Blog @ MoreWhat.com

When the words war and crimes are used together it speaks to an underlying problem. As a species we have failed to render armed conflict obselete. And given that two or more sides of an issue engage in the practice from time to time additional problems arise in the aftermath. Someone always wants to justify war by finding someone to accuse of war crimes. As if having rules for war somehow makes it more palletable or civilized.

It is no surprise that the United Nations is central to this story. Neither is it a surprise that it surrounds the Israeli/Palestinian problem or that others can cloak their real intentions as participants in the international organization. So after more than a year since the conflict in question took place there’s a new wrinkle in the situation.

The U.N. General Assembly has adopted a resolution renewing pressure on the Israelis and Palestinians to conduct independent and credible investigations into crimes committed by both sides during the 22-day Gaza conflict that erupted in December 2008.

The General Assembly voted to give Israel and the Palestinians five more months in which to conduct investigations of alleged war crimes that are “independent, credible and in conformity with international standards.”

The US continues to support Israel and says the Goldstone report is flawed. Other countries line up on familiar sides of the issue as with any other item involving Israel. It’s a logjam that demonstrates absolutely no probability for resolution. Not just about the 22-day conflict in 2008 but everything else involving the Middle East.

There is nothing ‘united’ about these nations. It should be possible for a large group of nations to impose their will on the occasional problem areas from time to time. But not when the large group supports their own interest rather than the world at large and politics trumps all else.

Just another example that the United Nations is one useless organization.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For more information on the topic click here

From unrest displayed by various factions in Pakistan to the strange relationship between the US and former top dog Musharraf to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto the some-time ally nation is a wild card in foreign affairs.

The story below is typical of those demonstrating that which may frustrate public officials and the public in countries around the world. However, terrorists who view this latest development as positive may change their minds later. US intelligence operatives may lament this decision publicly but keeping a top Taliban commander in Pakistan’s custody may actually expand options available for acquiring necessary information.

How much money will the US have to provide Pakistan for ‘extracting’ intelligence from this individual without all those messy rules some find comforting? Sure, Pakistan is denying extradition to any other country based on perceived rights of the detained. Not likely.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Pakistani Court Blocks Extradition of Top Afghan Taliban Commander

VOA News

A Pakistani court has blocked the extradition of at least five captured Afghan Taliban leaders, including top Taliban commander Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.

Judge Khawaja Mohammad Sharif issued the order Friday after Islamist rights activist Khalid Khawaja filed a petition with the high court in Lahore. The judge said the militants should not be handed over to any other country.

One day earlier, the Afghan government said Pakistan had agreed to send Mullah Baradar and other militants to Afghanistan.

The Afghan president’s office said Thursday that Pakistan had agreed to give up the militants in exchange for the return of Pakistani prisoners.

Pakistani security forces captured Mullah Baradar in a joint operation with U.S. agents. Pakistan also detained several other top Taliban members in recent weeks.

The United States has urged Pakistan to crack down on Afghan Taliban militants who use northwestern Pakistan as a base for attacks on U.S.-led forces in neighboring Afghanistan.

Watch the video and use these notes to understand the self-interest and folly of the religion of peace.

-There’s a limit
-I cannot do this job
-if you live in the United States you are already an infidel
-it’s not our job to do that
-we are here… because we have better opportunities here….
-….not fair to this community….

This vid and the phrases listed above betray what Muslims claim is unfair and that they pose no threat to others. The tired old excuse of being in the US for ‘opportunities’ is the great liberal myth. To express sentiments designed to exploit the guilt of weak minds residing within their target area Muslims work the ‘po lil ol me’ fallacy.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Given the current political climate you would be hard pressed to find anyone to suggest the government is competent. At least in matters of public policy and foreign affairs few agree with public officials in the US. Boots on the ground and others who serve in the armed forces and are getting it done when allowed are the exception rather than the rule these days.

Is it possible that over the last several years a bipartisan scheme between the executive and legislative branches of the US government is coming to fruition? The political left and right had a minor media frenzy over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s meddling in Middle East affairs in 2007 with a trip to Syria and elsewhere. Most reports then suggested President Bush opposed the trip as well those raising legal questions about official roles and capacity.

A post on this blog suggested it was political theatre of a bipartisan nature. Again, bipartisan meaning anything but its standard definition. Typically it is used for covering the political backside of both parties by mutual consent. And the Pelosi trip may have been a classic example. And you can expect both sides had hopes of a political upside for themselves and their opposition taking a hit. Here’s a link to the older post featured on this blog.

President Barack Hussein Obama’s World Apology Tour and other appeasement strategies suggest US State Dept outreach to Syria is coincidence and has no connection to the earlier Pelosi trip reported as annoying President Bush in 2007. But you have to wonder if it was one of those seeds planted with hopes of a later harvest. Pelosi’s trip may have thwarted some development that was brewing and hurtful to both parties and a scheme may have avoided that plus provided options for the future both parties wanted. Yet no public announcement of such an agreement was an acceptable political strategy for either party.

It’s still appeasement.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here’s the brief report on the US kissin’ up to Syria.

US Official, Syrian President Meet in Bid for Improved Ties
VOA News
17 February 2010

One of the highest-ranking U.S. officials to visit Syria in years held talks with Syria’s president Wednesday, one day after Washington nominated its first ambassador to the country since 2005.

The U.S. Under Secretary of State, William Burns, said he and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad spoke candidly while meeting in Damascus. Burns said they discussed both areas of disagreement and common ground.

On Tuesday, the White House named long-time U.S. diplomat Robert Ford to serve as ambassador to Syria. Ford, who is fluent in Arabic, now serves as the U.S. deputy ambassador in Iraq.

Burns called the appointment a “clear sign” of America’s readiness to improve relations and to pursue a comprehensive peace between Arabs and Israelis.

The United States said in June that it planned to reinstate its ambassador to Syria, as part of the Obama administration’s efforts to improve relations with Syria and advance the Middle East peace process.

Ford’s nomination will have to be approved by the U.S. Senate.

The United States withdrew its last ambassador to Syria after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. Many countries have blamed Syria for the assassination, but Damascus has denied involvement.

The U.S. has long accused Syria of supporting Islamic militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which the U.S. considers terrorist organizations. Washington also has voiced concern about Syria’s human rights record and its role in neighboring Lebanon.

Are we serious this time? Among the other items within the liberal agenda spearheaded by President Barack Obama as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and others, amnesty for illegal immigrants, no deportation for those here illegally and lax national security and border control feature prominently. But a few members of Congress, 22 to be exact, have put forth a resolution reminding everyone the rule of law must prevail to secure America’s borders and protect the nation.

111th CONGRESS 2d SessionH. RES. 1026Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the continued peace, prosperity, liberty, and national security of the United States and its people depend upon the rule of law and credible and effective immigration enforcement policies which both welcome lawful immigrants and non-immigrants and also prevent the unlawful entry or unlawful continuing presence of foreign persons.IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 21, 2010

Mr. CHAFFETZ (for himself, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. KRATOVIL, Mr. NYE, Mr. FLEMING, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. POSEY, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. HARPER, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. BARROW, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. OLSON, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. KAGEN, Mr. SHULER, and Mr. CHILDERS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Labor and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

---

RESOLUTIONExpressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the continued peace, prosperity, liberty, and national security of the United States and its people depend upon the rule of law and credible and effective immigration enforcement policies which both welcome lawful immigrants and non-immigrants and also prevent the unlawful entry or unlawful continuing presence of foreign persons.Whereas the United States, as a nation of immigrants, recognizes and celebrates the economic and cultural contributions of generations of lawful immigrants;

Whereas the United States must remain a place where lawful immigrants can come to enjoy the promises of religious, political, and economic freedom; and

Whereas the continued peace, prosperity, liberty, and national security of the United States and its people depend upon the rule of law and credible and effective immigration enforcement policies which both welcome lawful immigrants and non-immigrants and also prevent the unlawful entry or unlawful continuing presence of foreign persons: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that–

(1) the use of a basic pilot program described in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note; commonly known as the E-verify program) by employers of workers within the United States should be mandatory, and that enforcement policies should hold both employers and employees responsible whenever an individual’s employment violates United States immigration law;

(2) installing and sustaining the necessary border infrastructure and manpower to effectively secure and control United States borders to prevent the unauthorized passage of persons or contraband is a critical responsibility of the Federal Government; and

(3) any immigration reform proposal adopted by Congress should not legalize, grant amnesty for, or confer any other legal status condoning the otherwise unlawful entry or presence in the United States of any individual.

It is not everything we need but it IS a good start. Problems remain with those supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants like Mayor Bloomberg.

NY Mayor Bloomberg to promote immigration reform

On the hot-button issue of immigration, he favors more liberal laws on allowing immigrants into the country and legalizing those who lack documentation. That will draw opposition from advocates of tightening the border and deportation of illegal aliens.

“We’re committing what I call national suicide,” Bloomberg said on the NBC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday. “Somehow or other, after 9/11 we went from reaching out and trying to get the best and the brightest to come here, to trying to keep them out.”

“In fact, we do the stupidest thing, we give them educations and then don’t give them green cards.”

What planet is Bloomberg living on? Sure, foreign nationals are educated in the US. But that is but one aspect of the problem. We’re talking about illegal immigration. Is Bloomberg suggesting students from foreign countries are here illegally? Probably not.

And his suggestion that educating the best and the brightest is a direct insult to American citizens who are pursuing their education here or already received it. Yet in addition he wants to loosen the almost non-existent immigration law and enforcement further.

This is the mindset that must be resisted. What Bloomberg suggests IS NOT reform. He merely wants to eliminate immigration law and completely open the borders. You don’t fix what is wrong with your country by importing replacements for your own citizens or exporting their jobs to another country. That has been Mexico’s answer to their country’s problems. Export it to the US. Then they benefit by the money sent by illegals back to Mexico.

The point is the US needs to improve education and the performance of students and teachers without abusing immigration law. And Mexico and other countries need to fix their own country’s problems without burdening the US. Stop sending American jobs overseas and importing cheaper labor here. And let other countries fix their own problems without affecting the US.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Dixie Chicks drop controversial lead singer in new album

By: CAITLIN R. KING
Associated Press
01/12/10 11:45 AM EST

NASHVILLE, TENN. — Two members of the Dixie Chicks — minus lead singer Natalie Maines — are preparing to release a new album this year.

Was it political controversy that caused the Dixie Chicks to fade in the music business or simply whatever talent they may have already ran its course?

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Dixie Chicks performed in concert in London on March 10, 2003, at the Shepherd’s Bush Empire theatre in England. During the introduction to their song “Travelin’ Soldier”, Natalie Maines, a Texas native, said:

‘Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this iolence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.’

Celebs in the music and film industry especially seem to hold some notion that they have some special calling that requires weighing in on public affairs. Granted, music and film have been used many times to make political statements but perhaps those fortunate enough to make a living in these businesses should remember one fact about their personal views. Not everyone agrees with their opinions. Add to that actions have consequences.

Martie Maguire and Emily Robison will be releasing new music in 2010 without lead vocalist Natalie Maines. Lloyd Maines, Natalie’s father, has stated that the trio are “definitely still an entity”. On January 15, it was announced that duo will be known as Court Yard Hounds and will release an album in May with Robison on lead vocals.

After the commentary in 2003 nothing followed until 2006 and now in 2010 two of the three women are starting again without Natalie Maines. Wonder if there are any regrets?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:
Dixie Chicks or Tricks?

Dixie Chicks: A Bit Naive

One of the political debates in the news concerns President Obama’s nominee for leading the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The simple pro and con on the issue has conservatives criticizing the Obama Administration for dragging its feet on filling the vacancy and liberals countering with the complaint that Republican Senator Jim DeMint is holding up the confirmation of Erroll Southers, Obama’s current candidate for the job.

Senator DeMint’s January 1, 2009 press release answers critics of his position. It is short, sweet and to the point. Maybe critics of Senator DeMint should consider the fact that holding up the confirmation of a flawed nominee is better than confirming same. Given recent security failures the importance of this nomination is emphasized. Rubber stamping President Obama’s first choice in the name of expediency is irresponsible at best. President Obama can easily replace this nominee with someone worthy of filling the vacancy. Here’s DeMint’s press release.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

DeMint Statement on TSA Nominee

January 1, 2010 - WASHINGTON, D.C - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement about President Obama’s nominee to lead the Transportation Security Administration (TSA):

“Erroll Southers has not been forthcoming about whether he’ll give union bosses control of our airport security, which is one of the most important decisions he’ll make as head of the TSA. Mr. Southers’ unwillingness to form a position on collective bargaining seriously calls into question his judgment, because it weakens security and has already been rejected by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and by every previous TSA administrator.”

“And now we learn that he misled Congress in sworn testimony about accessing confidential records. The TSA is one of the most critical security agencies in the War on Terror, and the Senate must carefully vet this nominee. If Mr. Southers is unwilling to put security ahead of politics and if he can’t tell the truth, then he’s not qualified and should not be confirmed.”

###

Is this going to be one of those stories that turns out to be a mistaken report or another embarrassing and dangerous episode with US national security? The sole excerpt presented here from the AP report linked below is troubling. ‘ No update late Sunday night on the man who walked through the exit.’ Hence the earlier question on whether this is a mistaken report or we all have something more to worry about on aviation security.

Flights Grounded at Newark Airport
Officials: Flights grounded at US airport after man goes through exit door to bypass security
By KIM GAMEL Associated Press Writer
January 4, 2010 (AP)
The Associated Press

A spokesman said the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is assisting with the possible security breach, and Davis had no update late Sunday night on the man who walked through the exit.

TSA Statement on New Security Measures for International Flights to the U.S.
News & Happenings
January 3, 2010

Today, the Transportation Security Administration issued new security directives to all United States and international air carriers with inbound flights to the U.S. effective January 4, 2010.

The new directive includes long-term, sustainable security measures developed in consultation with law enforcement officials and our domestic and international partners.

Because effective aviation security must begin beyond our borders, and as a result of extraordinary cooperation from our global aviation partners, TSA is mandating that every individual flying into the U.S. from anywhere in the world traveling from or through nations that are state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest will be required to go through enhanced screening. The directive also increases the use of enhanced screening technologies and mandates threat-based and random screening for passengers on U.S. bound international flights.

The TSA statement above seemed to be the only related information available at the TSA’s website after viewing the initial item from AP via ABC.

Maybe this is good news. If US national security remains a major topic in the media perhaps needed corrections will follow. But few are probably counting on it. As an example of what is meant by that is former security chief Michael Chertoff and former CIA chief Hayden were on Meet the Press Sunday. David Gregory, the host, offered the disclaimer that Chertoff is tied to a company offering screening technology to the federal government. During the program, all three, Obama’s deputy national security adviser John Brennan, Michael Chertoff and Michael Hayden either praised Napolitano in light of security failures or expressed no concern about her handling of such matters.

Gee, could this be another case of revolving doors, business as usual in our nation’s capitol and all players responding based on their personal agendas? Another good reason to read Michelle Malkin’s book, Culture of Corruption. No, this blog nor the author of this post are receiving anything for expressing this sentiment. As a public service from this concerned citizen the link to Malkin’s book is in this blog’s sidebar along with other important titles. If you haven’t already you would do well to read them. Certainly they are not the only books out there but are the ones this blog is currently promoting, again, with no money or other perks involved. Read.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:

DHS Plans to Catch Only One in Four Travelers Committing ‘Major’ Criminal Violations While Entering U.S. on International Fights in 2010
Monday, January 04, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

(CNSNews.com) - Documents produced by the Department of Homeland Security indicate that in fiscal 2010 the department is planning to catch only 26 percent of travelers committing major criminal violations while seeking to enter the United States through international airports.

click to read the rest….

First homeland security princess Janet Napolitano said the systems worked in the Flight 253 incidents. Second, President Obama was uncharacteristically silent as an opportunity to pontificate presented itself. Third, Napolitano initiated damage control for her earlier pathetic appraisal of national security. Fourth, President Obama, for reasons we can imagine, broke his silence on the matter and part of a report from the Obama hijacked VOA News is below.

The president’s demeanor was serious as he faced reporters in Hawaii, where he is vacationing with his family. He talked about the steps that have been taken to improve airline safety since the attempted attack. And he sought to reassure the American people, saying that the government is doing all it can to keep the public safe and secure.

He said extra law enforcement officers will be put on many flights, and that the passenger screening process is being reviewed - including revising the computerized lists used to detect high risk individuals.

The president added that he is conferring with his national security team. He spoke of their determination to deal with the terrorist threat. “We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us - whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. homeland,” he said.

President Obama urged Americans to be vigilant but confident as they travel during the current holiday season and throughout the coming year

Sorry Mr President but it appears the only ones concerned about national security are those you and your cronies have labeled violent fringe right wingers who attend tea parties. As far as extra law enforcement goes Barry, there is no extra. There’s what you have and what you use. There’s no extra. Review this if there is something you want to review. See below.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate CIA interrogations of high-value detainees came under attack Sunday from key figures in both parties.

The intelligence community has every reason to doubt your sincerity.

The White House will not weigh in on the case of the three Navy SEALs facing court martial for allegedly mistreating an Iraqi terror suspect believed to have been behind the slaying of four Americans in 2004

And it is fortunate those who serve in the military have their own leadership who inspire them as their Commander-in-Chief has abandoned that role.

Why do 2010 and 2012 keep coming to mind? Sorry, it’s just another rhetorical question. But feel free to answer if the notion strikes.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Barry from DC’s homeland security princess, Janet Napolitano, first stated the US national security system worked in referring to an attempt to detonate explosives on board a US airliner landing in Detroit on Christmas. Today she is stumbling over herself to produce damage control for her previous appraisal. No doubt this is taking place at the ‘urging’ of others in the Obamanation.

But let’s not focus only on the Obama Administration’s reaction to a failed terrorist attack. Failed only because the terrorist fortunately botched the assignment. Members of the US Congress are equally disappointing in their response to the event.

from the House Committee on Homeland Security…..

The reported act of terrorism – whether directly related to al Qaeda or not – and the response to it will be the focus of an oversight hearing next month. The Committee will get to the bottom of what did and did not happen with Mr. Abdulmutallab and what security precautions need to take place in the future.”

from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security….

WASHINGTON - Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., and Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Me., announced Monday that they would convene a hearing in January to examine the layers of security meant to protect airline passengers from terrorist attacks but which accused terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab successfully evaded.

Hearings scheduled for January!!! So this is how are fine leaders respond to dropping the ball on national security. Not to worry folks, your elected and appointed leaders are on the job. They’re not concerned enough to interrupt their Christmas and New Year’s plans to deal with security breaches so you should not worry either. Just continue as before….. clueless.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Open thread: Obama’s statement on the Christmas Day jihadi attack; Perfunctory, hasty, and bloodless (Michelle Malkin)

Another event to once again raise the discussion on national security. Not like the status of US national security is ever erased from the American consciousness but one has to wonder if that includes the Obama Administration? The President has been criticized for not being more visible on this and other issues since heading to Hawaii on vacation. His security princess, Napolitano, stated after the Flight 253 incident, the first of two, that ‘the system’ was working properly. That someone was able to board a commercial aircraft and attempt to detonate explosives on final approach contradicts Napolitano’s conclusion. Unless only doing something after the fact is her idea of national security. And even then, simply notifying other commercial aircraft of the conditions on Flight 253 is of little value.

For those who missed it a Delta or Northwest (owned by Delta) flight, number 253, had a Nigerian passenger who attempted to detonate explosives on board as summarized above. A strange coincidence, or not, involved the same flight number on a subsequent flight in which another passenger was either detained and/or arrested for causing a disturbance. One troubling set of circumstances finds reports about the first incident suggesting the description of the ‘perp’ as a terrorist was premature and early reports about the second incident being characterized as a second terrorist attack. How’s that for a spot on press response?

Here’s a more recent account of the second incident.

A U.S. law enforcement official says an unruly passenger was detained Sunday when a Northwest Airlines flight landed in Detroit, Michigan, but he was later declared as not a security threat.

The plane was on the same route and carried the same flight number as one on Friday, when a Nigerian man allegedly tried to blow up Northwest Flight 253 just before landing.

In the latest incident, security personnel arrested a passenger upon landing Sunday because he was verbally abusive to the flight crew and had locked himself in the airplane bathroom for a long time.

The pilot radioed for emergency help. Passengers were evacuated and dogs sniffed the luggage which was spread out on the tarmac.

A law enforcement official tells news agencies that the passenger turned out to be a businessman who got sick during the flight .

And another recent update provides an excerpt on the initial incident.

Passengers have told investigators the man went into the bathroom for 20 minutes before landing, and then when he went to sit down, said he had stomach problems, and pulled a blanket on himself.

Just as the plane was getting ready to land, they heard a pop, smelled smoke and then saw the man on fire.

A Dutch passenger jumped on the Nigerian to subdue him, and blankets were used to put out the fire.

Does this brief review adequately establish Napolitano’s press statements are absurd? Certainly everyone is entitle to their opinion but you can guess that most Americans expect a different outcome in order to state the ’system worked’ when discussing US national security.

On the topic of President Obama’s silence on the matter in recent reports this blog’s reaction. It is reminiscent of an old expression about incompetence that begins with ‘better to be viewed as an idiot than….’. You probably know the rest.

Some related items are provided below on the explosive (PETN) reportedly used in the first incident.

a highly explosive organic compound belonging to the same chemical family as nitroglycerin—i.e., the nitric acid esters of polyalcohols.

PETN was introduced as an explosive after World War I. It is used by itself in detonators and detonating fuses (Primacord) and in a mixture, called pentolite, with an equal amount of trinitrotoluene (TNT) in grenades and projectiles.

PETN is a colourless, crystalline material that is generally stored and shipped as a mixture with water. It is less sensitive than nitroglycerin but is easily detonated. Valued for its shattering force and efficiency, PETN is the least stable of the common military explosives but retains its properties in storage for longer periods than nitroglycerin or cellulose nitrate (nitrocellulose) does. PETN is also used in medicine as a heart stimulant.

Yup, good old-fashioned human technology about a century old.

OSHA does not have a PEL for pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), which is used both as a drug for preventing angina pectoris and as an explosive.

If you really need to know what a PEL is the following link explains along with many other items typcially covered on a MSDS or Material Safety Data Sheet. And one last related OSHA link.

OSHA has data on PETN. Now if only DHS had detection methods for this well-known explosive and implemented them to avoid a Flight 253 problem.

As a final note for this post a political point is in order. Bush bashers frequently express 9/11 happened on the Bush 43 watch so it was his fault. This blog has stated in the past that there is plenty of blame to go around regarding US national security. A couple of things to keep in mind. 9/11 was not conceived, planned or otherwise arranged by terrorists in less than eight months which is the time George W Bush was in office prior to the attack. Before that President Clinton completed two terms in office and posts here as well as information freely available elsewhere indicate some dropping of the ball as regards terrorism and Osama bin Laden, etc.

When Bush 43 took office and after 9/11 occurred it became his war on terror and he owned the problem. An unfortunate downside to pursuing public office. Post 9/11 the Bush Administration was successful on matters of national security for two terms. The same ownership transfer now applies to President Obama. Given the Flight 253 episode(s), Napolitano’s statement, Obama’s silence, the previous and now infamous warning by VPOTUS Joe Biden the national security situation is once more front and center.

Nothing about current US national security policy inspires confidence.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It is not uncommon for President Obama to be characterized as an appeaser. From this World Apology Tour to a fruitless response on Iranian nukes to his recent Afghanistan exit strategy and everywhere in between, Obama the commuity orgranizer and campaigner appeases. Some even suggest his speech given after picking up his Nobel was lauded by libs and conservatives alike. But there’s another take on that one. And it is right.

As Bill Clinton taught the Dems, if you have to “confront” a liberal audience about some obvious truth, be sure to choose a hapless or unappealing one. Clinton bravely took on rappers; Obama took on Scandinavian pacifists.

The piece goes on to explain the real story of Obama’s Nobel speech. Which, by the way, leads nicely into a discussion of an older Obama speech.

from….

Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win
Washington, DC | August 01, 2007

Thanks to the 9/11 Commission, we know that six years ago this week President Bush received a briefing with the headline: “Bin Ladin determined to strike in U.S.”

It came during what the Commission called the “summer of threat,” when the “system was blinking red” about an impending attack. But despite the briefing, many felt the danger was overseas, a threat to embassies and military installations. The extremism, the resentment, the terrorist training camps, and the killers were in the dark corners of the world, far away from the American homeland.

Then, one bright and beautiful Tuesday morning, they were here.

That a boy, Mr President, take another opportunity to bash President George W Bush. What was stated in the reference at the top of this post applies. ‘The speech was the usual collection of truths, half-truths, and deceptions.’ That of course referred to the Nobel speech and this one and all Obama speeches.

But then everything changed.

We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists’ base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.

Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century’s stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Barack Hussein Obama speaks of these things as if it all started with George W Bush. Well, not exactly. There is plenty of blame to go around. But what is troublesome here is President Obama cherry picks the 9/11 Commission report to bash Bush. How about the other players?

from the 9/11 Commission….

Early Efforts against Bin Ladin

Until 1996, hardly anyone in the U.S. government understood that Usama Bin Ladin was an inspirer and organizer of the new terrorism. In 1993, the CIA noted that he had paid for the training of some Egyptian terrorists in Sudan. The State Department detected his money in aid to the Yemeni terrorists who set a bomb in an attempt to kill U.S. troops in Aden in 1992. State Department sources even saw suspicious links with Omar Abdel Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh” in the New York area, commenting that Bin Ladin seemed “committed to financing ‘Jihads’ against ‘anti Islamic’ regimes worldwide.” After the department designated Sudan a state sponsor of terrorism in 1993, it put Bin Ladin on its TIPOFF watchlist, a move that might have prevented his getting a visa had he tried to enter the United States. As late as 1997, however, even the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center continued to describe him as an “extremist financier.”1

1992, 1993, 1996, 1997 are specifically mentioned above. And who was President then. Wow, bin Laden was just a financier. Excuse me, ‘extremist financier’.

In 1996, the CIA set up a special unit of a dozen officers to analyze intelligence on and plan operations against Bin Ladin. David Cohen, the head of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, wanted to test the idea of having a “virtual station”-a station based at headquarters but collecting and operating against a subject much as stations in the field focus on a country. Taking his cue from National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, who expressed special interest in terrorist finance, Cohen formed his virtual station as a terrorist financial links unit. He had trouble getting any Directorate of Operations officer to run it; he finally recruited a former analyst who was then running the Islamic Extremist Branch of the Counterterrorist Center. This officer, who was especially knowledgeable about Afghanistan, had noticed a recent stream of reports about Bin Ladin and something called al Qaeda, and suggested to Cohen that the station focus on this one individual. Cohen agreed. Thus was born the Bin Ladin unit.2

In May 1996, Bin Ladin left Sudan for Afghanistan. A few months later, as the Bin Ladin unit was gearing up, Jamal Ahmed al Fadl walked into a U.S. embassy in Africa, established his bona fides as a former senior employee of Bin Ladin, and provided a major breakthrough of intelligence on the creation, character, direction, and intentions of al Qaeda. Corroborating evidence came from another walk-in source at a different U.S. embassy. More confirmation was supplied later that year by intelligence and other sources, including material gathered by FBI agents and Kenyan police from an al Qaeda cell in Nairobi.3

The CIA during the Clinton years puts some money into studying bin Laden the ‘financier’. It seems the big breakthrough was entirely a chance event.

By 1997, officers in the Bin Ladin unit recognized that Bin Ladin was more than just a financier. They learned that al Qaeda had a military committee that was planning operations against U.S. interests worldwide and was actively trying to obtain nuclear material. Analysts assigned to the station looked at the information it had gathered and “found connections everywhere,” including links to the attacks on U.S. troops in Aden and Somalia in 1992 and 1993 and to the Manila air plot in the Philippines in 1994-1995.4

It took them years to go from bin Laden the financier to bin Laden is much more than that. Yet Obama suggests George Bush is responsible for 9/11. Obama cited this report but not this part or any other than the one that suited his agenda.

By the fall of 1997, the Bin Ladin unit had roughed out a plan for these Afghan tribals to capture Bin Ladin and hand him over for trial either in the United States or in an Arab country. In early 1998, the cabinet-level Principals Committee apparently gave the concept its blessing.9

On their own separate track, getting information but not direction from the CIA, the FBI’s New York Field Office and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York were preparing to ask a grand jury to indict Bin Ladin. The Counterterrorist Center knew that this was happening.10 The eventual charge, conspiring to attack U.S. defense installations, was finally issued from the grand jury in June 1998-as a sealed indictment. The indictment was publicly disclosed in November of that year.

Gee, then they were thinking it might be good to get this guy.

Regarding a plan to capture bin Laden…..

Director Tenet discussed the high risk of the operation with Berger and his deputies, warning that people might be killed, including Bin Ladin. Success was to be defined as the exfiltration of Bin Ladin out of Afghanistan.28 A meeting of principals was scheduled for May 29 to decide whether the operation should go ahead.

The principals did not meet. On May 29, “Jeff” informed “Mike” that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate’s Near Eastern Division. The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation.

Most of us are aware of the fumbling during the Clinton years on the topic of terrorism and bin Laden. You can go back further than that for example when the US financed bin Laden when the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan. The point here should be obvious. Pay attention to President Obama’s agenda and tactics. And stop blaming Bush for everything.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Day of Infamy

The attack on Pearl Harbor was the culmination of a decade of deteriorating relations between Japan and the United States over the status of China and the security of Southeast Asia. The breakdown began in 1931 when Japanese army extremists, in defiance of government policy, invaded and overran the northern-most Chinese province of Manchuria. Japan ignored American protests, and in the summer of 1937 launched a full-scale attack on the rest of China. Although alarmed by this action, neither the United States nor any other nation with interests in the Far East was willing to use military force to halt Japanese expansion.

Over the next three years, war broke out in Europe and Japan joined Nazi Germany in the Axis Alliance. The United States applied both diplomatic and economic pressures to try to resolve the Sino-Japanese conflict. The Japanese government viewed these measures, especially an embargo on oil, as threats to their nation’s security. By the summer of 1941, both countries had taken positions from which they could not retreat without a serious loss of national prestige. Although both governments continued to negotiate their differences, Japan had already decided on war.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was part of a grand strategy of conquest in the Western Pacific. The objective was to immobilize the Pacific Fleet so that the United States could not interfere with these invasion plans. The principal architect of the attack was Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet. Though personally opposed to war with America, Admiral Yamamoto knew that Japan’s only hope of success in such a war was to achieve quick and decisive victory. America’s superior economic and industrial might would tip the scales in her favor during a prolonged conflict.

Pearl Harbor: 68 years (Michelle Malkin) 

Another example of how political motivation blurs the lines in the GOP on being a politician or standing for conservative values.

Republicans are unanimously opposed to the sweeping legislation.

Signaling the unease of some freshman Democrats in swing districts, Rep. John Adler of New Jersey said Friday he will vote against the bill. Mr. Adler, who won his first term in 2008 with 52% of the vote, said the House bill “does not do enough to contain costs.”

He added, “Congress should not pass a bill that costs more than $1 trillion” over 10 years.

Are Republicans unanimously opposed to HR3962 and the other healthcare reform plans proposed by the Democrats for purely political reasons or because this reform violates conservative principles? There is the distinct possibility current reforms violate sections of the US Constitution as well but that’s another story for another time. As is the question of why this unanimous GOP opposition is not demonstrated on other issues like illegal immigration?

The Democratic majority has been unable to produce party unity on healthcare reform as reports indicate the Saturday vote on HR3962 may be delayed. Vulnerable Democrats are worried about the 2010 elections. The GOP has similar concerns about their possible comeback in those same elections. And yet both parties seem unwilling to accept widespread rejection by the public and respond responsibly. The fight is purely political.

The Senate may not be able to arrange a vote until next year. That would take a toll on Obama’s first term. The liberal agenda now seems destined to ride completely on the outcome of healthcare reform legislation. If incomplete into next year their 2010 aspirations are vulnerable. But the GOP may suffer along with them as voters express their anger at the ballot box.

As this fiasco continues other issues suffer from neglect, incompetence or both. The President’s support is fading. Congressional approval ratings are still in the tank. There is no economic recovery. Unemployment has reached a new high above 10% and some say it is actually higher. And all politicians can do is play politics with an issue most regard as secondary at best.

Shelve the damn healthcare issue for now. Attend to national security, national defense, border control, immigration enforcement and domestic policy related to economic matters. In other words, limited government that reduces taxes, national debt, deficits and spending. If those items are ever effectively solved then revisit healthcare reform if anyone other than liberal politicians is interested.

Until then, get conservative or get out.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

As President Obama campaigns on behalf of liberal candidates in current elections and has school children singing his praises thanks to questionable encouragement from their teachers one has to wonder how voters view his performance thus far. Indeed, Obama’s honeymoon with the American people lasted less than six months. So Mr Obama, how are all those government interventions working for you? You know, government motors, government healthcare, government pay czars and your nanny state agenda?

VPOTUS Joe Biden was tapped to shore up Barack Obama’s lack of foreign affairs experience during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Apparently most people dismissed any concerns about Obama’s lack of experience in other areas. A community organizer-in-chief was what the majority of American voters selected. The new President tapped his former rival for President as his Secretary of State. So how is Hillary Clinton doing in the minds of voters?

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 27 percent of voters think Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be doing a better job as president, while 49 percent say she would be performing about the same. That’s about 70 percent that say a hypothetical ‘President Hillary’ would be doing as well or better than President Barack Obama.

Obama’s honeymoon is over and according to the poll above about half the voters think Hillary or Barack would be doing about the same as president. Barack Obama has done nothing to inspire confidence resulting in the honeymoon being over and half the voters think Hillary would be doing about the same. So how’s Hillary doing as Secretary of State? Forget that most of the year she was promoting human rights as her central focus. What about the Middle East?

Secretary Clinton came to Marrakech for the sixth Forum for the Future, which joins civil society groups and the private sector with foreign ministers from the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations and the Middle East to talk about democracy and resolving conflict in the region.

What was the result of these discussions?

Palestinian leaders are voicing frustration after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Israel for making what she said are unprecedented concessions in efforts to restart peace negotiations. Israeli leaders are keeping up their calls for the Palestinians to drop all preconditions.

Palestinian leaders on Sunday stuck to their demands that Israel stop all settlement activity before any resumption of peace talks that have been stalled since December.

Clinton praises Israel for doing their part and the Palestinians register a complaint.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Arab foreign ministers in Morocco to discuss Israel’s offer to limit the expansion of Jewish settlements. Clinton says Israel should reciprocate positive Palestinian moves to improve security.

Clinton reverses her earlier praise of Israel in response to Palestinian objections.

Well then, how’s it going on the issue of Iran and their pursuit of nuclear weapons?

Iranian officials say they want technical experts to review the U.N.-backed plan for sending Iran’s uranium abroad for enrichment.

All the rhetoric from various nations including the US over Iran’s nuclear program has produced zero results except that Iran is still stalling and being allowed to get away with it. And the answer from the US……

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says there will be no changes to an international offer to end the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program by having its low-grade uranium processed and enriched abroad.

That’s reassuring.(NOT) Given the impotent international response to date and Clinton’s caving on statements made about the Middle East peace process more of the same is anticipated.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com