Sparks from the Anvil

Memorial Day Remembrance

2011-05-30T09:15:00.001-07:00

Two of my posts are up at Flopping Aces:

Videos

Mark Daily revisited

Torture doesn't work...Ok, so then, where's the disagreement?

2011-05-18T09:45:00.000-07:00

ARLINGTON, VA - DECEMBER 15: (L-R) US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, US President George W. Bush and US Vice President Dick Cheney attend the Armed Forces Farewell Tribute to Rumsfeld at the Pentagon December 15, 2006 in Arlington, Virginia. Praise was heaped on the outgoing secretary by Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld used his farewell speech to call for an increase in military spending. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

"The history of the United States military is clear: Torture doesn't work"- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

“We don’t torture. That’s not what we’re involved in.”- Vice President Dick Cheney

“This country doesn’t torture, we’re not going to torture."-President Bush

Agents searching Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's compound discovered what one official later called a "mother lode" of valuable intelligence. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was obviously planning more attacks. It didn't sound like he was willing to give us any information about them. "I'll talk to you," he said, "after I get to New York and see my lawyer."

George Tenet asked if he had permission to use enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I thought about my meeting with Danny Pearl's widow, who was pregnant with his son when he was murdered. I thought about the 2,973 people stolen from their families by al Qaeda on 9/11. And I thought about my duty to protect the country from another act of terror.

"Damn right," I said.

- Decision Points, pg 170, by George W. Bush

When asked about future plots, KSM's reply was, "Soon you will know." Like Abu Zubaydah before him, KSM was trained to resist standard interrogation techniques. After being waterboarded by his CIA interrogators, Zubaydah thanked them and told them, "You must do this for all the brothers."

Around my last year of college, I picked up some work as a loss prevention specialist for a major retail clothing company. Aside from acting as an in-house detective on occasion, I also worked different stores in the district, training the sales staff in areas of loss prevention.

The person I answered to was the regional loss prevention manager who hired me. She was amazing! I had the privilege of sitting in on a couple of her interviews as she interrogated employees suspected of internal theft. After the interviews, she'd walk me through and point out the employee's body language throughout key moments in the interview; the questions she asked, why she asked them at the moment she chose to ask them; she educated me on where the employee's missteps were and when it became obvious to her that the employee was fabricating, hiding something, etc. By the end of the interrogation, the terminated employee would walk out of the room in a daze. Throughout the process, my boss basically got the thief to confess through a kind of relationship-building. It was so intense, that even after it was over, the employee left still feeling like my boss was somehow an understanding friend.

She confided in me that there was a time in her youth that she was approached by the Secret Service and the CIA to work for them. She was THAT good, apparently. I remember asking her why she didn't take the job offer with the Secret Service and she simply told me she didn't want to have to take a bullet.

What she taught me from the small amount of exposure I had been given, was just how much of an art it was to interrogate people. Watching her at work, then having her interpret for me later on what I failed to see, was like watching/listening and appreciating/analyzing good poetry.

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the nature of the CIA program under the Bush Administration that involved enhanced interrogation. So much so, that even experts in the field of interrogation have been misled into false assumptions about what the CIA interrogation program was all about. One such expert is Matthew Alexander (a pseudonym) whose book, Kill or Capture: How a Special Operations Task Force Took Down a Notorious al Qaeda Terrorist, I recently purchased.

Fortunately, early in 2010, an important book came out to try and set the record straight by defending those CIA interrogators who, up until then, could not openly speak out to defend themselves from all the slander, distortions, and assumptions about their work. The public should not have had knowledge of the details, let alone our enemies. But thanks to the leaks, media hysteria, hype, and distortions, partisan politics over patriotism, and finally the release of the OLC memos by the Obama administration, Marc Thiessen was able to shoot back with his book. As he puts it in his Author's Note and has stated in interviews, "You should not be reading this book. I should not have been able to write it."

The public discourse over the CIA program has in itself killed it. Its effectiveness was in the "not-knowing"; in the uncertainty. Waterboarding had already been discontinued (I think in 2003) long before President Obama's first executive order, redundantly "banning" what was already banned. Revelations about its existence and details already effectively killed its value to CIA interrogators. Now, like those in our military who undergo waterboarding in SERE training, al Qaeda operatives can now add it to their list in interrogation resistance training. According to Thiessen, KSM, who is said to have received upward of 183 splashes during his waterboarding sessions, figured out just how long his interrogators could waterboard him for and would count down the seconds on one hand. Matthew Alexander and critics argue that this is proof of how ineffective waterboarding is. I'd say it bolsters the argument that the CIA method of waterboarding hardly constitutes the kind of waterboarding that does cross the line from the simulated feeling of drowning to one of actual drowning and torture.

The effectiveness of the CIA techniques was in the pretense of torture; of making the terrorist believe that things were worse than they actually were. As Marc Thiessen describes it:

The effect of the techniques is psychological, not physical. They trick the terrorists into thinking what they are enduring is worse than it really is.

It’s like the show Magic’s Biggest Secrets Revealed — once you know how the magician saws the woman in half, you’re not fooled. The same goes for enhanced interrogation.

In a strange twist of irony, the media falsehoods about torture at the hands of our CIA, as damaging as it's been to our reputation in the world, may also have helped to perpetuate the "magic trick"-purpose of EITs:

The story of one senior al-Qaeda terrorist, Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, illustrates the point. When Abd al-Hadi was brought to a CIA black site, agency officials told him, “We’re the CIA.” He replied, “I’ve heard of you guys. I’ll tell you anything you need to know.” And he did. Detainees like Abd al-Hadi cooperated without enhanced techniques because they feared enhanced techniques.

In wake of the "waterboarding" of Osama bin Laden's carcass at the beginning of this month, new partisan questions have arisen regarding which administration should be credited the most with "having brought him to justice" (and his 72 urchins).

This has reignited the debate between defenders of the Bush-era CIA practice of enhanced interrogation and those attackers who choose to label it "torture" and "ineffective", plain and simple.

Like Ali Soufan, Matthew Alexander is an expert in his field who has served his country honorably; both have played important roles in the fight against the al Qaeda network and affiliates. Both men have also been lionized by liberals (holding credibility for their expertise in the field of interrogation) on account of their scathing criticism of the CIA enhanced interrogation program; and in calling the Bush administration out with the torture charge. I, the non-expert, however, believe they themselves have been misled, just like these WWII vets and that the proof is in Thiessen's research. I believe Thiessen's work trumps their own assumptions regarding the CIA program as it functioned under President Bush.

In Alexander's book, he stresses the importance of relationship-building as it relates to interrogating suspects and captures. By emphasizing this, critics of enhanced interrogations are setting up a strawman. What they don't seem to get or acknowledge is that the CIA absolutely believes in and acknowledges the virtues of the relationship-building approach as well.

Pg. 91 from Ronald Kessler's The Terrorist Watch:

The CIA interrogated captured terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and at secret locations throughout the world such as Bagram Air Force Base, an American installation in Afghanistan. While the CIA used coercive methods like depriving suspects of sleep and forcing them to kneel for hours, the CIA believed that actual torture involving infliction of pain produced bad information. Simply offering terrorists tea and sympathy was often enough to get al Qaeda members to talk. Often, the Stockholm Syndrome took over. Most al Qaeda members cooperated after a day or two. If not, they might be turned over to intelligence services in Egypt, Morocco, or Jordan where rough techniques could be used.

"You start by getting him talking to you," David Manners, the former station chief in Jordan, says. "You start with items you already know about. That shows him you know a lot. His defenses diminish. Then you ask about items you don't know about. Beating a guy up doesn't work. He will tell you anything to stop the pain. We never used such tactics."

Marc Thiessen would agree, based upon his research and interviews with those CIA interrogators who themselves were directly involved in the CIA program.

In the opening prologue to Kill or Capture, Alexander talks about how legendary WWII-era interrogators stuck to American values and principles, never resorting to torture. Well, guess what? The very best American interrogators- including Alexander, Soufan, and those directly involved in the CIA enhanced interrogation program- also uphold American values and principles; and also do not believe in the effectiveness of torture.

Incidentally, according to Eisenhower and the German POWs by Stephen Ambrose and Gunter Bishhof, as many as 56,000 German POWs- about 1% of the total numbers captured by war's end- may have died while in U.S. custody. Contrast this with the .125% in today's GWoT: Human Rights First reported in a 2006 study that since August of 2002, 100 detainees held by the CIA and the U.S. military had died while in captivity (According to military records, 34 of these are suspected or confirmed homicides). According to Department of Defense figures, by 2006, over 80,000 have been held under U.S. custody in the War on Terror.

So where lies the historical precedence that the Bush Administration behaved worse or that those under its leadership behaved worse than Americans of previous generations and of previous administrations? It doesn't exist, other than in the fevered imaginings of media hype, sensationalizing and distorting the record.

Only about 100 terrorists were ever held in the CIA program that saw fit to subject only 30 of those 100 to enhanced interrogations (and of these only 3 were waterboarded; how many detainees both military and CIA were ever waterboarded at Guantanamo? Answer: Zero). The techniques used arguably do not rise to the level of definition for torture and were cleared by the legal counsel of the Justice Department and CIA lawyers. The European Court for Human Rights, which has a more restrictive definition of "inhuman and degrading treatment" than Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, also determined in Ireland vs. United Kingdom that the 5 techniques (wall-standing, hooding, noise, sleep deprivation, food and drink deprivation) used by British interrogators did not amount to the level of definition for torture.

When critics say, "people will tell you whatever you want them to say to make the torture stop", what they are saying is that they completely do not have a grasp of the CIA program or the purpose for coercive techniques. Enhanced interrogations were not used to elicit confessions but to gain cooperation, after which normal relationship-building interrogation is established (de-briefing). Those 30 detainees who became candidates for enhanced interrogations were tough. A number of them most likely received extensive training in interrogation resistance for them to have entered the program.

As Thiessen wrote recently in WaPo:

Interrogators would never have asked about the names of couriers during waterboarding. As I explain in my book, “Courting Disaster,” enhanced techniques were not used to gain intelligence; they were used to elicit cooperation. According to former CIA director Mike Hayden, as enhanced techniques were applied, CIA interrogators would ask detainees questions to which the interrogators already know the answers — allowing them to judge whether the detainees had reached a level of compliance. “They are designed to create a state of cooperation, not to get specific truthful answers to a specific question,” Hayden said.

Once interrogators determined a terrorist had become cooperative, the techniques stopped and traditional, non-coercive methods of questioning were used. Moreover, the use of enhanced techniques wasn’t needed for two-thirds of the detainees in CIA custody . Just the experience of being brought into CIA custody — the “capture shock,” arrival at a sterile location, the isolation, the fact that they did not know where they were and that no one else knew they were there — was enough to persuade most of them to cooperate.

Alexander makes the argument in his article that there are negative consequences to torturing your captured enemies aside from the unreliability of confessed information:

Those consequences include the fact that torture handed al Qaeda its No. 1 recruiting tool, a fact confirmed by the U.S. Department of Defense's interrogators in Iraq who questioned foreign fighters about why they had come there to fight. (I have first-hand knowledge of this information because I oversaw many of these interrogations and was briefed on the aggregate results.) In addition, future detainees will be unwilling to cooperate from the onset of an interrogation because they view all Americans as torturers. I heard this repeatedly in Iraq, where some detainees accused us of being the same as the guards at Abu Ghraib.

I have no doubt that many foreign fighters and Muslims embraced the jihad just as many Americans began enlisting after 9/11. A desire to protect your tribe is a natural, noble, universal instinct; a desire to defend your own. Abu Ghraib almost single-handedly cost us Iraq and gave al Qaeda new life. But more so than the actual abuses that happened there, more than any actual instances of abuses that happened at Guantanamo, Bagram, or anywhere under CIA and U.S. military supervision, was the media hyperventilation and overexaggeration of any actual let alone alleged abuses that occurred. Media distortions and misguided human rights watch groups, absent of real facts, did just as much to recruit jihadis as anything that actually happened in earnest. Jihadi propaganda could not have crafted a more self-serving narrative than the one world opinion shaped for them.

As Thiessen writes, "It is this myth, not the CIA's actions, that has harmed America's reputation across the globe" (Courting Disaster, pg 172)

Americans do not condone torture. Neither President Bush, VP Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, nor Marc Thiessen endorse torture. They are not "torture apologists", nor am I. ("Torture deniers", maybe...might be a label I'd be willing to wear ;) )

Yes, abuses happened. But these were the exceptions, outside the norm; never part of military or CIA policy. Those abusers were prosecuted and punished.

Honest debate can be made regarding where the line in the sand should have been drawn. But it is dishonest and wrong to compare "the belly slap", "walling" and SERE-inspired waterboarding to actual water torture by Japanese soldiers or waterboarding during the Inquisition. It is so much hyperbolic nonsense and slander. And it fuels enemy propaganda for recruitment and support.

As Thiessen writes on pg 193 of Courting Disaster,

It speaks well of our country that many Americans are uncomfortable with enhanced interrogation. We should be uncomfortable with these techniques, just as we should be uncomfortable with the decision to go to war. Americans always go to war reluctantly, recongizing that war is a tragedy, even when it is necessary and just. The same is true for coercive interrogations. It is tragic that coercive interrogations were needed, and it speaks well of our country that we placed so many liimits on them. But the CIA's actions were not only necessary and effective- they were also moral and just.

Former President Bush:

Our intelligence officers carried out their orders with skill and courage, and they deserve our gratitude for protecting our nation. Legal officials in my administration did their best to resolve complex issues in a time of extraordinary danger to our country. Their successors are entitled to disagree with their conclusions. But criminalizing differences of legal opinion would set a terrible precedent for our democracy.

From the beginning, I knew the public reaction to my decisions would be colored by whether there was another attack. If none happened, whatever I did would probably look like an overreaction. If we were attacked again, people would demand to know why I hadn't done more.

That is the nature of the presidency. Perceptions are shaped by the clarity of hindsight. In the moment of decision, you don't have that advantage. On 9/11 I vowed that I would do what it took to protect America, within the Constitution and laws of our nation. History can debate the decisions I made, the policies I chose, and the tools I left behind. But there can be no debate about one fact: After the nightmare of September 11, America went seven and a half years without another successful terrorist attack on our soil. If I had to summarize my most meaningful accomplishment as president in one sentence, that would be it.
-Decision Points, pg 180-181

Photo by Jim Young, Reuters

Over half of what the CIA learned about al Qaeda can be traced back directly to the CIA enhanced interrogation program. Terror plots were derailed. al Qaeda operatives killed or captured. And it now appears the killing of Osama bin Laden can be traced back to information gleaned from the CIA program.

American lives have been saved thanks to the CIA interrogators, who did not compromise American principles and values in the handling of our enemies- those who wish us grave harm. Many have been treated with compassion and decency; some received tough treatment, for sure. And deservedly so where American lives are at stake.

What on earth do we have to apologize to the world for? Instead, we should be thanked, just as Abu Zubaydah thanked his CIA interrogators. The world is made safer by what we do; it is not made safer by the spin that distorts what we do.

Thank the CIA, the military, and our elected officials who have to make tough decisions everyday to keep America and the rest of the world safe.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Also check out my post responding to John McCain's op-ed in WaPo.

Veterans Day- "The Pledge"

2010-11-11T21:21:00.001-08:00

To those past and present who serve in our military, THANK YOU! Our nation owes its peace and prosperity to your service and sacrifice. An extended thank you to the military families who support you.

Was Bush Right on TARP?

2010-11-09T06:43:00.000-08:00

"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system,"

- President George W. Bush, December 16, 2008 on CNN

Most conservatives just slapped their heads and groaned in consternation over that statement; and probably also wanted to slap silly the president they've otherwise supported and defended for the last nigh 8 years in office.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program was heavily criticized by many conservatives. In light of the stimulus spendings and expansion of government under the current PotUS, some Americans even forget that TARP was initiated under Bush and Paulson's leadership, not Obama's (although he did support it, as a U.S. senator).

2 years later, in handling the 2008 financial crisis, was Bush right?

When the bill was being voted upon 2 years ago, I nervously and unconfidently wrote this:

Republicans who stand opposed do so for ideological reasons: Let the free market run its course, and those who made bad decisions suffer the consequences of having made bad decisions. Democrats oppose the bill for ideological reasons as well, thinking this is a bail-out for Wall Street. Caught in the cross-fire of this mess, is all of the rest of us. If we simply stand aside and allow financial institutions to fail on free market principle, we will all suffer together for the mistakes of others.

"Today":

Medved writes:

"Two years after it began, the controversial TARP program—the bailout of the financial system—concludes operations with much-better-than expected results. Most money invested in the rescue has been repaid, often with interest: of the $700 billion originally authorized, taxpayers remain on the hook for less than $66 billion, according to the Treasury Department.

This shows the Bush Bailout starkly contrasting with Obama's Stimulus, which authorized $864 billion in spending, with no pay back. The stimulus permanently shifted money from private sector to government, while TARP temporarily transferred funds from public to private sector. TARP was also bipartisan: most Congressional Republicans supported it, while the stimulus drew united GOP opposition from 214 of 217 Republicans then in Congress.

Short term loans to save private businesses may be debatable but long-term explosions of spending to grow government are always disastrous."

Latest bailout loss estimate: $29 billion.

Wall Street Bailout Returns 8.2% Profit Beating Treasury Bonds:

The U.S. government’s bailout of financial firms through the Troubled Asset Relief Program provided taxpayers with higher returns than yields paid on 30- year Treasury bonds -- enough money to fund the Securities and Exchange Commission for the next two decades.

The government has earned $25.2 billion on its investment of $309 billion in banks and insurance companies, an 8.2 percent return over two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That beat U.S. Treasuries, high-yield savings accounts, money- market funds and certificates of deposit. Investing in the stock market or gold would have paid off better.

When the government first announced its intention to plow funds into the nation’s banks in October 2008 to resuscitate the financial system, many expected it to lose hundreds of billions of dollars. Two years later TARP’s bank and insurance investments have made money, and about two-thirds of the funds have been paid back.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

2010-09-11T00:49:00.000-07:00

Johnny Spann stood in gently falling snow and wistfully recalled the day his son, CIA officer Johnny Micheal "Mike" Spann, lingered among the tombstones at Arlington National Cemetery, studying each inscription and testing his sister Tanya's patience.

"Mike, let's go," she implored. "They're all the same."

"No, Tanya, they're not," the younger Spann replied. "There are stories behind them."

Mohammed

2010-09-05T19:20:00.000-07:00

A teenage Iraqi interpreter, code name "Roy," served with a reconnaisance platoon in Iraq in 2007. (Blake Hall)

Iraq war critic, Thomas Ricks, links to a WaPo story by retired Army captain Blake Hall that tells a different perspective on the narrative of the war:

"One day the Qaeda came to my school. They say, 'You are not students anymore! Put away your books! Now we show you the path of jihad!' My two best friends say to them, 'We are students trying to learn. We don't want to do the jihad.' "

"And then?"

Roy gave me a wan smile. "Then, they gather the school in one place, they kneel them down, and they cut their heads with the knife."

"They beheaded your two best friends, Roy?"

"Yes, sir. I walk to the base the next day and give them my name to work for you. I hate the Qaeda."

Read the whole piece. You won't understand the title of this post until you do. (And here is the NYTimes article referenced toward the end of Hall's op-ed).

One of my favorite excerpts:

* * *

Roy and I were sitting on a smooth concrete floor with our backs against a concrete wall. We were with one of my sniper teams in an apartment overlooking a four-way intersection. I was thinking about the course of the war, from the early days of the invasion in 2003, when the Iraqis seemed overjoyed and the giant statue of Saddam Hussein toppled, to the most violent days of the insurgency. I wasn't sure what to make of the shift.

"Roy, did most of the Iraqis always hate us?" I asked.

"No, sir. When the Americans first came, everyone was very happy."

"And now?" I asked.

Roy shrugged.

"How do we fix Iraq, Roy?"

"Nuke it, sir."

The snipers and I laughed.

"But Roy, your mom and your family is in Baghdad. You can't seriously think nuking Iraq is the answer."

"Sir, the only way to fix Iraq is to nuke it."

"You've been hanging out with the guys too long, Roy."

"Wehl alraght." [picked up the Kentucky accent from Hall's driver, as relayed earlier in the article- ws]

The snipers collapsed into fits of laughter.

* * *

If there is one thing the Iraq War did, it was to unite Iraqis and U.S./Coalition forces against the common threat of al Qaeda and expose their brand of Islam to the eyes of the Muslim world.

Iraqi interpreters have been invaluable allies in the war effort, aiding our soldiers at great personal risk to not only themselves, but also to their families. Regarded as traitors by some Iraqis and not fully trusted by our side, most deserve our thanks; not assassinations.

Back in June of this year, one Iraqi interpreter was gunned down by his son and nephew who were part of an AQI-linked group.

For those who missed the 2006-7 60 Minutes segment about the plight of Iraqi "terps" when it aired: Left Behind

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

*Side Note*

Yes, I'm still around!

Memorial Day

2010-05-31T06:24:00.000-07:00

Sorry about the Google alert warning of possible malware infection....don't know yet how to resolve it. In the meantime, if you're here, thank you for your continued visitation.

I love this blog, and don't intend to completely abandon it.

My video posted up at Flopping Aces

"That's what we do. We're Americans."

2010-05-15T19:55:00.000-07:00

How did I miss this?!

Oh, yeah....'cause it probably wasn't covered by CNN, MSNBC, CBS....

From an NRA annual meeting in 2009, speech given by Lt. Col. Oliver North:

Hat tip: C.J.

Happy Mother's Day! (Sunday Funnies)

2010-05-09T08:38:00.000-07:00

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces

Arizona Bill….What would Reagan think?

2010-05-06T09:32:00.000-07:00

Who really knows? No one speaks on behalf of the dead. But I think this article by Alfonso Aguilar offers some good food for thought and cautionary advice (read it from the beginning, regarding why Latinos are a potential voting block for Republicans, not Democrats):

Thirty years have elapsed since the Reagan revolution began, but many Republicans seem to have forgotten Reagan’s views. Arizona Republicans’ passage last week of a law that criminalizes undocumented immigrants and allows for the profiling of Latinos is the most recent example of this.

The fact is that, beginning in 2006, a small but loud group of GOP members of Congress, strongly supported by an anti-population-growth restrictionist lobby (when did these folks become conservative?), began a campaign to oppose any effort to reform our immigration system.

Many hard-line conservatives may not have liked President Bush's attempts at immigration reform, but the status quo certainly hasn't been acceptable, either. It is hyperbolic overexaggerated emotionalism that equates 2006 GOP attempts at immigration reform as the equivalent to "amnesty". It's the "all-or-nothing" mentality that refuses to accept a viable, practical, workable solution.

Sadly, many also started using incendiary anti-immigrant rhetoric — which offended most Latino voters.

This contributed significantly to the Republican loss of the House and Senate in 2006.

Power Line claims the reverse is true.

It also contributed to Sen. John McCain, long an unquestioned supporter of immigration reform and a friend of the Latino community, receiving only 31 percent of the Latino vote in the 2008 presidential election. This was 13 percent less than George W. Bush’s Latino support four years earlier.

Even more frustrating was that Republican leaders, most of whom actually support immigration, remained silent — apparently afraid of the anti-immigration advocacy groups.

Needless to say, the appearance of an anti-immigrant “know nothing” faction in the GOP is counterproductive if we consider that the political weight of Latinos keeps growing as their numbers have swelled dramatically.

Today, they are the nation’s largest minority group — 45 million and growing, or almost 10 percent of the electorate.

How can anyone seriously think that the conservative agenda can be advanced and the Republican Party be viable nationally without increased Latino support?

As Michael Medved writes:

With a record number of black candidates seeking Republican nominations in upcoming congressional races, the GOP may finally make progress in facing the most serious menace to its survival: the lack of support from any significant segment of the nonwhite population.

Not all of the 33 African-American contenders will win their primary contests, let alone the general election, but at least a half-dozen of them face promising prospects and could provide new energy for a party that desperately needs to shatter its lily-white image.

There are no Republicans among the present 41 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, or among the 24 members of the Hispanic Caucus -- an absence that reflects the party's woeful performance among minority voters in recent elections and may threaten its very existence.

Consider the historic campaign of 2008, when President Barack Obama bested John McCain by a solid margin of 7.2 percentage points. According to the authoritative exit polls, the vast majority of voters (74 percent) identified themselves as "white," and McCain won a landslide among this segment of the electorate, thrashing Obama by a resounding 12 points (55 percent to 43 percent). This was the same margin that George W. Bush commanded among white voters in his 2000 victory over Al Gore. In fact, because of the larger electorate, McCain's losing effort actually drew 9.5 million more votes overall than Bush's victorious campaign of eight years before.

Why, then, did Bush win the White House while McCain suffered humiliating defeat? The answer is that in eight years the nonwhite portion of electorate soared -- from 19 percent of voters to 26 percent of voters. Among these voters, Obama won by a 4-to-1 margin -- easily wiping out McCain's big advantage among white voters.

For two reasons, these numbers command close attention for anyone concerned about the Republican future.

First, there is no chance that white voters will ever again comprise 74 percent of the electorate. Most projections for 2012 suggest that self-identified whites will comprise 70 percent or, at most, 72 percent of those who cast presidential ballots.

Second, it would be hard for any Republican to improve significantly on McCain's hefty 12-point margin among whites, which means that without an improved showing among Hispanics, blacks and Asians, GOP contenders will lose every time.

The math here is brutal and eye-opening. If Obama in 2012 wins the same percentage of the combined black, Asian and Hispanic vote that he won in 2008 (82 percent), then in order to beat him the GOP candidate would need to win an unimaginable 65 percent of all white voters -- whose numbers include such stalwart Democratic constituencies as gays, atheists, Jews and union members.

The 65 percent threshold represents a far higher percentage than Ronald Reagan won in his landslide against Jimmy Carter in 1980, or even his history-making 49-state re-election-sweep against Walter Mondale in '84.

Since white voters won't comprise larger portions of the electorate in future races, and since no Republican could compile a big enough white majority to win the election on those voters alone, that leaves only one possible path for GOP victory: more competitive performance among Hispanic, African-American and Asian citizens.

Fortunately, recent history demonstrates that such competition is possible. In 2004, the exit polls showed that Bush earned 44 percent of both Latino and Asian voters, and 11 percent of the black vote. This represents a huge advantage over the sorry performance of McCain.

Running against Obama, no Republican could have won a big percentage of the African-American community, but if McCain had merely won the same percentage as Bush four years before, he would have drawn 1.2 million more black votes for the GOP ticket -- an obviously meaningful difference in any close election.

Winning an electoral majority doesn't require capturing, or even splitting, every ethnic group, but no candidate can prevail if he (or she) gets overwhelmed among all nonwhite voters. In this context, the GOP doesn't need to win with each of the 33 black Republicans in current congressional contests, or even with most of them.

But if any of them carry their districts in November, it will help change the GOP image as a whites-only political organization and rejuvenate the once-vibrant party of Lincoln and Reagan that is still struggling against marginalization and irrelevance.

Concluding back to Aguilar:

To those fiercely critical of undocumented immigrants, Reagan once quipped “it makes one wonder about the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion, or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won’t do? One thing is certain in this hungry world: No regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters.”

The time is ripe for Republicans to reclaim the immigration issue and rebuild support in the Latino community.

A true conservative plan would not be the “Obama plan” or “amnesty,” as immigration foes like to label any proposal to effectively deal with the immigration problem.

Our solution would be a market-based immigration plan recognizing that the key to resolving this complex issue is easing the legal flows of the temporary workers our economy needs to keep growing.

It would include a “legalization with a penalty” component, stronger border security and domestic enforcement, and a reinvigorated tradition of patriotic assimilation.

What should give us, as conservatives, peace of mind is that to ask for the Latino vote we don’t have to give up our principles.

On the contrary, we just have to continue defending our traditional conservative values — with which so many immigrants identify — and support a plan that is consistent with our belief in the free market and the rule of law.

Republicans should follow Reagan’s example — and show the leadership and courage needed to build a broad multi-ethnic conservative coalition.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Sunday Funnies

2010-05-02T02:57:00.000-07:00

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces

Uh oh...

2010-04-25T11:58:00.000-07:00

...Comedy Central caves to the demands of Terrorist Wannabes.

Baltimore Sun:

It's not even that the terrorists have won, it's that wannabe terrorists have won.

A group called Revolution Muslim, which by most accounts seems less a terrorist cell than, metaphorically speaking, a couple of guys living in their parents' basements, managed to scare Comedy Central this week into censoring South Park for mocking their religion, or rather, the ban in some quarters of depictions of the prophet Muhammed.

The Anti-Defamation League, which has tracked the New York-based Revolution Muslim, says the group has no more than about a dozen members, is known mainly for spouting anti-Semitism, handing out pamphlets on the sidewalks of New York and picketing mosques that it thinks aren't radical enough. The founders are converts to Islam, including one who previously was Jewish and associated with a group called, no joke, Jews for Allah.

I missed both episodes, but caught the Jawa Report on the first part that was aired, which saw South Park celebrate its 200th episode. In it, they resuscitated some of the best of what they had done previously, including the depiction of Mohammed before the outrage over the Danish cartoons.

The episode, so far as I can tell from clips that now have been cut and redacted more than your basic National Security Agency document, was making a point about the depiction taboo by putting Muhammed inside a bear mascot suit to protect him from being depicted.

As it turned out, it wasn't even Muhammed underneath the suit, but Revolution Muslim nonetheless was outraged and warned that South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone would "wind up like Theo Van Gogh," the Dutch filmmaker murdered in 2004 by an Islamic radical over a movie that accused the religion of condoning violence against women.

Comedy Central responded to the website warning by bleeping out even the word "Muhammed" in the following episode and — off-the-charts irony alert! — the entire speech that one character makes about fear and intolerance.

So to recap: A cartoon was censored not for depicting Muhammed but merely talking about depicting Muhammed and then even that talk was censored. This has to go down as one of the strangest freedom-of-speech cases ever — when Kyle is silenced, we all are silenced.

But such is the state of the world today that, a) some of the sharpest political commentary comes from Comedy Central courtesy of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and, yes, South Park, and b) now even Comedy Central has wimped out.

And to a fringe group that a Muslim advocacy organization, Council on American-Islamic Relations, quickly denounced as extremist and lacking in any credibility. Would that other mainstream groups similarly speak out against the fringers in their own midsts when they threaten violence.

The Jawa Report had a great analysis of the first part when the controversy began brewing as an Islamist nutjob named Zach posted a death threat via Twitter:

All the more ironic given that this was a response to the latest episode of South Park in which Mohammad is portrayed as having a super power which celebrities want.

What is Muhammad's super power? No one can criticize him.

Something celebrities would die -- or kill -- for.

But they weren't making fun of Muhammad. They were making fun of Muslims like Zach who are the only group of religious zealots who threaten violence every time they are offended.

Which makes this whole thing perfectly ironic.

And it's not just Zach, but his buddies on the forums and over at Facebook who are pissed off at South Park for once again pointing out that they are a bunch of thin-skinned dirtbags.

Rusty's updated the post with more threats by Islamist buddies of Zach (separate from Revolution Muslim). Also, another follow up post.

Here are Matt and Trey discussing the episode before it aired:

All this makes me want to see the missed episodes baaaaaaaaadly.

And (hat tip to Steve Schippert) May 20th is "Everybody draw Mohammed Day":

After Comedy Central cut a portion of a South Park episode following a death threat from a radical Muslim group, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris wanted to counter the fear. She has declared May 20th "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day."

Norris told KIRO Radio's Dave Ross that cartoonists are meant to challenge the lines of political correctness. "That's a cartoonist's job, to be non-PC."

You can find more on all of this by going to the Revolution Muslim website, including links to other news articles. (They seem to have a backup blogspot.com, too). I'm sure they'll be thrilled to note FA linking to them and respecting their point of view.

Remember: May 20th. You don't have to be a professional artist to draw Mohammed, so maybe readers would care to submit their cartoon depictions?

For me, this isn't about disrespecting the faith of 1.5 billion. It's about not having my freedom suppressed and my actions dictated by intolerant, thin-skinned lunatics.

Comedy Central definitely didn't censor the South Park episode out of deference and respect for Islam. They did it out of fear and intimidation. They caved to terror-threats...made not by rioting mobs but by a handful of wannabe wahabbi nutjobs.

Here's the Super Best Friends ep with commentary where Mohammed makes his physical appearance (without fanfare death threats, pre-Danish cartoons):

You can watch the 200th episode at Flopping Aces.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

*UPDATE*

It seems the cartoonist, Molly Norris, never intended this to go viral:

The cartoonist, Molly Norris, was overwhelmed by the response — so overwhelmed, in fact, that she canceled the plan. Here the message from her website:

I am NOT involved in "Everybody Draw Mohammd Day!" I made a cartoon that went viral and I am not going with it. Many other folks have used my cartoon to start sites, etc. Please go to them as I am a private person who draws stuff

Norris said she never meant disrespect, but simply wanted to bring attention to media censorship. She was outraged after South Park received death threats over their planned depiction of Muhammad, and even more outraged when Comedy Central pulled the plug.

Full statement:

Statement:

I make cartoons about current, cultural events. I made a cartoon of a 'poster' entitled "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" with a nonexistent group's name -- Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor -- drawn on the cartoon also. I did not intend for my cartoon to go viral. I did not intend to be the focus of any 'group'. I practice the first amendment by drawing what I wish. This particular cartoon of a 'poster' seems to have struck a gigantic nerve, something I was totally unprepared for. I am going back to the drawing table now!

Thank you,
Molly

Sunday Funnies

2010-04-25T11:57:00.001-07:00

More at Flopping Aces

Happy Earth Day!

2010-04-22T14:02:00.001-07:00

Too much green? Millions spent on recycling

Economic Freedom Will Save the Earth

Meghan Cox Gurdon: Earth Day couldn't be more boring

Climate Science In Denial

Earth Day: Smile, Don't Shudder

What does Earth Day mean to you?

Sunday Funnies

2010-04-18T06:55:00.001-07:00

More at Flopping Aces

"These are my people..."

2010-04-16T10:55:00.000-07:00

Hat tip: Flopping Aces

Shannon Galloway on ABC World News Tonight

2010-04-15T13:25:00.000-07:00

Shannon is the widow of Chris Galloway, Flopping Aces author and patriot who served his country enthusiastically, including tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Major Galloway committed suicide last year.

Shannon will be on ABC World News Tonight, 6:30pm, EST.

Here is an accompanying article.

President Obama Taking the Christ Out of Easter?

2010-04-04T19:12:00.000-07:00

President Obama literally edited Christ out of his “holiday greeting” today when he excerpted a sermon given by a military chaplain on Iwo Jima on Easter Sunday 1945.

Below is the relevant paragraph from Obama’s holiday greeting today:

The rites of Passover, and the traditions of Easter, have been marked by people in every corner of the planet for thousands of years. They have been marked in times of peace, in times of upheaval, in times of war.

One such war-time service was held on the black sands of Iwo Jima more than sixty years ago. There, in the wake of some of the fiercest fighting of World War II, a chaplain rose to deliver an Easter sermon, consecrating the memory, he said “of American dead – Catholic, Protestant, Jew. Together,” he said, “they huddled in foxholes or crouched in the bloody sands…Together they practiced virtue, patriotism, love of country, love of you and of me.” The chaplain continued, “The heritage they have left us, the vision of a new world, [was] made possible by the common bond that united them…their only hope that this unity will endure.”

Their only hope that this unity will endure.

Now read below the same paragraph again, but this time note the additional bolded language that comes from the original audio of the 1945 sermon and its context, but which President Obama decided not to include:

There, in the wake of some of the fiercest fighting of World War II, a chaplain rose to deliver an Easter sermon, consecrating the memory, he said:

He has risen. With all due reverence, we apply these words to our beloved dead.

There are too many air call wings encrusted with the stain of their owners’ life blood, too many marine trousers upon the graves, too many symbols of American dead – Catholic, Protestant, Jew. Together,” he said, “they huddled in foxholes or crouched in the bloody sands under the fury of enemy guns here on Iwo Jima. Together they practiced virtue, patriotism, love of country, love of you and of me. Together they stand before the greatest soldier of them all – Jesus Christ, to receive the token of our triumph. For Christ has said: “Greater love than this no man hath then that he lay down his life for his friends.”

And so our beloved dead have gone from the world of hate to the world of eternal love.

The chaplain continued, “The heritage they have left us, the vision of a new world, [was] made possible by the common bond that united them in the drudgery of recruit training or here in the chaos of bursting shouts. Their only hope: that this unity will endure.”

And so our dead have risen to glory.

Greg Hengler, cites Vince Haley, who puts it all in perspective:

The American President is president of all the people, believers and non-believers alike. So when presidential messages are delivered to mark the special observances of major religious groups, it is understandable that a president will strive to provide some measure of explanation of how a particular religious observance honors values that all Americans can share.

But there are limits. A president cannot possibly hope to be a grand synthesizer of all religious traditions in the United States. Despite his skills, it is above President Obama’s pay grade to construct some kind of civic religion that stands above traditional religions and which should guide Americans going forward.

Instead of providing separate messages to Jews and Christians on the observance of Passover and Easter, President Obama said in this holiday greeting that “while we worship in different ways, we also remember the shared spirit of humanity that inhabits us all – Jews and Christians, Muslims and Hindus, believers and nonbelievers alike.

Obama then went on to say that “on this Easter weekend, let us hold fast to those aspirations we hold in common as brothers and sisters, as members of the same family – the family of man."

The problem is that when you start to water down what people actually believe in an attempt to construct a religion of the “family of man”, you start to misrepresent fundamentally the nature of the hope that is at the center of lives of believers.

In the case of Christians, Christ is our hope. Our hope is in the risen Christ, which we celebrate on Easter Sunday.

But if a president wants to water down religious beliefs in an attempt to find a synthesized religion of the ‘family of man’, you end up removing Christ from Easter, which is, strangely, exactly what President Obama did today in his Easter message.

If there are Americans out there who are hypersensitive to Easter being a national holiday tradition, that's their problem. As a non-Christian, I don't feel excluded, offended, put-off, by religious holidays like this one. In fact, the commercialized aspects of it (Easter Bunny, egg hunts, etc.) like Christmas (Santa Claus, Christmas carols, Christmas trees, gift-giving, etc.), makes it nationally and universally accessible and all-inclusive to anyone who wants to be a part of the festivities. There is no good reason to segregated yourself off from what's been an American tradition.

Vince Haley concludes with this question:

Is this the first American president to dechristianize Easter?

My guess is, "yes".

In regards to Iwo Jima, an excellent history lesson over at Mudville Gazette.

Happy Easter!

2010-04-04T09:34:00.000-07:00

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces

"You call it 'redistribution', I call it 'just being fair'; what's the big &*%@)$ deal?!"

2010-03-31T10:29:00.000-07:00

Yahoo! Tech Tickers' Aaron Task in his interview with VP Joe Biden yesterday, where Biden essentially admits this is a redistribution of wealth...he just doesn't prefer to call it by that phrase:

There’s also the issue of whether these tax cuts, in conjunction with the health care reform bill signed last week, represent a redistribution of wealth in America, as many claim.

“It’s a simple proposition to us: Everyone is entitled to adequate medical health care,” Biden says. “If you call that a ‘redistribution of income’ — well, so be it. I don’t call it that. I call it just being fair — giving the middle class taxpayers an even break that the wealthy have been getting.”

The top quintile of Americans earned 55.7% of pretax income and paid 69.3% of federal taxes in 2006, according to the most recent CBO data. But the Vice President isn’t buying the idea that the wealthiest are already paying their fair share, noting the top 1% of earners get 22% of all income made in the U.S.

When Task mentions that it is the "wealthy" who carry the greater share of the tax burden, quoting CBO numbers, Biden's "top 1% getting 22% of income made" statement is also telling:

Well that's true- guess what, though? 22% of them uh make up the top 1...of the top 1%, they get 22% of all the income made in the United States; this is called a 'progressive tax system'. That's what was put in place. and the taxes have been lowered for the wealthy considerably over the years. It’s about time we get a little tax equity here.

Message to VP Biden: Cross out "get" and insert "earn". Entitlement recipients are the ones who "get/receive" what you want to "steal" from American tax payers earning their income.

Bar Stool Economics NOT by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:... See More

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

(Supposedly by) David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Sunday Funnies

2010-03-28T07:12:00.001-07:00

More at Flopping Aces

President Obama Goes Down in History as Giving America The Big Effin' Deal

2010-03-27T23:23:00.000-07:00

Huff Po:

Secretary Robert Gibbs just tweeted:
"And yes Mr. Vice President, you're right... "

And our illustrious, dignified, presidential president thinks it's funny, too:

After Vice President Joe Biden’s controversial congratulatory remark to President Obama on Tuesday, where he called the passing of the health care bill a “big f—king deal,” news outlets ran wild with the slip-up caught on camera.

But, it didn’t seem to bother the President. In fact, Biden told The Baltimore Sun it was Obama’s favorite moment from Tuesday’s health care bill signing.

Read Michelle Obama's Culinary Tour of New York
“Biden said Obama joked at a Wednesday morning briefing that the ‘best thing from yesterday’ was ‘Joe's comment’ and that the president was trying to get the phrase printed on a T-shirt,” writes Justin Fenton of the The Baltimore Sun.

Oh, ok....so let's get this straight, here's a suggestion for Obama's t-shirt design:

His t-shirt can read: “Teddy Roosevelt gave us the Square Deal; the other Roosevelt gave us the New Deal; Truman the Fair Deal; and I gave the American people the Big Effin’ Deal!”

The “Other” Protest this Past Weekend…

2010-03-22T09:17:00.000-07:00

THE protest of the weekend being the one against the healthcare bill.

No, not the ANSWER clowns...

"Wake up and smell the cafecito!":

Tens of thousands of immigrants and their supporters from across the United States packed the Mall on Sunday in a last-ditch effort to spur Congress and the White House to overhaul the nation's immigration system and offer its 10.8 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship this year against increasingly long odds.

Warmed by occasional bursts of sunshine, the festive crowd beat drums and waved American flags and placards reading "Change takes Courage" and "Obama Don't Forget Your Promise!"

"We've been patient long enough. We've listened quietly. We've asked politely. We've turned the other cheek so many times our heads are spinning," Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who has led the push for immigration legislation within the House of Representatives, shouted, to roars of approval. "It's time to let immigrants come out of the shadows into the light and for America to embrace them and protect them."

Immigrants don't need to "come out of the shadows". ILLEGAL immigrants do, so they can be thrown out.

prominent Latino figures such as Janet Murguía, president of the National Council of La Raza, were joined by leaders of Asian American organizations and smaller groups representing immigrants from countries including Haiti.

You know what? I was wrong about America not being a racist nation. It is racist, thanks to the likes of La Raza, "Asian American organizations", and all the other special interest groups who don't rally together based upon shared values and politics, but around shared ethnicity and skin color. So long as people engage in race identity, we will be quagmired on race. I'm sick of it.

Numerous speakers pointed to the political muscle Latinos demonstrated during the presidential election, when 57 percent voted for Barack Obama.

"Wake up and smell the cafecito!" yelled Maria Rodriguez, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Coalition. "Latino workers, campesinos [farm workers] and families are here to stay. To be counted in the ballot box."

Ah yes, Democrats have an incentive to support illegal immigrants becoming citizens to increase their potential voting block.

President Obama, who appeared in a video message played at the demonstration, immediately endorsed the plan, although he stopped short of earlier promises to move on a bill this year. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) also promised floor time if the bill emerges from the Judiciary Committee.

However, Sunday's rally also highlighted the challenges of taking on the immigration system with midterm elections approaching in the fall and at a time of 10 percent unemployment. Noticeably absent were business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which was a key backer of the 2007 legislation. The chamber has expressed doubts about details of this year's proposal.

Still, the mood of the crowd remained hopeful and often defiant.

Defiant? They break the law, root and anchor and chain themselves here, then demand they be given citizen rights and move in permanently. Would any of their supporters be willing to let strangers come into their homes unannounced, overstay their "welcome", put their feet up on the furniture, raid the fridge, and demand of their host, "I live here too, now"?

Cue the violins for ILLEGAL immigration sob stories:

The three immigrants wearing ankle bracelets couldn't stay for the whole march. The bracelets' batteries were running low. If they didn't recharge them, immigration agents would be after them again.

The first time had been enough.

~~~

Torres's job in the meeting was to raise the subject of workplace raids, which he believes sweep up people whose only crime was crossing the border in search of work. The Obama administration has significantly reduced the number of workplace raids, but most immigrants removed through all enforcement measures continue to be non-criminals.

Focus on people who've committed crimes, Torres urged the president, according to participants. Obama replied that he must enforce existing law, but he directed Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to meet with the leaders to discuss ways to lessen the impact on hardworking immigrants.

Torres left the White House feeling optimistic. Then he checked his phone. His top organizer had sent a text message.

"Dealing with raid," the organizer said. "YOU NEED TO CALL ME NOW."

Just a couple of hours earlier, about 10:45 a.m., a kitchen worker at Timbuktu Restaurant in Hanover was going to a refrigerator to get some potatoes when he saw agents coming in a rear door. He ran into the main part of the kitchen. "Immigration!" he warned his co-workers.

Police vans, unmarked SUVs and squad cars had wheeled into the driveways and parking lots of two restaurants, an office and several residences in Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties. Dozens of ICE agents and local police surrounded the properties and secured the exits.

Immigration, they said on entering, according to witnesses. Don't move. Stay calm. Nothing's going to happen. We're only going to identify each person.

(Immigration enforcement officials declined to discuss details of the raids because the investigation is ongoing.)

There was no escape. One desperate immigrant dived into a large walk-in refrigerator and slid under a shelf holding cases of beer. He muted his cellphone and watched as heavy black shoes paced up and down the chilly chamber.

The agents asked the workers if they had proof of legal residency. They bound suspected illegal immigrants with white plastic handcuffs behind their backs.

At the raided locations, 28 men and one woman from Guatemala, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico and Bangladesh were detained. So far, none has been charged with a crime. All are suspected of "administrative" violations of immigration law. All but six were released by Friday. The six are those who have prior immigration violations. The fates of the others will be decided by immigration officials in coming weeks.

The questioning went on for hours. Where are you from? When did you arrive? Where did you enter?

Timbuktu busboy Walter Rosas Alvarez, 34, answered: He came from Guayaquil, Ecuador, about five years ago. He is single with no children and was helping support his parents back in his homeland. He had never been in trouble with the police or immigration officials in either country and had been paying taxes with an IRS tax ID number.

Later, Rosas Alvarez would say that he dreamed of staying in the United States and had been counting on immigration reform making that possible. He had been saving his money and buying sophisticated woodworking tools to continue the skilled carpentry work he once did in Ecuador. Now he expects to be deported. "For five years, all I did was work," he said. "I came suffering, and I leave suffering."

A similar scene unfolded at By the Docks restaurant in Middle River, just outside Baltimore. Agents searched the restaurants' offices for paperwork and took computer hard drives, according to witnesses.

In the redbrick rambler next door to Timbuktu, where about nine of the immigrant workers lived, Jose Martinez, 35, a cook from Cuenca, Ecuador, heard agents shouting commands to open the door. But before Martinez could answer, a battering ram crashed through the door and three agents entered the living room, guns pointed at him, Martinez recalled later.

Three other workers, including Josue Perez, 21, were also in the house. Perez, a busboy, explained later that he was working to support his elderly parents and three younger brothers who are deaf and unable to speak.

The agents cuffed the men and questioned them. They searched the rooms, pulling out belongings and throwing things on the floor, Martinez said. Later, the agents marched the workers to vans and drove them to the detention centers in Howard and Carroll counties.

After seven hours in the refrigerator at Timbuktu, the hidden immigrant stuck his head out from under the beer shelf. He felt frozen. He couldn't walk. Two acquaintances carried him close to the kitchen oven, to warm him.

He had escaped the raid. But now what?

Trying to lie low

About the same time Torres was heading into the White House, and 29 handcuffed immigrants were answering questions, Valerie Yahlouskaya was driving on Eastern Boulevard in Middle River.

Yahlouskaya passed By the Docks, where her husband worked in the kitchen. She thought it was strange that police cars were blocking the entrance and exit to the parking lot. She saw a waitress crying on the restaurant porch.

Yahlouskaya tried to call her husband. No answer. She called the restaurant. No answer. Then she got a call, and a waitress, between sobs, talked low and fast before abruptly hanging up: The cops came and they took all the guys. . . . A cop is coming, I have to go!

"I was in shock," Yahlouskaya said, recalling events later. "It was surreal. I got scared."

She spoke on the condition that her husband's name and his home country in Central America not be disclosed. (Immigration officials declined to identify any of the suspects.)

Yahlouskaya and her husband, both 30, met in 2003 and married in 2004. They have three children, American citizens, ages 2, 3 and 5.

Her husband worked in the restaurant kitchen six days a week, up to 12 hours a day. They had been getting ready to buy a house, Yahlouskaya said. "We kept waiting to see -- maybe they'll pass the [immigration reform] law," she said. "We got a new president. . . . It was just lay low and see if something changes."

Now her husband faces possible deportation.

"No way, I don't want to think about it," Yahlouskaya says. Neither she nor the children speak Spanish, she said, and she's not sure she could relocate to Central America.

But if she didn't, "he won't see his kids, they won't see their father."

The ripple effects of the raid know no borders.

In the little town of Quebrada de Arena, Honduras, Esperanza Pineda learned that her husband had been detained. He had been sending home $900 a month, the sole support for his wife and four children, ages 14 and younger.

Maria Perez's cellphone rang in Langley Park. It was her uncle, who works construction in Maryland: Had she heard from her brother Josue? Josue was picked up in the raid on the group house.

"I thought it was a bad joke," said Maria Perez, 20, a waitress.

She would have to tell their parents in Central America. (A lawyer advised her not to disclose the country.)

Josue had come to the United States five years ago, Maria three years ago. Together they sent home $150 a month to help support their parents and disabled brothers -- about a quarter of the family's monthly budget, according to their mother, Elvida Esperanza Oliva Cardona.

"He went away, risking and suffering to support his brothers," Oliva Cardona said in a telephone interview, bursting into tears. "He is our right hand."

Now with Josue's future uncertain, "it's up to me to stay, more than ever," Maria Perez said. "It's a big responsibility."

You know what? None of these raids, the painful uprooting of families would be happening if they weren't here illegally in the first place.

The healthcare debate is not over- not according to President Obama; not according to us. But we also have other looming battles ahead of us, including the issue of illegal immigration reform.

No, I don't think kicking them all out is the viable, realistic, pragmatic solution; and in some sense, we must reap what we've sown and take into account some of the "sob stories". We're in part responsible for the mess we've created in allowing it to get to this point where we did not enforce existing laws after the first go-round of amnesty; we should fix it and be tough, but also do so as humanely as possible.

But I'll be damned if I allow the president to grant Obamnesty to 10+ million home invaders. I'll be damned if he begins channeling Reagan the way he did Teddy Roosevelt.

And I'll be damned if I watch Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders walk arm-in-arm again like they're "fighting the good fight" in a civil rights movement/struggle. Good grief!

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Sunday Funnies

2010-03-21T10:10:00.000-07:00

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces

Barack Obama Channeling Theodore Roosevelt to Retroactively Endorse Obamacare

2010-03-21T10:09:00.000-07:00

Something else in President Obama's speech on Friday...

This isn't the first time this point of drivel has come up in the current debate on healthcare, but here's another item President Obama has used in the past and repeated again at George Mason University to buttress his case:

THE PRESIDENT: A few miles from here, Congress is in the final stages of a fateful debate about the future of health insurance in America. (Applause.) It's a debate that's raged not just for the past year but for the past century. One thing when you're in the White House, you've got a lot of history books around you. (Laughter.) And so I've been reading up on the history here. Teddy Roosevelt, Republican, was the first to advocate that everybody get health care in this country. (Applause.) Every decade since, we've had Presidents, Republicans and Democrats, from Harry Truman to Richard Nixon to JFK to Lyndon Johnson to -- every single President has said we need to fix this system.

~~~

So here's my bottom line. I know this has been a difficult journey. I know this will be a tough vote. ["Present"] I know that everybody is counting votes right now in Washington. But I also remember a quote I saw on a plaque in the White House the other day. It's hanging in the same room where I demanded answers from insurance executives and just received a bunch of excuses. And it was a quote from Teddy Roosevelt, the person who first called for health care reform -- that Republican -- all those years ago. And it said, "Aggressively fighting for the right is the noblest sport the world affords."

Well I'm sure that quote's taken into complete context, ain't it? Here's something else he said:

If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs

Now, I don't know how passing health care will play politically -- but I know it's right. (Applause.) Teddy Roosevelt knew it was right.

Didn't Teddy Roosevelt come to regret that decision? Or was it just his decision to go third party fringie in 1912, which he later regretted?

In any event, I am seeing different articles come up that are distorting and failing to make the distinction that Theodore Roosevelt wasn't the GOP president at the time he was supporting a platform of universal healthcare (in an era 100 yrs removed from our own, present day reality of 305 million + illegals), but the Progressive candidate, to the left of the GOP.

Politifact has it that President Obama's use of Teddy Roosevelt as a supporter of national healthcare coverage puts him on "solid ground", and his claim to be true.

In some cases (such as the delivery of his George Mason speech) I believe President Obama oversteps the bounds when he blurs the distinction that Theodore Roosevelt was not a Republican president at the time, but the Progressive candidate when he ran on a platform that included nationalized healthcare.

Even Politifact includes in its piece the following information (emphases, mine):

We wondered whether Roosevelt really proposed reform on the scale of the near-universal health care Obama advocates, or if the new president was pushing the whole bipartisan-appeal thing a bit far.

We consulted two well-regarded biographers of Roosevelt, H.W. Brands and Kathleen Dalton. Both confirmed that in 1912, when the former Republican president was running as a Progressive Party candidate for what would have been his third term (after a four-year break), the party advocated national health insurance in its platform.

Health care was the 11th issue listed under "Social and Industrial Justice," after occupational safety, a child labor prohibition, a minimum wage, "one day's rest in seven" and other progressive ideas.

"The supreme duty of the Nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice," the platform said. "We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in State and Nation for ... the protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use."

"What this envisioned was pretty much what FDR accomplished with Social Security, but with health insurance added," said Brand, author of TR: The Last Romantic (1998).

"We don’t know the specifics of the plan," said Dalton, author of Theodore Roosevelt: A Strenuous Life (2002). "The roots were probably British, though he knew about German health insurance."

Dalton said unequivocally Obama was on solid ground evoking Roosevelt. Brands more or less agreed, though he cautioned that health care was "not the priority that trust-busting or conservation was" for Roosevelt. "It's worth remembering that health care was a far smaller concern in those days," Brands said. "Doctors had few medicines, and most people died or got better on their own. The biggest issues were public health — eradicating malaria, cleaning up water supplies, and so on."

In Healthcare Reform in America: A Reference Handbook (2004), Jennie Kronenfeld, a sociology professor at Arizona State University, writes that "this was the first inclusion of a health insurance plank in any national platform with a major candidate, although the Socialist Party had endorsed a compulsory system as early as 1904."

Roosevelt and the Progressives, nicknamed the Bull Moose Party, lost the election to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic Party candidate. Republican William Taft finished third.

Roosevelt as a Progressive. Not as Republican.

Apparently, aside from Lincoln, President Obama has been reading a biography of Teddy Roosevelt, these days.

So here we have another one of those deceits that President Obama uses: The illusion of bipartisan support for his brand of healthcare reform. He does this when he claims his proposal has taken "the best ideas from both Republicans and Democrats (paraphrase)"; and he does this when he reaches back 100 years, to something a former Republican president supported as a third party Progressive candidate.

Every single Republican in the House and Senate stand in opposition to Obamacare. The bipartisanship is happening in opposition to the president's healthcare proposal.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Obama's Healthcare Sob Stories

2010-03-18T10:56:00.000-07:00

Remember the weeping tale of Otto S. Raddatz? Or how about Robin Lynn Beaton? You just can't make this stuff up...(or can you?)

Why do Democrats so love tugging on heartstrings? President Obama relentlessly push-peddles heartache anecdotes to persuade, even if these stories are highly selective and false. Even when pointed out to him, he has still repeated the same heartbreaking, inaccurate stories in stump-speeches, time and time again.

No, he's not merely mistaken as the recipient of bad information. President Obama is deliberately deceiving the American public by knowingly telling falsehoods. Joe Wilson was right.

The latest tale, is that of Natoma Canfield (cue the violins):

The president spent almost a third of his lecture discussing her case, and he claims he's been talking about her in meetings with insurance companies. Ms. Canfield is a self-employed cleaning lady who dropped her $500-per-month insurance plan because she felt she couldn't afford the insurance premiums, only to discover she suffered from leukemia.

"She was very sick. She expects to face more than a month of aggressive chemotherapy," the president said. "She is racked with worry not only about her illness, but about the costs of the tests and the treatment that she's surely going to need to beat it." Then came the whopper: Mr. Obama claimed he's pushing for a government takeover of health care because of "the added burden of medical bills they can't pay."

Fortunately for Ms. Canfield, she is getting medical care at the famous Cleveland Clinic, one of the world's top medical facilities. But despite Mr. Obama's claims that she's "racked with worry" and might lose her house because of her medical bills, it turns out that the existing system is working pretty well. At the time of Mr. Obama speech, Ms. Canfield already was being checked to see if she qualified for financial aid.

"She may be eligible for state Medicaid ... and/or she will be eligible for charity [care] of some form or type. ... In my personal opinion, she will be eligible for something," said Lyman Sornberger, executive director of patient financial services at the Cleveland Clinic, to Fox News. "Cleveland Clinic will not put a lien on her home."

This is not Ms. Canfield's first bout with cancer. Given her history as a cancer survivor, $500 per month for insurance isn't extreme. Cancer treatments and surgery routinely run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is beside the point, however, because Obamacare won't help with insurance costs. In fact, the Democrats' health care bill adds expensive mandates on medical procedures to be covered, such as unlimited lifetime insurance benefits and no limits on co-payments. Even some Democrats must understand that increasing benefits will raise insurance premiums.

Contrary to the bleak picture Mr. Obama is conjuring up, most Americans are happy with their own health care, including those with serious health problems. According to a study in Regulation magazine last summer, 92 percent of those with insurance who were suffering from chronic illness rated their health insurance as excellent or good. Even uninsured Americans are reasonably satisfied with their care - about as happy as Canadians who are covered by their government system.

Everyone would like cheaper insurance, but the notion that government will lower costs is absurd. Even if Mr. Obama's stories were true, help for people such as Ms. Canfield could be much more targeted. There is no crisis of care that justifies undoing the entire U.S. health care system.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Photo of the Day

2010-03-14T17:55:00.000-07:00

Created by The Sniper, from a Reuters photo. (Hat tip: Greyhawk).

"Marineistan"?!

The Marines are pushing into previously ignored Taliban enclaves. They have set up a first-of-its-kind school to train police officers. They have brought in a Muslim chaplain to pray with local mullahs and deployed teams of female Marines to reach out to Afghan women.

The Marine approach -- creative, aggressive and, at times, unorthodox -- has won many admirers within the military. The Marine emphasis on patrolling by foot and interacting with the population, which has helped to turn former insurgent strongholds along the Helmand River valley into reasonably stable communities with thriving bazaars and functioning schools, is hailed as a model of how U.S. forces should implement counterinsurgency strategy.

But the Marines' methods, and their insistence that they be given a degree of autonomy not afforded to U.S. Army units, also have riled many up the chain of command in Kabul and Washington, prompting some to refer to their area of operations in the south as "Marineistan." They regard the expansion in Delaram and beyond as contrary to the population-centric approach embraced by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, and they are seeking to impose more control over the Marines.

The U.S. ambassador in Kabul, Karl W. Eikenberry, recently noted that the international security force in Afghanistan feels as if it comprises 42 nations instead of 41 because the Marines act so independently from other U.S. forces.

"We have better operational coherence with virtually all of our NATO allies than we have with the U.S. Marine Corps," said a senior Obama administration official involved in Afghanistan policy.

Read the rest.

Sunday Funnies

2010-03-14T07:00:00.000-07:00

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces

Why the "al Qaeda 7" Matters in the Legal War on Terror

2010-03-10T10:43:00.001-08:00

Is this a case of smear or transparency?

Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy, The Cable:

Several former Justice Department officials have criticized the group Keep America Safe, which is led by Liz Cheney and William Kristol, for its attacks on the department for hiring lawyers who have defended terror suspects in the past, including one particularly controversial ad calling some of them the "al Qaeda 7."

"The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams's representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston massacre," reads a letter organized by the Brookings Institution's Benjamin Wittes and signed by David Rivkin, Lee Casey, and Philip Zelikow, among other prominent Republican lawyers.

"To suggest that the Justice Department should not employ talented lawyers who have advocated on behalf of detainees maligns the patriotism of people who have taken honorable positions on contested questions and demands a uniformity of background and view in government service from which no administration would benefit."

Why does this matter, and go beyond "talented lawyers taking honorable positions" by lawyering up on behalf of "accused" terrorists who wish to kill Americans? Because in the "war on terror", we may be winning it on the battlefield and in some cases, behind the scenes; but in the court of law, thanks to such organizations as the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU, America has been on the losing side of 3 of the 4 major war on terror cases that have come before the Supreme Court.

And if these are just honorable, patriotic lawyers doing their honorable duties, then Eric Holder and the Obama Administration really should have no objections to the transparency, should they?

Thomas Joscelyn takes a look at their body of work. Marc Thiessen devotes an entire chapter ("Double Agents") in Courting Disaster to the lawyers involved in defending al Qaeda terrorists, and their connections to Eric Holder. (See Thiessen's op-ed in WaPo here; and if you are so inclined, Eugene Robinson's attack on Liz Cheney and Keep America Safe here).

Andrew McCarthy also weighs in on why this issue matters.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

The Selfishness of Liberalism on Display

2010-03-08T09:31:00.000-08:00

Republicans are often associated with greed and selfishness (because we all know there is no such thing as Democrat fat-cats and learjet liberals; and that Democrats always contribute more to charities). But liberals are rightfully identified with the entitlement-mentality. Education is a right. Same-sex marriage is a right. Healthcare is a right. Riiiiight....

In full parade-fashion, last Thursday's March 4th "Strike and Day of Action to Defend Education" saw liberal activists and students once again "fighting the good fight", seeing oppression and racial discrimination in necessary budget cuts that affect education. Peter Robinson summing it all up:

We have here the vocabulary of the peace movement, of the struggle for decent conditions for migrants and other exploited workers, and of the civil-rights movement. Yet what did the protesters demand? Peace? Human rights? No. Money. And for whom? For the downtrodden and oppressed? No. For themselves. At a time when one American in 10 is unemployed and historic deficits burden both the federal government and many of the states, the protesters attempted to game the political system. They engaged in a resource grab.

The protests did offer students a certain kind of instruction. They taught them to replace the idealism of youth with the crassest self-pleading.

These students may like to believe that they are asking themselves, "What is good for society?" But really, they are asking, "What is good for myself?"

And yes, they can compare themselves to their brethren of 40 years ago:

The Vietnam anti-war/peace movement should be more properly and accurately scarlet-lettered an anti-draft movement. By the end of 1971, under Nixon, the draft ended. Major peace protests happened throughout 1968 through ‘71. The largest, most intense bombing of the war occurred in Christmas of ‘72 [Operation Linebacker II]. Any protests? Any peace movement marches? Not a peep. Because those protesting the war knew that they would no longer be called up to serve. Yet we’re to believe that the “peace” movement were anti-war out of altruistic good conscience on behalf of the Vietnam people. No: many were motivated by selfish interests. After the draft ended under Nixon, so too did the majority support for these idiotic marches, which only fueled more violence; not less.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Braking News....

2010-03-07T06:35:00.001-08:00

....Six days ago.

Sunday Funnies

2010-03-07T06:32:00.001-08:00

More at Flopping Aces

Criminalizing and Banning the EITs that Have Kept America Safe

2010-03-04T22:38:00.000-08:00

Impeach Bush. War criminals. Cheney, Halliburton and torture. Illegal war. Spying on Americans. Secret prisons. shredding of our Constitution. Sacrificed our values. Bush lied, people died. Waterboarding is torture.

Rather than seeing things in terms of "policy differences", those further to the left of President Obama (hard to believe that's possible, I know- but now he has to govern) still seek to appease their moveon.org base by ~~prosecuting~~ persecuting those they believe participated in criminal activity under the Bush Administration. They believe that Bush hurt America's moral standing in the world.

A bit over a week ago, Bush lawyers Yoo and Bybee were cleared of any professional misconduct, which arguably is not the case for their accusers.

Also a week ago Wednesday, while all eyes were turned to the healthcare summit, Rep. Jim McDermott tried by means of Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes "manager's amendment", to slip unnoticed into the House intelligence authorization bill a provision entitled “Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Interrogations Prohibition Act of 2010”. This amendment would criminalize future interrogators (up to including the death penalty) for what has already been abolished by President Obama: enhanced interrogations.

But thanks to bipartisan opposition and congressional Republicans led by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, they get a "D" for effort:

With no hearings or public debate, Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes included a provision sponsored by Rep. Jim McDermott called the “Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Interrogations Prohibition Act of 2010” in the intelligence bill, which would have banned a raft of poorly-defined interrogation techniques (including waterboarding) and specified prison sentences starting at a minimum of 15 years for intelligence officials who use them. His efforts met with instant opposition from congressional Republicans, led by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, and apparently faced opposition from the Obama administration as well. By late Thursday night the intelligence bill had been pulled.

The episode holds a few lessons: First, it is an acknowledgement by congressional Democrats that the Bush administration was right when it found that waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques were not illegal under existing U.S. laws—if they were already illegal, there would be no need to pass legislation making them illegal today.

Second, it is telling that Democrats felt they had to try to slip this provision into the intelligence bill in secret, while the whole city was otherwise occupied. The bill had no review in the intelligence committee, and the CIA was given no opportunity to examine the legislation or present its views. This shows that Democrats realize most Americans disagree with them on the question of terrorist interrogation, or else they would have no problem with open debate.

Finally, the episode raises a question: Why now? No terrorist has been waterboarded for seven years. President Obama has eliminated all enhanced interrogation techniques by executive order, and required that all interrogations follow the Army Field Manual. Pelosi and congressional Democrats did not object to waterboarding when it was taking place, but now seven years later they want to pass legislation banning it along with a raft of other techniques?

Gregory D. Lee:

Apparently, Rep. McDermott and his friends on the intelligence committee want to remove any opportunity to use EITs again. Passing a law attaching criminal penalties for using EITs would mean it would literally take an act of Congress to repeal it if this or a future president decided there was a sudden need to use them.

For example, a high-value terrorist is captured and brags to his CIA interrogators that there is a crude nuclear weapon somewhere in the U.S. that will go off tomorrow. He says he knows the exact location of the bomb, but refuses to disclose it. The terrorist agrees to take a polygraph examination to prove the veracity of his claim, and passes with flying colors. The president is informed and, like the CIA, is convinced the threat is genuine. What should the president do?

If left up to Rep. McDermott, the president could not legally order the use of EITs to extract the exact location of the nuclear weapon. In fact, if the president ordered interrogators to use EITs, whether or not he obtained the information that saved thousands of American lives, he and the interrogators would be subject to imprisonment.

To Rep. McDermott, waterboarding, placing a bug in terrorists’ confined quarters, sleep deprivation, exploiting a phobia or anything else that humanely persuades terrorists to disclose actionable intelligence, must to be outlawed. In fact, the act includes the sentence, “The moral standards that reflect the values of the United States governing appropriate tactics for interrogations do not change according to the dangers that we face as a nation” (emphasis added). Therefore, even if my scenario happened, interrogators could not use EITs without risking prison.

Originally posted at Flopping Aces

Sunday Funnies

2010-02-28T00:30:00.000-08:00

More at Flopping Aces

"How not to torture" Memo Lawyers Cleared of "professional misconduct"

2010-02-26T11:35:00.000-08:00

In reviewing Yoo's new book, Mike wrote:

In a day when we confront an enemy that has no state, wears no uniform and can not be appeased or negotiated with using diplomatic or economic means a new challenge was met by President George W. Bush with renewed reliance on the historic and evolving use of executive power. We all remember the battles Bush had with Congress over the use of Executive authority to combat terrorism after September 11th. John Yoo was at the epicenter of those battles. From 2001-2003, he served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on issues involving foreign affairs, national security, and the separation of powers.

In 2002, on the heels of 9/11, the Office of Legal Counsel determined that the interrogation practices of the CIA were lawful. This gave the CIA legal confidence on where the line was drawn so that they could carry out their duty of protecting the country without fear of criminal and professional prosecution down the road.

For the last 5 years, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has been conducting an investigation into the rulings held by Yoo and Bybee.

Last Friday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers released their report:

(Washington, DC) – In connection with the committee's oversight responsibilities and in anticipation of hearings on the issues raised, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) today released a report by the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility severely criticizing the judgment and legal work of the Bush administration lawyers who authorized waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques." Chairman Conyers also released a group of related materials, including drafts of the report, comments from the attorneys under investigation, and the subsequent memorandum to the attorney general.

"For years, those who approved torture and abuse of detainees have hidden behind legal memos issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel," Conyers said. "The materials released today make plain that those memos were leglly flawed and fundamentally unsound, and may have been improperly influenced by a desire to tell the Bush White House and the CIA what it wanted to hear."

"The Office of Legal Counsel has a proud tradition of providing independent, high-quality legal advice to the executive branch," Conyers continued. "The materials released today make clear that the lawyers who wrote the torture memos did not live up that tradition. While the department ultimately concluded that the lawyers did not breach their minimum professional obligations, I certainly hold top lawyers at OLC to a higher standard that, as all Americans should.

"Given the serious nature of the issues raised in this report, the committee intends to hold hearings on these matters in the very near future."

The CIA did not "hide behind" legal memos; nor did they "approve torture and abuse of detainees". The CIA sought to know what was and wasn't legally permissible. If anything, the OLC memos were about "how not to torture".

Jack Goldsmith, who succeeded Yoo's boss, Jay Bybee, disagreed with Yoo's Standards Memo but left in place the Techniques Memo which he saw as having "elaborate safeguards". When Daniel Levin succeeded Goldsmith, he and his superiors continued approving the techniques used in the CIA interrogation program, including the use of waterboarding.

Even though Goldsmith did not find fault with the Techniques Memo, his 2004 decision to withdraw the Standards Memo made a huge impact in the CIA, shaking their confidence in being able to do their work without worrying whether or not they will need lawyers down the road. They sought legal guidance from the Justice Department itself, and thought they had it.

Goldsmith himself admits in The Terror Presidency, pg 162-3,

I had changed the rules in the middle of the game in a way that potentially jeopardized national security and that certainly harmed an institution I had come to admire, the CIA.

~~~

The agency had been asked to go out on a limb in 2002, and it had demanded and received absolute legal assurances from the Department of Justice and the White House. I had done the unthinkable in withdrawing its golden shield. And i had done so at a time that George Tenet would later describe as one of the most threatening since 9/11.

Today, the threat of more future investigations and potential legal actions hangs over the head of the CIA and those who served in the previous administration. How is it that a self-avowed terrorist who tried to kill Americans is able to sue a Justice Department Official whose legal counsel undoubtedly saved American lives? Michael Gerson also made the following point last April (when details of the OLC memos were made public- to the delight of al Qaeda- by the Obama Administration):

I think it’s a real mistake to try to criminalize policy disagreements. You know, we can disagree with some of the things that the Clinton people did. You know, people disagree with things that people in the Bush administration did. But people were involved, for example, at the Justice Department, were making their best legal judgments. It’s very hard under those circumstances to try to impose a mindset, a kind of witch hunt mindset to people that thought they were doing their duty.

And as Scott wrote last August:

There are multiple problems with investigating closed cases from a previous Administration, but the core problem is that there is no statute of limitations on how far back such allegations can be re-opened and re-investigated. Using the exact same argument that’s being used to re-open these allegations of “torture,” the DOJ may be required to pursue standing orders, techniques, and policies that pre-date the Bush Administration. Moreover, if they are re-opening past allegations of “torture”, then when the same or similar tactics and techniques are used today by the Obama Administration, then the DOJ is even more compelled than usual to investigate the Obama Administration OR face a Special Prosecutor. The latter is not likely if Democrats hold control of Congress, but that’s not likely either. If Republicans take even one House of Congress in 14 months, then they very well could have a case for impeachment on their hands-impeachment of President Obama on charges that he authorized the same or similar “torture” and extraordinary rendition of prisoners to other countries FOR torture as did his predecessors Bush and Clinton.

Read John Woo's gift to the Obama Presidency.

I wonder how the hundreds of people involved in the CIA interrogation program- the program that saved American lives!- feel, knowing that President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder think that what they did was torture and are broadcasting it as such to the rest of the world?

Andrew Lebovich at Foreign Policy:

In a document dump last Friday evening, the Department of Justice released a report effectively clearing Bush administration "torture memo" lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee of professional misconduct.

The long-anticipated Office of Personnel Responsibility (OPR) report concludes that Yoo and Bybee did commit professional misconduct -- Yoo "when he violated his duty to exercise independent legal judgment" and Bybee by "[acting] in reckless disregard" of the law.

But David Margolis, the career Justice Department lawyer heading the investigation, wrote in a separate, overriding memo that "misconduct depends on application of a known, unambiguous obligation or standard," a legal standard that did not exist when Yoo and Bybee wrote the memos allowing for the "enhanced interrogation" of detainees. Margolis controversially cites the security atmosphere just after the 9/11 attacks as a mitigating factor, a defense other lawyers and the initial report authors have explicitly rejected.

The effect of the report: Yoo and Bybee will not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined. Bybee is currently a federal judge and Yoo a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

•Memorandum for the Attorney General
•OPR Final Report
•OPR 1st Draft Report
•OPR 2nd Draft Report
•Yoo Response to OPR 2nd Draft
•Yoo Response to OPR Final Draft
•Bybee Response to OPR 2nd Draft
•Bybee Response to OPR Final Draft
•Letter from Mukasey and Filip to Jarrett
•Letter from DOJ to Chairman Conyers

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Daniel Freedman Debates Marc Thiessen

2010-02-25T07:57:00.000-08:00

Much better, substantive debate than Thiessen's previous appearance where Lawrence O'Donnell frothed and foamed at the mouth and had to be tranquilized and put back in his kennel.

Even good questions from the MSNBC Morning Joe hosts (all points addressed in Thiessen's book, Courting Disaster). Thiessen comes very well armed for debate.

Ali Soufan wouldn't come on to defend and debate (Ali Soufan is the FBI agent- not evil, just wrong and a hero in my book- who has been lionized by the left for his opposition to the CIA interrogation program) so he is represented by Daniel Freedman, the Director of Policy Analysis and Communications of the Soufan Group (also served on Giuliani's campaign as a foreign policy analyst).

Recent articles by Marc Thiessen:
A Middle Ground for Interrogations in Washington Post

Outsourcing the war on terror in USA Today

Crossposted at Flopping Aces

A Defining Moment...

2010-02-23T05:26:00.000-08:00

Hat tip, Scott:

Another page in the scrapbook has a clear acetate pouch. Stuffed inside is a thick, folded sheet of blue paper. An Iraqi ballot I stole on January 30th 2005.

The sound of mortar fire fills my ears. The desk dissolves. Suddenly, I’m kneeling on a road, a palm grove to my front. Iraq. Election Day 2005.

The bullets are flying.

My squad runs through the searing heat and forms a wall of flesh and Kevlar between the incoming fire and the citizens standing in line behind us. They’ve turned out in their finest clothes to wait for the opportunity to cast a vote. For most, this moment is a defining one in their lives. They’ve never had a voice before. This means something to them, and they have used the moment as an object lesson for their children. They appear nervous and take photos. The kids stand with them in line, viewing first hand this revolution in Iraqi civics.

As they came to line up earlier that morning, the men thanked us and clasped their hands over their heads, striking a triumphant pose. Some of the women cried. The kids were on their best behavior.

The gunfire began that afternoon. Insurgents started to shoot them. My unit ran to the road and formed a protective position between the killers and the citizens going to the polls. As we scanned the palm grove in front of us, bullets cracked and whined, then mortars start thumping around us. My squad pushed into the palm grove. I stayed on the road, overseeing their movement and coordinating the heavy fire from the Bradleys.

The firefight ebbs. The mortar fire ceases. A few last stray rounds streak past. A cry from behind causes me to turn. Lying in the road is a young Iraqi woman. I run over to help. She’s caught a round just below her temple. Her stunning beauty has been ruined forever.

She cries, “Paper! Paper” over and over until the ambulance arrives to take her away. An old lady emerges from the schoolhouse-turned voting site, sheets of blue paper in hand. She gives one to the wounded girl, who clutches it to her like a prized possession even as the ambulance carries her away.

The ballot was her voice. All she wanted was a chance to exercise it, just once, before she died.

The old woman returns to the school house, but drops another ballot along the way. It drifts in a gentle breeze across the bloodstained asphalt. I stoop down and pick it up. It is all in Arabic, and I have no idea what each set of candidates advocate. That’s not my place, and it doesn’t really matter. I helped make this day happen. This ballot represents the reason why we’re here, why my friends had to die.

Carefully, I fold the ballot up and put it in my pocket. Even though I was 29 at the time , I’d only voted once.

I had taken something so precious for granted for far too long.

Read the rest...from beginning to end.

Killing vs. Capturing/Interrogating Terrorists

2010-02-21T07:56:00.000-08:00

“My position has always been clear: If you’ve got a terrorist, take him out. Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take ‘em out.”
-Barack Obama

More regarding the dueling VPs last weekend:

Biden struck first, declaring that Cheney's attacks on Obama's commitment to fighting terrorism ignored the facts.

"We've eliminated 12 of their top 20 people. We have taken out 100 of their associates," said Biden. "They are in fact not able to do anything remotely like they were in the past. They are on the run. I don't know where Dick Cheney has been. Look, it's one thing, again, to criticize. It's another thing to sort of rewrite history. What is he talking about?"

What is Joe Biden talking about, "rewrite history"? Much of al Qaeda's original leadership and many of its operatives were killed and captured in the years since 9/11 and before the Age of Obama. Furthermore, Obama has inherited many of the tools developed during the Bush years that has kept America safe. Even many of his lefty allies understand that much of the war on terror success OBiden can boast of in his first year in office is due to the perpetuation of Bush-era policies that they so despised and reviled.

But where Obama departs from Bush is where he endangers America most...

Besides the determination to close Guantanamo, the most potentially disastrous decision of the Obama Administration has been the suspension of the CIA interrogation program that saved American lives; a program that prevented other 9/11-scale attacks on American soil.

Since we no longer seem interested in the business of detaining and interrogating al Qaeda operatives what appears to be the Obama solution: Just kill 'em.

Toward the end of President Obama's first year in office:

The New America Foundation, a policy group in Washington, studied press reports and estimated that since 2006 at least 500 militants and 250 civilians had been killed in the drone strikes. A separate count, by The Long War Journal, found 885 militants' deaths and 94 civilians'.

So let's get this straight: It's ok to kill terrorists along with innocent civilians under Obama; but not ok to capture and waterboard terrorists under Bush?

The president has claimed the moral high ground in eliminating the CIA's enhanced interrogation program, saying that he rejects the "the false choice between our security and our ideals." Yet when Obama orders a Predator or Reaper strike, he is often signing the death warrant for the women and children who will be killed alongside the target -- individuals whose only sin is that they are married to, or the children of, a terrorist. Is this not a choice between security and ideals? And why is it a morally superior choice? Is it really more in keeping with American ideals to kill a terrorist and the innocent people around him, when the United States might instead spare the innocent, capture the same terrorist alive, and get intelligence from him that could potentially save many other innocent lives as well?

In my previous post, I mentioned an article by Marc Thiessen, former Bush speech writer and author of the must-read Courting Disaster. In it, Thiessen writes:

Obama's escalation of the "Predator War" comes at the very same time he has eliminated the CIA's capability to capture senior terrorist leaders alive and interrogate them for information on new attacks. The Predator has become for President Obama what the cruise missile was to President Bill Clinton -- an easy way to appear like he is taking tough action against terrorists, when he is really shying away from the hard decisions needed to protect the United States.

~~~

The problem is that Obama is increasingly using drone strikes as a substitute for operations to bring terrorist leaders in alive for questioning -- and that is putting the country at risk. As one high-ranking CIA official explained to me, in an interview for my book Courting Disaster, "In the wake of 9/11, [the CIA] put forward a program that had a lethal component to strike back at the people who did this. But the other component was to prevent this kind of catastrophe from happening again. And for that, killing people -- especially killing senior al Qaeda leaders -- is potentially counterproductive in that we can't know or learn of future attacks. You can't kill them all, and you don't want to kill them all from an intelligence standpoint. We needed to know what they knew."

In the years after the 9/11 attacks, the CIA worked with Pakistani and other intelligence services to hunt down senior terrorist leaders and take them in for interrogation. Among those captured were men like Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ammar al-Baluchi, Walid bin Attash, Riduan Isamuddin (aka "Hambali"), Bashir bin Lap, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Abu Faraj al-Libbi, Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, and others. In all, about 100 terrorists were detained and questioned by the CIA. And the information they provided helped break up terrorist cells that were planning to blow up the U.S. Consulate in Karachi and the U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti; explode seven airplanes flying across the Atlantic from London to cities in North America; and fly hijacked airplanes into Heathrow Airport, London's financial district, and the Library Tower in Los Angeles.

Today, the Obama administration is no longer attempting to capture men like these alive; it is simply killing them. This may be satisfying, but it comes at a price. With every drone strike that vaporizes a senior al Qaeda leader, actionable intelligence is vaporized along with him. Dead terrorists can't tell you their plans to strike America.

A commenter in the previous post questioned whether or not Thiessen was being misleading, noting that

I imagine many situtations that offer drones a target of opportunity don’t also offer an opportunity for capture.

Thiessen addresses this point in his article:

To be sure, unmanned drones are critical in the struggle against al Qaeda. They allow the United States to reach terrorists hiding in remote regions where it would be difficult for special operations forces to reach them, or to act on perishable intelligence when the only choice is to kill a terrorist or lose him. Constantly hovering Predator (or Reaper) drones also have a psychological effect on the enemy, forcing al Qaeda leaders to live in fear and spend time focusing on self-preservation that would otherwise be used planning the next attack. All this is for the good.

The problem is, there have been opportunities to capture rather than kill senior leaders, and the decision was made to take the latter route. In last Sunday's WaPo:

When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.

The White House authorized the second option. On the morning of Sept. 14, helicopters flying from a U.S. ship off the Somali coast blew up a car carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan. While several hovered overhead, one set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of the remains for DNA verification. Moments later, the helicopters were headed back to the ship.

The strike was considered a major success, according to senior administration and military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified operation and other sensitive matters. But the opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever.

The Nabhan decision was one of a number of similar choices the administration has faced over the past year as President Obama has escalated U.S. attacks on the leadership of al-Qaeda and its allies around the globe. The result has been dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions.

This would appear to validate Thiessen's criticism that by shutting down the CIA interrogation program and by closing down Guantanamo, the Obama administration is not interested in detaining and interrogating. Just law enforcement prosecutions and eliminations.

If this is the Obama approach to fighting al Qaeda and its affiliates, then we will be fighting blind. But hey! Maybe we'll get lucky again and have another failed (rather than "foiled") terror plot unhatch.

Let's hope, however, that captures like Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and his subsequent interrogation remain the norm and not the exception to fighting committed terrorists.

-Bring back the CIA program that interrogated the likes of KSM and Zubaydah.

-Keep Guantanamo open for business.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Sunday Funnies

2010-02-21T07:54:00.000-08:00

More at Flopping Aces

On This Day in History…

2010-02-19T22:34:00.000-08:00

National Archives
An exclusion order posted at First and Front Streets in San Francisco directing removal of persons of Japanese ancestry.

On Feb. 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. There was no mention of relocation centers in the EO, because initially none were envisioned. The purpose was for those of Japanese ancestry to relocate voluntarily, anywhere within the interior, away from the West Coast and areas of strategic military importance.

On April 25, 1992, as a UCLA student, I went by bus from campus on a pilgrimage to Manzanar, 230 miles northeast of Los Angeles on the 50th Anniversary of the internment of 110,000 Japanese-Americans into relocation camps during WWII.

As sympathetic as I am to the Japanese-American experience (my mom being Japanese, I identify more with ...Japanese-American culture than Thai/Thai-American), I'm going to go ahead and anger a lot of people and extol some of the non-PC merits of Michelle Malkin's book, In Defense of Internment: the case for 'racial profiling' in World War II.

Baby Ogata's Grave
The imposing beauty of the Sierra Nevada mountains, marred by having to see them through barbed wire fences.
Photo taken by Wordsmith

Whether you agree or disagree with Malkin's points in the end, I see nothing at all that is "racist" about her book, unless one knee-jerks into PC-induced sensitivities as substitution for thinking.

It is revisionist dishonesty (or unfortunate ignorance) for anyone to claim there were no instances of Japanese issei or nisei who displayed commitment to the ultra-nationalistic tradition of "doho" (unbending loyalty to the Emperor regardless of residence or citizenship status). Malkin provides a number of examples of where there was evidence of Japanese-American disloyalty.

Even moreso than racism and prejudice, the possibility of fifth column saboteurs and the dangers of further attacks on the West Coast were very real, and supported by the best military and civilian intelligence analysis at the time. This included the MAGIC messages which were intercepted diplomatic communications that revealed Japan's espionage activities in regards to the West Coast, Hawaii, and the southern border.

Throughout Europe and the South Pacific, there were instances of Japanese immigrants who consorted with their ancestral homeland, revealing where their loyalties lay. Same held true with Germans who no longer lived in Germany (which brings up the point that it wasn't just those of Japanese ancestry who were interned by the Department of Justice- of the 31 thousand enemy aliens from Axis nations, nearly half were European).

The conventional perspective, of course, is exemplified by the following passage from "Yankee Samurai", by Joseph D. Harrington- a perspective that rings heroic for me, with selfless patriotism, bitter sorrow, honor and conflicted loyalty, and unconditional love and service to country:

"Before leaving New Guinea, Walter Tanaka had faced up to a major crisis in his life. He had done everything he could to dissuade his angry and disappointed father from renouncing the U.S. and returning to Japan. This was not easy to do while soaking wet in a foxhole with the enemy shooting at you. The moisture on Walt's face was more than rain when he read what he feared was his father's last letter on a painful subject.

America had disappointed him. Tunejiro Tanaka told his son, as he recounted the family troubles. He intended to go back to Japan as soon as he could. But, he had other ideas concerning Walter. 'When a tiger dies, he leaves his skin,' Tunejiro wrote, quoting an old Japanese adage, 'but when a man dies he leaves only his name. America has rejected me, and I am going back to my native country, Japan. You, however, are to stay in America. It is your country. Defend it. I charge you not to do anything that will dishonor my name."
-Ch. 12, pg 258

And we are all proud of the selfless patriotism and heroism of Nisei who found themselves in the unfortunate circumstance of having to prove their loyalty, fighting for a country that uprooted and held their families in internment camps.

To my knowledge, the all-Japanese 442nd Regimental Combat Team remains the most highly decorated unit in American military history. And those Japanese-Americans who acted as translators for military intelligence played a large role in saving lives by winning/shortening the war.

Today, civil rights activists want to draw parallels between the Japanese-American experience of then to that of Muslim-Americans, today.

Vigilance against prejudice is ok; but we shouldn't be crammed with so much political correctness as to throw common sense out the window.

Profiling is not the worst evil in the world. It is a logical process of identification. You do this naturally in your everyday activity. If I see someone wearing a Grateful Dead t-shirt concert, the natural conclusion for me to reach is that, chances are, the guy's a fan of their music. I could be wrong, sure. But percentage-wise, I'm probably correct in my initial assessment, without yet verifying and confirming.

There are all kinds of profiling: Racial/ethnic, national, religious, behavioral...

The act of profiling doesn't mean you automatically are thinking "guilty before proven innocent".

If a certain terror cult had a strange fixation with wearing Casio F91W wrist-watches, it only follows that one should scrutinize those wearing the favored watch more closely than those without; it does not mean that ALL and even MOST people who choose to wear that watch are terrorists. It's just one clue on a list of potential traits to be on the lookout for.

The fear of racial/ethnic/religious/national profiling- of being labeled "racist"- failed to protect us against 9/11 terrorists. Ronald Kessler's The Terrorist Watch, pg 30-31, pg 33:

When he wrote the Phoenix memo, Williams was investigating an individual who was a member of the al-Muahjiroun, an Islamic extremist group whose spiritual leader was a supporter of bin Laden. The man was taking aviation-related security courses at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University. Why was he interested in aviation security? Perhaps so he could hijack a plane, Williams thought. Others taking flight training could have the same nefarious purpose.

Headquarters passed the memo off to low-level analysts, who wondered whether interviewing Middle Eastern men taking flight lessons or aviation security courses would raise issues of racial profiling.

~~~

the FBI operated in a politically correct atmosphere that Congress, the Clinton Administration, and the media fostered. Focusing on Arab men was a no-no.

In Defense of Internment, pg XXVIII-XXIX:

Williams recommendation to canvas flight schools was rejected, FBI director Robert Mueller later admitted, partly because at least one agency offical raised concerns that the plan could be viewed as discriminatory racial profiling. "If we went out and started canvassing, we'd get in trouble for targeting Arab Americans," one FBI official told the Los Angeles Times.

To be sure, the Phoenix memo was not enough to warn of the 9/11 plot (Williams himself only marked the memo for "routine" attention and never dreamt of the possibility of hijackers flying planes into buildings); but what is revealed is the aversion to conduct the kind of profiling that would raise the hackles of civil rights groups.

And today, we are still hamstrung by our political correctness sensitivities and fear to offend, as demonstrated by the Ft. Hood shooting (and what have we here....5 U.S. soldiers plotting together?!). That one should have been preventable.

So long as this remains the case, we will treat grandmothers and young, Middle-Eastern men in their 20's with equal levels of scrutiny, taking off belts and shoes, and being prevented to bring aboard a simple gift like a snow globe. Because discrimination is such a naughty word and profiling an act of great evil and injustice.

When civil liberty activists hyperventilate about "That's profiling!"

My answer, in classic Cheney-fashion, is...

"So?"

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Zubaydah Thanked His Interrogators for Waterboarding Him

2010-02-15T22:11:00.000-08:00

And essentially made it clear that it was both effective and necessary, telling the CIA interrogators that "You must do this to all the brothers."

This past Valentine's Day....

Former VP Cheney's ABC This Week:

KARL: But you believe they should have had the option of everything up to and including waterboarding?

CHENEY: I think you ought to have all of those capabilities on the table. Now, President Obama has taken them off the table. He announced when he came in last year that they would never use anything other than the U.S. Army manual, which doesn’t include those techniques. I think that’s a mistake.

From VP Biden's appearance on CBS' Face the Nation:

Schieffer: "Can you Mr. Vice President envision a time where waterboarding can ever be used on anyone?"

Biden: "No, no, it's not effective"

Schieffer: "It's not effective?"

Biden: "It's not effective"

Abu Zubaydah disagrees with Joe Biden. He is living proof that waterboarding worked. Not only that, but he endorsed waterboarding with a personal stamp of approval.

Last April, I posted an excerpt from Ron Kessler's The Terrorist Watch, regarding the chapter detailing Abu Zubaydah:

Abu Zubaydah mentioned that KSM used the moniker “Mukhtar,” which allowed analysts to comb through previously collected intelligence and develop leads that eventually led to his capture.

Soon after that, Abu Zubaydah stopped cooperating.

When Zubaydah gave up KSM, he did so unwittingly (detailed in my link to the excerpt from Kessler's book) while in his hospital bed, recovering from injury sustained in his capture. As he regained his health, he grew resistant to questioning.

Propelled by fear that another attack was in the works, the CIA began developing coercive interrogation techniques- water-boarding high value terrorists or subjecting them to ear-splitting music or to icy temperatures and forcing them to stand for hours.

“We weren’t getting very much from him at all,” Grenier says. “And that’s when we began the process of putting together a properly focused interrogation process. It was refined a good deal subsequently, but he was the test.”

Before the interrogation procedures were employed, the Justice Department reviewed them and determined that they were legally permissible. After a few months, the CIA began using some of the techniques on Abu Zubaydah. As the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and other detained terrorists progressed, the agency briefed the chairs, ranking members, and majority and minority staff directors of the House and Senate intelligence committees on the details of the procedures used.

Marc Thiessen has an important new book out, Courting Disaster that clears up some of the mystique and mythologizing about the CIA program that has successfully kept America safe since 9/11. Former CIA Director Hayden writes (thanks Missy!):

I opposed the release of the Office of Legal Council memos on the CIA interrogation program last April. I opposed the release of additional memos and the report of the CIA inspector general on the interrogation program last August. But whatever their release did to reveal American secrets to our enemies, it did inject something into the public debate on this program that had been sorely missing—facts.

Thiessen has taken these documents, as well as his own extensive interviews and research, and created for the first time a public account of a program previously hidden from public view. Prior to this, some opponents of the program could create whatever image they wanted to create to support the argument of the moment. And those who were in government at the time were near powerless to correct the record. No longer.

There will still be those who remain adamantly opposed to the interrogation effort, but now they must be opposed to the program as it was, not as they imagined or feared or—dare I say, for some—expected it to be.

I'm about 300 pages into the book. A book that Thiessen describes as one that he should not have been able to write and we should not have been able to read. Obama's declassification of internal documents and media leaks have made this book possible, out of the necessity of setting the record straight. Because it isn't such things as Guantanamo and so-called "torture" that has made America "less safe" and created more terrorists; but rather, the wild, irresponsible distortions and fabrications.

America's image abroad wasn't damaged by President Bush, but by his political opponents.

By Thiessen's account,

the first terrorist to be subjected to enhanced techniques, Zubaydah, told his interrogators something stunning. According to the Justice Department memos released by the Obama administration, Zubaydah explained that “brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship.” In other words, the terrorists are called by their religious ideology to resist as far as they can — and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything they know.

Several senior officials told me that, after undergoing waterboarding, Zubaydah actually thanked his interrogators and said, “You must do this for all the brothers.” The enhanced interrogation techniques were a relief for Zubaydah, they said, because they lifted a moral burden from his shoulders — the responsibility to continue resisting.

The importance of this revelation cannot be overstated: Zubaydah had given the CIA the secret code for breaking al-Qaeda detainees. CIA officials now understood that the job of the interrogator was to give the captured terrorist something to resist, so he could do his duty to Allah and then feel liberated to speak. So they developed techniques that would allow terrorists to resist safely, without any lasting harm. Indeed, they specifically designed techniques to give the terrorists the false perception that what they were enduring was far worse than what was actually taking place.

Much of the power of waterboarding and the other approved enhanced interrogation techniques was psychological. Such as the belief that drowning was taking place, as was the case of waterboarding; or that one was getting shoved hard ("walling") by hitting a flexible, false wall that made a loud sound to give the illusion that what was happening was worse than it actually was. As Thiessen puts it in an interview he did on the Dennis Prager Show, "Most of the techniques are psychological tricks, for the most part. They didn't depend upon physical pain to get the people to cooperate." They were like mentalist/magic tricks whose effectiveness, once revealed, loses their power.

This is why, since President Obama (selectively) released the OLC "torture" memos (more properly identified as "how not to torture" memos) last April, a couple of things have occurred:

1)It's basically provided al Qaeda with valuable intell information. Now they know what to train specifically against (were the CIA program still in operation).

2)It's made the enhanced interrogation techniques described in detail in the declassified documents obsolete.

Waterboarding (performed on only 3 terrorists in the program) is now pretty much useless as a psychological tool; making Obama's EO banning its use rather redundant (especially since waterboarding had been suspended already, under the Bush Administration). It's just gratuitous PR that "Obama banned torture" (Bush and Cheney were against torture, too). What he did was ban the tools that provided the CIA with valuable intell that would not have been gained through standard interrogation procedures. KSM, especially, was described by one official as "superhuman" in his resistance to traditional interrogation. It was clear that he had received extensive training in counter-interrogation. And he was smart: He figured out exactly how long his interrogators were allowed to pour the water shortly after only being waterboarded a few times, and would count off on his hand the number of seconds that would elapse, "1...2....3..."

Under the Obama Administration, the business of intelligence-gathering has taken a back seat in favor of prosecuting terrorists or simply killing them rather than capturing.

Thiessen's entire Prager interview is excellent, and you can listen to it here.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Sunday Funnies

2010-02-14T00:01:00.000-08:00

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces

Welshmen will not Yield

2010-02-13T21:47:00.000-08:00

Zulu - 1964 produced by Cy Endfield and Stanley Baker is a historical film depicting the Battle of Rorke's Drift between the British Army and the Zulus.
The film stars Stanley Baker and Michael Caine (in his first starring role), with a supporting cast that includes Jack Hawkins, Ulla Jacobsson, James Booth, Nigel Green, Paul Daneman, Glynn Edwards and Patrick Magee.

"Men Of Harlech"
Lyrics:
Men of Harlech stop your dreaming
Can't you see their spear points gleaming
See their warrior pennants streaming
To this battlefield
Men of Harlech stand ye steady
It cannot be ever said ye
For the battle were not ready
Welshmen never yield
From the hills rebounding
Let these war cries sounding
Summon all at Cambria's call
The mighty force surrounding
Men of Harlech on to glory
This will ever be your story
Keep these burning words before ye
Welshmen will not yield

Biden Takes the Cake!

2010-02-11T22:41:00.000-08:00

Unfrickin' believable...even though many of us saw this coming:

[Biden] – I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.

Marc Thiessen:

Media Uses Story of Child Abuse as a Teachable Moment of Bush-Era "Torture" Practices

2010-02-08T23:43:00.000-08:00

This story, about a U.S. soldier who abused his child by holding her head under water for not saying her abc's, is disgusting:

An Army sergeant who served in Iraq for 15 months has been restricted to his Washington military base after being accused of waterboarding his 4-year-old daughter because she refused to recite her ABCs.

But what I'd like to take umbrage with is how the media has decided to take this act of child abuse and water torture to draw an equivalence to the CIA enhanced interrogation program, which included the waterboarding of 3 known high-value terrorists, resistant to standard interrogation methods.

Although I'm linking to ABC News, it's not just ABC that's headlining this story as "waterboarding", drawing equivalence to the CIA program, and featuring a photo of protesters re-enacting their version of CIA waterboarding. See here and here and here.

Emily Friedman of ABC News writes:

The torture technique of waterboarding, which has been used by the CIA during interrogations of al Qaeda suspects, was outlawed in 2009 by President Obama.

Ok, it is disputable whether or not the CIA SERE-inspired technique of waterboarding rises to the definition of torture, both legally and morally. And as far as Obama "outlawing" it, well newsflash: Waterboarding (after just 3 terrorists) was already stricken from the CIA program. Obama's EO banning torture carried much the same language as the previous 2007 Bush EO that it replaced (newsflash: Bush was against torture as well). What Obama's EO did do, however, was close down the CIA program that gained us valuable intell (and saved lives), and order all interrogations be limited to what is only permissible from the Army Field Manual.

Leave it to an agenda-driven MSM to slant and push a political perspective to a story of child abuse.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Congratulations, Saints!

2010-02-07T20:29:00.000-08:00

Sunday Funnies

2010-02-07T08:30:00.000-08:00

More at Flopping Aces

Osama and al-Gore on the same page

2010-01-31T08:19:00.000-08:00

What do these two share in common?

Sunday Funnies

2010-01-31T08:15:00.001-08:00

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces

Pelosi Misleading the American Public

2010-01-30T17:14:00.000-08:00

Remember this from May of last year:

Since the release of his new book, Courting Disaster, Marc Thiessen has been on fire, making his rounds to promote the book (which is a GREAT thing), while also writing articles to set the record straight on the issue of the CIA and enhanced interrogations. It is critical that the American public understands that we did not compromise our core values, that our CIA did not torture, that media leaks and President Obama's release of the OLC memos damages our national security and benefits al Qaeda; and that the CIA program is the reason why another 9/11 attack has not been successfully carried out (yet).

Yesterday, in the Washington Post, Thiessen writes a devastating article on Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi:

In mid-2004, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi learned something from a CIA briefing that made her blood boil. Pelosi reportedly "came unglued" at the revelation and had "strong words" with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, demanding that the CIA abandon its plans. As a result, a top-secret finding that President George W. Bush signed to authorize the CIA's activities was revised. Pelosi succeeded in stopping the agency from moving forward with the controversial operation.

What drove Pelosi to action? Not the CIA's waterboarding of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists

In a 2009 interview, a former senior Bush administration official directed me to a little-noticed item from Time magazine. According to this 2004 report, Pelosi objected to a CIA plan to provide money to moderate political parties in Iraq ahead of scheduled elections, in an effort to counter Iran, which was funneling millions to extremist elements. "House minority leader Nancy Pelosi 'came unglued' when she learned about what a source described as a plan for 'the CIA to put an operation in place to affect the outcome of the elections,' " Time reported. "Pelosi had strong words with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in a phone call about the issue. . . . A senior U.S. official hinted that, under pressure from the Hill, the Administration scaled back its original plans." (Her role was also reported on this page by David Ignatius in 2007.)

Why is this important? Because on May 14, 2009, Pelosi, now speaker of the House, declared in a Capitol Hill news conference that she had opposed CIA waterboarding but was powerless to stop it. A former senior intelligence official told me in 2009 that he was shocked by Pelosi's claim because, he said, "Speaker Pelosi herself has stopped covert action programs that she has been briefed on by going to the White House. In that very same time frame [after she learned about waterboarding] Pelosi had gone back to the White House [over] a separate covert action program, expressed strong opposition to it. And the remarkable part to me, the White House backed off the program, changed one aspect of the program . . . she was particularly opposed to. And literally, the finding was pulled back and revised." If Pelosi had truly opposed waterboarding, he said, she had numerous ways to stop it -- but she didn't try.

At the time of her press briefing, Pelosi had been forced to acknowledge that she had learned in February 2003 that waterboarding was being used. Why, reporters asked, did she not object? Flustered, Pelosi claimed that it was not her place to complain because she was no longer the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee. "A letter raising concerns was sent to CIA general counsel Scott Muller by the new Democratic ranking member of [the] committee [Jane Harman], the appropriate person to register a protest." She made this claim five times during the briefing.

In fact, Harman's letter, since declassified, did not "register a protest"; it asked "what kind of policy review took place" and urged the agency not to destroy interrogation tapes. Moreover, when Pelosi made this claim, she knew that in 2004, when she was no longer the committee's ranking member, she had personally intervened with the White House to stop different covert action. She did not defer to Harman; she herself took action. Why was it "appropriate" for her to intervene then but not in the case of waterboarding?

Pelosi was asked by a reporter, "Do you wish now that you had done more? Do you wish it had been your own letter?" Pelosi replied, "No, no, no, no, no, no . . . No letter or anything else is going to stop them from doing what they're going to do." She made this claim three times during the briefing. All the while knowing that her phone call to Rice in 2004 had stopped the CIA from "doing what they were going to do" in a different covert operation.

As one of the top four leaders on Capitol Hill, Pelosi had numerous tools at her disposal if she had truly wanted to block waterboarding. She could have threatened to put a hold on funding for the CIA interrogation program, or held up funding for other administration priorities, or worked with her Senate counterparts to hold up nominees for senior CIA positions, or simply called the national security adviser -- as she reportedly did in the case of the Iraq program. Pelosi did none of those things when she learned about waterboarding. By her silence, Pelosi gave her consent -- and then misled the media by claiming she was powerless to act.

Journalists did not question Pelosi's claims -- and then they stopped questioning her. Pelosi announced that she would not take more questions on the topic, and the media complied. Reporters who relentlessly chased the Valerie Plame leak let the story drop. Pelosi's role in stopping another covert operation gives lie to her claims that she was powerless to stop waterboarding -- but the Washington press corps failed to "connect the dots." Now that the truth is out, will they continue to let her get away with not answering questions? We'll learn the answer at her next press briefing.

The press had her on the ropes, then gave her breathing room when she bared her fangs the following week. She told them to drop the topic, and they did.

It's time to light her up, again.

Some previous posts:

Nancy Pelosi Admits Knowledge Of Waterboarding….BUT Didn’t Think The CIA Would Use It

Republican Asks Dept of Justice to Investigate Pelosoi and Others Over Torture Briefings

Nancy Pelosi was an accomplice to ‘torture.’

ABC, CBS and NBC Ignore Pelosi’s Torture Hypocrisy

Krauthammer – Pelosi At War With CIA & Will Lose The Fight

Sputtering, “Spooked” Speaker Spins Shaky Story on Torture AGAIN!

VIDEO: Pelosi Says Interrogations OK in 2006

Newt Gingrich Dumps on Nancy Pelsoi

Nancy Pelosi Running Scared…Blames Bush For Her Lies

There Once Was a Speaker Named Nancy

What Did Nancy Know?

Democrats Accusation Of CIA Lying An Attempt To Defend Intelligence Bill Provision?…Or Was It The Evil Dick Cheney?

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Literary Giant of American Fiction, Dead at 87

2010-01-28T11:37:00.000-08:00

Both Howard Zinn and JD Salinger died yesterday. As Steve Schippert quipped:

"Yesterday, America saw two giants of American literary fiction pass: JD Salinger and Howard Zinn."

Boston Globe:

Howard Zinn, the Boston University historian and political activist who was an early opponent of US involvement in Vietnam and whose books, such as "A People's History of the United States," inspired young and old to rethink the way textbooks present the American experience, died today in Santa Monica, Calif, where he was traveling. He was 87.

His daughter, Myla Kabat-Zinn of Lexington, said he suffered a heart attack.

"He's made an amazing contribution to American intellectual and moral culture," Noam Chomsky, the left-wing activist and MIT professor, said tonight. "He's changed the conscience of America in a highly constructive way. I really can't think of anyone I can compare him to in this respect."

Chomsky added that Dr. Zinn's writings "simply changed perspective and understanding for a whole generation. He opened up approaches to history that were novel and highly significant. Both by his actions, and his writings for 50 years, he played a powerful role in helping and in many ways inspiring the Civil rights movement and the anti-war movement."

For Dr. Zinn, activism was a natural extension of the revisionist brand of history he taught. "A People's History of the United States" (1980), his best-known book, had for its heroes not the Founding Fathers -- many of them slaveholders and deeply attached to the status quo, as Dr. Zinn was quick to point out -- but rather the farmers of Shays' Rebellion and union organizers of the 1930s.

As he wrote in his autobiography, "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train" (1994), "From the start, my teaching was infused with my own history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted more than 'objectivity'; I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble."

~~~

Carroll called Dr. Zinn "simply one of the greatest Americans of our time. He will not be replaced -- or soon forgotten. How we loved him back."

I believe it was on The Dennis Prager Show that I heard him interviewed a few years ago. Prager asked him if the world would have been better off had the U.S. never come into existence. His answer? "Yes."

Digging a-hole

2010-01-26T10:12:00.000-08:00

"What we inherited when we walked in the door was an economic situation that was far worse than anybody ever knew," Gibbs said on "Fox News Sunday." "The hole we inherit and the hole that we have to fill is very, very deep."

The "hole they inherited"?! Really?! The reason the "hole they have to fill is very, very deep" is because they haven't put the shovel down!!!

The book you should not be able to read...

2010-01-24T19:00:00.000-08:00

...had this information not been leaked by irresponsible government officials and news media, and finally released by President Obama himself. It is Courting Disaster. It only helps the terrorists understand how to better resist CIA interrogation methods. Marc Thiessen sets the record straight on CIA "torture":

The public view of interrogations had been shaped by the fictional Bauer, who captures a terrorist and proceeds to torture him — holding down his head in a bathtub full of water, using a Taser to shock him, lopping off his fingers with a cigar cutter — while screaming questions until the terrorist finally breaks and gives up the location of the nuclear bomb that is about to go off.

For some critics of U.S. interrogation policy, this is not fiction, but a depiction of reality. In Newsweek, Dahlia Lithwick has written that “high-ranking lawyers in the Bush administration erected an entire torture policy around the fictional edifice of Jack Bauer.” And Philippe Sands, author of the book Torture Team, has written that the show has been the “midwife” for torture’s “actual use on real, living human beings.” None of this is true.

Unlike these critics, I have had the chance to actually meet the real Jack Bauers — the CIA officials who questioned Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other senior terrorist leaders and got them to reveal their plans for new terrorist attacks. They explained to my why their approach has nothing in common with the methods used by Bauer on the fictional 24.

On July 31, 2006, I walked up the winding stairs of the Eisenhower Building to a secure conference room in the offices of the National Security Council’s intelligence directorate. I had been assigned to write a speech for President Bush acknowledging the existence of what was then the most highly classified program in the war on terror: the CIA program to detain and question captured terrorists. To write this speech, I was given access to some of the most sensitive intelligence our country possessed on the interrogation of senior al-Qaeda terrorists, as well as to intelligence officers who could explain to me how the program worked and why it had been successful in stopping new terrorist attacks.

Sitting across the table from me were several CIA officials, including two men I will call Harry and Sam (not their real names), I didn’t know anything about the individuals before me except that they were with the CIA and knowledgeable about the interrogation program.

As we began our discussion, I told them I believed the key to the success of the speech was to demonstrate the effectiveness of CIA interrogations with real, concrete examples of how the program saved lives. If Americans knew that CIA interrogations were effective, most would have no problem with the techniques the agency had employed. Some might even be shocked at how restrained they had been. Many Americans, I said, imagined that what went on at the CIA “black sites” mirrored what they saw on 24.

They began by clarifying precisely how the program actually worked. While 24 depicts violent scenes where interrogators inflict severe pain to get time-sensitive intelligence on terrorist dangers, in the real world, they told me, this is not how interrogations take place.

They explained, for example, that there is a difference between “interrogation” and “de-briefing.” Interrogation is not how we got information from the terrorists; it is the process by which we overcome the terrorists’ resistance and secure their cooperation — sometimes with the help of enhanced interrogation techniques.

Once the terrorist agreed to cooperate, I was told, the interrogation stopped and “de-briefing” began, as the terrorists were questioned by CIA analysts, using non-aggressive techniques to extract information that could help disrupt attacks.

The interrogation process was usually brief, they said. According to declassified documents, on average “the actual use of interrogation techniques covers a period of three to seven days, but can vary upwards to 15 days based on the resilience” of the terrorist in custody.

Most detainees, they told me, did not undergo it at all. Two-thirds of those brought into the CIA program did not require the use of any enhanced interrogation techniques. Just the experience of being brought into CIA custody — the “capture shock,” arrival at a sterile location, the isolation, the fact that they did not know where they were, and that no one else knew they were there — was enough to convince most of them to cooperate.

Others, like KSM, demonstrated extraordinary resistance. But even KSM’s interrogation did not take long before he moved into debriefing. He had been captured in early March, they said, and before the end of the month he had already provided information on a plot to fly airplanes into London’s Heathrow airport.

As they described the information the CIA had gotten from KSM and others, I slowly realized that these men were not simply describing what others in the agency had done; I was sitting face to face with the individuals who had actually questioned terrorists at the CIA’s black sites and gotten the information they were describing to me themselves.

Harry, it turned out, had interrogated KSM. He explained that interrogations involved strict oversight. There was no freelancing allowed — every technique had to be approved in advance by headquarters, and any deviation from the meticulously developed interrogation plan would lead to the immediate removal of the interrogator.

Harry said the average age of CIA interrogators was 43 and that each interrogator received 250 hours of training before being allowed to come in contact with a terrorist. And even after that, he said, they had to complete another 20 hours working together with an experienced interrogator before they could lead an interrogation on their own. Contrary to the claims later made by some critics, such as FBI agent Ali Soufan, the CIA did not send a bunch of inexperienced people to question high-value detainees.

Harry explained that the interrogations were not violent, as some imagined. He said that the interrogators’ credo was to use “the least coercive method necessary” and that “each of us is put through the measures so we can feel it.” He added: “It is very respectful. The detainee knows that we are not there to gratuitously inflict pain. He knows what he needs to do to stop. We see each other as professional adversaries in war.” (Indeed, Mike Hayden told me years later that KSM referred to Harry as “emir” — a title of great respect in the jihadist ranks.)

Critics have charged that enhanced interrogation techniques are not effective because those undergoing them will say anything to get them to stop. Soufan, the FBI agent and CIA critic, has written: “When they are in pain, people will say anything to get the pain to stop. Most of the time, they will lie, make up anything to make you stop hurting them. . . . That means the information you’re getting is useless.”

What this statement reveals is that Soufan knows nothing about how the CIA actually employed enhanced interrogation techniques. In an interview for my book, former national-security adviser Steve Hadley explained to me, “The interrogation techniques were not to elicit information. So the whole argument that people tell you lies under torture misses the point.” Hadley said the purpose of the techniques was to “bring them to the point where they are willing to cooperate, and once they are willing to cooperate, then the techniques stop and you do all the things the FBI agents say you ought to do to build trust and all the rest.”

Former CIA director Mike Hayden explained to me that, as enhanced techniques are applied, CIA interrogators like Harry would ask detainees questions to which the interrogators already know the answers — allowing them to judge whether the detainees were being truthful and determine when the terrorists had reached a level of compliance. Hayden said, “They are designed to create a state of cooperation, not to get specific truthful answers to a specific question.”

Indeed, the first terrorist to be subjected to enhanced techniques, Zubaydah, told his interrogators something stunning. According to the Justice Department memos released by the Obama administration, Zubaydah explained that “brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship.” In other words, the terrorists are called by their religious ideology to resist as far as they can — and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything they know.

Several senior officials told me that, after undergoing waterboarding, Zubaydah actually thanked his interrogators and said, “You must do this for all the brothers.” The enhanced interrogation techniques were a relief for Zubaydah, they said, because they lifted a moral burden from his shoulders — the responsibility to continue resisting.

The importance of this revelation cannot be overstated: Zubaydah had given the CIA the secret code for breaking al-Qaeda detainees. CIA officials now understood that the job of the interrogator was to give the captured terrorist something to resist, so he could do his duty to Allah and then feel liberated to speak. So they developed techniques that would allow terrorists to resist safely, without any lasting harm. Indeed, they specifically designed techniques to give the terrorists the false perception that what they were enduring was far worse than what was actually taking place.

Once interrogators like Harry had secured a detainee’s cooperation, the enhanced techniques stopped, and the de-briefers entered the picture. Sam was a de-briefer — a subject matter expert with years of experience studying and tracking al-Qaeda members. His expertise had contributed to the capture of the terrorists he was now questioning — and now he put that expertise to work to find out what they knew.

Like the interrogators, de-briefers were carefully selected and trained before coming into contact with a detainee. They knew each detainee’s personal history, and what information they should know — allowing them to hone in on key details, maintain a fast pace of questions, and verify the truthfulness of the terrorists’ responses.

Sam had spent countless hours with KSM and the other terrorists held by the agency. When he elicited new information, he and the other de-briefers did not simply take the terrorists at their word. They checked their statements against other forms of intelligence and information from other captured terrorists — and confronted the detainees with evidence when they were holding information back or trying to mislead them.

Indeed, one reason the program was so effective, Sam told me, is that the de-briefers had 24/7 access to the detainees, many of whom were held in the same location. This allowed de-briefers to play one terrorist against the other. If KSM told them something about another terrorist in their custody, they could immediately confront the other terrorist with KSM’s revelations and get him to provide more details — and then go back with that information to get more from KSM.

They did this to great effect — confronting KSM and others with the statements of other terrorists in CIA custody, and getting information that helped them unravel planned attacks. Harry and Sam walked me through specific examples of how the interrogations had helped disrupt a series of terrorist plots in this way, showing me how information from a particular terrorist custody had led to the capture of other specific individuals, who in turn led us to other individuals, until the plots had been disrupted. These disrupted plots are detailed in Courting Disaster.

For example, information from detainees in CIA custody led to the arrest of an al-Qaeda terrorist named Jose Padilla, who was sent to America on a mission to blow up high-rise apartment buildings in the United States.

Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the capture of a cell of Southeast Asian terrorists which had been tasked by KSM to hijack a passenger jet and fly it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles.

Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the capture of Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, KSM’s right-hand-man in the 9/11 attacks, just as he was finalizing plans for a plot to hijack airplanes in Europe and fly them into Heathrow airport and buildings in downtown London.

Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the capture of Ammar al-Baluchi and Walid bin Attash, just as they were completing plans to replicate the destruction of our embassies in East Africa by blowing up the U.S. consulate and Western residences in Karachi, Pakistan.

Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the disruption of an al-Qaeda plot to blow up the U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti, in an attack that could have rivaled the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

Information from detainees in CIA custody helped break up an al-Qaeda cell that was developing anthrax for terrorist attacks inside the United States.

In addition to helping break up these specific terrorist cells and plots, CIA questioning provided our intelligence community with an unparalleled body of information about al-Qaeda — giving U.S. officials a picture of the terrorist organization as seen from the inside, at a time when we knew almost nothing about the enemy who had attacked us on 9/11.

In addition, CIA detainees helped identify some 86 individuals whom al-Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations — most of whom we had never heard of before. According to the intelligence community, about half of these individuals were subsequently tracked down and taken off the battlefield. Without CIA questioning, many of these terrorists could still be unknown to us and at large — and may well have carried out attacks against the West by now.

Until the program was temporarily suspended in 2006, well over half of the information our government had about al-Qaeda — how it operates, how it moves money, how it communicates, how it recruits operatives, how it picks targets, how it plans and carries out attacks — came from the interrogation of terrorists in CIA custody.

Another reason the program was so effective, Harry and Sam explained, was that because the terrorists were in a secure location, CIA officials could also expose sensitive information to them — asking them to explain the meaning of materials captured in terrorist raids, and to indentify phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and voices in recordings of intercepted communications. This could never be done if the terrorists were being held in a facility where they had regular contact with the outside world. The danger of this information getting out would have been far too great.

Harry and Sam told me that the agency believed without the program the terrorists would have succeeded in striking our country again.

Harry put it bluntly: “It is the reason we have not had another 9/11.”

Their work was vital, but it was not easy. They took great care to stay within the confines of the law and to ensure the safety of those in their custody. For their efforts, they have been vilified as torturers by critics who know next to nothing about what went on at the “black sites” where they worked. In 2005, CIA director Porter Goss tapped two outside officials to conduct a review of the effectiveness of the CIA interrogation program: Gardner Peckham, the former national-security adviser to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and John Hamre, former deputy secretary of defense in the Clinton administration. Both spent several months at CIA headquarters studying the program and meeting with officials involved.

Peckham recalls having a long conversation late one night with one of the interrogators when he was conducting his review. This was “a very dedicated, capable guy who told me that he had been in with KSM one day, and KSM had basically said to him matter-of-factly, ‘If I ever get out of this hole, I’m going to kill you and your entire family.’ We were sitting there at nine o’clock at night or something, and he said to me, ‘You know, I work long days; this is hard. When I get down about it, I just think back to the film footage of the two people standing on the window of the World Trade Center on the 90-something floor, grasping each other by the hand and stepping out into space.’ He said, ‘I think of those two people, and I just go back to work.’”

Peckham says, “That really got to me. That level of dedication. These guys knew they were, in a lot of ways, limiting their futures by doing this kind of work, I think.They were risking something. But they knew a lot of other people were risking things too. And they knew it was important work, and I just have an enormous amount of respect for the people who are in this program. And I have such profound disrespect for those who ran for the tall grass when it started to become exposed, and even less regard for those who now seek to take political advantage of it.”

Also, a great interview on the Michael Medved Show:

I bought Thiessen's book, Courting Disaster, today.

Finally, another great piece by Stephen Hayes:

Four top counterterrorism officials testified before a congressional committee that they were not consulted about how to handle the interrogation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the al Qaeda operative who attempted to blow up Flight 253 on Dec. 25, 2009.

That group included all three senior Obama administration officials who testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday: Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security; Michael Leiter, chairman of the National Counterterrorism Center; and Dennis Blair, the director of National Intelligence. It also included FBI Director Robert Mueller.

With surprising candor, Blair, the nation's top intelligence official, explained that these officials were not deliberately excluded from the decision-making process in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Rather, he told the Senate Homeland Security Committee, there was no process at all.

"I've been a part of the discussions which established this high-value interrogation unit, [HIG] which we started as part of the executive order after the decision to close Guantanamo. That unit was created for exactly this purpose -- to make a decision on whether a certain person who's detained should be treated as a case for federal prosecution or for some of the other means. We did not invoke the HIG in this case," he said. "We should have."

That's quite an admission. Blair wasn't finished. "Frankly, we were thinking more of overseas people and, duh!, we didn't put it then. That's what we will do now. And so we need to make those decisions more carefully. I was not consulted and the decision was made on the scene. It seemed logical to the people there but it should have been taken using this HIG format at a higher level."

Read the rest.

Related post by Mike's America

Marc Thiessen vs. Christiane Amanpour

2010-01-24T16:23:00.000-08:00

Just picked up his book today:

Sunday Funnies

2010-01-24T00:38:00.001-08:00

More at Flopping Aces

NASA: No evidence of man-made global warming in the U.S.

2010-01-23T08:51:00.001-08:00

Is this headline news worthy?

Check out this e-mail excerpt from Reto Ruedy, one of the top analysts at NASA GISS. It reveals they have no evidence of man-made global warming showing up in the USA temp data:

Yeeaaarrrrgh-ahahahaha!!!!!!

2010-01-22T10:14:00.000-08:00

If you want easy entertainment with your popcorn, MSNBC has been the place to be. This one's a Dean-scream:

Amazing how Howard Dean can do so much spinning and keep a straight face. Well...maybe not so amazing...this is Howard Dean, after all.

Ted Kennedy Rolls Over in His Grave

2010-01-20T00:07:00.000-08:00

Sunday Funnies

2010-01-17T09:19:00.001-08:00

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces

What's next? A television sit-com?

2010-01-15T10:45:00.000-08:00

Just get a load of this photo with the following NYTimes article:

January 11, 2010
Brandon Neely, center, was a Guantánamo Bay guard, and Ruhal Ahmed, left, and Shafiq Rasul were prisoners. Photo by Jeff Overs

CJ had posted a year ago on the curious case of Brandon Neely. Recently, he and Marcus were wondering why a year later, they were receiving comments on the post, mostly coming from the UK. Here's the answer...

NYTimes:

New to Facebook, Brandon Neely was searching the site for acquaintances in 2008 when he typed in the names of some of the detainees he had guarded during his tenure as a prison guard at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Mr. Neely, an Army veteran who spent six months at the prison in 2002, sent messages to one of the freed men, Shafiq Rasul, and was astonished when Mr. Rasul replied. Their exchanges sparked a face-to-face meeting, arranged by the BBC, which will be shown on Tuesday. Mr. Neely, who has served as the president of the Houston chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War, says his time at Guantánamo now haunts him, and has granted confessional-style interviews about the abuses he says he witnessed there. In a message to Mr. Rasul, Mr. Neely apologized for his role in the imprisonment.

Gavin Lee, a BBC correspondent, learned about the Facebook messages from Mr. Rasul, who lives in Britain, and thought the situation was incredible. Mr. Lee tracked down Mr. Neely — on Facebook, naturally — and asked, “would you consider meeting face to face?”

“He thought about it and he said, ‘I would love to,’ ” Mr. Lee recalled last week. “I would love to apologize in person.”

Neely is being lauded by the anti-war crowd as a brave hero. Like fellow IVAW, Mike Prysner, he is anything but a hero. CJ:

Again, instead of turning himself in to the military, he waits until six years after the fact, three years after leaving active duty service, and after he's been released from IRR status to come forward. Brandon Neely is a complete coward! He waited until he thought it was safe to speak up and couldn't be sucked back into the Army system to answer for his war crimes.

He can't speak in complete sentences and looks like he's about to have a heart attack because that evil corporation, McDonald's, stuffed too many Big Macs down his 30 inch, Samoan wanna-be neck! He apparently didn't take any of the military focus on proper diet and exercise with him into the real world.

Here's the point of my disrespectful attitude towards Neely: He got good men killed, period! The actions at Gitmo directly contributed to an insurgency with a new purpose to avenge those detainees who were abused at the camp. Just like Abu Ghraib, these Soldiers should have been charged with 2nd degree murder and hung publicly. At the very least, they should be imprisoned with a burly redneck named Bubba whose best friend was a goat on the outside. They got my friends killed because they weren't men enough to stand up for what's right when faced with a moral dilemma.

Read the rest of Marcus' post as he and CJ make shish kabob out of the idiot commenters.

Also, check out my comments on my cross-post at Flopping Aces.

Sunday Funnies

2010-01-10T10:06:00.000-08:00

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces

Silly Request

2010-01-09T08:04:00.000-08:00

Photo by Ringo the Gringo

YouTube is the most vile and worthless place for debate. A real time-waster.

Nevertheless, due to a friend posting a video on FB, and me taking issue with it, I somehow also ended up engaging debate on the YouTube site.

My request is this: If you see my comments (username: Fightflipnfold) and have a YouTube account, please "positive" them, as a vaccine against the haters who don't like what I say. I already received a few thumbs down rankings. After 6 negatives, no one can see what I wrote.

It's crazy to give me negative ratings simply because I'm saying things disagreeable to them. I don't give negatives to the challenges to my opinion.

So I expect even my lefty visitors here, who champion debate and free speech, will also give me thumbs up ratings.

Here's more background on Prysner, for anyone curious or unfamiliar with him and the video.

The Partisan President

2010-01-05T02:07:00.000-08:00

Brushing aside legitimate criticism and harsh questioning of the Obama Administration in wake of the Christmas "dingaling" bomber (as talk radio host Michael Medved refers to Umar Farouk Abdulmullatab), President Obama concluded his weekly radio address (January 2, 2010) with the following call for national unity:

But as we go forward, let us remember this-our adversaries are those who would attack our country, not our fellow Americans, not each other. Let's never forget what has always carried us through times of trial, including those attacks eight Septembers ago. [Did he just invoke 9/11 (not the first time, actually)? Something President Bush was criticized for doing repeatedly?- wordsmith]

Instead of giving in to fear and cynicism, let's renew that timeless American spirit of resolve and confidence and optimism. Instead of succumbing to partisanship and division, let's summon the unity that this moment demands. Let's work together, with a seriousness of purpose, to do what must be done to keep our country safe.

As we begin this New Year, I cannot imagine a more fitting resolution to guide us-as a people and as a nation.

As Medved pointed out in his program Monday, if the president wishes for politics to "stop at the water's edge", why then did he feel it necessary to include the following, earlier in the same speech:

It's why I refocused the fight-bringing to a responsible end the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks [he's used this line in past speeches- wordsmith], and dramatically increasing our resources in the region where al Qaeda is actually based, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's why I've set a clear and achievable mission-to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies and prevent their return to either country.

Why does the "new kind of politician who rises above the petty Washington politics of old" never botheres to reach across the partisan divide himself and acknowledge that President Bush kept us safe since 9/11?

What is it with Mr. Unity, Barack Obama, who calls for the nation to come together at this particular moment, even as he sticks in politically partisan cheap shots within the same speech? As Michael Medved points out, how about leading by example, Mr. President?

Michael Medved writing in USA Today:

Obama undermines his own unity pleas by inserting cheap shots against his predecessor in even high-minded public pronouncements. His Nobel speech explicitly praised America's battles in Afghanistan and in the first Iraq war 19 years ago, conspicuously excluding the current Iraqi conflict (in which soldiers continue to sacrifice). He also emphasized his decision to close Guantanamo a surefire applause line for his European audience but an utterly gratuitous slap at George W. Bush. Similarly, the big Afghanistan speech featured an out-of-context slam of the prior president's decisions on Iraq. The whole world knows that Obama represents a fresh start, so these reminders of the raging disagreements of the Bush years unnecessarily undermine the spirit of solidarity the new president seeks.

Repeating the mantra "Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11" is a politically partisan cheap-shot that stands only to alienate Americans such as myself, who rejects the conventional mainstream understanding of that statement.

Would excluding that gratuitous cheap-shot have weakened his radio address? No. Such partisan sniping is "sooo yesterday's news"; and amongst his fellow liberals, so passé: Been there, believed that..time to moveon.org to the present...None of them need reminding of what a "miserable failure" "King George" was.

But President Obama can't help himself because he is not the president everyone who voted for him wishes him to be: A great American president who can unite the nation. Nope. He is a divisive liberal president who represents only one side of the country. The wrong side. He is not conducting himself as the American president, but as the liberal Democrat president.

I'm not the one with the unity problem. I'm not the one who has trouble leaving politics behind at the water's edge. President Obama is the problem. And the saddest part is he can't even see it; nor would it appear, can any of his advisors recognize his divisiveness.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Sunday Funnies

2010-01-03T07:49:00.001-08:00

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces

Here's Looking at You, Twenty Ten!

2009-12-31T20:14:00.000-08:00

Thursday Funnies!

2009-12-31T19:55:00.000-08:00

More Thursday New Year's Eve Funnies at Flopping Aces

Sunday Funnies

2009-12-27T09:30:00.000-08:00

More at Flopping Aces

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-24T07:44:00.000-08:00

More Christmas funnies at Flopping Aces

Is this the end of the "last best hope of earth"?

2009-12-23T20:43:00.000-08:00

The shadow of the head of U.S. President Barack Obama falls upon a copy of the U.S. Constitution as he makes a speech on America's national security at the National Archives in Washington, May 21, 2009.
REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

President Obama's curtsy to the Saudi king and his reverential bow before the Japanese Emperor was one of those "right-wing" criticisms that I thought, at the time, was mostly much ado about very little of substance. I now take that back. It was emblematic of what is taking place now.

While all hands on deck have been focused on the healthcare "debate", President Obama last week quietly signed an amendment to Executive Order 12425 (signed by Reagan in 1983, but with restrictions in place to protect the Constitutional rights of our citizens), effectively eroding American sovereignty by immunizing INTERPOL activities within the U.S. Andrew McCarthy:

for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America's defense).

Steve Schippert:

By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Much more at Threat Watch

Also blogging:
A Soldier's Perspective
Brutally Honest
Wizbang Blog
Pink Flamingo Bar
The Anchoress
NewsBusters
Friends of Mark Furhman
Dr. Melissa Clouthier
Ed Morrissey

Dennis Prager wrote a very good article on how President Obama regards "American exceptionalism". Basically, he doesn't put much regard into the concept, at all:

As the passage of the bill that will start the process of nationalizing health care in America becomes almost inevitable, so, too, the process of undoing America's standing as The Last Best Hope of Earth will have begun.

That description of America was not, as more than a few Americans on the left believe, made by some right-wing chauvinist. It was made by President Abraham Lincoln in an address to Congress on Dec. 1, 1862.

The bigger the American government becomes, the more like other countries America becomes. Even a Democrat has to acknowledge the simple logic: America cannot at the same time be the last best hope of earth and increasingly similar to more and more countries.

Either America is unique, in which case it at least has the possibility of uniquely embodying hopes for mankind -- or it is not unique, in which case it is by definition not capable of being the last best hope for humanity -- certainly no more so than, let us say, Sweden or the Netherlands.

Indeed, President Obama acknowledged this in April, when asked by a European reporter if he believes in American exceptionalism. The president's response: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

The president was honest. In his view, as in the view of today's Democratic party, America is special only in the same way we parents regard our children as "special." We all say it and we all believe it, but we know that it is meaningless except as an emotional expression of our love for our children. If every is child is equally special, none can be special, in fact. If every country is exceptional, then no country is exceptional, or at least no more so than any other.

With the largest expansion of the American government and state since the New Deal, the Democratic party -- alone -- is ending a key factor in America's uniqueness and greatness: individualism, which is made possible only when there is limited government.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

*UPDATE*: MataHarley wraps her mind around this with some intelligence analysis.

Senate Democrats Break Filibuster

2009-12-21T07:34:00.000-08:00

Goddammit, Reid.....

Sunday Funnies

2009-12-20T01:27:00.001-08:00

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces

Nebraskan First, American Second

2009-12-19T09:09:00.000-08:00

Putting state before country....

List of bribes from SRCC.

I have a confession...

2009-12-18T21:23:00.000-08:00

...and ask for the forgiveness of my readers.

I thought about whether or not I should come clean with this. After some soul-searching and hand-wringing, I decided that it is best that I clear my conscience. If I didn't, I don't see how I could ever blog here again without feeling shame for keeping a dirty little secret.

In a moment of weakness I slapped down $10 bucks and saw "Avatar".

Forgive me fellow conservatives, for I have sinned.

My impressions of the colossal-budget movie? If you're a tree-hugging Howard-Zinn-raised liberal, you'll love it. If you're a pro-war-on-terror-American-exceptionalism-muscular-foreign-policy-believing conservative, you'll love it and feel dirty for doing so. But hey! All you have to do is just lose yourself in the fantasy that is the liberal worldview.

The movie's impressive in scope and special effects, but the storyline's just cliché-predictable....like watching Dances with Wolves in Space meets every Hollywood anti-(Iraq)war movie in the last 8 years.

Thanks James Cameron, for the overt political messages! [/sarcasm]

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Why are milblogs falling silent today?

2009-12-16T13:48:00.000-08:00

"During the invasion of Iraq, Grisham took down a squad of Iraqis when his counterintelligence detachment got pinned down in an ambush. He earned the Bronze Star with "V" after rushing through the gunfire by himself with just a 9mm pistol and a hand grenade."
-Mudville Gazette (read all of it)

I'm sorry to say that this will not be the post I want to write, but the one that I allude to. What do I mean by this? Well, I've been remiss in following the plight of CJ, of A Soldier's Perspective, due to my own personal activities (which has seen me engaged on life support blogging, in general). But his is a story that I feel is important to cover, because it not only affects him (one of the finest patriots this country has, and everything you'd want in an American soldier), but affects everyone.

I'm sure some or most readers of FA are already familiar with CJ and what's going on. But for those who don't, I will link you to others who have done a fine job of covering this (Bookworm does a fine job of summarizing in a nutshell, here):

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/12/blackfive-blackout-milbloggers-supporting-cj-grisham.html

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/dawnpatrol/2009/12/dawn_patrol_12162009.html

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2009/12/16/silencing-the-military/

Partial list of participating players, by way of Greyhawk:

Participating blogs:

A Soldier's Perspective
You Served
Bouhammer
The American Legion
Laughing Wolf
Hugh Hewitt
This Ain't Hell
Castle Argghhh
Boston Maggie
Blackfive
Miss Ladybug
Hooah Wife
Kiss My Gumbo
Some Soldiers Mom
Assoluta Tranquillita
Knee Deep in the Hooah
Soldiers' Angel New York
Drunken Wisdom
Grim's Hall
From my position
CDR Salamander
Confederate Yankee
Chromed Curses
Homefront Six
Pvt Murphey's Law
Delta Bravo Sierra
The Sniper
Another Voice
Support your Local Gunfighter
Knottie' s Niche
Great Reader JihadGene
America's North Shore Journal
Righty in a Lefty State
Thunder Run
Gazing at the Flag
Neptunus Lex
Soldiers Angels Germany
Bring the heat, bring the stupid
Little Drops..... Into the pool of life.
The Gun Line
Thirdwavedave
In Iraq Now (at 56)
Milblogging.com
Army Houesehold6
Susan Katz Keating
The Mudville Gazette
The Dawn Patrol

Covering the story:

Instapundit
Michelle Malkin
National Review's The Corner
Ace of Spades
Jawa Report
Winds of Change
Cao's Blog
Free Republic
Dr. Melissa Clouthier
Villainous Company
The Washington Independent

If you are caught up with the story and want to lend your support to CJ, one means to consider is the legal fees he is taking on in fighting back: Grisham Legal Fund.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Transferring Detainees from Gitmo South to Gitmo North, USA

2009-12-15T09:40:00.000-08:00

A painted marker in a recreation yard points the direction to Mecca at Camp Delta where detainees are held at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, January 18, 2006.
REUTERS/Joe Skipper

This is nothing more than a bait-and-switch in order to keep a campaign promise...Guantanamo isn't shutting down; just transferring locations:

Dozens of terrorism suspects being held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will be moved to a little-used Illinois state prison that will be acquired and upgraded by the federal government, an Obama administration official said.

The critical step toward fulfilling President Obama's pledge to shut the Guantanamo detention center will be announced Tuesday, said the official, who reported that Obama has ordered the acquisition of the eight-year-old Thomson Correctional Center, about 150 miles northwest of Chicago.

Obama made the move despite the objections of Republicans in Congress and in Illinois, where critics say the transfer of prisoners -- some for indefinite detention, some for trial -- could make the state a target for terrorists. Rep. Mark Kirk has called the move "an unnecessary risk."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that a bipartisan majority in Congress "already rejected bringing terrorists to U.S. soil for long-term detention."

"The administration has failed to explain how transferring terrorists to Gitmo North will make Americans safer than keeping these terrorists off of our shores in the secure facility in Cuba," McConnell said in a written statement.

In telegraphing the announcement, the official said closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay "is essential to protecting our national security and helping our troops by removing a deadly recruiting tool from the hands of al-Qaeda."

No matter what we do, it will be a "recruitment tool" in the hands of al Qaeda because it is propagandized by our enemies, along with those on the left, as something other than what it is.

We are "nation-building" in Iraq and Afghanistan, trying to make life better for ordinary Muslim innocents. Yet propagandized by the enemy.

Both President Bush and President Obama have stressed that we are not at war with the whole of Islam. Propagandized by takfiri terrorists as not so.

Guantanamo's early days admittedly saw some problems and abuses; but for the last few years, it is the most scrutinized holding facility in the world, as far as human rights violations are concerned. The detainees there are treated far better than those servicemen and women who guard them.

Before prisoners can be moved, Congress must vote to allow detainees to be housed on U.S. soil for reasons other than trial.

Holding detainees without charge or trial....isn't that what Bush was criticized for? And now, bringing them onto U.S. soil to.....accomplish what exactly?!

We poured tons of taxpayer money into making Gitmo into a secure, safe, and comfortable holding facility for enemy combatants....now we're going to shut it down, ~~spending~~ wasting even more taxpayer money to safeguard Gitmo North?

Un....frakkin'....believable!

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Spending increases under Obama...but let's still blame Bush

2009-12-14T09:41:00.000-08:00

Comment by Dim Bulb on Amy Proctor's post, Drunken Sailors of the Senate Pass $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill in Rare Sunday Vote:

During the Bush years, despite the 2000 Recession, the attacks on 9-11, the stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was able to reduce the budget deficit from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007, a sixty percent drop. In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars. During the Bush years the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, the economy saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades and there was robust GDP growth. These were amazing accomplishments considering the unexpected challenges. You certainly didn’t read much about this in the press.

But, things changed in 2007. Democrats took over Congress, gas prices started to rise, and at the end of the year and into 2008 several financial institutions started to crumble as the housing bubble began to burst. Of course, it should be noted that President Bush publicly called for the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Democrats, on the other hand, blocked reform numerous times. It was later reported after the 2008 election that Bush had nothing to do with the financial crisis. Hoover Institution visiting fellow Scott S. Powell wrote in Barron’s in February of this year that the present crisis began in the 1970s, during the Carter administration, with passage of the Community Reinvestment Act to stem bank redlining and liberalize lending in order to extend home ownership in lower-income communities. This risk was acknowledged in the Bush administration’s first fiscal-year budget, released in April 2001. Sadly these warnings were ignored by Congress.

But, this didn’t stop Barack Obama and democrats from blaming George Bush for the market meltdown last year…

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/obama-two-month-deficit-is-more-than-bush-deficit-for-entire-2006-calendar-year/

Sunday Funnies

2009-12-13T10:39:00.001-08:00

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces

Please Help the World...

2009-12-10T23:48:00.000-08:00

Yes, please help the world...don't buy into this nonsense:

The UN Climate Change Conference is nothing more than an attempt to redistribute the wealth from developed nations to underdeveloped nations. It's a complete sham, folks. A shakedown.

For Conservative Demogogues...

2009-12-09T11:09:00.000-08:00

"I cannot think of anything, domestically, that would do more harm to our country and to the people of our country, and to future generations, than the health care bill thats being promoted right now. Nobody in this country wants this defeated more than I do."
-U.S. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl

Great interview given by Senator John Kyl on the Dennis Prager Show, this morning. This is for those of you who are destructively rather than constructively tearing down the Republican Party. Yes, for good reason, there has been much bashing of the Republican Party; it's become quite fashionable and "the in thing" amongst true dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. But keep in mind:

Every single Republican in both houses of Congress voted against President Obama’s budget.

Every single Republican except the two Senators from Maine voted against the stimulus package.

Every Republican in the House of Representatives opposes Obamacare.

Senator Kyl defends himself against recent criticism by right-wing demogogues:

Altered sister-post at Flopping Aces

Hypocrisy in more ways than one

2009-12-08T09:33:00.000-08:00

Reported in the Canadian Free Press 2 years ago:

From Washington Times: Excerpt: Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobile Corp. Exxon Mobile spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories.

So what if scientists received funding from big, bad oil companies? What about activist scientists who receive billions in grant funding, by pushing the global warming religion? I suppose their motives are pure and altruistic?

These supposed scientists built their careers and reputations on conjuring datasets, computer models, scenarios and reports – all claiming that modern civilization’s use of hydrocarbons is about to destroy the planet, and all financed by well over $100 billion in US, UK, EU and other taxpayer money.

How about scientists motivated by honest research? That would be a novel idea.

Do you think Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider who sought to dismiss 25-30 of the 400 scientists expressing skepticism for their funding source, applied the same standard of suspicion of motive on Al Gore:

Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first "carbon billionaire," profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.
Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, has claimed that Mr Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.

Mr Gore had said that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

"Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?" Mr. Gore said. "I am proud of it. I am proud of it."

Hmmm....scientists who receive 10's of thousands in research funding from oil companies vs. scientists paid billions in tax-paid grant funds and investors poised to make billions in green technology, fueled by catastrophic global warming alarmism?

Also:

The Copenhagen Concoction

An Incovenient Democracy

The 'Absurd Results' Doctrine
Terms of Endangerment
Reckless Endangerment
Obama's Carbon Ultimatum

So what?

2009-12-08T07:58:00.000-08:00

The last 150 years:

The decade of the 2000s is very likely the warmest decade in the modern record, dating back 150 years, according to a provisional summary of climate conditions near the end of 2009, the organization said.
The period from 2000 through 2009 has been “warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s and so on,” said Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the international weather agency, speaking at a news conference at the climate talks in Copenhagen.

Less than a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of earth's 4.5 billion year history.

The EPA Declares Carbon Dioxide a Pollutant

2009-12-07T12:55:00.000-08:00

Good grief:

The Environmental Protection Agency will reportedly declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant today, setting the stage for extensive government regulations that will dramatically increase costs for business.

Maybe if the 40% of the earth's inhabitants who believe in this rubbish would hold their breaths for 30 seconds every other minute, they'll do more for controlling climate change than anything else meaningful that could come out of Copenhagen.

Sunday Funnies

2009-12-06T07:33:00.000-08:00

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces

Al Gore Cancels Appearance at Copenhagen Conference

2009-12-04T21:08:00.000-08:00

What is it.....Cold feet?

And why the media silence? They didn't think Van Jones was a story worth reporting until it was too late; their excuse this time? Nothing short of a cover up, imo.

When the Shoe is on the Other Foot...

2009-12-02T23:24:00.000-08:00

Round and round:

The Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at George Bush, the former US president, has himself come under a shoe attack in the French capital at the hands of a fellow Iraqi.

Muntadhar al-Zeidi, a television reporter, was in Paris on Tueday at a news conference to promote his campaign for the "victims of the US occupation in Iraq" when the attacker turned the tables on him, shouting: "Here's another shoe for you."

Al-Zeidi, who ducked and the shoe hit the wall behind him, said: "When I used this method, it was against the occupation.

"I didn't use it against a compatriot. I always knew the occupier and his lackeys would stop at nothing to get to me."

The thickset man made a brief speech in Arabic during the question and answer session, defending US policy and accusing al-Zeidi of "working for dictatorship in Iraq," before throwing his shoe.

Stolen 'technique'

Al-Zeidi later quipped: "He stole my technique."

What technique is that? Missing?

I'd say Al-Zeidi learned from George Bush's technique of ducking.

Noel Sheppard questions how the media will report this, given Al-Zeidi's celeb status, now that "the shoe is on the other foot":

To give readers an idea of the media's fascination with the original shoe throwing incident, a Google search of "Man throws shoe at Bush" produced 1.2 million results.

As for LexisNexis, similar search terms produced almost 1,000 reports in the days immediately following the event.

CNN logged 34 such reports, with MSNBC and Fox News in second with eight, followed by ABC and NPR with seven, and CBS and NBC with six.

Will Zaidi on the receiving end of a shoe toss be as newsworthy?

Also of interest is not just who reports this, but how.

Consider the tone of the Agence France-Presse article published hours ago:

A protester who presented himself as an Iraqi journalist in exile hurled a shoe Tuesday at the colleague who one year ago found fame hurling his own footwear at then US president George W. Bush. [...]

Following the commotion, the news conference continued with Zaidi taking questions about his famous assault on Bush on December 14 last year, which was shown around the world and made him a hero in the Arab world. [...]

Zaidi's shock action was rebroadcast repeatedly around the world and made him an instant hero among Iraqis and others who felt that Arab honour had been violated by the US occupation of Iraq.

Introducing his guest at the packed Paris press conference, the president of the local Arab Press Club, Kamal Tarabay, said Zaidi's "audacious gesture" made him a "hero of the resistance against the occupier."

See what I mean?

This piece presented Zaidi as practically a hero.

With this in mind, it will be interesting to see if other media outlets that cover this incident use it as another opportunity to praise Zaidi as they bash Bush.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Chris Matthews with his Foot in HIs Mouth Again

2009-12-02T00:33:00.001-08:00

Excellent posts from MataHarley and Curt.

Middle East Suffering from Post-Cairo Depression?

2009-11-30T09:21:00.000-08:00

"Apparently", the new American administration doesn't have time for democracy-promoting/building...here (busy ramming a spoonful of socialized medicine down our throats) or elsewhere in the world. You see, in the words of the Democrats' (oh, the irony of the party's name!) "other candidate", Hillary, "they have a lot of other things on their plate."

Jackson Diehl reporting for WaPo:

The deflated Arab hopes for Obama

By Jackson Diehl
Monday, November 30, 2009

It's been nearly six months since Barack Obama stirred hearts and raised hopes across much of the Arab world with his much-promoted Cairo address. Many came away from it expecting a new and more vigorous U.S. attempt to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Others hoped for more American sympathy and support for liberal reform in countries where free expression, women's rights and democratic elections are blocked by entrenched autocracies.

That would be under President Bush, who liberated 50 million from a repressive regime and a murderous tyrant, before passing the baton over to #44.

The peace-process bubble burst two months ago at the United Nations, when Obama's poorly executed attempt to launch final-settlement talks between Israelis and Palestinians collapsed. Arabs who were led by Obama's rhetoric to believe that the United States would force Israel to make unprecedented unilateral concessions -- like a complete end to all construction in Jerusalem -- were bitterly disappointed.

But they are not the only victims of post-Cairo letdown. Arab reformers, who for most of this decade have been trying to break down the barriers to social and political modernization in the Middle East, have also begun to conclude that the Obama administration is more likely to harm than to help them.

"All Arab countries are craving change -- and many of us believed Obama was a tool for change," says Aseel al- Awadhi, a Kuwaiti member of parliament. "Now we are losing that hope."

"Tool for change" = Bush Administration

Awadhi, one of four women elected to Kuwait's parliament this year, is part of a movement that the Bush administration loudly promoted and sporadically attempted to help -- though the effort steadily waned during George W. Bush's second term. The Obama administration, in contrast, often speaks as if it does not recognize the existence of an Arab reform movement. Bush's frequently articulated argument that political and social liberalization offer the best antidote to Islamic extremism appears absent from this administration's thinking.

"People in Jordan are beginning to understand that the United States will not play the same role as under the old administration on democracy," said Musa Maaytah, Jordan's minister of political development -- who, like Awadhi, visited Washington recently for a conference sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy. "People think that the U.S. has many issues that for it are a priority,

Like overhauling our whole healthcare system. Change America could do without.

and they prefer to have stability in these countries more than democracy."

The Obama Administration believes "stability" equates with peace. But there is no permanent peace and stability in the absence of justice and freedom. Who cares if Iranians are living under miserable rule? What's important is that Iran remains stable. [/sarcasm]

For the reformers, a big signal came this month in a speech Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered in Marrakech, Morocco. Clinton was attending a session of the Forum for the Future, a body the Bush administration established at the height of its pro-reform campaign. The idea was to foster a dialogue between Western and Arab countries about political and social reform that would resemble the Helsinki process between the West and the Soviet bloc during the 1970s.

Clinton began her speech by referring to Obama's call in Cairo for "a new beginning between the United States and Muslim communities around the world." She then said that after consulting with "local communities" the administration had "focused on three broad areas where we believe U.S. support can make a difference."

These turned out to be "entrepreneurship," "advancing science and technology" and education. As if citing the also-rans, Clinton added that "women's empowerment" was "a related priority" and that "the United States is committed to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East." The word "democracy" appeared nowhere in the speech, and there was no reference at all to the Arabs who are fighting to create independent newspapers, political parties or human rights organizations.

Saad Eddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian who is one of the best-known Arab reformers, was part of a group who met Clinton after the speech. He told me that he tried to point out to her that "the next two years are crucial" for determining the political direction of the Middle East, in part because Egypt is approaching a major transition. Parliamentary elections are scheduled in 10 months, and their results will determine whether a presidential election scheduled for 2011 will be genuinely democratic. Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's 82-year-old ruler, is under pressure to retire; if he allows it, a truly competitive race to succeed him could pit his son Gamal against diplomatic heavyweights such as former foreign minister Amr Moussa and Mohamed ElBaradei, the outgoing head of the International Atomic Energy Agency -- not to mention Ayman Nour, who was imprisoned for three years after challenging Mubarak in 2005.

Clinton, said Ibrahim, replied that democracy promotion had always been a centerpiece of U.S. diplomacy and that the Obama administration would not give it up -- "but that they have a lot of other things on their plate." For Arab liberals, the translation is easy, if painful: Regardless of what the president may have said in Cairo, Obama's vision for the Middle East doesn't include "a new beginning" in the old political order.

Islamic militants and radical Islamists are attempting to drive Muslim countries backward, to become less modern and non-secular; transforming secular Muslim governments into Islamic states. Latest (Hat tip: Steve Schippert):

as war rages against Muslim militants in Pakistan's tribal areas, the chief of army staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani, shocked secular elements in the country by saying that "no one can separate Islam and Pakistan" and that the goal was to turn the country into a true Islamic state.

And , repeat after me, "Pakistan has nukes":

President Asif Ali Zardari issued an amended ordinance at the weekend in which he abdicated as chairman of the Nuclear Command Authority and transferred command of the country's nuclear arsenal to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani. (See Pakistan's military stays a march ahead November 25, 2009)

The Obama Team is dropping the baton, ditheringly tying its shoe in the middle of the race, and then walking away in the other direction. You see, they have other priorities on their agenda plates.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Sunday Funnies

2009-11-29T16:09:00.000-08:00

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces.

And check out Patvann's post- very comprehensive.

Is the Political and Scientific Climate Changing on Global Warming?

2009-11-28T08:21:00.000-08:00

Paul Driessen-Cleaning Out the Climate Change Cesspool:

There has been no statistically significant global warming for over a decade,
despite steadily increasing CO2 levels – and for several years average annual
global temperatures have actually declined.
Carbon dioxide plays only a
minor role, many scientists now say, and our climate is still controlled by the
same natural forces that caused previous climate changes: periodic shifts in
ocean currents and jet streams, water vapor and cloud cover, evaporation and
precipitation, planetary alignments and the shape of the Earth’s orbit, the tilt
and wobble of Earth’s axis, cosmic ray levels and especially solar energy
output.
Far worse for the Climate Armageddon movement, newly released emails
from its leading scientists reveal a cesspool of intimidation, duplicity and
fraud that could rock Copenhagen and the alarmist agenda to their core. The
emails cast deepening suspicion over global warming data, science and models.
They reveal an unprecedented, systematic conspiracy to stifle discussion and
debate, conceal and manipulate data, revise temperature trends that contradict
predictions of dangerous warming, skew the peer-review process, pressure
scientific journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to
publish alarmist studies and exclude dissenting analyses, and avoid compliance
with Freedom of Information requests.
British Climate Research Unit (CRU)
chief Phil Jones to Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, of Hockey Stick
infamy: “Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4
[the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report and Briffa’s suspect tree-ring data]. Keith
will do likewise.”
Jones to Mann: “If they [Canadian researchers Ross
McKitrick and Steve McIntyre] ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act in
the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”
(These
actions appear intended to avoid Freedom of Information inquiries. Jones had
previously told a researcher, “Why should I make the data available, when your
aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Drs. J&M, that’s the
scientific method – to ensure that research and experiments are honest, accurate
and replicable. Deleting files and data also raises serious ethical, scientific
and legal issues.)
Jones: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the
next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, lead author of two IPCC reports] and I will
keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
literature is!” (Thereby excluding non-alarmist peer-reviewed papers and skewing
the IPCC process.)
Jones: “I’ve just completed Mike [Mann’s] trick of adding
in the real temps to each series, to hide the decline [in average global
temperatures] .…” (Maintain a warming trend, despite contrary evidence.)
Climate scientist Tom Wigley to Mann: “If you think [Yale Professor and
Global Renewables editor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then,
if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU
channels to get him ousted.” (Saiers was subsequently dismissed. The American
Geophysical Union is a once professional society that has likewise gotten into
the censorship, intimidation, climate alarm and money train business.)
These
are the very tip of the melting iceberg. To gauge the scope, depth and depravity
of the conspiracy, visit Bishop
Hill, ClimateDepot.com and An Elegant Chaos on the
web.
These supposed scientists built their careers and reputations on
conjuring datasets, computer models, scenarios and reports – all claiming that
modern civilization’s use of hydrocarbons is about to destroy the planet, and
all financed by well over $100 billion in US, UK, EU and other taxpayer money.
Realist climate experts have long smelled a rat. The alarmists’ data didn’t
match other data. Their models never worked. Their claims of “consensus” and
“unprecedented” warming had no basis in fact. Too many grant and publication
decisions were decided by which side of the issue someone was on.

Read the rest.

Copenhagen will be interesting in light of the recent email hacking.

Flopping Aces has been on a climate change surge of posts since:

DEVELOPING BREAKING NEWS: Premiere Brit climate AGW research labs hacked… data spreading thru cyberspace about number fudging to hide temp decline

Global Warming Emails May Have Come From Insider (Check out the debate in the comments section)

CRU Emails – “Scientists Have Been Manipulating the Raw Temperature Figures”

ClimateGate the Musical

New ClimateGate Discovery: Hiding The Decline

New Zealand’s NIWA scientists accused of CRU-style fudging of data

ClimateGate: 5 Australian MP’s Resign over Carbon Tax

Warming alarmist says CRU scandal “a major blow”, endangers EPA’s anticipated regulatory power

FYI: The Copenhagen talking points provided by climate “scientists”

Silent Scandal [Reader Post]

Looking for climate change debate in all the wrong places? Turn to Russia Today TV

*UPDATE*

Hacked Emails are the Smoking Gun Revealing the Fraud of Manmade Global Warming

The Conspiracy Of The Centuries [Reader Post] (Excellent!)

Happy Thanksgiving!

2009-11-26T00:54:00.000-08:00

I'm on a 16-17 hour drive from California to Colorado.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

Thursday Funnies posted at Flopping Aces

a Barack Belt is a Ranking that is Redistributed, Never Earned

2009-11-23T23:24:00.000-08:00

Photo: President Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak. Credit: EPA

Wow….a Barack belt. That’s just so many ways of awesome, right there.

Is there anything that this man can’t accomplish without ever having earned it, first?

A book deal, the presidency, a Nobel Peace Prize….now a black belt (hat tip to Patvann):

Anyway, there he was in Seoul, the last stop of his journey.

And out of the Seoul sky, President Lee Myung-bak hands over to the American leader a tae kwon do outfit. And then Lee, who practices tae kwon do himself, presents Obama with a coveted black belt.

After zero long years of study.

Apparently, President Obama does have some martial arts experience:

President Obama practiced Taekwondo for about four years with an American master in Chicago from 2001 while he was serving in the Illinois state senate. He obtained a green belt.

Well, he’s green alright. And it shows.

On a side note, my personal experience with martial arts doesn't make me put much stock in most belt ranking systems. In some schools, especially in the U.S. but I doubt exclusive to the U.S., running a martial arts school is about running a business; and belt promotions are handed out as easily as personal fitness certifications.

A black belt really doesn't signify much of anything beyond achieving a certain level of proficiency at the basics, a level of understanding and commitment; a black belt symbolizes a student who is now ready to engage in serious training. Really, it's another level of being a beginner.

Caption contest at Flopping Aces