Didn’t Obama say about the jew hating Khalidi that he gave Obama “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases?”

One may assume that Khalidi re-educated Obama to a view more sympathetic to the Palestinians, despite their establishment of a culture of death which praises war, terrorism and bloodshed.

It’s doubtful that Obama would demand any accountability from the Palestinians while putting greater pressure on Israel to appease and compromise with the Pallys.

That’s not a recipe for progress in the Middle East peace process. It has been tried multiple times and has failed.

I think there is a difference between “diplomacy” and “appeasement”. And yes, sometimes, I do go in for the “tough talk”.

After 9/11, I think some of it was warranted. I think “you’re either with us, or against us” was largely misconstrued by a complicit media, all too willing to take it in a direction that wasn’t meant.

I don’t regret any of that.

What is so bad about wanting to defeat your enemies?

When you are dealing with Al Queda it’s kill or be killed. No diplomacy will solve the problem.

And diplomacy, even by our vaunted ever so sophisticated European allies hasn’t budged Iran’s intentions to build a bomb.

Diplomacy without the credible threat of military force is meaningless.

As T.R. said: “speak softly and carry a big stick”

As Obama would say it: “speak softly and throw the stick away.”

Most likely Chen would approve of that approach.

Right Chen? Do you support Obama’s stated goal to gut the U.S. military?

I think the “cowboy shoot from the hip” reputation of Bush has been largely overblown. From day one, he’s gone out of his way to make sure people understand he was not going to war against Islam itself. He doesn’t get credit for the diplomacy that has occurred, for getting allies to kill and capture al Qaeda operatives all over the world, for getting nations to cooperate in such things as the Swift program and rendition program (whether you feel it to be right or wrong, it wasn’t begun under his administration); forget that media outlets like the NYT and WaPo have undermined all of that, making our allies hesitant to cooperate with our mutual best interests, since the U.S. appears not to be able to keep secrets, thanks to media who do not put “Country First”, let alone common sense.

Bush, himself, has said he regrets some of the “bring ‘im back, dead or alive” rhetoric of his early days in the post 9/11 aftermath.

That’s a total non answer devoid of anything specific.

But it sounds good.

Sort of like Obama. Empty and meaningless.

It would appear to me that Chen buys the appeasement point of view that if we are just nicer to these terrorists they will not kill us. How many times has history shown that to be a tragic mistake which only results in increased violence, loss of human life and war?

Please, save the straw. I happen to think that there’s a hundred yards between “send ‘em to hell” and “appeasement”, and I think its about time that everyone start recognizing that the correct answer lies somewhere in between, that’s all.

And when you talk about “fearmongering… smears and lies” you are surely referring to the uninterupted campaign of hate, abuse and disinformation directed at the very people trying to save your worthless ass from being incinerated.

You know what you are?

That means over two letters… as in ME ME ME!

Ok seriously ENOUGH with the fear mongering.

Telling the truth is fear mongering now?

Its getting pathetic!

Yes, you’ve been pathetic since you showed up here with your, what is it, seven personalities?

I Personalty find it ammusing that you guys say that Osama Bin laden who wants The demorcrats to win.

Of course bin Laden wants the Dims to win (if he’s still alive that is). If the military of a foreign country were kicking your ass all over the desert and to the mountains and back for the last five years you’d want it to stop too.

When its the REPUBLICANS who have weakened our milatary {thanks to the war in Iraq}.

Really?

The US military is weakened because it has been put to work doing what it was designed, created, and built to do.

Yeah, that makes total sense.

Who let 9/11 happen and still 7 years later the republicans still HAVE YET to cacth Osama Bin Laden and Alqeada.

Let 9/11 happen?

Let it happen?

Clinton was in office for 8 years. The planning, plotting, and execution of the plan began long before Jan 2001. As much as you may wish you could blame 9/11 on President Bush, no soup for you.

Clinton had multiple opportunities to capture and/or kill bin Laden. In fact, bin Laden was offered to him by Sudan before he was expelled from their country.

Clinton passed.

Later Clinton had the opportunity to kill bin Laden when the CIA had his location pinned down.

Guess what, he passed.

He was too busy getting a Lewinsky to be really concerned with the security of the US.

OBL may or may not be dead. Regardless of the fate of that miserable sack of shit, Al Qaeda has been decimated. They have lost their fighters by the thousands. They are on the run and, considering what has not happened in the US since 9/11 their effectiveness has suffered as well.

Who instead of keeping their eye on the ball with Afganastan.

I guess you’re one of those people who feel that the fine men and women of the US military cannot do more than one thing at the time.

Study history much?

Obviously not.

You should do some reading about the involvement of the US military during WWI and WWII. You may just get your eyes opened.

The Republicans sent our troops to a country that HAD NOTHING TO DO with 9/11!!!!!

Nothing to do with 9/11,

Right.

You truly need to do some reading so that you can educate yourself. Currently you are opening your mouth and making it apparent to everyone what a fool you are.

On this blog alone there are volumes of information about 9/11 – Iraq – Al Qaeda – Hussein.

You should read it.

And we have accomplashed NOTHING in the country dispite spending TRILLIONS of dollars there and losing thousands of troops.

Accomplished nothing.

Hmmm…

I would say that the freedom of 40 plus million people is a significant accomplishment.

Through the brave service, and sometimes the ultimate sacrifice, of some of the finest men and women who have ever served our country, people who have never tasted freedom are now free.

The right to vote that you and I enjoy and will take part in on Tuesday is now extended to people in countries who NEVER had that right before.

That’s nothing you say?

I say you’re full of dog squeeze.

And after all that, Osama Bid Laden is still on the lose and Alqeada is now gaining strenth in the borders of Pakistain and Afganastan.

Again, we don’t know if OBL is still alive or not. His rotting corpse may never be found.

Enemy strength ebbs and flows in any armed conflict and is not something to be truly concerned with.

The US will be victorious as long as the defeatocrats don’t pull the troops out before the job is done.

And now yall are saying that the Alqeada and Osama Bin Laden want Obama to win??

Again, the enemy is not stupid. Of course they want a weaker leader as the head of the US.

They tried Clinton and found that nothing happened. OBL, because of Clinton’s lack of response, declared the US to be a paper tiger.

When they tried Bush they found out that the cowboy from Texas would not hesitate to kick their asses.

Now they want a weaker leader again.

It’s common sense on their parts. They want to be able to lick their wounds and restrengthen.

Dispite the fact that Obama wants to END THE WAR IN IRAQ!

And wants to put more troops in Afganastain and Pakistain border instead.

Were he KNOWS Osama Bin Laden and Alqeada are hiding and are ploting for ANOTHER terroist attack.

So he can track them down and make sure they NEVER strike again.

Obama will prematurely withdraw our troops and create havoc in the Middle East.

By doing so, the blood and treasure we have invested in that region will have been invested for naught.

Are you people even listening to yourselfs????

That’s a question you should ask of yourself.

Look, Come Nov. 4th America WILL pick Obama and the Democrats.

You can keep telling yourself that, but it won’t make it true.

You should do the same thing that Sky is doing and go get some beer to dull the pain.

You’re going to need it.

PS—Download some spell checker software. Your spelling makes you look like an uneducated idiot just as much as your uniformed opinions.

Jane Fonda “cries” all night. Erica Jong says “blood will run in the streets”….

Basically, Jong says her fear that Obama might lose the election has developed into an “obsession. A paralyzing terror. An anxious fever that keeps you awake at night.” She also says that her friends Jane Fonda and Naomi Wolf are extremely worried that Obama will be sabotaged by Republican dirty tricks, and that if an Obama loss indeed comes to pass, the result will be a second American Civil War.

Here’s a translation of Jong’s more spirited quotes to the Milan-based Corriere, as selected by Rocca.

“The record shows that voting machines in America are rigged.”

“My friends Ken Follett and Susan Cheever are extremely worried. Naomi Wolf calls me every day. Yesterday, Jane Fonda sent me an email to tell me that she cried all night and can’t cure her ailing back for all the stress that has reduces her to a bundle of nerves.”

“My back is also suffering from spasms, so much so that I had to see an acupuncturist and get prescriptions for Valium.”

“After having stolen the last two elections, the Republican Mafia…”

“If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it’s not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets.”

“Bush has transformed America into a police state, from torture to the imprisonment of reporters, to the Patriot Act.”

She also laments that not all of America’s men of letters share her devotion to Obama.

“Tom Wolfe and John Updike are men of the right and Philip Roth is at this point a hermit who leads a monastic life in Connecticut, far from everything and everybody.”

Luckily, she said there is her and Michael Chabon, who, she says, have “taken the place of Susan Sontag and Norman Mailer respectively.”

Need more or your “fear mongering” campaign tactics that if the US doesn’t vote for Obama, we will have “riots”? Click here, if you know how….

Other than that, tread lightly on your “racism” charges against us, girl. You not only do yourself disservice, but you reflect badly on your Messiahship.

Its getting pathetic!

I Personalty find it ammusing that you guys say that Osama Bin laden who wants The demorcrats to win.

When its the REPUBLICANS who have weakened our milatary {thanks to the war in Iraq}.

Who let 9/11 happen and still 7 years later the republicans still HAVE YET to cacth Osama Bin Laden and Alqeada.

Who instead of keeping their eye on the ball with Afganastan.

The Republicans sent our troops to a country that HAD NOTHING TO DO with 9/11!!!!!

And we have accomplashed NOTHING in the country dispite spending TRILLIONS of dollars there and losing thousands of troops.

And after all that, Osama Bid Laden is still on the lose and Alqeada is now gaining strenth in the borders of Pakistain and Afganastan.

And now yall are saying that the Alqeada and Osama Bin Laden want Obama to win??

Dispite the fact that Obama wants to END THE WAR IN IRAQ!

And wants to put more troops in Afganastain and Pakistain border instead.

Were he KNOWS Osama Bin Laden and Alqeada are hiding and are ploting for ANOTHER terroist attack.

So he can track them down and make sure they NEVER strike again.

Are you people even listening to yourselfs????

*SMDH*

Look, Come Nov. 4th America WILL pick Obama and the Democrats.

And finally say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH with the Republican fear mongering, smears and lies.

ITS TIME FOR A CHANGE!!!!!!

Obama/Biden 08!

I’ve followed Obama more closely than most people, and I can’t recall any variation of that theme coming from him or the campaign surrogates.

Really? Oct 2nd, 2008… Obama quote from Front Page Mag

According to Obama, “from a strategic national security perspective, Al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001.”

Is “resurgent” and “stronger” in anyway related to AQ membership and recruitment? If there recruitment is down, as all news (other than Obama media) reports, how can they be “resurgent” and “stronger”?

Guess you missed a few days in your “following more closely than most people”.

The point here is, if Obama admits that AQ is weakened, NATO in Afghanistan is getting stronger, and recruitment is down, that supports the supposedly “failed” Bush strategy on the global war against the jihad movement…. which is *more* than AQ.

Doesn’t do much for his foreign policy campaign talking points, eh? So he has to play up the strength of AQ and the Taliban in order to bolster himself.

I think you’re confusing our counterinsurgency operations in Iraq with global counter-terrorism (which is what I was referring to).

Lord have mercy. Don’t you click on any links provided to see where the perspective I present comes from?? Let’s try again… a link to the Military Times embedded in the Taliban threat overblown article I linked above:

KABUL, Afghanistan — NATO’s top commander in Afghanistan is tired of negative headlines, and he is on an offensive to counter what he sees as a wave of unwarranted pessimism in news reports coming out of the country.

~~~

McKiernan highlighted an event last week witnessed by NATO troops in Farah province in which insurgents planting a roadside bomb grabbed two children and used them as human shields when they were attacked by NATO forces.

The four-star general also pointed to a protest last week by about 1,000 Afghans in Laghman province over the slaying of 26 local workers by Taliban militants who stopped a bus in Kandahar and killed many onboard.

“That’s a rejection of the brutality of the Taliban by the people of Afghanistan, and that needs to be heard,” McKiernan said in the interview Sunday. “What happens sometimes in reporting is that there’s this idea that the Taliban is at the gates of Kabul, or after [the June prison break], they’re about ready to take control of Kandahar, or they’re resurgent in Uruzgan or Helmand, and it’s just not true,” he said.

From DODBuzz in July of this year

While the increase in troop numbers known as the surge has gotten much credit for the decline in combat and civilian deaths in Iraq one key component of the effort has been underplayed — the changed role of intelligence teams operating in both Iraq and in Afghanistan.

In an exclusive interview with DoDBuzz, the director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Vice Adm. Robert Murrett, said his people are working in teams with DIA, NRO, FBI and other intelligence agencies in theater and those teams are providing improved actionable intelligence to troops.

For example, every brigade combat team has NGA and other intelligence community personnel embedded to provide analysis and information on a 24-hour basis.

“It’s those intelligence community interagency teams that are working hand in glove with the forces that we have deployed forward that are making a difference,” Murrett told me. While he was very cautious in discussing examples of just how those teams have operated, he offered two details: they are embedded with troops, often on the front lines; and the intelligence community teams have been a major factor in helping find IED caches.

~~~

This new approach, building these teams into operational units, “has really increased our effectiveness in ways that are going to have implications for how we operate as a nation and a coalition for many, many years in the future,” Murrett said.

Now, since I anticipate your “but but, I’m talking about *counter*intelligence” comeback. Let’s come from a common framework of what counterintelligence is, and it’s history in context. For this, the CIA has an excellent article on both the sometimes vague understanding, and the administrative structure that inhibits better efficiency… from last summer, and updated this year.

CIA historian Don Steury has written:

In thinking about intelligence, Sherman Kent began with an understanding of national power that was well within the mainstream of contemporary American strategic thought. Kent’s contribution was to apply thinking about strategy and national power to an ordered conception of intelligence analysis as an intellectual discipline. 2

By contrast, “strategic counterintelligence” remains a relatively undeveloped concept, in theory or implementation. Isn’t this curious? For if strategic intelligence takes as its touchstone the whole of state interests and the sources of state power, then understanding the purpose and manner in which other states use their intelligence resources to gain advantage and mastering the capability to counter them would seem to be the other side of the strategic intelligence coin.

Yet to the extent strategic counterintelligence (CI) is addressed within CI or intelligence circles, it is controversial, poorly understood, and even more poorly executed because it does not fit comfortably within the existing architecture and approach to counterintelligence as it has developed within the United States.

~~~

The meaning of “strategic counterintelligence”
Counterintelligence has its own distinct logic as an intellectual discipline. As defined at law, counterintelligence embraces both “information gathered” and “activities conducted” to counter foreign intelligence threats.[b]More specifically, it is the job of US counterintelligence to identify, assess, neutralize and exploit the intelligence activities of foreign powers, terrorist groups, and other entities that seek to harm us. Sound security measures are unquestionably vital, but they can only carry protection so far. One can pile on so much security that no one can move, and still there will be a purposeful adversary looking for ways to get what he wants. 3 The signature purpose of counterintelligence is to confront and engage the adversary.

HUMINT (human intel) and electronic intel have improved vastly. Both are integral for counterintelligence, for you can’t identify, assess and neutralize events (counterintelligence) without the intel gather process running efficiently.

In particular, with this warfare, HUMINT has become of particular import. Per the Sept 2006 work report found on the Ramstein AF Base, headquarters for USAFE site

Our Nation has painfully learned lessons regarding the value of intelligence in the Global War on Terror. In particular, we have come to collective agreement that human intelligence support is vital for prosecuting the GWOT. Penetration of terrorist networks, and obtaining essential information on the plans and intentions of terrorists can best be accomplished by thorough, coordinated network of human sources. We must be able to ascertain the plans, capabilities, and intentions of other countries vis-à-vis terrorism, and we can best accomplish this through HUMINT operations, spanning the spectrum from overt liaison with host nation law enforcement elements, to penetration of host nation security organizations.

Again, the concept of counterintelligence is wholly dependent upon intelligence gathering. The later has improved immensely because of the clear/hold/embed with host Iraqis Surge strategy.

In short, you cannot have efficient counterintelligence without thorough and efficient intelligence gathering (HUMINT, electronic… all facets).

As far as the former, Clinton created the NCIX with Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 75 just a couple weeks before leaving office…. ala an intelligence director/czar. It subsequently was moved under control of the DNI in 2006.

NCIX seems to focus heavily on the cyber threats and vunerabilities. Ala one of our freedoms is our open society. The enemy views this as a weakness to exploit… the ability operate unnoticed in our back yards. (enter FISA and the data sifting programs such as Echelon and Able Danger)

This is where your correct statement of “disrupting terrorist plots against the homeland or our interests outside the region” comes into play. In the past, our national security strategy was reactive… a “who done it” and a manhunt. Today, the quest is to prevent the terrorists from striking, and to amass intel on their activities prior to an attack.

From all I understand from NCIX Congressional hearings, we still suffer from the same 90s maladies of intercommunication. While the FBI and CIA have improved their lines of communication, the NCIX is still somewhat disjointed in the process. In fact, with the mass NCIX/DNI resignations in 2006 it appears the competitive nature of the US intelligence agencies is alive and well. Yet the law is quite clear on how CI is supposed to operate under the direction of the NCIX/DNI.

I do agree that our intel interdepartment communications can always be improved. However I disagree with you that Obama is the best choice for that task. With Barney Frank stomping his foot, demanding a defense budget cut of 25%, something has to suffer. And the intelligence departments are already working on a deficient budget for the work load and monitoring.

McCain also promises a cut, but he intends to do so by more efficient purchases of equipment.

Here’s an article comparing Obama and McCain on their defense budget ideas.

Obama: Calls for increase in special operations forces, language training and human intelligence to improve capability to conduct counterinsurgency operations and to help stabilize conflict zones.

McCain: Calls for restructuring the military to reduce emphasis on conventional models of heavy tank warfare and territorial control, to stress instead counterinsurgency, information warfare, counterterrorism and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

In one way, they sound remarkably similar. But when you consider the amount of the budget the Dems want shave off, then add in Obama’s Dept of Peace and Non-Violence that he and Barney Frank want to create – which will fall under the defense spending – the ability for Obama to “increase” and “improve capability to conduct counterinsurgency operations” has less to work with.

This department would house agencies such as the Office of Peace Education & Training, the Office of Domestic Peace Activities, the Office of International Peace Activities, the Office of Technology for Peace, the Office of Arms Control and Disarmament (ACM — notwithstanding that Barnie seems to have that covered already), the Office of Peaceful Co-Existence and Non-Violent Conflict Resolution, and, of course, the Office of Human Rights and Ecomic rights.

Creation of this department has already been proposed in the House, and it seems likely that it will indeed be created if Democrats expand their majorities in both houses of congress (as they will) and win the presidency (more than likely). [Mata Note: No bias there, eh?]

Although liberal Democrats argue that the department could accomplish a lot for minorities and in favor of peace and development, critics rightfully argue that the plan would cost the American tax payer many billions of dollars while the U.S. federal government already struggles with a tremendous deficit, and Barack Obama and his allies in Congress also want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars more on other new plans.

Democrats and Barack Obama himself suggested other plans in recent weeks, which would cost the federal government approximately $1.1 trillion extra. This means that, under Obama, the U.S. will spend at least $1.1 trillion and, if the department is created, much more than than more than what the Bush administration spends, which is already more than it receives in (tax) revenues.

This means that Obama and the Democratic congress will have to cut spending in other areas, and raise taxes. Democrat Barney Frank agreed yesterday explaining that they would cut defense spending by 25%, which would, in his own words, mean that the U.S. would have to withdraw from Iraq soon. “The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection. It’s extraordinary,” Frank said.

~~~

Cuts in defense spending will, of course, not be enough to cover the planned extra spending. Therefore, Frank admitted, “tax hikes” will “eventually” come. ”We’ll have to raise taxes ultimately,” Frank said. “Not now, but eventually.”

The economic plan the Democrats seem to have in mind is a truly progressive one; it aims at “spreading the wealth,” as Barack Obama put it rather well, helping those “in need,” and taxing those with higher (or in the long run probable middle) incomes more.

Although Frank’s plans may sound attractive to fiscal liberals, it seems to me that these plans will have many negative consequences:

1. Cutting defense spending means a significant loss in jobs in the defense industry. Fewer jobs, means less income for people, means they will need more “help” from the government, driving up spending even more.

2. Raising taxes, especially on reasonable small businesses but also on middle and higher income households will result in less consumption, which results in fewer jobs, which results in more people being dependent on the government “for help,” the economy will shrink, or at least not grow, the capability of the economy to rebounce after trouble will be negatively affected.

In short, although Frank’s, Pelosi’s, Reid’s and Obama’s plans may make sense to fiscal liberals, they do not seem to be very wise and effective from a fiscal conservative perspective.

Therefore, let me say this. I believe your thinking is on the right track. However your analysis as to whom will actually be able to accomplish what you believe is correct is financially flawed.

As for FARC, there’s one tidbit:

“6. Los gringos pedirán cita con el ministro para solicitarle nos comunicara su interés en conversar estos temas. Dicen que el nuevo presidente de su país será Obama y que ellos están interesados en sus compatriotas. Obama no apoyara Plan Colombia ni firma de TLC. Aquí respondimos que nos interesan las relaciones con todos los gobiernos en igualdad de condiciones y que en el caso de Estados Unidos se requiere in pronunciamiento público expresando su interés en conversar con las Farc dada su eterna guerra con nosotros.

Es todo, Abrazos, Raúl.”

(translated)
6. The gringos will ask for an appointment with the minister to solicit him to communicate to us his interest in discussing these topics. They say that the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support “Plan Colombia” nor will he sign the TLC (Colombian Free Trade agreement). Here we responded that we are interested in relations with all governments in equality of conditions and that in the case of the US it is required a public pronouncement expressing their interest in talking with the FARC given their eternal war against us.

It would appear to me that Chen buys the appeasement point of view that if we are just nicer to these terrorists they will not kill us. How many times has history shown that to be a tragic mistake which only results in increased violence, loss of human life and war?