Why Judge Napolitano is Missing the Forest For the Trees Regarding the Portland Terrorist

Here's the segment during last night's O'Reilly Factor, where Judge Andrew Napolitano and Bill O'Reilly had a spirited conversation, to say the least, about the legality of the Portland Christmas Tree Terrorist Sting:



I must first put this caveat out there before I talk about this: I'm not a lawyer, and I might be wrong. However, I do have a lot of knowledge about the law. So, I am pretty confident that I am right about this issue.

While he is right about some things, Judge Napolitano is wrong about a few things that he talked about because he completely ignored part of the case surrounding this attempted terrorist attack.

He is right that we can't arrest, much less convict, based on thought or desire alone. However, he doesn't mention or forgets that Mohamed Osman Mohamud doesn't stop at thought or desire.

He figuratively pulled the trigger that was supposed to kill hundreds, if not thousands at Pioneer Square. He didn't know that the bomb was a fake. Police have been running stings like this for decades, and the courts have held them up consistently.

The judge argued that because the bomb was a fake the would-be terrorist can't be charged with attempting to set off a WMD, when no one was in any actual danger. That is wrong.

Let me use a couple of examples here to prove my point. For example, if a man approaches an undercover that he believes is a hitman and gives the cop money to kill his wife, he is guilty. The undercover doesn't actually have to take a shot at his wife to make the charge stick.

Here's another example. if a man approaches an undercover and offers the cop to sleep with him/her for $100, then, he is guilty of soliciting a prostitute. The cop doesn't actually have to have sex with the potential john, in order to make the charge hold water.

If there is an overt act, then, it turns thought and desire into action and commission. Therefore, he would be able to be prosecuted under the law.

On the other hand, he is right that the FBI can't be the aggressors in this sting. From what has been released, they asked him many times whether or not he wanted to go through with it because many people would die, and every time, he adamantly said yes. It doesn't sound like he had to be persuaded any from what I've read.

However, not all of the tapes and evidence has been released, yet. So, we won't know the full extent of evidence against the 19-year old Somalia-born young man or how much the agents did or did not push him to commit the act.

It all depends on how they approached him about this plot to begin with and who was the one that aggressively pursued this venture. We shall have to see.

Here's another hole in his argument. He said that the fact that the agents committed a crime, while setting off a real bomb during a test-run in the middle-of-nowhere, and the fact that they strung this along for 18 months is over the line, too. That is, also, wrong.

Local police and feds have sent in cops to go undercover for months and even years at a time before, in order to take down organized crime like drug cartels or the mafia, and while they were undercover, they had to commit some lesser crimes in order to get in with the big fish that they were trying to take down to trust them and let them in the fold enough to get concrete evidence against them. The courts have consistently said that this was ok. What is it about trying to take down the mob that is any different than trying to take down a terrorist cell? There's not. It is just another form of organized crime.

Prominent Rep King (R-NY) Advises Sec Clinton & Obama Administration: Declare WikiLeaks a "Terrorist Organization"

In the wake yet another release of sensitive information vital to national security by the WikiLeaks website, many people from all sides of the political spectrum have called for something to be done to stop this. Many are worried that this will greatly affect our ability to maintain good diplomatic relations with our allies adversely and will put us a huge disadvantage in relation with our enemies.

Prominent Republican and Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security Rep. Steve King of New York has presented an option that definitely deserves serious consideration:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should review whether WikiLeaks can be declared a terrorist organization, according to a senior Republican. 

Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, called for U.S. officials to get aggressive against WikiLeaks after the website published highly sensitive, classified diplomatic cables that reveal frank assessments of foreign leaders and the war on terror. 

I am calling on the attorney general and supporting his efforts to fully prosecute WikiLeaks and its founder for violating the Espionage Act. And I'm also calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare WikiLeaks a foreign terrorist organization, King said on WNIS radio on Sunday evening.

By doing that, we will be able to seize their funds and go after anyone who provides them help or contributions or assistance whatsoever, he said. To me, they are a clear and present danger to America.

WikiLeaks has released thousands of cables that reveal embarrassing comments about foreign leaders and U.S. operations abroad. The White House and Clinton have been forced to conduct an outreach campaign to smooth the waters.

The Obama administration hasn't taken legal action against WikiLeaks, but has condemned the release in the harshest terms. But the clamor for legal action by lawmakers in both parties increased the pressure for prosecution based on the leaks.

Clinton has the authority to declare an organization a foreign terrorist organization (FTO), a formal designation that allows the U.S. government some leeway in taking action. The current list of 47 FTOs includes al Qaeda and its various offshoots; Hamas; and a variety of other groups.

King expressed confidence that other lawmakers in both parties would rally to his strategy toward WikiLeaks. The website CNET published excerpts of King's letter to Clinton on Sunday.

I'm confident you'll find many people in the Congress, the House and Senate, who will support my demand for the prosecution, and also the declaring of WikiLeaks to be a foreign terrorist organization, he said.

Releasing these documents are tantamount to a form of cyber-warfare. Why not treat this as a form of terrorism or treason?

Hoyer: Stop Whining, Potential Terror Trial Jurors Would Be Sent On Taxpayer-Funded Paid Vacation

Steny Hoyer, the Democratic #2 in the US House put forth the suggestion that we should move the trials back to Gitmo and send jurors on

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Sunday the U.S. should consider holding military trials for terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay and that American jurors might enjoy the taxpayer-funded trip to Cuba.

"Other juries are sequestered and it's a Caribbean island," Mr. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, said on CBS' "Face the Nation" when asked by host Bob Schieffer about how to get jurors to the island. "It's not like it's the Archipelago or Siberia."

Mr. Hoyer's statement follows the civilian trial last week of Ahmed Ghailani, who was convicted on just one of roughly 270 charges related to the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa. The case has renewed the debate about whether the better venue is a military commission or civilian court for detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

This is just ridiculous analogy. If we sent potential jurors on this "vacation", they aren't going be with their loved ones seeing the sights around Havana, laying up on the beach, or catching some gnarly waves. They're going to holed up in a military barrack away from their families against their will. The only sites that they'll be seeing will be the inside of their housing and the courtroom. It may not be literally Siberia, but they might as well be. They're be in a social Siberia.

It's not a bad idea to move it back to Cuba for security reasons. Gitmo is one of the most secure military facilities in the world. We won't have to deal with the obvious terrorist threat as much as we would anywhere else. It would take away an all-too tempting target away from Al-Qaeda.

Regarding the overall premise behind the analogy, if we do move it back to Cuba, why not just turn it back over to the military? We wouldn't have to uproot people out of their lives and tear them away from their families. Plus, it is a waste of money to sequester them for weeks and transport them hundreds of miles to Guantanamo Bay.

The military is much better equipped to handle these kind of trials, anyway, as the civilian trial of Ahmed Ghailani, where he was acquitted of all but one of the around 270 charges because of evidence that was erroneously thrown out, more than adequately proved.

Shock Poll: Over 90% of Southern Afghans Don't Know About What Happened on 9/11

No wonder that we're having such a hard time in Afghanistan. If the Afghansdon't even know why we invaded their country, it'll be much harder to win their hearts. It is so easy for the Taliban to convince them that we are the conquering, blood-thirsty infidels that they claim us to be, if they don't have the correct and complete story:

A surprising high number of people in southern Afghanistan have never heard about the terrorist attacks which struck the United States on September 11, 2001, according to a report from the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS).

The report draws on findings from field research conducted by Afghan interviewers in October of this year, interviewing some 1,000 Afghan men in Kandahar and Helmand provinces of southern Afghanistan. With multiple attacks every day, those are the most violent regions of Afghanistan. Another 500 men were interviewed in the northern provinces of Parwan and Panjshir, which is calm compared to the south.

Among other findings, the report showed a significant lack of understanding of the history of the international community's presence in the country. Many interviewed by ICOS said they did not know about the events of 9/11 and were unable to describe what a democracy is.

The ICOS said the dissemination of the international community's political narrative and public justification for its presence in Afghanistan is very limited. As a result, the Taliban and other insurgent groups are able to easily fill this gap with its own propaganda.

According to the research, more than 90 percent of those interviewed in the south were not familiar with the events of 9/11, when al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four passenger planes and crashed them in New York City, Washington, D.C. and in Pennsylvania.

This is a huge reason why we are still having big insurgency issues in the southern and eastern provinces.
If there really is this kind of gap of knowledge, we need find a way to bridge it and quickly because it'll be a much steeper hill that we'll have to climb with regards to winning this war. In the end, we'll win this war with the pen not the gun; ink not bullets.

As they say, knowledge is power, and this study shows that we are losing this part of the war badly. It is no coincidence that there are many more attacks in the same part of the country that 90% of the people don't know anything about 9/11.

Biden to Afghanistan: Daddy (Obama/US) Will Take Your "Training Wheels" Off This July

In reference to starting to withdraw troops out of Afghanistan at the July 2011 deadline, Vice President Biden said that Afghanistan will have to start standing on their own as the US will start taking the "training wheels" off next summer:

While defending the military surge in Afghanistan after eight years of what he termed "neglect," Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday that Afghan leaders could soon be left on their own, whether they're ready or not.

"We had to say, 'Look, you've got to step up, man,'" Biden said Thursday on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"Let me tell you, we're going to start -- Daddy is going to start to take the training wheels off ... next July, so you'd better practice riding."

I understand what he is trying to say here isn't bad, but it is just how he put it is what is so bad. I wonder how Karzai and Afghan people like being compared to children much less with the US/Obama/Biden being their daddy. I imagine that this will not be well received in Kabul.

Rep Trent Franks (R-AZ): AG Eric Holder to Turn 180 on Terror Trials or Resign Immediately

So, it begins. Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona's second district has called for Attorney General Eric Holder's immediate resignation, if he doesn't reverse course on how their prosecuting the terror trials:

November 18, 2010 -- Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-02), a Member of the House Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, today issued the following statement in response to the Ghailani verdict:

"Despite Attorney General Holder's promises that "these cases have to be won" and that "failure is not an option," yesterday's ruling will be remembered as one of the most blatant miscarriages of justice in the history of our federal criminal court system. I cannot imagine a greater affront to the families of the victims who have waited so long for justice on behalf of their loved ones, nor can I imagine a more dangerous signal that was sent to our enemies, than to see a man who had already admitted to the 1998 African Embassy bombings, and who continued to work as an Al Qaeda operative and even a Bin Laden bodyguard until as late as 2004, acquitted of more than 280 criminal charges due to procedural protections in the civil court that precluded critical evidence from being admitted.

"The Obama Administration has now fundamentally characterized itself with the word "failure." In this case, failure comes with the unspeakably high cost of the shock, pain, and grief to the families of the 224 innocent people who were murdered and the more than 4,000 people who were wounded in these horrific terrorist attacks, who were all just told by a federal court that the man who irrefutably helped create the bombs that maimed and slaughtered their innocent loved ones is not guilty of a single count of murder.

"If this insane policy of appeasing terrorists and granting them American Constitutional rights to be tried as quasi American citizens continues, the cost of this failure will pale in comparison to the cost of the failure that will undoubtedly yet occur as a result of this ruling. Terrorists now have incontrovertible evidence that they can exploit the American justice system and they will use this knowledge to train new terrorist recruits and manipulate their cases if and when they are caught.

"Yesterday's ruling was a demonstration of why military tribunals were created and why they are so important. Military tribunals have long been established for those accused of war crimes. By definition, these tribunals are set up to deal with the unique challenges dealing with those who commit, in cases such as this, acts of terror against innocent civilians. These types of tribunals have been used before with great success. For instance, during WWII a group of Nazis were charged with attempting to terrorize citizens within the United States, in an effort to dissuade them from entering the war. They were captured and tried in a military tribunal in less than a month.

"President Bush once said, 'We must not let foreign enemies use the forums of liberty to destroy liberty itself.' Because of the current Administration's blind commitment to a radically misguided and dangerous philosophy, President Obama is now responsible for one of the greatest cracks in the foundation of liberty I have witnessed in my lifetime. Our children and grandchildren may be made to pay a terrible price as a result.

"Unfortunately, the failure of the Ghailani verdict is just the beginning. In light of this disastrous ruling-- the obvious consequence of the Administration's own disastrous terror trial policy-- I call on Eric Holder to either repudiate the Administration's policy on terror trials, or resign immediately."

Personally, I think that he should have resigned, when he dropped the case against the Black Panthers that intimidated voters back in 2008.

Unfortunately, unless Obama tries someone like KSM that gets acquitted, I don't see this escalating to the point where Holder has to resign, and I think that the chance of that happening is nil. Obama won't chance such an embarrassment so close to the 2012 elections.

ACLU Looks to Prosecute Bush for Waterboarding Admission

The ACLU is looking to take advantage of Bush's admission in recent interviews that he authorized the water-boarding of three terrorists, while in office, and call for former President George W Bush to be prosecuted for torture:

Former President George W. Bush seemed content as “the retired guy” on The O’Reilly Factor last night, but if the American Civil Liberties Union has anything to do with it, that retirement probably won’t be quite as peaceful as he envisioned.

In his new book, Decision Points, Bush details how he authorized the waterboarding of certain terror suspects, even though the practice is largely considered to be a form of torture and was since banned by the U.S. Well, the ACLU isn’t happy with the admission – and they think it’s worth a criminal investigation.

From a letter from the ACLU to attorney general Eric Holder:

“The ACLU acknowledges the significance of this request, but it bears emphasis that the former President’s acknowledgment that he authorized torture is absolutely without parallel in American history. The admission cannot be ignored. In our system, no one is above the law or beyond its reach, not even a former president. That founding principle of our democracy would mean little if it were ignored with respect to those in whom the public most invests its trust. It would also be profoundly unfair for [Assistant U.S. Attorney John] Durham to focus his inquiry on low-level officials charged with implementing official policy but to ignore the role of those who authorized or ordered the use of torture.”

While it’s a bit hard to imagine Holder actually following through on that request, considering the firestorm that would undoubtedly follow, the ACLU isn’t the only group making this kind of statement: Amnesty International recently said Bush must be prosecuted in the wake of his admission. Either way, none of this talk is likely to faze Bush. If anything is clear from his frank admissions and recent interviews to promote Decision Points, it’s that this is someone at peace with what he did as president…and someone who’d much rather leave the fierce debate over his actions to everyone else.

I highly doubt that anything will come of this. It would set a very bad precedent, and it could conceivably open the door to prosecutions of all presidents for their military operations. Clinton could be prosecuted for bombing Iraq, or Obama could be prosecuted for anything that has gone on in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan.

The ACLU is just looking to embarrass Bush and keep public opinion low on him just when his approval numbers are starting to creep above Obama's.

Great News: Afghan President in Secret Talks With Taliban After He Loses Faith in Obama & US Victory

Even though has said that Afghanistan and a victory is "absolutely essential", he has yet to show that he means it in his actions, and Afghan President Karzai is beginning to notice as many in his circle are beginning to doubt where his true loyalties lie:

But underlying the tensions (within the Afghan government), according to Mr. Saleh and Afghan and Western officials, was something more profound: That Mr. Karzai had lost faith in the Americans and NATO to prevail in Afghanistan.

For that reason, Mr. Saleh and other officials said, Mr. Karzai has been pressing to strike his own deal with the Taliban and the country's archrival, Pakistan, the Taliban's longtime supporter. According to a former senior Afghan official, Mr. Karzai's maneuverings involve secret negotiations with the Taliban outside the purview of American and NATO officials.

"The president has lost his confidence in the capability of either the coalition or his own government to protect this country," Mr. Saleh said in an interview at his home. "President Karzai has never announced that NATO will lose, but the way that he does not proudly own the campaign shows that he doesn't trust it is working."

He is having secret meetings with the enemy?!? Has he lost faith in us so much that he feels that he must ingratiate himself with the side that he sees will be the eventual victors? Can you tell me why he has started losing faith in our victory? Hmmmm:

People close to the president say he began to lose confidence in the Americans last summer, after national elections in which independent monitors determined that nearly one million ballots had been stolen on Mr. Karzai's behalf. The rift worsened in December, when President Obama announced that he intended to begin reducing the number of American troops by the summer of 2011.

"Karzai told me that he can't trust the Americans to fix the situation here," said a Western diplomat in Kabul, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "He believes they stole his legitimacy during the elections last year. And then they said publicly that they were going to leave."

So, basically, the promise of withdrawing of troops by a certain deadline that Obama made in order to please his lefty base has resulted in not only the Taliban being emboldened, but it has, also, deflated the confidence and the desire for democracy that some in Afghanistan once had. Who woulda thunk it? Republicans and the military have been warning Obama about setting timetables because of exactly this reason. We can't half-ass this war and expect to win it. If we do, the American lives that have been lost, so far, would've been lost for nothing.

I wonder if this could have been somehow avoided. Did they have any prior warning of Karzai's waning allegiances?

Relations with Mr. Karzai have been rocky for some time, and international officials have expressed concern in the past that his decision making can be erratic. Last winter, Mr. Karzai accused NATO in a speech of ferrying Taliban fighters around northern Afghanistan in helicopters. Earlier this year, following criticism by the Obama administration, Mr. Karzai told a group of supporters that he might join the Taliban.

"HE MIGHT JOIN THE TALIBAN"?!? They knew this months ago?!? Why hasn't Obama done what needs to be done to win back the trust of a very important ally in the region and someone who is crucial to a successful campaign in Afghanistan? It is, as if, Obama doesn't truly care about a victory. Perhaps, his lack of dedication and attention is exactly why Karzai feels the need to ally himself with the enemy because Obama's heart isn't in it, and if you can't beat them, join them.

How bad could a secret alliance in between Karzai and the Taliban be?

In the interview, Mr. Saleh said he took offense at the exclusion. His primary job is to understand the Taliban, he said; leaving his agency off the commission made him worry that Mr. Karzai might intend to release hardened Taliban fighters.

"His conclusion is - a lot of Taliban have been wrongly detained, they should be released," Mr. Saleh said. "We are 10 years into the collapse of the Taliban - it means we don't know who the enemy is. We wrongly detain people."

This would completely undermine our efforts in Afghanistan and could be the turning point to our defeat, if we're not careful. We lost Vietnam, in part, because the South Vietnamese government and people lost their desire to fight their own people, even if it was for their freedom. That same thing could happen, today, if Obama doesn't do anything to turn this thing around. What could he do? He could meet with Karzai daily and reassure him of the strength of our resolve. He should rescind his order to withdraw troops next summer. This show the Taliban that we are in it to win it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like Obama really cares about winning.

Shocker: Iran Has Been Training, Supplying Taliban Soldiers

I need everyone to sit down. I hope that this doesn't come as a shock to any of you, but Iran is helping to fund and train the same Taliban fighters that are killing our soldiers in Afghanistan every day:

KABUL, Afghanistan - The commander of NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan said Sunday there is "clear evidence" that some Taliban fighters have trained in Iran.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal told reporters in the Afghan capital that Iran — Afghanistan's western neighbor — has generally assisted the Afghan government in fighting the insurgent group.

"There is, however, clear evidence of Iranian activity — in some cases providing weaponry and training to the Taliban — that is inappropriate," he said. McChrystal said NATO forces are working to stop both the training and the weapons trafficking.

When you add this to the fact that despite Obama and Europe begging and pleading w Iran to not pursue a nuclear program, it shows that Obama is totally incompetant when it comes to dealing with Iran. After all, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has enough fuel for two nuclear weapons.

To be fair, it would be near impossible for anyone to deal with that knucklehead that is in charge in Iran, right now.

Video: NYC Mayor, NY Democratic Senators Flop & Don't Want Terror Trials In NYC Anymore, Claim Danger, Cost Is Too High...Um Duh!

Mayor Bloomberg of New York City and the Democratic New York Senators all echoed the same sudden concern in this video for having the terror trials in New York City. Where was all this concern for the safety, cost, and economic disruption a few months ago, when Obama first tabled the idea? There was not one peep out any of those three. Where did did this revelation come from? Ed Morrissey thinks that he knows:

Until the attempted bombing of Northwest 253 on Christmas Day, Obama appeared to have some momentum on the law-enforcement approach.  However, the outrage over reading a terrorist his rights and providing him an attorney rather than a lengthy interrogation to discover what we could about any impending attacks has seriously derailed both the trial process and the closure of Gitmo.  After all, if the terrorists can’t get tried in federal court, they will have to be both tried and held in military custody — which means Gitmo, at least for the foreseeable future.

Now, they remember that there are those out there that want to kill us. I swear that I've heard that from someone else. I can't remember where. Oh yeah!

It seems that Obama might be finally caving into bipartisan pressure to keep KSM out of NYC:

White House officials have told the Justice Department to consider other venues for the 9/11 terror trial that was to be held in lower Manhattan, the Daily News has learned.

The decision came after Mayor Bloomberg and other politicians across the state railed against President Obama's plan to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Manhattan Federal Court.

Attorney General Eric Holder now has to think of other places where the trial could take place, officials said.

It was not immediately clear if the reassessment means the trial will definitely be moved out of the city.

Where can we move them? Maybe (this may be a crazy thought)...Gitmo?

Well, that is probably wishful thinking but not entirely out of the realm of possibility. If New York City doesn't want them there, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a city that would want to take on that albatross.

It's good to see that Obama and some of the Democrats have come to their senses a bit. Hopefully, they'll do their trials in Gitmo where they belong.

Coakley Claims There's No More We Can Do in Afghanistan, Our Job There is Done or Something

The special election to replace the recently departed Sen. Ted Kennedy is set to take place in Massachusetts a week from today, January 19th. It has been a brief but intense battle in between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown. Polls have it anywhere in between a Coakley blowout to a Brown 1-point victory. However, it's going to be very tough to turn the very liberal state purple. If the Republicans pull it off it'll break the Democrat's filibuster-proof majority, after holding it for only one year.

They had their final debate yesterday. Coakley, of course, played the "Bush Sucks" card that all Democrats have been using to garner support for the past three years.

Brown went after Coakley for being soft on terrorists, which is a normal talking point to hit Democrats with during campaigns. However, Coakley said something about the War on Terror that seemed to justify all of Brown's accusations:

Coakley, the state attorney general, said she disagreed with Obama's decision and believes there are better ways to fight terrorist organizations than sending troops into every country where they have a presence. She also said it's time to bring home the troops still in Afghanistan.

"This is not about sending troops everywhere where we think al-Qaida is," she said. "I think we have done what we can in Afghanistan."

She is, basically, wanting to waive the white flag in Afghanistan. This would be a disaster as the Taliban and Al-Quaeda would no doubt return more emboldened then ever. They would claim a victorty over their "Great Satan", the United States. There would be no stopping them as they would feel like they could get away with pulling off further attacks as America would eventually cave.

In contrast, Brown supported the troop surge in Afghanistan and spoke out against letting captured terrorists "lawyer up".

Healthcare reform bill was, also, debated as, predictably, Brown opposed and Coakley unequivocally supports the bill, but it was the Afghanistan issue that really brought out how liberal Martha Coakley really is.

PS: Here's a video that I thought was really telling of this point:

Obama: Maybe Those Man-Made Disaster Makers Will Be Our Guests Indefinitely

The ACLU will be thrilled:

The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Obama's possible adoption of this stance further signals to the world that he is realizing that Bush guy may have been on the right after all. Although, he will never actually go right out and admit it.

First, Obama admits that closing Gitmo is much harder than first thought. Then, he brings military tribunals back and he fights the release of the "torture" photos.

What's next? Maybe he'll realize that Gitmo ain't really that bad, and keep it open for the next few years.

Hey, after all of the lack of change in between the Bush and Obama policies on foreign policy, it is a real possibility.

Obama Has Epiphany: Torture Photos Will "Further Inflame Anti-American Opinion"

Obama had an amazing revelation about releasing the "torture" photos:

President Obama defended his decision to fight the release of photos showing detainee abuse Wednesday afternoon, saying it would only put American troops in harms way and create a backlash against Americans.

"The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger," the president said before departing on his trip to Arizona. "Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse."

The move is a complete 180. In a letter from the Justice Department to a federal judge on April 23, the Obama administration announced that the Pentagon would turn over 44 photographs showing detainee abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush administration.

It's nice to see Obama coming to the same conclusion that everyone else other than the hard left came to months ago. If the photos are released, they will become "locker room fodder" and recruiting tools for Al-Qaeda.

The courts could end up releasing the photos anyway, but he should fight them tooth and nail to stop it.

After 100 Days: Voter Confidence of War on Terror Victory Drops 20 Points

Amazing, the War on Terror went from all but won when Bush left office to the terroristis are making a comeback under the Obama administration:

Just 42% of likely voters now believe the United States and its allies are winning the War on Terror, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

That's down from 50% two weeks ago, down from 62% in early February, and is the lowest level of confidence since June 30, 2008.

Twenty-eight percent (28%) now say the terrorists are winning. That's the highest number offering that pessimistic assessment since October 2007.

Way to go, Obama! Keep up the good work. By this time next year, people will think the war is lost.

You can see Obama's legacy taking shape can't you.

Irony Alert: Taliban Uses Suicide Jackasses Against Troops

Taliban turns to suicide jackasses to fight troops in Afghanistan:

A senior British Army officer and six other military personnel survived an attack when a tethered donkey laden with explosives was detonated as their armored vehicle passed in southern Afghanistan.

Does anyone else find in interesting that they're using the Democratic symbol to fight our troops?

Pelosi: I Never Knew About Waterboarding In 2002, Former CIA Director: Yes, You Did

There is a classic case of he said/she said in Washington. Pelosi swears that she never knew that terrorists were being waterboarded:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she was never told during a congressional briefing in 2002 that waterboarding or other "enhanced" interrogation techniques were being used on terrorism suspects.

However, there has been some suspicion that she might have been less than truthful in that statement:

But in a story published in the Washington Post in December 2007, two officials were quoted saying that the California Democrat and three other lawmakers had received an hour-long secret briefing on the interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, and that they raised no objections at the time.

The clash of accounts has stirred Republican claims that Democrats have selective and politically motivated amnesia when it comes to who knew what, and when, about the Bush-era interrogation programs.

Yesterday, Porter J. Goss, one of the four lawmakers in the previously mentioned secret briefing and former CIA director, definitely blew her story out of the water, even though he never mentioned Pelosi by name:

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

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

Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:

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

What Goss leaves out is that the Dear Speaker was the ranking Democratic member on the House intel committee in 2002. As the ranking Democratic leader, she would have been told of such techniques in this briefing.

Goss goes on:

-- We understood what the CIA was doing.

-- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.

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

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

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

So, not only did Pelosi lie and say that she didn't know when she did, but she apparently didn't have any problem with it.

Obama Was For War Spending; Then Against It; Now For It Again

PObama Seeks $83B for War Spending in Iraq, Afghanistan

President Obama's request, including money to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. AP
Thursday, April 09, 2009

President Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president.

Obama's request, including money to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall.

Obama is also requesting $350 million in new funding to upgrade security along the U.S.-Mexico border and to combat narcoterrorists, along with another $400 million in counterinsurgency aid to Pakistan.

"Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to take responsibility for their own future -- and work to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Obama wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, acknowledged that Obama has been critical of Bush's use of similar special legislation to pay for the wars. He said it was needed this time because the money will be required by summer, before Congress is likely to complete its normal appropriations process.

"This will be the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan. The process by which this has been funded over the course of the past many years, the president has discussed and will change," Gibbs said.

Last June, Congress approved $66 billion in advance 2009 funding for military operations. All told, the Pentagon would receive $142 billion in war funding for the budget year ending on Sept. 30.

The request is likely to win easy approval from the Democratic-controlled Congress, despite frustration among some liberals over the pace of troop withdrawals and Obama's plans for a large residual force of up to 50,000 troops -- about one-third of the force now there -- who will train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and personnel and conduct anti-terror operations.

The official request was sent early Thursday evening.

The request would fund an average force level in Iraq of 140,000 U.S. troops. It would also finance Obama's initiative to boost troop levels in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 from the current 39,000. And it would provide $2.2 billion to accelerate the Pentagon's plans to increase the overall size of the U.S. military, including a 547,400-person active-duty Army.

Some Democrats were not pleased.

"This funding will do two things -- it will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely," said anti-war Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. "Instead of attempting to find military solutions to the problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama must fundamentally change the mission in both countries to focus on promoting reconciliation, economic development, humanitarian aid, and regional diplomatic efforts."

But House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio predicted that Republicans would overwhelmingly support the request, provided congressional Democrats don't seek to "micromanage" the war by adding a timeline or other restrictions on the ability of military officials to carry on the fight.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, said, "The reality is the alternative to the supplemental is a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of the United States from both places, and I don't know anybody who thinks that's a good idea." He said, "The reality is it would put everything we have achieved in Iraq at tremendous risk, and I believe it would greatly endanger our troops."

Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war as a presidential candidate, a stance that attracted support from the Democratic Party's liberal base and helped him secure his party's nomination. He opposed an infusion of war funding in 2007 after Bush used a veto to force Congress to remove a withdrawal timeline from the $99 billion measure.

But he supported a war funding bill last year that also included about $25 billion for domestic programs. Obama also voted for war funding in 2006, before he announced his candidacy for president.

The request includes $75.8 billion for the military and more than $7 billion in foreign aid. Pakistan, a key ally in the fight against al-Qaida, will receive $400 million in aid to combat insurgents.

The upcoming debate in Congress is likely to provide an early test of Obama's efforts to remake the Pentagon and its much-criticized weapons procurement system. He is requesting four F-22 fighter jets costing about $600 million as part of the war funding package but wants to shut the F-22 program down after that.

The special measure would include $3.6 billion for the Afghanistan National Army.

The White House wants the bill for the president's signature by Memorial Day, said a House Democratic aide.

Obama announced plans in February to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq on a 19-month timetable.

His new request would push the war and diplomatic money approved for 2009 to about $150 billion. The totals were $171 billion for 2007 and $188 billion for 2008, the year Bush increased the tempo of military operations in a generally successful effort to quell the Iraq insurgency.

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/09/obama-seek-b-war-spending/
---------------------------------------------------------------

Major war-funding legislation while Barack Obama was in the Senate, and how he voted:

_May 2005: Congress approved an $82 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and international anti-terrorism efforts. Obama voted yes.

_June 2006: Congress cleared a $94.5 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as provide aid to hurricane victims. Obama voted yes.

_September 2006: Congress cleared a $448 billion Pentagon funding bill that included $70 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama voted yes.

_April 2007: Congress cleared a $124 billion spending bill that provided $90 billion for war costs but mandated the withdrawal of U.S. troops within six months. Obama voted yes, but President George W. Bush vetoed the legislation.

_May 2007: Congress approved a roughly $100 billion spending measure to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and domestic projects, including hurricane relief. Obama voted no.

_December 2007: Congress cleared a $555 billion catchall spending bill that included $70 billion for U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama did not vote.

_June 2008: Congress approved a measure to spend $162 billion for war costs as well as provide a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits and emergency relief for the flood-ravaged Midwest. Obama voted yes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090409/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_war_costs_votes_1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts

While Obama is doing the right thing funding our troops, it is still a bit confusing because contradictory to his stance on funding the war over the last few years.

He spent two out of the last three years voting against spending on the war. He only voted for it when it was advantageous for him to do so to seem more moderate last year. It again makes me wonder who Obama really is.

I, also, like that he is trying to strengthen security at the US-Mexico border. However, just throwing money at the problem won't fix it. Let's see how they use the extra funds.

David Axelrod: Bush More of a "Statesman" Than Cheney, To Axelrod: Define Statesman

My Thoughts

This again shows what it actually takes for a Democrat to compliment and like a Republican. They need to shut up and let them do what they want.

The main difference between what Bush and Cheney have done since leaving office is that Bush has refused to say anything about what he thinks of Obama's plans and policies. On the other hand, Cheney hasn't been shy to tell anyone that will listen that he doesn't like what Obama has been doing so far.

In response to what Axelrod actually said about Al-Quaeda still being around after 7 years, it is a fact that they haven't been able to hit us domestically since 9/11. Is that fact lost on him? While it is true that they are still around, their ability to actually pull something significant off has been severely crippled. They have been virtually impotent over the last 7 years. They've been mostly cornered in a small part of Pakistan. The only reason why we can't go into Pakistan and retrieve them is that it would mean invading a third country and adding another stage to the War on Terror. We are just not able to pull it off militarily or willing to ostracize an ally.

Obama Denies Pakistani Invasion On Table After Days of Dodging Question

Obama rules out US troop raids into Pakistan
March 29, 2009

As he carries out a retooled strategy in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama says he will consult with Pakistan's leaders before pursuing terrorist hideouts in that country.

Obama said U.S. ally Pakistan needs to be more accountable, but ruled out deploying U.S. troops there. "Our plan does not change the recognition of Pakistan as a sovereign government," the president told CBS' "Face the Nation" in an interview broadcast Sunday.

The president also bemoaned the tenuous security situation in Afghanistan, saying, "Unless we get a handle on it now, we're gonna be in trouble." He made clear that his new strategy for the long war is "not going to be an open-ended commitment of infinite resources" from the United States.

In a wide-ranging interview, Obama sought to counter the notion that Afghanistan has become his war. He emphasized that it started on George W. Bush's watch.

"I think it's America's war. And it's the same war that we initiated after 9/11 as a consequence of those attacks," Obama said. "The focus over the last seven years, I think, has been lost."

Obama taped the interview Friday, the same day he launched the fresh effort to defeat al-Qaida terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan, widening a war that began after terrorists struck the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. He set new benchmarks and ordered 4,000 more troops to the war zone as well as hundreds of civilians and increased aid. The plan does not include an exit timeline.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in an interview on "Fox News Sunday," said the short-term objectives for U.S. forces in Afghanistan have narrowed under Obama's new strategy even as a flourishing democracy in Afghanistan remains a long-term goal.

"I think what we need to focus on and focus our efforts is making headway and reversing the Taliban's momentum and strengthening the Afghan army and police, and really going after al-Qaida, as the president said," Gates said.

Al-Qaida terrorists are still a serious threat and retain the ability to plan attacks against the United States even though they have been inhibited over the past several years, Gates said.

Both Pakistan and Afghanistan have praised the new U.S. strategy for dealing with growing violence in the region.

But Obama has irked Pakistan since taking office in January by retaining a powerful but controversial weapon left over from the Bush administration's fight against terrorism: unmanned Predator drone missile strikes on Pakistan along its border with Afghanistan.

Pakistan has urged Obama to halt the strikes. But Gates has signaled to Congress that the U.S. would continue to go after al-Qaida inside Pakistan, and senior Obama administration officials have called the strikes effective.

Without directly referring to the strikes, Obama said: "If we have a high-value target within our sights, after consulting with Pakistan, we're going after them. But our main thrust has to be to help Pakistan defeat these extremists."

Asked if he meant he would put U.S. troops on the ground in Pakistan, Obama said: "No." He noted that Pakistan is a sovereign nation and said: "We need to work with them and through them to deal with al-Qaida. But we have to hold them much more accountable."

"What we wanna do is say to the Pakistani people: You are our friends, you are our allies. We are going to give you the tools to defeat al-Qaida and to root out these safe havens. But we also expect some accountability. And we expect that you understand the severity and the nature of the threat," Obama added.

His strategy is built on an ambitious goal of boosting the Afghan army from 80,000 to 134,000 troops by 2011 — and greatly increasing training by U.S. troops accompanying them — so the Afghan military can defeat Taliban insurgents and take control of the war.

In the interview, Obama said he won't assume that more troops will result in an improved situation. "There may be a point of diminishing returns in terms of troop levels. We've gotta also make sure that our civilian efforts, our diplomatic efforts and our development efforts, are just as robustly encouraged."

Obama agreed that things are worse than ever in Afghanistan, and then sought to clarify his point.

"They're not worse than they were when the Taliban was in charge and al-Qaida was operating with impunity," Obama said. But, he added, "We have seen a deterioration over the last several years."

"This is gonna be hard," Obama said. "I'm under no illusions. If it was easy, it would have already been completed." He also stressed the need to be flexible. "We will continue to monitor and adjust our strategies to make sure that we're not just going down blind alleys."

Richard Holbrooke, U.S. envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, dismissed comparing the war in Afghanistan to U.S. involvement in Vietnam more than a generation ago.

"The Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese never posed any direct threat to the United States and its homeland," Holbrooke, a Vietnam veteran, said on "State of the Union" on CNN.

"The people we are fighting in Afghanistan, and the people they are sheltering in western Pakistan, pose a direct threat. Those are the men of 9/11, the people who killed Benazir Bhutto," Holbrooke said, referring to the slain former Pakistan prime minister. "And you can be sure that, as we sit here today, they are planning further attacks on the United States and our allies."

© 2009 Associated Press

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MzA1OTM2OA==
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Of course, he has to say no, but his skirting of the question over the last few days tells me more than his actual answer today. I believe that his non-answer answer caught him some heat from Pakistan. So, he had to actually make the statement that he wouldn't invade. In reality, it probably is still on the table. Although, it is thought of only as a last resort.

Obama Won't Confirm Nor Deny Possible Pakistani Invasion Plans

White House Won't Rule Out Troops for Pakistan War (Updated)

By Noah Shachtman
March 27, 2009 | 6:08:00

President Obama has just laid out his new war strategy. And he's made it clear that the fight is both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So I asked Dennis McDonough, with the National Security Council: Does that mean U.S. ground forces in Pakistan? Or more drone attacks? "I'm not going to comment on the notions you laid out there," he answered, during a White House conference call with bloggers.

But during a separate press conference, Bruce Reidel, who recently completed a strategy review of the region for the White House, offered some hints. "Thus far, our policy sees Afghanistan and Pakistan as two countries, but one theater of operations for our diplomacy, and one challenge for our overall policy," he said. "We have very concrete proposals for increasing economic assistance to Pakistan, proposals that have already been put forward by the Congress. We're also looking at what we can do on the military side."

Michele Flournoy, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, added, "I certainly believe we are going to be increasing our intelligence focus in this [Afghan-Pakistan] theater, and as opportunities arise that may increase the pace of operations, as well."

Richard Holbrooke, the administration special envoy to the region, said about Pakistan: "of all the dilemmas, problems and challenges we face, that's going to be the most daunting, because it's a sovereign country and there is a red line. And the red line is unambiguous and stated publicly by the Pakistani government over and over again: No foreign troops on our soil." Last week, Holbrooke said "we must respect" that "red line." Yet, when given the opportunity today to state unambiguously that U.S. troops won't go to Pakistan, administration officials didn't give a clear answer. If anything, they side-stepped the question.

Draw your own conclusions. Maybe I'm reading too much into this. But to me, they're saying: Yes, there could well be more forces (both human and robotic). We'd just rather not talk about them.

UPDATE: In an interview on the Pentagon Channel, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked whether American troops would go after Osama bin Laden or one of his top lieutenants, if they were found in Pakistan. His answer:

"I don't anticipate that U.S. troops would be going into Pakistan in that way. A big part of what the President announced today is a new kind of partnership with Pakistan, including economic assistance. But also a willingness to help train their forces and provide the gear that would allow them to improve their own capabilities in counterinsurgency. What is key here is the regionalization of the problem and getting Afghanistan and Pakistan to work together on both sides of that border to go after al Qaeda and it allies...

"Al Qaeda operates on both sides of that border. And you really have to go after al Qaeda and its allies on both sides of that border. And what's required here is just greater coordination and collaboration -- first of all, between the Afghans and the Pakistanis, but also between each of them and ourselves. Both on a bilateral basis and on a trilateral basis, I think we have to go after these guys on both sides of the border." (emphasis mine)

Later in the blogger conference call, Spencer Ackerman asked McDonough about what the President really means by "disrupting" and "defeating" al Qaeda. His answers were... well, a little unexpected.

McDonough defined "disrupting" as making sure Osama's pals couldn't carry out attacks in Europe or America any more.  The terror cell or cells could still be intact - just impotent. Which is different from how I've imagined a "disrupted " al Qaeda before.

But the really interesting answer was about "defeating" the Osama-ites. Sure, there's a harcorde element that "has to be met by force alone." But not everyone has to to be turned into Predator flambe. To make sure new recruits don't take the place of the fried ones, "the violent, hopeless future offered by Al Qaeda is outshone by different opportunities" in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As Ackerman points out, "Notice that 'defeat' here is has an ideological meaning, and its primary measurement comes from the perceptions of Afghans and Pakistanis themselves."

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/03/white-house-won.html
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

This could just be posturing by Obama. I find it a little hard to believe that a hardcore anti-Iraq war congressman would turn into a president who is willing to invade another country. That is something he criticized Bush for relentlessly for 2 years on the campaign trail. It could be seen a too big of a flip-flop or hypocritical of Obama to send troops into the Afghan neighbor.

When is Code Pink and the other anti-war protestors going to protest Obama for implementing a surge in Afghanistan and implying that a war with tribal leaders in Pakistan might be possible? Is Ed Schultz going to call Obama a "warmonger" as he did McCain?