Archive for category War on Terror

How Ostensibly Patriotic Americans Help Al Qaeda Win the War on Terror

Sarah Palin Wrapping Herself in the Flag

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The very nature of terror is best explained by the various elements of it’s definition:  a state of intense fear, often intentionally induced in a population by the actions of others for political purposes.

The present War on Terror, as it has come to be labeled, was initiated by Al Qaeda with the first bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, and culminated in the final attacks and destruction of those buildings on 9/11.  The ends of those attacks were achieved in that Americans have now lived in a state of persistent and intense fear going on for nine consecutive years. 

The subsequent failures to complete additional terrorists attacks on the United States since 9/11 are not near as important as the mere affect that those attempts have on the psyche of the American public.  After all, the achievement of the singular objective of creating terror does not require that anyone be killed or maimed.  To the contrary.  In fact, it is simply the capacity to maintain a steady level of an intense feeling that the potential for harm is always present in our minds that determines the success of Al Qaeda.  In that sense, they have certainly surpassed their expectations.

Even more important to the goals of Al Qaeda is the general breakdown of the civil, political and economic fabric of America.  To the extent that those elements of our social structure begin to crumble and dissolve into complete turmoil as a result of the fear that has been instilled in us, the greater the degree of success the terrorists will have achieved in reaching those goals.   Once again, on that basis, the terrorists are achieving their objectives.

As we bear witness to the daily political and psychological assaults on our fellow Americans by others who pretend that they are somehow more patriotic and superior because of their personal philosophies, we should stop and ask ourselves these questions:

First - to what extent do these unwarranted criticisms of the patriotism of other Americans merely increase our fear of terrorism?

Second – to what degree do these personal attacks on other Americans tear at the fabric of our social and political structure, thereby inadvertently facilitating the goals of the terrorists?

Finally – does wrapping oneself in the American Flag make you anymore American than others?

I think most of us know the answer.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Can Liz Cheney Really Keep America Safe?

 Atticus Finch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ATTICUS FINCH (Gregory Peck) in “TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD”

 

Hardly!

Why?  Because she advocates the use of fear that rises to the level of McCarthyism, as demonstrated in the recent video released by her political organization, Keep America Safe

A significant number of well-respected Conservatives have deeply criticized the video’s characterization of current Justice Department lawyers as Un-American because of their previous legal representation of suspected terrorist detainees.  One of the greatest callings in the American legal system is defending both the unpopular and the guilty. This role is epitomized by the lawyer Atticus Finch in the movie “To Kill a Mockingbird“, rated as the best courtroom movie of all time by the American Film Institute.

Liz Cheney is a lawyer.  If she attended her classes in law school, she should have a basic understanding of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as well as the principles of American Jurisprudence, all of which ensure due process for everyone who is charged with a violation of the laws of the United States, regardless of citizenship.  Her failure to grasp those most fundamental principles of the American justice system only further undermines any semblance of credibility regarding her legal or political opinion. 

One of her former law professors, the esteemed Richard A. Epstein, of the University of Chicago School of Law. said it best:  “There’s something truly bizarre about this.”  Which only begs the question:  Is she a moron, or just pathologically shameless and void of any conscience?  Maybe it runs in the family?

Most importantly, however, is the real reason why Liz Cheney cannot “Keep America Safe”. 

If she relies on the argument that America was much safer from an attack by terrorists during her father’s tenure with the Bush Administration, one need look no further than the Presidential Daily Brief of August 6, 2001, titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”, in order to completely discredit this notion.  Her father publicly admitted in May of 2002 on Fox News that he read the brief, and then attempted in vain to dismiss it’s warnings as inconclusive, while simultanously advocating that the brief not be released for public disclosure.   Interesting . . .

As this author has pointed out in the post titled “Failing to Connect the Dots: The Lights Were Blinking Red“, that evidence is the most damning indictment of Dick Cheney’s part in the collective negligence of the Bush Administration’s failure to prevent the attacks on 9/11.  No wonder he did not want you to read it’s contents.  To compound matters even further was their colossal failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden at the battle of Tora Bora, Afghanistan in December of 2001.  Simply put, Dick Cheney obviously has no valid standing to criticize the Obama Administration’s policies regarding terrorism and the prosecution of terrorists.

By extension, as well as by her own volition, neither does Liz Cheney. 

Case closed.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Senator Shelby: Now Can You & Allah Bama Stop Giving Aid and Assistance to the Enemy?

Senator Richard Shelby and Saddam Hussein [holding hands]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SENATOR RICHARD SHELBY HOLDING HANDS WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN [circa 1990

  

Dear Senator Shelby:

As noted in this author’s previous post, you were playing politics with the lives of young American soldiers in order to get your way over the issue of awarding Northrop Grumman a contract to build a refueling tanker plane in your home state of Allah Bama.

Now Northrop Grumman has withdrawn it’s bid to build the planes, and will not file a formal protest because, in the words of Northrop’s chief executive, Wesley G. Bush, “service men and women have been forced to wait too long for new tankers.”

Senator Shelby:  Service men and women have also been forced to wait too long for Senate confirmation of Obama’s appointee who is designated to become top Department of Defense point-man for readiness and managing deployments to Afghanistan, all because of you

They are still waiting . . .

P.S.  The picture in the caption was taken in 1990 during a Congressional junket to Iraq by Senator Shelby and Senator Arlen Spector.  The authenticity of this trip can be confirmed right here on Senator Spector’s website.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Were Dick Cheney’s Chest Pains and Terrorist Najibullah Zazi’s Guilty Plea in NY Federal District Court Earlier Today Just a Coincidence?

092009Terror_Suspect_FBI.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dick-Cheney Gettin' His Props 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

 

 

It would take a really big washrag to wipe that huge grin off my face right now.  :)

 

Click here and here – then read ScrewedUS.com Memo to Dick Cheney.

 

Don’t you just love life’s little ironies?

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Memo To Dick Cheney: Me Thinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much

 richard reid

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shoe Bomber Richard Reid – Poster Child for Dick Cheney’s Hypocrisy

 

 

This morning on NBC’s Meet the Press, Vice President Joe Biden responded to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s attacks on the Obama Administration’s handling of accused Christmas Day terrorist bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.  As Biden accurately stated, Cheney is “”not entitled to rewrite history. He’s not entitled to his own facts“, correctly pointing out that the Bush Administration also prosecuted shoe bomber Richard Reid in a civilian court.  This author just commented this past week on the duplicity with which you and other Republicans are terrorizing the American people over this nonsense, after your Administration tried over 150 terrorists in civilians courts – including one of the 9/11 co-conspirators.

This blog contains a number of entries addressing Cheney’s constant attacks on the current Administration, and why he has absolutely no standing to criticize Obama; particularly because of the hypocrisy pertaining to the decisions and policies of the Bush Administration – specifically, their failure to prevent the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and the subsequent blunder that led to Osama bin Laden’s escape from Tora Bora, Afghanistan ninety days later.

Playing armchair psychologist is fraught with dangers of misdiagnosis, as well as the tendency towards over-generalization of certain symptoms as definitive indicators of a specific pathology.  Nevertheless, and admittedly at the risk of the cognitive dissonance in ignoring my own advice to the contrary, I will venture a psychological explanation on why Dick Cheney’s persistent revisionist history reveals the depth of his pathological dissonance.  Which may be why Cheney is rated the most unpopular Vice President in modern historyeven surpassing Dan Quayle (say it ain’t so Dick).

If an action has been completed and cannot be undone, then the after-the-fact dissonance compels us to change our beliefs.”  What most often occurs in the aftermath of undeniable factual evidence of an action that betrays our personal beliefs or opinions is a growing increase in dissonance in direct relationship to “the importance of the subject to us, how strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict, and our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.

In other words, when we cannot reconcile our beliefs and opinions with the undeniable existence of facts that contradicts them, we defend our position even more zealously.   Denial of the Holocaust by people like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – who ironically may be Jewish - is a stark  example of this behavior.

It is William Shakespeare’s often misquoted poetic commentary [as in the body of the subject line of this entry] that is the most famous historical observation on this human condition:

The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.”

      

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Homer Simpson Republicans Terrorize U.S. Over Terrorists’ Trials

 homer-simpson-doh 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Terrorism is about creating fear.

Republicans are now clearly trying to create fear in the minds of the American public about the Obama Administration’s prosecution of terrorists in civilian courts.  They are insinuating several things:  one, that terrorists are “enemy combatants”, and therefore should be tried in military courts; two, that allowing them to be tried in civilian courts will only invite another attack on U.S. soil; third that these defendants are not entitled to any constitutional rights; and finally, that Obama is soft on terrorism.

These constitutional law geniuses include half-term Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), former Vice President Dick Cheney (Chief Republican Hypocrite – Washington, D.C.), and Chief Conservative spokesman Rush Limbaugh (former drug addict, and college drop-out).

Amazing how incensed these Conservatives are about this “recent” decision to take accused terrorists to trial in civilian courts, particularly after the Bush Administration tried over ONE HUNDRED FIFTY terrorists in the same federal courts, including such high-profile cases as 9/11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and shoe bomber Richard Reid. 

Just in case any of you other hypocrites out there have also conveniently forgotten, Reid was going to blow up a plane on an international flight bound for the U.S.

D’oh“!

P.S.  Since yesterday, when this was posted, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has proposed cutting off federal funding for terrorists trials in civil court.  Add his name to the rapidly growing list of Homer Simpson constitutional law geniuses and conservative hypocrites.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Fighting both the Islamic Terrorists, as well as the Financial Terrorists with Terror

Apocalypse Now

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Al Qaida and Wall Street understand how to use terror!

First, you place American citizens in deep fear of some unimaginable catastrophe by destroying two very tall skyscrapers full of people, or by sending the global economy into an almost irreversible tailspin.  Second, you continually remind them through repetitive conditioning (suicide bombers on planes or wide-spread bankruptcies and unemployment) that it could happen again tomorrow.  Finally, you then reap the results of their irrational behavior from the resulting Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD):  1) two debt-laden wars, with the associated horrific physical deaths and wounding of tens of thousands of innocent  young soldiers; 2) financial system-breaking bailouts, with huge profits for a select group of well-connected banks, as well as obscene bonuses for the well-heeled financial terrorist executives who reside at the top of those businesses.

The answer to the problem?

Well on the first front, President Obama and his advisers seem to understand that General McChrystal’s “urge to surge” in Afghanistan was only an appeasement to military strategists, and simply moves more targets (soldiers) into closer proximity for the Islamic terrorists to attack.  More importantly, Obama and company also understand that terrorizing the Islamic Terrorists is a far more effective and efficient use of resources.

This strategy was first articulated in Obama’s campaign for President, wherein he declared that he would not hesitate to send large numbers of drones into the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area to bring the fight to our enemies in their own backyard.  Guess what?  It is working.

As one resident of the region was recently quoted, “[w]e have become used to the drone attacks, but now people are scared as they are coming every night.” Israr Khan Dawar, a 17-year-old student in Mir Ali, a town in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan which is controlled by Islamic militants, said “more noise means they are flying lower, and that means an attack is more likely.”  Sadly, these civilians are collateral damage in an unfortunate war that they have been drawn into as a result of the reckless behavior of those around them. 

As for the second front (the Financial Terrorists), we need a scorched-earth strategy like Colonel Kurtz employed in the movie Apocalypse Now, and not some lame federal “banking fee“.  Obama should temporarily nationalize the ten largest U.S. banks, starting with Goldman Sachs, throw their management out, replacing them with people who will act without reckless abandon in search of profits and then make money the old-fashioned way – loaning it out at reasonable rates of interest.

Now THAT would sufficiently terrorize Wall Street.

Unfortunately, it is likely far too late.  The time to have moved on this would have been one year ago, when they were at the mercy of the Feds.  They won that war, and now we ARE screwed.

P.S.  For all you “Capitalists” out there who would label such a drastic measure as “Socialism” – that’s what we have been doing for the past year - you better find a more cogent response.  Besides, as Nouriel Roubini (”Dr. Doom”)suggested in the Wall Street Journal inteview, we would only ”nationalize” this sector of our financial system temporarily.  It would seem prudent at that point to break up these banks into smaller entities, impose moderate regulations on them (especially with usury rates of 18% on credit cards), and spin off the trading and investment side of the firms - regulating them in move inventive ways.  We would have then re-privatized them all within twelve months.

President Obama, that would have sufficiently vanquished the Financial Terrorists, and further given pause to Wall Street’s minions, forcing them to rethink how they are going to conduct business going forward.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Failing to Connect the Dots: “The System Was Blinking Red”

bush on vacation at ranch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could anyone not resist this easy knockdown of both Fox News’ criticism of President Obama for staying on vacation, as well as The New York Daily News’ focus on Michael Lieter, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, for remaining on vacation after the attempted terror bombing of an airplane on Christmas Day.  The newspaper quotes one source who said, “”People have been grumbling that he didn’t let a little terrorism interrupt his vacation.”  The newspaper then states that the NTCT is “under intense scrutiny for failing to ‘connect the dots’.” 

Really?  So were these same people grumbling after the 9/11 Commission Report was released?

As for Fox News and the New York Daily News: when it comes to reporting on someone staying on vacation after “failing to connect the dots”, you also might want to take a look at the 9/11 Commission Report - specifically the chapter titled The System Was Blinking Red“.

It is not a far reach to guess that neither one of these ostensibly “fair and balanced” media sources ever pointed out the fact that President Bush never left his ranch in Crawford, Texas after August 6, 2001, the day he received his Presidential Daily Brief that Osama bin Laden intended to strike the United States – just 35 days prior to 9/11?  Or that Bush stayed on vacation for the remainder of August, 2001, returning to Washington the week before 9/11?

Looks like they failed to connect the dots when it comes to reporting.

ScrewedUS.com connected the dots:)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Obama’s Answer to Battling Terrorism – Terrorist Profiling?

 stop terrorism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Today President Obama is addressing the security lapses that occurred regarding the attempted terrorist bombing  on Christmas Day in order to ensure the American public that his Administration is taking the proper steps to review and remedy the procedures that led to inaction on the information that was provided to security agencies, as well as silence his critics.  Johnathan Alter of Newsweek even went so far as to suggest that the President needs to negotiate with Dick Cheney in order to get him to stop criticizing the Administration on it’s War on Terror

That is utter nonsense.  Dick Cheney is a hypocrite, as Alter himself acknowledges, and thereby irrelevant in his lame attempts to critique this Administration.

More to the point is Howard Fineman’s intelligent and inciteful essay in Newsweek noting that President Obama has several options to battle terrorism, suggesting one that I have long been philosophically opposed to on the principle of protecting the constitutional rights of individuals:  profiling terrorists.  Why, you might ask would I oppose this tactic?  Before you prejudge my reasoning – “oh, this is just more Liberal gobbly-gook” - try reading clear to the end of this post.  You just might  be surprised by my conclusions.

The reason for my opposition to any type of profiling is the overwhelming evidence that there is a significant and unwarranted risk that it will ultimately result in few arrests and too many innocent people being wrongfully detained or otherwise unfairly targeted by security and law enforcement, and which has been scientifically proven to be both ineffective, as well as a waste of precious time and resources.  That does not even speak to the “human cost” of targeting innocent people. 

Moreover, law enforcement officials are widely known to rely on a multitude of nonsensical reasons under the guise of “reasonable suspicion” – which is not ironically the legal standard for a lawful search and seizure – as a legal basis for stopping someone because the officer thinks they may be involved in a crime.  Many people would say, “well, so what . . . we have to sacrifice the emotional security of a few for the personal security of the many.” 

This argument has been forwarded for over a century subsequent to a long line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding individuals 4th Amendment right to be free from unlawful search and seizure.  Very few Americans have any real indepth knowledge as to the historical basis for this fundamental right recognized by our founding fathers, as well as a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of case law protecting us from unwarranted and excessive intrusions upon our privacy by agents of the government. 

But I digress from the central point of the issue of terrorist profiling.

Although I will always remain highly skeptical of law enforcement offficer’s motivations and justifications as a result of my professional experience (I have caught too many of them lying in court, while under oath), there just might be a reasoned and measured manner for accomplishing our national security objectives with a modicum of protection for the innocent.  On the other hand, no one should pretend that profiling will easily identify and stop those who intend to kill innocent people and terrorize us.  There are no simplistic solutions to this difficult and contentious issue.

The deeds of evil men are rarely so apparent until after they are completed.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Dick Cheney: Have You Even Read the 9/11 Commission Report?

9-11 Commision Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dick Cheney, you were given fair warning to “quit ditherting, and just fade away.”  And just like taking candy from a baby, every time you open your mouth to criticize President Obama, you make it so easyto keep pointing out your transparent hypocrisy, as well as the abject failures of your administration.

So now you say President Obama is “trying to pretend we are not at war“?

Dick Cheney, read this chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report - and specifically the Presidential Daily Brief given on August 6, 2001 , from the National Security Archives – then let’s talk about who was trying to pretend we were not at war.  In case you cannot count, that would be just 35 days before 9/11.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments