep security gains from rolling back.

A U.S. military statement said the attacker was killed after firing on the U.S. soldiers near the entrance to a combat outpost 12 miles (20 kilometers) south of Mosul.

A separate gunman fired at other U.S. soldiers at the outpost, then fled, according to Maj. Derrick Cheng, a spokesman for American forces in northern Iraq.

In the past, attackers have used military and police uniforms to bypass checkpoints and gain access to heavily guarded bases. But several Iraqi military officials said the gunman was a low-ranking Iraqi soldier.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

It was the latest case of a member of Iraq's security forces targeting U.S. troops. On Feb. 24, two Iraqi police officers in Mosul opened fire on a visiting U.S. military team, killing one American soldier and an interpreter. The gunmen remain fugitives.

Earlier this week, a U.S. military spokesman, 1st Lt. John Brimley, called the February shooting "definitely an anomaly."

Saturday's attack follows the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq since September — with 18 American soldiers dying in Iraq in April.
click to read the article and the commments

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

US airstrike in Iraq threatens peace among militia

From The Times
April 4, 2009

by Deborah Haynes in Baghdad

A mutiny in the ranks of a key Iraqi militia credited with helping US forces to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq is threatening to plunge the country back into bloody sectarian violence.

The rebellion by some members of the Awakening Councils, a Sunni Arab paramilitary force of more than 90,000 men, could unravel the improvements in security since 2007. If left unchecked it threatens to push the country back to the brink of civil war, pitting Sunnis against the Shias.

A US airstrike on Thursday night targeted a group of Awakening Council men north of Baghdad who were suspected of planting a roadside bomb. One person was killed and two others were wounded and arrested.

The attack came days after some of the worst fighting in Baghdad in two years. Local Awakening guards clashed with the Iraqi Army after their leader was arrested on criminal and terrorism charges. Iraqi soldiers moved into the Fadhil district on Sunday and ordered fighters to surrender.

The crackdown alarmed other Awakening units, who fear that they are being treated unfairly by the Government for sectarian reasons. Scores of guards, many of whom fought as insurgents before switching sides, have been arrested in the past fortnight.

Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia Prime Minister, said that the operation in Fadhil came after months of investigation. “The issue was not for political or media purposes,” Mr al-Maliki said.

The offensive sent a message “to those who are following the same path taken by the gang in Fadhil that their fate will be the same”, he said.

The renewed violence will be greeted with alarm by the US military, which is drawing down its forces because of the reduction in violence.

One leader in the restive province of Diyala said that the Government did not trust the Awakening movement because it was made up of Sunni Arabs. “We fought al-Qaeda so how could it be that my guys are terrorists?” said the man, who goes by the nickname of Abu Iraq (father of Iraq). “I do not trust my Government.”

The Awakening Councils were a key part of the strategy developed by General David Petraeus, whose surge of US forces two years ago was credited with pulling Iraq out of its descent into civil war and defeating al-Qaeda.

Awakening Councils were conceived in 2006. The sheikhs had supported or approved of the insurgency but had become repulsed by the indiscriminate killings by groups such as al-Qaeda. They agreed to recruit thousands of fighters to turn against the extremists in return for a salary. The initiative spread across the country. Insurgents who once received cash for planting bombs against the coalition forces took up guns under the payroll of US officers to protect their neighbourhood in one of the most significant turning points in the war.

Many members of the Government opposed the creation of this mainly Sunni Arab armed force and remain concerned that the Awakening Councils have been infiltrated by al-Qaeda and other militant groups.

Responsibility for the Awakening Councils was handed over gradually to the Iraqi authorities. A fifth of the men were supposed to be absorbed into the Iraqi security forces, with the rest given help to find civilian jobs. Little progress has been made in recruiting any of the guards however.

Officials insist they are committed to working with the guards but a drop in the price of oil has restricted plans.

Abu Iraq, who commands about 1,000 men, said that almost 500 had been laid off without the prospect of employment and there was no sign that the 530 still with jobs would be accepted into the security forces soon. “The danger is that the violence starts again in our neighbourhood. There are many guys with no jobs,” he said.

Many Awakening Council members complain that they have not received a salary for up to three months.

Sons of Iraq

- The Awakening Councils, also known as the Sons of Iraq, were formed in 2006 after Sunni tribesmen rose against al-Qaeda

- The US Army paid monthly salaries to the estimated 90,000 Sons of Iraq until last year

- Iraq is dragging its feet on a pledge to take a fifth of its members into the security forces

Click to read the article