Obama And The Coming Collapse Of National Security

Dissident Dingo over at Resistance Day blog has penned a terrific essay about Barack Obama's weakness on national security and what it will mean to us over the next four years.

Here are some excerpts:

Barack Obama will be tested on the national security front. The tests will not come only from the Islamic terrorists either. Russia, North Korea, Iran and the Chinese all smell weakness. They see an inexperienced, un-tested and immature President who seems to believe that the power of his personality will be enough to keep our enemies under control. He believes that the entire world is no different than the American media who love him. He is wrong, of course, but will he realize this when the test comes? ... Obama will be tested and he will handle it badly. Biden knows this and his comments were a plea for the media to stay in the tank and support him…no matter what. Remember, Obama is “too big to fail”. Obama is "historic". We cannot let the first affirmative action President be a mediocre one can we? As conservatives, we take the defense of our country seriously. National security is serious business and failure, in this day and age, means a lot of dead Americans. That is why we don’t vote for the likes of Obama. We do not vote for leftists who view national security (and all other Constitutional functions of government) as a waste of time and resources that should be used for liberal, unconstitutional functions of government. ... Wasn't it the misguided former Democrat Senator John Edwards who called the War on Terror a “bumper sticker”? No, John. “Hope” is a bumper sticker. The War on Terror was President Bush’s response to an ideology that has the declared objective of wiping us out. And they’re still out there. They’re weaker and they enjoy far less support from countries that they could once count on when the Clinton Administration was napping. But, they’re still committed.

This essay is very powerful and telling. I hope that all members of the Republican National Committee read it and that the GOP takes it heart in 2010.

You can access the complete column on-line here:


National Security And The Coming Barackalypse
Dissdent Dingo
Resistance Day Blog
January 23, 2009

Not By Word But By Action: Obama Declares The Terrorists Have Won

No, you didn't misread the headline. Barack Obama has effectively given the terrorists what they wanted: rest, respite and a chance to regroup. Obama has ordered that all anti-terrorism policies, the same policies that kept the United States safe from attack for the past seven years, be halted.

I have no doubt that terrorists all over the world are rejoicing at the opportunity Obama is giving them to rearm and plan new attacks without any hindrances on them.

Writing for the Washington Post, Dana Priest has this to say:

President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the "war on terror," as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless. ... Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration's lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

And the interesting thing about those interrogations was that Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid knew about them back in 2002 but never said a word. They waited until it was politically profitable for them to speak out which means they didn't really care about the methods used, they only cared about how to grab more political power as a result of them.

More:

As the CIA recruited young case officers, polygraphers and medical personnel to work on interrogation teams, the agency's leaders asked its allies in Thailand and Eastern Europe to set up secret prisons where people such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh could be held in isolation and subjected to extreme sleep and sensory deprivation, waterboarding and sexual humiliation. These tactics are not permitted under military rules or the Geneva Conventions.

Neither is killing innocent civilians in the pursuit of the fanatical religious cause of Islam. That is why they are called terrorists. They are not covered under the Geneva Convention. Anyone care to guess why Dana Priest and the Washington Post deliberately misled their readers like that?

Obama has seriously deluded himself and his followers into thinking that the terrorists are going to be swayed by the relaxing of our security measures. Islamic thinking says that when one shows weakness, one should be attacked even more rigorously. Obama should know this having attended a Muslim school when he was a teenager. The weakness he is showing the terrorists will come back to haunt us, even moreso than September 11, 2001.

We, the people, should be ready to hold Obama accountable when that terrible day comes.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Bush's 'War On Terror' Comes To A Sudden End
Dana Priest
Washington Post
January 23, 2009

And read about what happens when terrorists are freed. This show's why Obama and his followers are completely delusional about ending the anti-terroism policies. The terrorists are not going to stop trying to attack us just because we start being nice to them:

Ex-Gitmo Detainee Joins Al-Qaida In Yemen
TownHall.com
January 23, 2009

A Heart-Warming Story To Begin The Holidays: Outnumbered Almost 10 To 1, Marines Make Terrorists Pay Dearly

Here is a story that you will not read in the uber-liberal Washington Post or New York Times. You will also not see it broadcast on NBC, ABC, CBS or CNN as all of these news outlets have made it clear that they will never report on the good news or the victories we are seeing in the War on Terror. These news outlets have also made it clear that they will only report on that which will embolden the enemy.

Thus, it falls to bloggers like me to make sure that stories like this get out to the public and the truth about how we have been winning the War On Terror becomes known.

In the city of Shewan, Afghanistan, 30 United States Marines went up against 250 terrorists and sent the terrorists packing minus a good number who were killed in the battle. No Marines were lost.

From Military.com, Marine Corps News:

Shewan had been a thorn in the side of Task Force 2d Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force Afghanistan throughout the Marines’ deployment here in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, because it controls an important supply route into the Bala Baluk district. Opening the route was key to continuing combat operations in the area. “The day started out with a 10-kilometer patrol with elements mounted and dismounted, so by the time we got to Shewan, we were pretty beat,” said a designated marksman who requested to remain unidentified. “Our vehicles came under a barrage of enemy RPGs (rocket propelled grenades) and machine gun fire. One of our ‘humvees’ was disabled from RPG fire, and the Marines inside dismounted and laid down suppression fire so they could evacuate a Marine who was knocked unconscious from the blast.” The vicious attack that left the humvee destroyed and several of the Marines pinned down in the kill zone sparked an intense eight-hour battle as the platoon desperately fought to recover their comrades. After recovering the Marines trapped in the kill zone, another platoon sergeant personally led numerous attacks on enemy fortified positions while the platoon fought house to house and trench to trench in order to clear through the enemy ambush site. “The biggest thing to take from that day is what Marines can accomplish when they’re given the opportunity to fight,” the sniper said. “A small group of Marines met a numerically superior force and embarrassed them in their own backyard. The insurgents told the townspeople that they were stronger than the Americans, and that day we showed them they were wrong.”

And here is how it all turned out:

After calling for close-air support, the small group of Marines pushed forward and broke the enemies’ spirit as many of them dropped their weapons and fled the battlefield. At the end of the battle, the Marines had reduced an enemy stronghold, killed more than 50 insurgents and wounded several more.

Now, why wouldn't the major news networks report this story? Because it makes America look good and makes us proud of our troops in the field.

All I can say is: "OOH-RAH! GET SOME!"

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Marines Make Insurgents Pay The Price
Cpl. James M. Mercure
Marine Corps News via Military.com
November 18, 2008

Old Media Lies About Basra

We've all heard about the recent uprising in Iraq by forces under Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr. All seemed to be doom and gloom for the Iraqi government if you believed the reports coming from Old Media. But, if you are anything like me, you don't have alot of faith in Old Media and therefore took the reports with at least a few grains of salt.

I was right to salt down those reports. The truth eventually comes out and since Old Media refuses to report it, it is up to those of us on the Internet to bring the truth to the masses. The truth about the recent in-fighting in Iraq has come out and we can fianlly see what really happened. Despite reports that the Iraqi security forces were heading for complete failure and the Maliki government was suffering a major embarrassment, the Iraqi government has actually won the battle.

From Daveed Gartenstein-Ross & Bill Roggio writing for The Weekly Standard:

Virtually every media outlet declared the Basra operations a military failure before a week had passed. A New York Times headline blared that the "Iraqi Army's Assault on Militias in Basra Stalls" on March 27, two days after the launch of operations. Two days later--just four days after operations began--Britain's Independent noted that "the Iraqi army and police have failed to oust the Mahdi Army from any of its strongholds in the capital and in southern Iraq." And six days after the onset of operations, the Guardian was reporting that "the Iraqi army had made little headway in Basra and large swaths of the city remain under the Mahdi Army's control." To be sure, the Iraqi security forces' performance in Basra is best described as mixed. However, they did not run into a wall. The Iraqi military was able to clear one Mahdi Army-controlled neighborhood in Basra and was in the process of clearing another when Sadr issued his ceasefire. The ceasefire came on March 30, after six days of fighting, and was seemingly unilateral in the sense that the Iraqi government made no apparent concessions in return. By that time, 571 Mahdi Army fighters had been killed, 881 wounded, 490 captured, and 30 had surrendered countrywide, according to numbers tabulated by The Long War Journal. Thus, an estimated 95 Mahdi Army fighters were killed per day during the six days of fighting.

Don't you find it interesting that Old Media outlets like AP, Reuters and The New York Times completely missed these little facts about the operation? Why would they paint such a skewed picture rather than report the truth?

More:

The Iraqi security forces were at their best in the smaller cities in Iraq's south. The Mahdi Army suffered major setbacks in Hillah, Najaf, Karbala, Diwaniyah, Amarah, Kut, and Nasiriyah. The security forces drove the Mahdi Army off the streets in those cities within days. The casualties taken by the Mahdi Army in Baghdad, Basra, and the wider south surely played a role in Sadr's tactical decision to call a ceasefire.

That's another thing that didn't get reported. Sadr called for the cease-fire. The Iraqi government did not offer it.

The press was equally insistent that Maliki's move to secure Basra was a political embarrassment for him, with Sadr emerging the victor. The day after Sadr issued his ceasefire, Time claimed that "the very fact of the cease-fire flies in the face of Maliki's proclamation that there would be no negotiations. It is Maliki, and not Sadr, who now appears militarily weak and unable to control elements of his own political coalition." The Associated Press portrayed Maliki as "humbled within his own Shi'ite power base." And a second Associated Press report stated that "a strict curfew is ending in Baghdad, U.S. diplomats are holed up in their green zone offices, al-Maliki is resented and the private army of Muqtada al-Sadr is intact." But the fact is that the Maliki government did not agree to the nine-point terms for a truce that Sadr issued, nor did it sue for peace or promise that operations would cease. Instead the Iraqi government called Sadr's order for his fighters to pull off the streets a "positive step," and insisted that operations would continue. "The armed groups who refuse al Sadr's announcement and the pardon we offered will be targets, especially those in possession of heavy weapons," Maliki said, referring to the ten-day amnesty period for militias to turn in heavy and medium weapons. "Security operations in Basra will continue to stop all the terrorist and criminal activities along with the organized gangs targeting people." Subsequent to the ceasefire, the Iraqi military announced it was moving reinforcements to Basra, and the next day pushed forces into the ports of Khour al Zubair and Umm Qasr. Iraqi special operations forces and special police units have conducted several raids inside Basra since then, while an Iraqi brigade marched into the heart of a Mahdi-controlled Basra neighborhood on April 2. And two days after Sadr called for a ceasefire, the government maintained a curfew in Sadr City and other Shia neighborhoods in Baghdad. None of this would be happening had Maliki simply caved to Sadr.

Old Media seriously screwed the pooch on this story. Is it any wonder why we don't trust them?

And to answer our question from above:

It isn't entirely clear why the media leapt to the conclusions that it did about the Basra operations. Perhaps impatience coupled with a lack of knowledge about military affairs was the biggest factor. Perhaps, tired of six months of generally positive reporting about the surge, journalists were gleeful to announce that the situation on the ground was deteriorating. Or perhaps a negative angle was irresistible in light of General David Petraeus's upcoming congressional testimony. Whatever the reason, the press has done a major disservice to readers by misreporting the events in Basra.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Press Botches Basra
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross & Bill Roggio
The Weekly Standard
April 4, 2008

Peace Loving Muslims

I think I can still count on one hand the number of Muslims who have come out and condemned terrorist attacks committed by other Muslims. But, they are so few and far between that I can't remember their names anymore. I think there was one last year and then another one the year before that.

That is the point of Dr. Walter Williams' latest column. It is short, simple and to the point. Here are some excerpts:

We're told it's only that 1 percent, out of 1.2 billion Muslims, who are fanatical jihadists who believe America is the Great Satan, cause of all evil, and should be attacked and destroyed.

By the way, 1 percent of 1.2 billion is 12 million.

Think back to the 1930s when the Japanese murdered an estimated 3 million to 10 million people in China, Indonesia, Korea, Philippines and Indochina; and on December 7, 1941 when they attacked Pearl Harbor, killing over 2,400 Americans. I'm betting that most of Japan's at-the-time 60 million population were peace-loving people and would have wanted nothing to do with the brutal slaughter in China and the attack on the U.S. In formulating our response to the attack, should President Roosevelt have taken into account the fact that most Japanese are peace-loving people ruled by fanatics? ... Horrible acts can be committed in countries where most of the people are peace-loving and simply want to be left alone to attend to their affairs. I imagine that described most of the people in the former Soviet Union; however, that did not stop the killing of an estimated 62 million people between 1917 and 1987. The same can be said of the Chinese people, but it didn't stop the killing of 35 million of their countrymen during Mao Zedong's reign. ... At this particular time, fanatical jihadists are calling the terrorism shots in many Muslim countries. Their success in committing terrorist acts is in no small part the result of the actions by the millions of peace-loving fellow Muslims. First, there is not enough condemnation of their terrorist acts by the Muslim community. More important is the direct or indirect assistance terrorists receive through the silence of their fellow Muslims. There is no way terrorists can carry on their operations, obtain explosive materials, run terrorist training camps, raise money without the knowledge of other Muslims, whether they're government officials, bankers, family members, friends or neighbors.

During the liberation of the Concentration Camps in Germany and other parts of Europe, the people living in nearby towns said they had no idea what the Nazis were doing. It was a lie. They knew full well what was going on, just as Muslim communities know full well what is happening within their own strata.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Peace-Loving Muslims
Dr. Walter Williams
TownHall.com
March 19, 2008

Should Telecoms Be Punished For Exposing Terror Plots?

I wonder how Shakespeare would write the answer to that question. Maybe something along the lines of: "'Tis a notable issue then that the usurpers of our secure quickness have found themselves met with agents of protectiveness who resolutely refuse to stead in silence." Or words to that effect. In plain English, the answer is a resounding: "No!"

Writing for TownHall.com, Cliff May has the following:

During the 1990s, thousands of terrorists were trained in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and elsewhere. The government did next to nothing about that. Terrorists groups and the regimes backing them were seldom infiltrated. Neither terrorists nor their masters were effectively monitored. ... But after 9/11/01, one of the steps our intelligence officials took was to go to the big telecommunications firms and ask for help. Another attack could be coming – maybe more after that. The officials wanted access to data that might contain clues – dots they might be able to connect. The idea was not to have a federal agent listening in on your calls to Uncle Moe in Toledo. The idea was to gather huge quantities of information, “meta-data,” and mine it – seeking out patterns that might indicate terrorist connections or activities.

And those efforts have been very effective. But only groups like terrorist supporters and the ACLU are against it.

More:

An important point: The Supreme Court has held for decades that telephone record information—as opposed to the content of phone calls— triggers no Fourth Amendment privacy interest. You have no expectation of privacy in the numbers you dial because you expect the phone company to keep records of those numbers. What if you wanted to challenge a phone bill? You’d be pretty peeved if the phone company did not have records of the calls you made, when you made them and how long you stayed on the line. I do not believe this kind of intelligence gathering outrages normal Americans. I think most Americans say: “Good for government and good for the telecoms. They did their duty. They helped protect us” But the ACLU and some other groups that call themselves “civil liberties advocates” do claim to be outraged. Also outraged – or perhaps just excited – are the plaintiffs’ attorneys who have nearly 40 lawsuits pending before federal courts. If these lawyers prevail, tens of billions of dollars will be extracted from such firms as AT&T, Cingular Wireless, Bell South, Sprint and Verizon Communications.

Anyone care to guess which political party these trial lawyers mostly support?

Trial lawyers are among the most generous donors to the Democratic Party -- but leave aside whether that may explain House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refusing to let House members vote on a bill to protect the telecoms from being sued for contributing to the effort to thwart terrorists.

But this little gem is priceless:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, defended the telecom companies last month, telling his colleagues: "What is the big payoff for the telephone companies? They get paid a lot of money? No. They get paid nothing. What do they get for this [for cooperating with intelligence officials to prevent terrorism]? They get $40 billion worth of suits, grief, trashing, but they do it.”

And this warning is the ounce of prevention that is worth much, much more than the pound of cure:

As the Washington Post reported, there is “one thing on which both sides agree: If the lawsuits go forward sensitive details about the scope and methods of the Bush administration’s surveillance efforts could be divulged for the first time.” Divulged not just to the media – but also to terrorists intent on murdering you and your children. For having written that, I will be accused of “fear-mongering.” So be it. If America’s experience with terrorism teaches anything, it’s that we have more to fear than fear itself. When politicians cave to special interests who want to make national security policy – and billions of dollars – in courtrooms, that should raise fears, too. And if it doesn’t outrage you, maybe nothing will.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Listen Up: Should The Telecoms Be Punished For Helping Protect You From Terrorists?
Cliff May
TownHall.com
March 6, 2008

A Few Good Words About A Few Good Men

I'm not one to sit still very well for a long speech, but every now and then, I have to pay attention to what is being said.

This was so on February 19, 2008 in Charlotte, North Carolina when Brigadier General Robert E. Milstead, Jr., USMC, made the speech published below. It is a tribute to a few good men and explains what kind of people our Marines are and why we should be a nation forever indebted to them and their service. Having served in the Marine Corps myself, I always make it a point to walk up and shake the hands of every service member I meet, no matter what branch of service they are in.

The speech:

Thank you and good evening. In my current assignment, I am often asked by the media and others about the health of our Corps. How do I reply? Tonight I will tell you what I tell them. We are indeed in good health. Our Corps is in the best shape I have seen during my 33 years of service. The young men and women serving today are our nation's next greatest generation. I have been in combat with them twice, and can say they are a national treasure, they are our future leaders and we are in good hands. Speaking specifically about our Corps. We are the youngest of all the services. The average age is 24. Approximately 65% of the Corps is under the age of 25. Almost a quarter populates that beloved rank of Lance Corporal. We have almost 26,000 teenagers. Last year we recruited over 38,000 young men and women, 95% of them high school graduates, and every one of them joined knowing full well they will likely move toward the sound of cannons. This year we are well on our way to recruiting another 40,000. This is a generation that understands the meaning of service. As long as we continue recruiting men and women like this, our Corps will remain healthy. Several months ago I had the privilege of being the reviewing officer for a graduation parade at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego. Standing out on that parade deck were six platoons, 571 young men lean and mean after the rigors of boot camp. I asked the battalion commander who was the honor graduate. He told me it was a Lance Corporal Sanchez, from Baytown, Texas. I asked if his parents were there. "Yes sir," he answered. "They are in the reviewing stand behind you." "I want to meet them," I said. Mr. and Mrs. Sanchez were indeed proud parents. Taking her hand in mine, I thanked Mrs. Sanchez for giving us her son and told her that although I couldn't guarantee his safety, I would guarantee he'd be taken care of. With tears in her eyes, she explained this was not her first. You see, both LCpl Sanchez's older brother and sister were already Marines, and another sister was a Navy corpsman. I will tell you that as long as we have American families like the Sanchez family, our Corps will remain healthy. I'll then tell of the wounded Marines I met while visiting Brooke Army Medical Center and the Army Burn Center in San Antonio. I'll tell of the young Lance Corporal who was burned when his vehicle was hit by an IED. His face is not bad at all, he looks if he merely has some road rash. But his hands are pretty badly burned and his therapy is painful. Mustering some courage, I asked him if he felt it was worth it. His reply was as you'd expect from a Marine, and I'll clean it up some, "F-ing A sir, no regrets. I'd do it again in a second." So I'll tell you that as long as we have young men like him, our Corps will remain healthy. I'll also talk about the Corporal I met down there at the burn center. Now he was burned much worse. He still wears a protective cap and gloves and has had 37 surgeries. He tells of the time, when he could finally go out in town, of coming out of a restaurant, and a small child, as honest and straight-forth as only a child can be, said in a voice that he could hear, "look mommy, it's a monster." That child's mother, instead of whisking her son away in embarrassment, got down on a knee, and looking her son in the eyes said, "no honey, that's not a monster, that's a very brave man who was badly hurt protecting you and me. You need to go over and thank him." And with trepidation as you can imagine, the young child walked over, and reached out his hand taking the corporal's gloved hand in his, and said "thank-you." The corporal will tell you that as long as there are people like that, he can endure another 37 operations. I will tell you that as long as there are mothers like that child's, our Corps will remain healthy. As I close, I will offer you a couple of figures. There are about 1.5 million of us in the active forces that wear a uniform. If you add all the reserves and the National Guard, the total is somewhere close to 3 million. That is only 1% of our nation's population. We are a military at war, not a nation at war. Unfortunately, many Americans just don't get it. But you get it. Oh yea, you get it. If you didn't, you wouldn't be here tonight. So I'll end by saying that as long as we have folks like you, our Corps will remain healthy. Thank you for being here tonight, thank you for your support of our brave servicemen and women, and especially thank you for your support of our wounded warriors. God bless you. I pledge your Marine Corps will remain healthy, and Semper Fidelis.

I don't know about you, but I routinely thank God for the men and women who voluntarily put themsleves into harm's way on our behalf. When I read the stories about the sacrifices they are making for us, it brings a tear to my eye.

Whose Side Is Old Media On?

Over at the American Thinker, Alan Fraser has penned a good one about Old Media and their constant barrage of bad news concerning the War on Terror. It begs the question: Whose side are they on?

Well, let's take a look:

From the beginning of the War on Terror, the mainstream media has been working to bring home the bad news on the war, virtually to the exclusion of any good news. Even if they've had to fabricate it on occasion. Do you remember the "Mai Lai Massacre of the Iraq War?" It was a Time Magazine cover story in June of 2006. Christopher Matthews interviewed Congressman Jack Murtha (D-PA) on national television, and Murtha said that Marines, in cold blood, had executed more 20 innocent civilians in Haditha, Iraq. The media's story has been falling apart ever since.

Old Media jumped all over Mutha's comments as if they were gospel, but now that the truth has come to light and Murtha himself is the target of a slander suit, Old Media has become very quiet and withdrawn about the issue.

Alan continues:

On the front page of the January 26th Wall Street Journal appeared: "The Waiting -- Just Four U.S. Soldiers are Missing in Iraq. For Their Parents, it's a Lonely Vigil." This is a depressing and heart-rending story about the lives of those families whose solider sons are missing in Iraq. It's a subject especially disturbing to military families. In a time of war, this could be a good story to run if it were written to, let's say, provide a little balance to what otherwise might be an overwhelming supply of gung-ho-support-the-troops kind of stories. You know, a little sobering counterpoint to a plethora of overly flattering articles about the troops and the war. But do you think that's what's going on here? Of course not. There is no balance because there are virtually no favorable stories being written about the troops. From the MSM to Hollywood the media have an overwhelmingly negative view of our troops and they make that clear to us every day as they portray them as stupid, pathetic, often victims, often murderers, or against the war. And boy do they ever love stories about the infinitesimally small number who have turned against the war. The effect of such an article is to demoralize.

Which is exactly what Old Media has been trying to do, and their biggest cheerleaders for doing so have been the terrorists themselves. An excerpt of a letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi, July 9, 2005:

"I say to you: that we are in a battle and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma. And that however far our capabilities reach, they will never be equal to one thousandth of the capabilities of the kingdom of Satan that is waging war on us."

So, whose side is Old Media on?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Whose Side Are They On?
Alan Fraser
The American Thinker
February 8, 2008