Two-thirds of Americans disagree with the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court rather than a military court, according to a new national poll.

But six in 10 people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday say that the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks should be tried in the United States, as the administration plans to do, rather than at a U.S. facility in another country.

The poll indicates that 64 percent believe Mohammed should be tried in military court, with 34 percent suggesting that he face trial in civilian court. Six in 10 people questioned say Mohammed should be tried stateside, with 37 percent calling for the trial to take place at a U.S. facility in another country.

“The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in front of a civilian court is universally unpopular – even a majority of Democrats and liberals say that he should be tried by military authorities,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Despite that, most Americans say that he will get a fair trial in the U.S.”

Not sure what Holland’s point is here. Of course he would get a fair trial, but the majority of respondents, in a CNN poll for gods sake, understand that giving this scumbag a civilian trial is ludicrous:

Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.

Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.

~~~

Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.

This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the “blind Sheikh”), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.

In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit.

Bin Laden, who was on the list, could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be.

It’s crazy. Simply crazy.

Even more harmful to our national security will be the effect a civilian trial of KSM will have on the future conduct of intelligence officers and military personnel. Will they have to read al Qaeda terrorists their Miranda rights? Will they have to secure the “crime scene” under battlefield conditions? Will they have to take statements from nearby “witnesses”? Will they have to gather evidence and secure its chain of custody for transport all the way back to New York? All of this while intelligence officers and soldiers operate in a war zone, trying to stay alive, and working to complete their mission and get out without casualties.

And the other poll is about ObamaCare. Notice how the AP tries to hide some inconvenient numbers with a article entitled “AP POLL: Tax the rich to pay for health bill”

…what the Associated Press does not even mention in their story is probably the most relevant part:

In general, do you support, oppose or neither support nor oppose the health care reform plans being discussed in Congress? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE Is that strongly support/oppose or somewhat support/oppose?

To no surprise that’s opposed by 43-41%. Eleven percent neither support or oppose and 4% “don’t know.”

Also conveniently left out of their story is the response to whether people should be penalized if they do not buy the government-run health care: Sixty-four percent oppose. Why do you suppose that was left out?

Also left out was of the respondents, 37% are unemployed or retired. No wonder they want someone to pick up the tab.

Forty-two percent think they economy will get worse if this scam is shoved down our throats, while 28% think it will improve. Again, this is left out of the story.

Also, over the past five years, 86% of respondents said the care they received from physician or hospital was excellent or good, only 2% said it was poor. This was left out of the AP story. So why do we have to blow up the entire system?

That’s a couple different polls on the two hot button issues of the day which Obama and company should take heed….but won’t. Now granted, the opinions of a thousand people cannot tell us accurately the sentiments of the entire country but when two liberal rags take a poll and the numbers go against the liberal position….the liberals should take notice.

Are we at war – or not?

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.

President Obama, we are at war. The Islamic Terrorists are not cooperating with your transformation of our society into a Politically Correct Utopia with nomenclature that neutralizes the ugliness of war. They do not chant Obama, Obama, they do not faint on cue, they pay no attention to subjective pandering by sexually mis-oriented news journalists like Chris Mathews. Their war is a fanaticism that welcomes death while destroying us, the Infidel. Although you may see yourself whispering Allahu Akbar during your death and accruing your place in heaven, the vast majority have no interest or sympathy with Islamic Terrorism, we seek to destroy it.

This war is no longer about your narcissistic view of yourself and your ratings; it is about us, the American people and the fanatic bastards who want to kill us. No they are not like Christian Fundamentalists or Conservatives or Jews or even Muslims, they are radical Islamic fascists or terrorists and they are at war with us and with you, whether you are your incompetent sycophants posing as advisors care to admit it or not.

At Fort Hood you related this purposely confusing message:

This is a time of war. And yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great American community. It is this fact that makes the tragedy even more painful and even more incomprehensible.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know – no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice – in this world, and the next.

These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we are working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.

Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to thirteen men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home.

You have finally admitted that we are engaged in a war, although we seem reluctant to wage war and regard the opinions of anti-American foreign journalists and the of Third World Dictators, as important in how we conduct our contingency operation. May I, as an American remind you that a war is not a police raid on a DC crack house.

While you weigh General McChrystal’s request for more troops on the political scale of public opinion and claim that victory is not an option you are comfortable with; I ask you to contemplate the works of General MacArthur, “In war there is no substitute for victory.”

And yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great American community. It is this fact that makes the tragedy even more painful and even more incomprehensible.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know – no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor.

Yes these Americans like the Americans of 9/11 were killed by Fanatic Islamic Terrorism, like the families of Flight 93, the survivors and families of the victims have no interest in a Muslim Crescent pointing to Mecca being erected on the site of killing.

The tragedy is painful Mr. Obama, but you make it more painful and incomprehensible by refusing to declare this an act of terrorism and by refusing to admit that Mao’s concept of Political Correctness embraced so fervently by the Left is an antiquated idea and is a major component contributing to Major Hasan’s Act of Terrorism against America; thus this heinous act was allowed to happen beneath the watchful eyes of the FBI and Senior Military Officers.

Policies like words have consequences, fear of speaking up and crossing a line of Political Correctness and Diversities Demarcation has guaranteed that this scenario will play out again on your watch President Obama and still we are full steam ahead without a point of direction on a pointless mission, according to you, since you refuse to define our mission, knowing only that Victory makes “you” uncomfortable.

It my be hard to comprehend the twisted logic, but we don’t need to comprehend the logic; it is enough for us to know that our enemy is evil and we must destroy him, not give him our money and love him into submission.

We the American People have stood our ground like the Revolutionary hero General Parker, who told his men before the Battle of Lexington, “Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!” President Obama, they have begun this war twice, how long can you deny the existence of the evil psychopathic killers who want to convert us or kill us.

And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice – in this world, and the next.

We know that your speeches are written by some Liberal Harpie seekng political advantage in the morgue of Fort Hood, but trying to make you sound Like Maximus in the Coliseum is laughable and a crime against script writers.

“I am the husband of a murdered wife, the father of a murdered son, and will have revenge in this world or the next.” Maximus: Gladiator, Speaking to Caesar in the arena, a pivotal and emotionally charged moment of the film.

Nice try Mr. President, but using the same line as an apologist for the United States and a President who doesn’t seek victory in war, once again you are left looking like an incompetent and impotent fool. Hint: Hire competent speech writers and get rid of the Marxist Yes Men that you surround yourself with.

You said it, “the same extremists” these are the people we need to slip our dogs of war onto. They need to be hunted down and slaughtered in a very undiplomatic and politically incorrect method. We realize you have a Socialist Agenda planned to cripple our economy and enslave the American People, but at this moment we are engaged in a war that has unnecessarily become a slow war of attrition against our troops and soon against our civilian population. Perhaps you should consider priorities and crush these Islamo Fascists before you implement your Marxist Agenda and weaken our economy to the point that we can no longer afford to carry the war to the aggressor or is that your intention?

Stresses at Fort Hood Were Likely Intense for Hasan

The Washington Post:

At Walter Reed, a palpable strain on mental-health system

And on and on.

Day after day since the terrorist acts of Hasan we have been inundated with calls from out MSM and the Democrats that this was all one man going crazy. Why did he go crazy? Well, because of the strain of treating those with PTSD.

Now even treating PTSD will give you PTSD. Nevermind the thousands of men and women who have listened to these horrors day in and day out as they treated our wounded soldiers….and they never picked up a gun to kill innocent life. Nevermind the thousands of soldiers who came back from war and did not murder 13 people.

No….it’s not because he wanted to terrorize the populace to effectively stop the “war against Islam.”

He just snapped.

It is an example of political correctness. And all the warnings that people had had in advance and not reported is an example of how political correctness isn’t only a moral abomination, it’s also a danger.

Perfect example is from The U.S. Army’s top general:

“What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.”

Who in the hell said anything about trying to destroy diversity inside our military? What many of us are saying is that when there are signs that someone is an extremist…take action.

Rich Lowry:

If Casey says that after 13 people die, imagine what pressures there were in the military to honor Hasan’s contribution to diversity before he killed. Hasan’s fellow students told the Associated Press that, despite his anti-American rants, “a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.”

And there you have it. No one complained when, at a conference where he was supposed to give a medical presentation, he gave this instead:

The Koranic World View as it Related to Muslims in the U.S. Military (pdf)

Robert from Jihad Watch on the presentation:

Note the copious quoting of the Koran; the explanation of the doctrine of abrogation (citing Koran 2:106 and 16:101), which usually Islamic apologists in the West dismiss as an invention of “Islamophobes”; and the explanations of defensive and offensive jihad.

Islamic spokesmen in the U.S., if anyone asks them to comment on this at all, will dismiss it as an “extremist” interpretation of Islam and claim that no Muslims in the U.S., not one, believe in this understanding of Islam. But I guarantee you that none of the, not one, will offer a specific alternative explanation of the verses he cites, or of his doctrine of jihad, or of his understanding of Islam.

Why wasn’t he stopped during this presentation? I mean its a sign of an extremist when he acted like this but no one said anything due to fear of being labeled a racist or islamaphobe.

How about contacting terrorists? Should that be looked into before violence happens?

U.S. intelligence agencies learned an Army psychiatrist contacted an Islamist sympathetic to al Qaeda and they relayed the information to authorities before the man allegedly went on a shooting spree that killed 13 people in Texas last week, U.S. officials said on Monday.

While the agencies were monitoring contacts by Anwar al-Awlaki, a fiery, anti-American cleric in Yemen who sympathized with al Qaeda, they came across some communications late last year with the shooting suspect, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, U.S. government officials said.

They said the information was given to federal authorities who determined that Hasan’s writings were largely consistent with his academic work, offering no hint that he was planning an attack or was following orders from anyone…

~~~

The 10 to 20 communications between Hasan and the cleric continued into 2009. That prompted authorities to look into Hasan, the officials said. But they decided the matter did not warrant an investigation.

~~~

In August 2009, Hasan purchased two firearms that he used to carry out the attack, but the government officials said that U.S. law does not permit them to connect that purchase information with the other intelligence they had.

The Democrats put up the Gorelick Wall (pdf), tried to shut down FISA, outed successful secret programs in place to stop extremists, and now they, and their lackeys in the MSM are making apologies for an act of terror committed on American soil.

Disgusting.

More here.

Via ABC News:

A pharmacy college graduate made a defiant appearance in federal court Wednesday, hours after being charged with conspiring with two other men in a terror plot to kill two prominent U.S. politicians and carry out a holy war by attacking shoppers in U.S. malls and American troops in Iraq.

Authorities say the men’s plans — in which they used code words like “peanut butter and jelly” for fighting in Somalia and “culinary school” for terrorist camps — were thwarted in part when they could not find training and were unable to buy automatic weapons, authorities said.

Tarek Mehanna, 27, was arrested Wednesday morning at his parents’ home in Sudbury, an upscale suburb 20 miles west of Boston, and appeared for a brief hearing later in the day. When ordered by the judge to stand to hear the charge against him, he refused. He finally did stand — tossing his chair loudly to the floor — only after his father urged him to do so.

“This really, really is a show,” his father, Ahmed Mehanna, said afterward.

Uh…no. That would be balloon boy and his father. This is different…

When asked if he believed the charges against his son, he said, “No, definitely not.”

Ah, yes… he’s such a good boy, his family claimed when he was arrested last year:

Like clockwork, Mehanna’s family defends him as a nice boy who just completed his graduate work to become a pharmacist. What his family may or may not know is that Mehanna goes by the online handle “Abu Sayaba” and runs the “Iskandari” website which is devoted to promoting the Salafi ideology.

This is like the 4th or 5th terror plot that’s been disrupted in the past month and made public, isn’t it?

While al Qaeda traditionally goes for the big and spectacular, just think what a series of smaller-scale terror attacks could achieve from terror cells and jihadist-wannabe, driven by Islamic hate, regardless of whether or not they are affiliated with al Qaeda. Malls, movie theaters, dance clubs, schools, buses…any public setting where people converge.

Prosecutors say Tarek Mehanna worked with two men from 2001 to May 2008 on the conspiracy to “kill, kidnap, maim or injure” soldiers and two politicians who were members of the executive branch but are no longer in office. Authorities refused to identify the politicians.

Mehanna — a graduate of the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy in Boston, where his father is a professor — conspired with Ahmad Abousamra, who authorities say is now in Syria, and an unnamed man, who is cooperating in the investigation, according to authorities.

The three men often discussed their desire to participate in “violent jihad against American interests” and talked about “their desire to die on the battlefield,” prosecutors said. But when they were unable to join terror groups in Iraq, Yemen and Pakistan, they found inspiration in the Washington-area sniper shootings and turned their interests to domestic terror pursuits while they plotted the attack on shopping malls, authorities said.

~~~

Loucks said the men justified attacks because U.S. civilians pay taxes to support the U.S. government and because they are “nonbelievers.”

~~~

Court documents filed by the government say that in 2002 or 2003, Abousamra became frustrated after repeatedly being rejected to join terror groups in Pakistan — first Lashkar e Tayyiba, then the Taliban.

“Because Abousamra was an Arab (not Pakistani) the LeT camp would not accept him, and because of Abousamra’s lack of experience, the Taliban camp would not accept him,” FBI Special Agent Heidi Williams wrote in the affidavit.

Mehanna and Abousamra traveled to Yemen in 2004 in an attempt to join a terrorist training camp.

It’s a tough life being a successful terrorist-wannabe-wahhabi.

Mehanna allegedly told a friend, the third conspirator who is now cooperating with authorities, that their trip was a failure because they were unable to reach people affiliated with the camps. The men, who had allegedly received tips on whom to meet from a person identified in court documents as “Individual A,” said half the people they wanted to see were on “hajj,” referring to the pilgrimage to Mecca in Islam, and half were in jail.

“They traveled all over the country looking for the people Individual A told them to meet,” authorities allege in the criminal complaint.

Abousamra was rejected by a terror group when he sought training in Iraq because he was American, authorities said.

The men later decided they were not going to be able to get terror training in Pakistan and “began exploring other options, including terrorist acts in the United States,” the affidavit said.

Mehanna, a U.S. citizen, was arrested in November and charged with lying to the FBI in December 2006 when asked the whereabouts of Daniel Maldonado, who is now serving a 10-year prison sentence for training with al-Qaida to overthrow the Somali government.

Mehanna told the FBI that Maldonado was living in Egypt and working for a Web site. But authorities said Maldonado had called Mehanna from Somalia urging him to join him in “training for jihad.”

Authorities said Wednesday that Mehanna and his conspirators had contacted Maldonado about getting automatic weapons for their planned mall attacks.

Carney, who represented Mehanna in the previous case, said at the time: “If this is the FBI’s idea of a terrorist, they are using a net that is designed to catch minnows instead of sharks.”

After his arrest, Mehanna developed a cult following among Muslim civil rights groups and Web sites that believed Mehanna was wrongly arrested. Web sites like the London-based cageprisoners.com…, a human rights group that advocates for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other detainees as part of the U.S. war on terror, asked supporters to write Mehanna in prison to keep up his spirits.

The site MuslimMatters.org… asked supporters to pray for his release and published a letter they said Mehanna wrote from prison.

In the letter, Mehanna thanked supporters and said he was being treated well.

“I can only think of the countless imprisoned Muslims in the jails of tyrants around the globe and hope that if it is not Allah’s Decree to free them in the near future, that they taste the sweetness that Allah has placed them in prison to taste,” Mehanna wrote.

He signed the letter, “Your brother in the green jumpsuit.”

So long as Muslim groups act as apologists and defenders of these failed martyrs and deride religious-ethnic-nationality profiling, the Patriot Act, NSA surveillance programs, and oppose and mischaracterize U.S. foreign policy and our military efforts, they will only do themselves more harm than good; and only enable, encourage, and foster more home-grown Islamic terrorists.

Nicolas Asfouri/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Interesting piece at Foreign Policy Small Wars Journal:

While Obama and his team deliberate, other developments are underway that will either support McChrystal’s request or perhaps create alternatives. On Sept. 20, the Los Angeles Times reported on another “surge” into Afghanistan, this one by the Central Intelligence Agency. According to the article, the CIA’s head count in Afghanistan will increase to 700, led by increases in paramilitary officers, intelligence analysts, and operatives tracking the behavior of Afghan government officials.

There is something to be said about the success of having a light footprint, utilizing Special Forces and CIA rather than a heavy military force (but wasn’t the Rumsfeld approach only temporarily successful?). We have such footprint operations going on all over the world, to great success (re: Robert Kaplan’s Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts)

We shouldn’t underestimate the power of viagra diplomacy to carry us to victory in Overseas Contingency Operations.

Iran continues to treat us like suckers because we behave like suckers born every minute:

“I made it quite clear that when they argue that their nuclear facilities are genuinely for peaceful purposes the burden of proof is on their side,” he said.

Ahmadinejad said Friday his country has complied with requirements to inform the IAEA six months before a new enrichment facility becomes operational, and was giving 18 months notice.

Iran has agreed to allow the IAEA to inspect the new facility. At the news conference Tuesday, Ban was asked why he didn’t wait for the U.N. nuclear agency to issue its report, as Ahmadinejad said.

“To be transparent and credible, when you have such an intent to build facilities, they should have informed _ notified the IAEA long time before, not just before everything would be completed,” Ban replied.

“That’s what I’m raising. So there is a question of transparency. That is why the world leaders have expressed their deep concern and that is why I have also expressed my concern,” he said.

“I urged him that Iran as (a) historically rich and proud country should take the constructive role in the international community by making very transparent and directly involvement and engagement in negotiations to prove all the pending issues,” Ban said.

The secretary-general said he was following up his meeting with Ahmadinejad with a meeting later Tuesday with Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

“I sincerely hope that all these questions pertaining this new facility and other facilities _ all the pending issues concerning nuclear development programs of Iran should be resolved through dialogue in a transparent and objective manner with (the) international atomic agency involved,” he said.

*Groan*…why do we insist on being played like a violin?

Last week in wake of the disclosure of Iran’s “secret” “semi-industrial enrichment fuel facility”, Curt linked to this sentence in the WaPo:

President Barack Obama reiterated that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it takes steps to prove its aspirations are peaceful.

“Prove its aspirations are peaceful”?!

Nima Gerami and James M. Acton at Foreign Policy spell it out:

the evidence that the new facility is part of a military program is compelling. According to unclassified U.S. government talking points, the clandestine facility near Qom is “intended to hold approximately 3,000 centrifuges” of an unknown type. In 2007, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, then head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), said that Iran’s target was to have 50,000 centrifuges at its Natanz enrichment facility. This number was needed to make “meaningful amounts of nuclear fuel” for one or two commercial-scale power plants to generate electricity.

Thus, by Iran’s own admission, the Qom facility is too small for civilian purposes. It is not, however, too small to produce meaningful amounts of highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapons program.

U.S. intelligence also describes the facility as being “located in an underground tunnel complex on the grounds of an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Base” unknown to all but the most senior AEOI officials. Links between a supposedly civilian facility and a military organization always worry IAEA inspectors, and they should worry us too. Iran’s core obligation to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it says it fully upholds, is to ensure that all its nuclear activities are exclusively for peaceful purposes — building an underground nuclear facility on a military base certainly raises questions about Iranian intentions. Finally, because it was a clandestine plant, the Qom facility was clearly much more suited to military ends than the facility at Natanz, which is subject to IAEA monitoring.

They go on to point out the flaws in Ahmadinejad’s legal arguments.

What other clandestine facilities and operations do we know about? Begging the question of how much we don’t know about.

The NYTimes:

Western intelligence officials now want to determine whether there are even more secret enrichment sites. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates dodged the question of whether there were additional sites during a television appearance over the weekend. Washington has said there may be more than a dozen sites involved in the nuclear program, though there have been no public indications as to what they are used for.

Graham Allison, the author of “Nuclear Terrorism” and a Harvard professor who focuses on proliferation, said he could not conceive of Iran’s building only one such site.

“How likely is it that the Qum facility is all there is? Zero. A prudent manager of a serious program would certainly have a number of sites,” he said.

After all, Mr. Allison said, the lesson Iran took away from Israel’s destruction of an Iraqi reactor more than 25 years ago is to spread facilities around the country.

Steve Schippert points out how this NYTimes article perpetuates the politically motivated 2007 NIE assessment fairy tale that Iran stopped its work on nuclear weapons designs in 2003.

Does anyone question Iran’s deceptiveness? It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to realize and conclude that Iran’s nuclear technology ambitions are anything but for peaceful purposes. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck…you don’t suppose that just maybe….by gosh, golly, geewhiz…maybe…that it’s a duck we’ve been looking at for the last 3 decades?

How much longer do we engage in this charade? This international farce?

The disclosure by Iran, prompted by the discovery that western intelligence has known about Qom for years, induced all the usual suspects to wag their fingers, launch “stern warnings”, “harsh” reprimands, and calls of facing consequences for the regime…but no credible threat of military action. Just Chocolate Chip Ice Cream Diplomacy.

And how did Tehran receive the soft-serve 31 flavors of verbal tickling?

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.

“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.

The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.

Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”

Ouch.

This on top of The Telegraph calling him President Pantywaist last week in response to his roll back of the missile shield:

Despite propaganda to the contrary, 58 per cent of Poles were in favour of the missile shield. But small nations must assess the political will of larger powers. Thanks to President Pantywaist’s supine policies, the former satellite states can see that they are fast returning to their former status. The American umbrella cannot be relied upon on a rainy day. They have been here before. Poles remember how a leftist US president sold them out to Russia at Tehran and Yalta. The former Czechoslovakia was betrayed twice: in 1938 and 1945.

If the word is out that America is in retreat, it will soon find it has no friends. The satellites will pragmatically accept their restored subordination, without openly acknowledging it, and co-operate with their dangerous neighbour, ushering in a new generation of Finlandisation.

At least some in the world are starting to dig their heads outta the ground on this President.

Full remarks of French President Sarkozy:

France fully supports your initiative to organize this meeting and the efforts you undertook with Russia to reduce nuclear arsenals. But let us speak frankly – we are here to guarantee peace.

We are right to speak of the future, but before the future there is the present, and at present we have two nuclear crises.

The people of the entire world are listening to what we’re saying, to our promises, our commitments and our speeches, but we live in a real world, not a virtual world.

We say: reductions must be made. And President Obama has even said, “I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].” Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council resolutions. Since 2005, Secretary-General, the international community has called on Iran to engage in dialogue. An offer of dialogue was made in 2005, an offer of dialogue was made in 2006, an offer of dialogue was made in 2007, an offer of dialogue was made in 2008, and another one was made in 2009. President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing. More enriched uranium, more centrifuges, and on top of that, a statement by Iranian leaders proposing to wipe a UN member State off the map.

And now the AP is saying that secret nuclear facility is just one of a network of them…..

The revelation suggests a network of facilities, including ones with centrifuges that would enrich uranium at much higher speed and efficiency than previously known sites

~~~

George Perkovich, an Iran expert at Washington’s Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, suggested Iran must be building at least one other unreported facility, a uranium conversion plant to provide feedstuff for the newly disclosed enrichment plant. That’s because the Iranians’ known conversion plant, at Isfahan, is under IAEA oversight.

“Why would you have a secret enrichment plant under a mountain if you don’t have a secret conversion plant?” he asked.

Mark Fitzpatrick, a senior fellow for nonproliferation at the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said there has been suspicion for some time — but no concrete evidence — that Iran had been working on a second uranium conversion facility to supplement the one at Isfahan, and he agreed that if Iran had an enrichment plant, it would also need a facility to produce the gasified uranium.

Iran kept a nuclear facility secret, actually a network of them, and now because Obama says it’s time to stop talking the Iranians will suddenly come to their senses.

Give me a break.

Everyone knows Obama would never take the action needed to show Iran that we mean business. He will hem and haw, talk and talk, and at the end of the day Iran will have a nuke.

NYTimes:

WASHINGTON — As Congress prepares to consider extending crucial provisions of the USA Patriot Act, civil liberties groups and some Democratic lawmakers are gearing up to press for sweeping changes to surveillance laws.

Both the House and the Senate are set to hold their first committee hearings this week on whether to reauthorize three sections of the Patriot Act that expire at the end of this year. The provisions expanded the power of the F.B.I. to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls in the course of a counterterrorism investigation.

Is this really an “expansion” of power? Or a matter of updating existing powers in order for the F.B.I. to effectively do its job of protecting American lives in wake of 21st century technological advancements?

Laying down a marker ahead of those hearings, a group of senators who support greater privacy protections filed a bill on Thursday that would impose new safeguards on the Patriot Act while tightening restrictions on other surveillance policies. The measure is co-sponsored by nine Democrats and an independent.

The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE- ain’t that cute?) Act is being introduced by U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jon Tester (D-MT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT- who might as well carry a “D” by his name).

“Every single member of Congress wants to give our law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools they need to keep Americans safe,” Mr. Feingold said in a statement when filing the bill. “But with the Patriot Act up for reauthorization, we should take this opportunity to fix the flaws in our surveillance laws once and for all.”

Really?! Feingold (and every single member of Congress) wants to give our FBI and CIA the tools they need to keep Americans safe? Is that what he wanted in Oct. 2001 when he alone opposed the Patriot Act? If he had a chance to vote against the entire Patriot Act today, would he do so? 8 years following the events of 9/11, and we have not experienced another such terror attack. How has the Patriot Act not contributed to that success?

One of the witnesses Democrats have invited to testify at both hearings is Suzanne E. Spaulding, who has worked for lawmakers of both parties as a former top staffer on the House and Senate Intelligence committees.

I love when it’s always pointed out that she’s “worked for lawmakers of both parties”, as if that gives her credentials of being down the middle/bipartisan. But on this issue, she has always aligned herself against the Bush Administration on the Patriot Act, FISA, NSA surveillance program.

Mrs. Spaulding said she would urge Congress to tighten restrictions on when the F.B.I. could use the Patriot Act powers.

The rapid build-up of domestic intelligence authorities after the Sept. 11 attacks, she said, had overlooked “important safeguards,” which has resulted “in a greater likelihood at a minimum of the government mistakenly intruding into the privacy of innocent Americans, and at worst having a greater capability of abusing these authorities.”

Still, she acknowledged, the public record contains scant evidence that the F.B.I. has abused its powers under the three expiring Patriot Act sections.

Yet Spaulding and others of her mindset continue to fear-monger a characterization of “abuses”, “spying on AMERICANS (not terrorists)”, “civil rights intrusion”. That’s how they define this.

Republicans invited Kenneth L. Wainstein, a former assistant attorney general for national security for the Bush administration, to testify at both Patriot Act hearings.

“We have to be careful not to limit these tools to the point that they are no longer useful in fast-moving threat investigations,” Mr. Wainstein said. “There is an important place for oversight of national security tools, and that oversight is being exercised by Congress and by the federal judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.”

The first such provision allows investigators to get “roving wiretap” court orders authorizing them to follow a target who switches phone numbers or phone companies, rather than having to apply for a new warrant each time.

From 2004 to 2009, the Federal Bureau of Investigation applied for such an order about 140 times, Robert S. Mueller, the F.B.I. director, said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week.

The second such provision allows the F.B.I. to get a court order to seize “any tangible things” deemed relevant to a terrorism investigation — like a business’s customer records, a diary or a computer.

From 2004 to 2009, the bureau used that authority more than 250 times, Mr. Mueller said.

The final provision set to expire is called the “lone wolf” provision. It allows the F.B.I. to get a court order to wiretap a terrorism suspect who is not connected to any foreign terrorist group or foreign government.

Mr. Mueller said this authority had never been used, but the bureau still wanted Congress to extend it.

I wonder if Dennis Kucinich sees that last fact as a reason for scrapping it. 5 years after the enactment of the Patriot Act, the number of searches conducted at libraries under the business records provision was just one, prompting Kucinich to say: “If they haven’t used it, they shouldn’t have any problems with our efforts to get it repealed.”

As Ron Kessler points out, “That was like saying that because a policeman had never used his gun, it should be taken away.” [pg 65, The Terrorist Watch]

Kucinich, btw, was on a FOX morning news show this weekend, crying foul over the timing of arrests made last week to foil a terror plot in NYC, in close proximity of the upcoming debate on the Patriot Act. That accusation is a bit akin to Nancy Pelosi’s smear of the CIA. However, who would engage in political timing and advocacy? Why, the national security-averse NYTimes in 2005:

Before yesterday’s vote, opponents of the legislation rallied around a front page article in Thursday’s New York Times that reported Mr. Bush had secretly lifted certain limits on spying inside the United States. After more than a year holding the story, the paper decided to run it on the day of the Patriot Act vote.

The rhetoric of the Senators who are introducing the JUSTICE Act is one of striking balance between giving law enforcement and intell officials the tools they need on the one hand; while protecting American civil liberties on the other. But are Americans really in danger of being targeted for civil rights abuses and violations under the current Patriot Act?

Many of the proposals under discussion involve small wording shifts whose impact can be difficult to understand, in part because the statutes are extremely technical and some govern technology that is classified.

But in general, civil libertarians and some Democrats have called for changes that would require stronger evidence of meaningful links between a terrorism suspect and the person whom investigators are targeting.

In the same way, some are proposing to use any Patriot Act extension bill to tighten when the F.B.I. may use “national security letters” — administrative subpoenas that allow counterterrorism agents to seize business records without obtaining permission from a judge. Agents use the device tens of thousands of times each year.

The Patriot Act section that expanded the F.B.I.’s power to issue those letters is not expiring, but they have become particularly controversial because the Justice Department’s inspector general issued two reports finding that F.B.I. agents frequently misused the device to obtain bank, credit card and telephone records.

National security letters are similar to grand jury subpoenas, issued in international terrorism and espionage investigations.

Ronald Kessler, The Terrorist Watch, has some things to say regarding this matter, Pg 73-5:

As it turns out, the actual number of national security letters issued by the FBI each year averages around 50,000. While that number may sound like a lot, an investigation of one suspected terrorist may entail issuance of hundreds of national security letters to track down data from each bank account, credit card, cell phone, telephone, e-mail, and Internet account he may have used over time.

~~~

In a later audit, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found minor deficiencies associated with 22 of the 293 national security letters he examined from 2003 to 2005. In some cases, the letters were issued after the authorized investigation period, or an agent had accidentally transposed the digits in a telephone number of a person under investigation.

In about half the cases, the problems were not the fault of the FBI: According to Fine’s report, recipients of the letters sometimes turned over more information than requested or provided information about the wrong phone number. These problems never should have been lumped in with FBI violations.

Mueller brought that up with Fine, who insisted he was right to do so.

Mueller says the reason the FBI did not keep proper track of requests for national security letters is that no separate system had been set up to keep track of them.

~~~

By the time the report came out, Mueller had already taken twelve steps to correct the problems,

~~~

Fine specifically found that the FBI had not intentionally violated any rules. He determined that, with the exception of situations where the recipient made an error, the FBI in most cases had obtained information to which it was, in fact, entitled. He noted the tremendous workload of FBI agents trying to stop the next attack. And he concluded that NSLs have contributed significantly to the FBI’s counterterrorism efforts.

The news accounts either ignored or downplayed these findings. Instead, they played up the story as a massive intrusion into people’s personal lives, suggesting NSLs had something to do with monitoring calls rather than simply obtaining subscriber information associated with telephone numbers and e-mail addresses or obtaining financial records.

The F.B.I and the C.I.A. are not interested in “spying” upon ordinary Americans. They are interested in being able to do their jobs and to do them well, which involves protecting their loved ones and ordinary Americans.

Whose rights were being violated more, those whose phones were tapped by court order or those who died in the 9/11 attacks?
- Ron Kessler, The Terrorist Watch, pg 64

JUSTICE Act 2009 fact sheet:

The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act would reform the USA PATRIOT Act, the FISA Amendments Act and other surveillance authorities to protect the constitutional rights of Americans while ensuring the government has the powers it needs to fight terrorism and collect intelligence.

Title I – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Records

Sections 101-106 – National Security Letters

The bill rewrites the National Security Letter (NSL) statutes to ensure the FBI can obtain basic information without a court order, but also adds reasonable safeguards to ensure NSLs are only used to obtain records of people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage, and to provide meaningful, constitutionally sound judicial review of NSLs and associated gag orders.

Section 107 – Section 215 Orders

The bill would reauthorize the use of Section 215 business records orders under FISA, but with additional checks and balances to ensure these orders are only used to obtain records of people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage, and to provide meaningful, constitutionally sound judicial review of Section 215 orders and associated gag orders.

Title II – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Homes

Section 201 – “Sneak & Peek” Searches

The bill would retain the Patriot Act’s authorization of “sneak and peek” criminal searches but eliminate the overbroad catch-all provision that allows these secret searches in virtually any criminal case. It would shorten the presumptive time limits for notification, and create a statutory exclusionary rule.

Title III – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Communications

Section 301 – FISA Roving Wiretaps

The bill would reauthorize roving FISA wiretaps, but eliminate the possibility of “John Doe” roving wiretaps that identify neither the person nor the phone to be wiretapped. It would require agents to ascertain the presence of the target of a roving wiretap before beginning surveillance.

Section 302 – Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices

The bill would retain the Patriot Act’s expansion of the FISA and criminal pen/trap authorities to cover electronic communications, but would allow pen/traps to be used only to obtain information about people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage. It would impose additional procedural safeguards to serve as a check on these authorities.

Section 303 – Telecommunications Immunity

The bill would repeal the retroactive immunity provision in the FISA Amendments Act.

Section 304 – Bulk Collection

The bill retains the new warrantless authorities in the FISA Amendments Act but would prevent the government from using that law to conduct “bulk collection” of the contents of communications, including all communications between the United States and the rest of the world.

Section 305 – Reverse Targeting

The bill would ensure that the overseas warrantless collection authorities of the FISA Amendments Act are not used as a pretext to target Americans in the U.S.

Section 306 – Use of Unlawfully Obtained Information

The bill would limit the government’s use of information about Americans obtained under FISA Amendments Act procedures that the FISA Court later determines to be unlawful, while giving the court flexibility to allow such information to be used in appropriate cases.

Section 307 – Protections for International Communications of Americans

The bill would amend the FISA Amendments Act to create safeguards for communications not related to terrorism that the government knows have one end in the United States.

Section 308 – Computer Trespass

The bill would guard against abuse of a warrantless surveillance authority in the Patriot Act that allows computer owners who are subject to denial of service attacks or other episodes of hacking to give the government permission to monitor trespassers on their systems.

Title IV – Improvements to Further Congressional and Judicial Oversight

Section 401 – FISA Public Reporting

The bill would require limited additional public reporting on the use of FISA.

Section 402 – Use of FISA Evidence

The bill would apply the Classified Information Procedures Act to the use of FISA evidence in criminal cases, and allow the use of protective orders and other security measures in civil cases, to ensure that courts have discretion to allow litigants access to information where appropriate while still protecting sensitive information.

Section 403 – Nationwide Court Orders

The bill would permit a recipient of a nationwide court order to challenge it either in the district where it was issued or in the district where the recipient is located.

Title V – Improvements to Further Effective, Focused Investigations

Section 501 – Domestic Terrorism

The Patriot Act’s overbroad definition of domestic terrorism could cover acts of civil disobedience by political organizations. The bill would limit the qualifying offenses for domestic terrorism to those that constitute a federal crime of terrorism.

Section 502 – Material Support

The bill would amend the overly broad criminal definition of material support for terrorism by specifying that a person must know or intend the support provided will be used for terrorist activity.

Not this one:

Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) appears to be a decent and honorable man. Part of his background includes military service (with four sons currently serving). The truth czar’s impassioned outburst during President Obama’s healthcare speech may seem out of step with his character and his military discipline, but he vented/channeled what many frustrated Americans were shouting into their tv sets, while provoking a million-mob strong march to turn out in D.C.: You LIE.

Not only is former ambassador Joe Wilson a liar; but the current president of the United States is one, too.

Congressman Wilson broke decorum and the rules of civility with his outburst (not like Democrats didn’t do this during Bush’s speech). But he manned up and offered his apology (accepted by President Obama) while not backing down from the facts of the matter. If Democrats wish to press for a forced apology (not happening) for nothing more than political humiliation, then lets bring to the floor Charlie Rangel and his ethical transgress. Where was the disapproval resolution for Democrats who booed President Bush? Did Harry Reid ever pay through the nose for his comment about President Bush as a “loser” and a “liar“? Did the Pelosi vs. CIA embarrassment ever get resolved? Apparently not, since she’s still House Speaker.

Joe Wilson’s charge may have been improper, but it achieved positive results. (He could use your support).

What is most remarkable about President Obama’s speech last Wednesday (and again, since), was just how divisive it was; and how un-evolved from previous speeches. What bizarro world is it that talking heads live in when they ooh and aah the partisan campaign speech that was anything but presidential?

Status quo? Who’s advocating for that?

Republicans haven’t been offering alternative bills and solutions? Lies, spin, strawman, and more lies and spin.

Last Friday, September 11th, Investors Business Daily put out a brilliant piece as part of their Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure series. Here, they dismantle piece by piece, some of the misinformation and spin in President Obama’s healthcare speech:

Speaking Of Misinformation

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, September 11, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Reform: Millions of Americans finally got to hear the Democrats’ pitch on health care reform, made by their top salesman. But they heard nothing new — just a lot of discredited myths recycled as the truth.

For the record, we support improving our health care system. As is, it has too many rules, too much government spending and too few market forces to keep costs low and quality high.

We spend north of $2 trillion every year on health care — 17% of our GDP, the most of any wealthy nation. If that sounds like a lot, remember this: An estimated 47% of that already is spent by the government. And government’s share will grow even without “reform.”

Look closely at the plans so far to emerge from Congress. What the Democrats have proposed, in essence, is a government takeover of nearly one-fifth of our nation’s economy. When brought up in Congress, this idea has been rejected repeatedly. Yet, somehow, the idea never dies.

That’s why the president’s speech Wednesday night was a big disappointment.

Rather than a breakthrough that would remove government’s stranglehold on a once-healthy market and move us toward true reform, we heard a lot of old bromides and myths — things we just can’t let go uncorrected. Too much is at stake.

So following are 15 of the biggest misconceptions — and there are many more, we assure you — that we found in the speech:

• “The uninsured . . . live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare.”

Actually, of the 46 million people the census estimates don’t have insurance, some 20 million have incomes above average and could afford to buy it, according to a study by former Congressional Budget Office Director June O’Neill.

Of the remaining 26 million uninsured, an estimated 13.7 million are poor. They are eligible for Medicaid — the state health care programs for the poor. But many, too, are illegals — about 8 million.

Though they’re eligible, research from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association suggests as many as 14 million uninsured Americans qualify for public coverage, but don’t enroll. And as many as 6 million are enrolled, but don’t report it to the government, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis.

That leaves about 5 million people with no care.

By the way, according to the Census Bureau, America now has 37 million people in poverty. But Medicaid enrollment covers 55 million people — at a cost of $350 billion a year.

Based on this, no one should be without care. Which leads us to wonder: Is nationalizing our health care system really necessary to take care of people who already have care available to them?

• “Many other Americans . . . are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.”

This statement betrays a profound ignorance of what insurance is. If you can buy insurance after you’ve gotten sick, it’s not really insurance, is it? And why have insurance at all? It’s an incentive to simply wait until you get sick, then make someone else pay for it.

To see how absurd this is, let’s take the same concept to auto insurance. Why not let people buy insurance after they get in an accident? One reason, of course, is it leads to fiscal and personal recklessness.

• “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage . . . every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.”

As noted above, the bulk of the 30-plus million uninsured actually can get coverage — and in many cases, qualify for existing government programs. But how about 14,000 Americans losing their coverage each day? A little math shows this is just a scare statistic.

Multiply it out, and it comes to 5.1 million people losing coverage in a year. Sound scary? Consider that, according to the census, 46.3 million Americans don’t currently have insurance — 600,000 more than last year. That means that, along with 14,000 Americans losing their coverage each day, another 12,400 Americans are signing up for it — even in the middle of a brutal recession.

Those who lose insurance do so usually because they’ve lost a job. Most are without insurance for a couple of months or so. The best way to boost the number of insured — and one that “costs” nothing — is to cut taxes, ease regulations and slash government spending. Those policies are all proven job creators.

• “We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it.”

This is a non sequitur. We spend one and a half times more per person, true. But because our health care here is better. That’s right — better. True, our life expectancy of 78.1 years — which is up sharply from just a decade ago — ranks us 30th in the world in longevity. But look a little closer at the data.

The U.S. homicide rate is two to three times higher than in other industrial nations. And we drive a lot more than others, so our auto fatality rate of 14.24 deaths per 100,000 people is higher than in Germany (6.19), France (7.4) or Canada (9.25). Add to this, we eat far more than other countries on average, contributing to higher levels of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer.

When all those factors are figured in, according to a recent study by Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa, Americans actually live longer than people in other countries — thanks mainly to our excellent health care.

In case anyone missed it, Charles Krauthammer’s excellent piece regarding the myth of prevention as “cost effective”.

• Rising health care premiums are “why American businesses that compete internationally — like our automakers — are at a huge disadvantage.”

Well, right and wrong. Soaring health care premiums are a problem for some. But who’s to blame for this? Government health care programs, which make up 47% of all health care spending, are the biggest drivers of rising insurance premiums.

For example, Medicare forces doctors and hospitals to give patients 20% to 30% discounts on their care and drugs. Sounds great. But who pays for the “discount”? Private insurers, that’s who. And they pass it on to businesses. This is yet another case of government causing a problem, then blaming the victim.

Even so, in some industries health care premiums are an enormous problem and competitive liability. This is certainly true of the auto and steel industries. But they have no one to blame but themselves.

They gave gold-plated benefit packages to their unions during the fat times, and now that times are lean, want us — taxpayers — to make good on their extravagant promises.

This is why so many big businesses support nationalized health care. It bails them out of their own bad decisions — and by those imposed by government. Just last week a congressional oversight panel announced that taxpayers were unlikely to recoup much of the $81 billion they spent to bail out GM and Chrysler. That’s another indirect health care tax your children and grandchildren will have to pay.

• “Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. . . . If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined.”

Are we supposed to believe that adding more government will bring down government costs?

Medicare is already spending more than it is taking in through payroll taxes. Medicare trustees expect the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund part of the program to be insolvent by 2019. From now through 2017, it will need $342 billion of taxpayers’ money in order to keep paying hospital insurance benefits alone. Over the next 50 years or so, Medicare’s shortfall is expected to hit $37 trillion — an almost unbelievable deficit nearly three times our current GDP.

If Medicare has done one thing, it’s proved that government programs always cost more than their original projections. Citing the runaway costs of Medicare is an argument against, not for, further government intervention.

• “On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own. . . . I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.”

Discouraging employer-based coverage and encouraging individuals to buy their own insurance would help. But only if lawmakers make two real reforms, neither requiring a “new system from scratch.”

First, Washington must give tax credits for premiums paid on individual policies. That would make them more affordable for more people. Second, Washington has to make it easier for Americans to have health savings accounts. HSAs hold costs down because account holders self-ration treatment. They also give people more control over their health care.

• “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.”

Shawn Tully, Fortune editor at large, dug into the legislation and found that for “Americans in large corporations, ‘keeping your own plan’ has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you’ll get dumped into the exchange,” a government program in which heavily regulated private companies sell insurance policies.

Workers who buy their own insurance or begin coverage through small businesses will also be forced into the exchange if their plans change in any way, because it’s then considered a new plan. Since plans generally change policies every year, Tully says, “it’s likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.”

According to a July study by the Lewin Group and the Heritage Foundation, health reform could cause as many as 88 million Americans to lose their private, employer-based coverage.

• “If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange.”

The president says this is “a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.” But it won’t be a real marketplace. Participating insurers will be saddled with a host of mandates. Those that don’t like the regulations will be left out. There’ll be little room for competition.

The Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner has said that “in practice, at least as demonstrated in Massachusetts,” an exchange “can quickly devolve into a regulatory body.”

• “Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims . . . The best example is . . . that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. . . . It is a lie, plain and simple.”

As far as we know, there is no provision for a death panel buried in the 1,018-page bill. But we do know how Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the administration’s health care czar, feels about treating those who need the most help.

“When the worse-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating (treatment) to the better-off is often justifiable.”

So the federal government won’t be actively killing the old and the sick. It will just let them die by denying them the care that will supposedly be available to every American.

• “There are those who also claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

Tough words are one thing, enforcement is another. As IBD’s Sean Higgins reported last week: “Some independent analysis indicates — contrary to Obama’s claim — that the House health bill could result in coverage being extended to illegal immigrants.”

It starts with the mandate for everyone to buy insurance, including illegals. Their choices will be presumably through the “exchange,” and they won’t be eligible for subsidies to buy. But the non-partisan Congressional Research Service warns there’s no verification mechanism. An amendment by GOP Rep. Dean Heller of Nevada, to use electronic immigration records to verify eligibility for subsidies, was shot down by Democrats.

Enforcement woes are nothing new. The U.K.’s nationalized system treats as many as a million illegal immigrants a year because eligibility verification at the point of service is nearly impossible. It’s now giving up the ghost of trying because illegals have won the right to be treated at taxpayer expense as a “human right.” That’s brought new waves of “health tourism” as word spreads.

Cabinet officials, such as Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, support union demands to give amnesty to 12 million illegals. If so, they will get public health care. And hospitals that continue to treat illegals through emergency rooms, are reimbursed through Medicaid.

• “My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a ‘government takeover’ of the entire health care system . . . Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. . . Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down.”

Obama is right about limited numbers of insurers in states. They’re the last ones able to survive the layers of bureaucratic mandates and regulations without going bankrupt.

The fastest way to create choice for consumers isn’t by adding a government option, but by breaking down trade barriers across state lines. By letting citizens buy insurance from any state, a truly competitive market can develop, with choices in coverage, service and price. It would be far better if each American could buy health insurance from any of the nation’s 1,300 insurers, not just a handful in their own states.

• “Despite all this, some . . . argue that these private (insurance) companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public option. But they won’t be. . . . (The public option) would . . . keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better . . .”

When the government acts as both producer and regulator of its own and everyone else’s products, the playing field is tilted because there’s a basic conflict of interest. It’s also a recipe for cronyism and corruption. Witness Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

We looked at the after-tax margins of some big health insurers over the last 12 months. Here’s what we found: Among HMOs, Humana, 3.1%. Cigna, 4%. Wellpoint, 5%. United Health Group, 4.4%. Broader health insurers, like Unum (8.6% after-tax margin) and AFLAC (12.3%), do a bit better.

The point is, these are not outrageous profits. And the health care industry’s $13 billion in 2008 profits pale in comparison to the $65 billion in annual fraud in Medicare alone.

• “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize.”

From the folks who brought us a $10 trillion deficit over the next decade, that’s hard to swallow. The White House has assured us the public option would be funded by premiums. So, it’s hard to know what he means by savings or spending cuts.

Although Medicare and Medicaid, are slated for $313 billion in cuts, the government has yet to eliminate the $65 billion or so that goes to waste and fraud. They don’t need health reform to do that, they can do it now.

• “The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies — subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care.”

Speaking of waste and fraud, as we said, why can’t it be done today instead of waiting for some health care reform bill to pass? The president proposes $313 billion in Medicaid and Medicare cuts, saying $110 billion would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments.

“That would encourage health care providers to increase productivity,” White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters. $110 billion would come from ending payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients. But much of that comes from treating illegals, who aren’t supposed to be eligible for the public option.

Another $75 billion would come from “better pricing of Medicare drugs,” Orszag said.

What he doesn’t get is that some $10 billion of Medicare funding goes to dubious expenditures like hospitals padding bills because they are paid too little and must make up lost revenue in volume.

Cutting payments more means more padding, as the Mayo Clinic has warned. That means rationing. The Democrats’ plan may not be explicitly mean to ration, but not paying a fair and market-determined price for services will ensure less of it for patients.

President Obama began his speech by noting it’s “been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health reform” and that “nearly every president and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way.”

“A bill for comprehensive care reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943,” he also pointed out. “Sixty-five years later, his son (Rep. John Dingell, Michigan Democrat now in his 28th term) continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.”

Could it be, we wonder, that the reason why health reform of the kind the Dingells and Democrats have been pushing for 100 years has gone nowhere is that Americans want nothing to do with it? What is it about “No!” that they don’t understand?

Does he see his own image reflected back at him from his telemprompter:

“But we’ve also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we’ve seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenged. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.”

-President Barack Obama, “Remarks to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care,” U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., September 9, 2009

That seriously could have been written at the president.

It’s not a new phenomenon. Long ago it was said that the true story of a war can’t be told until the last of its veterans has passed away, and only a few months ago did the last World War One veteran go to his great reward. For decades after the Civil War (and some would argue even today) the debate raged on, and the healing of Southern Reconstruction didn’t really start culturally until the unity of the Spanish-American War turned foes into brothers-in-arms.

Conspiracy theories-often fueled by politics-still rage over the 911 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, whether or not Roosevelt deliberately allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to happen, whether or not the U.S. Navy knew the U.S.S. Maine had a boiler explosion and wasn’t sunk by a mine. People still think that the Lusitania was set on a suicide mission to get the United States into World War One. These myths will always remain, and it’s good that they do because they spark investigation and a search for understanding of these world changing events. The relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is interesting in that both have a long list of conspiracy theories attacked to each, and yet the abstract, more indirect relationship between the two events is dismissed out of hand. To that end, even if one believes the relationship between Iraq War and 911 attacks is a conspiracy theory, it’s worthwhile to examine if for no other reason than harvesting a better understanding.

Opponents of President Bush and of the invasion of Iraq often claim, “Iraq did not attack the United States on Sept 11, 2001,” but Germany, Italy, and the rest of the Axis didn’t attack Pearl Harbor either and yet the U.S. went to war with them as well as the Japanese. Why? Because those Axis powers had an alliance, an agreement to help the Japanese. It was a paper only agreement (history shows us that there were no battles with uber-racist NAZI S.S. troops fighting alongside Japanese troops), but it was an agreement none-the-less. Additionally, the Axis nations declared war on the United States after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Similarly, we know from Clinton Administration claims, from captured documents, from pre-war and post-war intelligence that Saddam’s intelligence agencies had relationships with various groups in the Al Queda terrorist network of groups. We know from the 1998 Clinton Administration indictment of Osama Bin Laden that the two had reached an agreement to get WMD into the hands of the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

We also know from 1990-2003 Saddam’s government considered itself at war with the United States and from 1992-today Osama Bin Laden’s Al Queda network of terrorist groups has been at war with the United States.

Why?

Why did Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda go to war with the United States in 1992? According to the 911 Commission’s final report, the reason that the Al Queda network went to war with the United States, and ultimately the reason for the September 11, 2001 attacks was 4 different things (pg48-49)

He [Osama Bin Laden] inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites.
He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and
he protested U.S. support of Israel.

Why were American forces in Saudi Arabia from 1992-2001? They were there for one reason: to enforce no-fly-zones over Iraq which were there to protect Iraqis from Saddam. If the United States had removed Saddam in 1991, then the U.S. forces wouldn’t have been needed in Saudi Arabia, and Osama Bin Laden’s first casus belli wouldn’t exist.

Why was Osama concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people? He was concerned-like many around the globe-because the U.S. led sanctions were starving tens of millions of people as a failed means of influencing Saddam. Again, had the United States removed Saddam in 1991, Osama Bin Laden’s second casus belli against the United States-his second reason for the 911 attacks-wouldn’t have existed.

Why was Osama Bin Laden so concerned about the United States support for Israel in the 1992-2001 period when Al Queda went to war with the United States? What was unique about that period in America’s support for Israel? In much of the Arab World (and in anti-Semitic circles around the world as well), America’s continued pressure on Saddam Hussein’s regime was viewed as an American shield for Israel; as the United States protecting Israel from Saddam and other aggressive Arab regimes.

The historical lesson and inescapable fact is that if the United States had chosen to remove Saddam from power in 1991, OR if the United States had simply walked away from Iraq in 1991 and washed their hands of Saddam’s regime without trying to compel compliance with United Nations resolutions, then Saddam’s regime would have remained in power, BUT the reasons for Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda terrorist networks’ war on the United States simply would not exist; i.e. the reasons for the Sept 11, 2001 attacks wouldn’t have existed.

Would Osama Bin Laden and his network still have found other reasons to wage war on the United States? One cannot tell for certain, but it does seem that their nature and their destiny has been to fight superpowers, and with the United States as the sole superpower in the 1990’s, it seems more than likely other excuses for casus belli would have been claimed.

Would Saddam Hussein have still been a threat to the United States if he had been left in power in 1991, and if the United States didn’t pursue compliance with U.N. Resolutions? Absolutely. In 1992 U.N. inspectors found that Saddam’s regime had actually built a nuclear bomb, but lacked enriched uranium for it. From 1992-1995 U.N. inspectors found vast amounts of WMD. Saddam had invaded or attacked every single one of his neighbors during his reign, he’d used WMD in the past, had ordered them used against U.S. troops in the 1991 Gulf War (Iraq Survey Group Report, transcript of recording, vol II). Few reasonable leaders would argue that Saddam was not a threat, and no one would argue that a Saddam Hussein who still had ballistic missiles, WMD, and more in 1992 was not a regional or even global threat. Determined that he was a threat, Saddam either had to be removed in 1991 by the United States, in the 1991-2003 period by internal forces (multiple attempts at which all failed with increasing futlity), or by the United States in 2003.

The abstract, and more indirect relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is simple: the war with Al Queda and their attacks on the United States (including the 911 attacks) were blowback, consequences, fragmentary effects of the 1991 invasion of Kuwait and Iraq.

The DIRECT relationship between the 911 attacks and Saddam’s regime is far more debated. To be clear, the hijackers were no more Iraqi than the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor were German and Italian. However, the question of direct Iraqi ties to the 911 attacks go back to that very day when-as the attacks were happening-Iraq shot down an unarmed Predator drone over Iraq that was searching for WMD etc. On that day, after getting sparse, scattered, and chaotic information about the attacks-while they were happening, and while getting 2-3x as many false reports and rumors of attacks, members of the Bush Administration were not at all culpable or irresponsible for asking if Saddam’s regime was behind the attacks.

In fact, at the time it had become a common cultural expectation. During the 1990’s the Clinton Administration repeatedly claimed that Saddam’s regime and the Al Queda network worked together. Mass media reports of the time carried this theme fully and without question. It was even showing up in movies where characters would claim anything-even meteor showers on New York City were the result of Saddam (Armaggeddon ffwd to 1:40).

Unfortunately, on Sept 11, 2001 there was no way to tell if the attacks were directly or just indirectly related to the on-going American war against Saddam (a war that was so poorly reported that most Americans even today fail to realize it even happened, but conversely was so burned into the minds of the Arab Street at the time that it still conjures up bitter memories in the region).

The question of direct Iraqi involvement in the 911 attacks was investigated first by the Bush Administration, and they found no evidence to make a conclusion. Subsequent investigations by the CIA, FBI, the House and Senate intelligence committees, the entire intelligence community, the 911 Commission and more all ran into the same problem: there was no evidence. For political partisans opposed to President Bush and/or the invasion of Iraq that was enough to support their argument that the invasion was somehow not necessary. The conclusion they promoted-that there was “no evidence” of a direct involvement was but 1/3 of the truth. Another 1/3 was the reason that there was “no evidence’ was because almost none had been collected or analyzed, and the reason for that (almost always ignored by political opponents of the Iraq invasion) was that from December 1998-December 2002 the United States had not a single spy inside Iraq. For four years there was no evidence collected, and thus there was “no evidence.”

Most alarmingly, after 1998 and the exit of the U.N. inspectors, the CIA had no human intelligence sources inside Iraq who were collecting against the WMD target.
- Senator Pat Roberts 070904 SIC Release of WMD investigation report
Press Conference transcript

The last 1/3 is the most obvious, and the most deliberately ignored for political purposes: every single investigation that looked at the question of direct regime ties to the 911 attacks and/or the Al Queda network of terrorist groups ALWAYS pointed out that because so little evidence had been collected, the issue was to remain open-not closed or concluded.

After the invasion, innumerable direct ties between the Al Queda network of terrorist groups and Saddam’s regime have been uncovered. These ties are shown in captured and authenticated documents, in the interrogation of former regime leaders, and in the capture of Al Queda operatives. In fact, the relationship between the regime and the network was far far more involved than any relationship between Germany and Japan or Mussolini and Tojo.

Yet it remains a political issue more than a historical one today. six years after the second invasion of Iraq, eight years after the 911 attacks, 17 years after Osama and the Al Queda network declared war on the United States, and 18 years after the United States and Saddam’s regime went to war over Kuwait.

Perhaps, now that President Bush is gone, and there is no more need to use the invasion of Iraq as a draw issue for his opposition…perhaps now people can be mentally brave enough to recognize the undeniable blowback/more-indirect relationship between the Ignored War on Saddam’s regime (1991-2001) and the 911 attacks. There certainly is no more reason to deny this fact, and there’s no more reason to avoid a conclusive investigation into the depth of regime ties to the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

The ambivelent news is that The UK recently managed to convict a group of three terrorists for attempted terrorism:

Airline terror trial: The bomb plot to kill 10,000 people
Three British Muslims have been convicted of planning a series of co-ordinated suicide bomb attacks on transatlantic airliners, which could have killed up to 10,000 people.
By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent
Telegraph.co.uk

The al-Qaeda cell plotted to cause mass murder by detonating home-made liquid explosives on board at least seven passenger flights bound for the US and Canada. The plot had the potential to be three times as deadly as the 9/11 attacks of 2001.

The convictions followed Britain’s largest counter-terrorism operation and two criminal trials which, in total, cost an estimated £60million.

All three men convicted on Monday had been found guilty at an earlier trial last year of conspiracy to murder, but prosecutors said it was vital to secure a conviction on another charge of conspiring to blow up the aircraft in order to prove that the threat to air traffic was genuine.

How, you ask, is this ambivalent news? It took two trials.

Part of the reason is why lawfare (as apposed to war crimes tribunals) is a bad idea.

Western Courts of Law, being primarily concerned with their own citizens, make it very difficult to introduce secret evidence. From a civil liberties point of view, and with regards to one’s own citizens, this is a good thing.

War Crimes Tribunals, charged with enforcing the Customary Laws of Warfare, are more concerned with discouraging violations of the Customary Laws of Warfare and have no bars against secret evidence.

The key to the successful second prosecution of the three terrorists in this case were e-mails electronically intercepted by the National Security Agency. The NSA was, as a matter of policy and law, interested in frustrating the plans of the terrorists while preserving the source of that intelligence.

NSA-Intercepted E-Mails Helped Convict Would-Be Bombers
By Kim Zetter
Wired

The three men convicted in the United Kingdom on Monday of a plot to bomb several transcontinental flights were prosecuted in part using crucial e-mail correspondences intercepted by the U.S. National Security Agency, according to Britain’s Channel 4.

The e-mails, several of which have been reprinted by the BBC and other publications, contained coded messages, according to prosecutors. They were intercepted by the NSA in 2006 but were not included in evidence introduced in a first trial against the three last year.

That trial resulted in the men being convicted of conspiracy to commit murder; but a jury was not convinced that they had planned to use soft drink bottles filled with liquid explosives to blow up seven trans-Atlantic planes — the charge for which they were convicted this week in a second trial.

According to Channel 4, the NSA had previously shown the e-mails to their British counterparts, but refused to let prosecutors use the evidence in the first trial, because the agency didn’t want to tip off an alleged accomplice in Pakistan named Rashid Rauf that his e-mail was being monitored. U.S. intelligence agents said Rauf was al Qaeda’s director of European operations at the time and that the bomb plot was being directed by Rauf and others in Pakistan.

The NSA later changed its mind and allowed the evidence to be introduced in the second trial, which was crucial to getting the jury conviction. Channel 4 suggests the NSA’s change of mind occurred after Rauf, a Briton born of Pakistani parents, was reportedly killed last year by a U.S. drone missile that struck a house where he was staying in northern Pakistan.

Students of history will recognize this as the same dilemma which confronted Prime Minister Churchill when the Allies intercepted German messages presaging the fire bombing of Coventry. The only reason the intelligence was subsequently released in this case was that the source had been eliminated by military action, thus obviating the clear advantages of protecting the source of the intelligence.

Wired’s article continues:

Although British prosecutors were eager to use the e-mails in their second trial against the three plotters, British courts prohibit the use of evidence obtained through interception. So last January, a U.S. court issued warrants directly to Yahoo to hand over the same correspondence.

It’s unclear if the NSA intercepted the messages as they passed through internet nodes based in the U.S. or intercepted them overseas. If the former, it’s possible the interception was part of the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program — a surveillance program aimed at intercepting foreign correspondence as it passed through domestic internet switches. Such interception was previously illegal unless conducted with a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. After news stories revealed that the NSA was conducting such surveillance without a warrant, however, Congress legalized such collection activities last year in its passage of the FISA Amendments Act.

(Hat Tip: The Lede)

Hat Tip: Gabriel Malor at Ace’s Place, who comments: “…Democrats wished they hadn’t.”

Glen “Instapundit” Reynolds twigs to the same story via Orrin Kerr at Volokh “…who doubts this story will get the attention it deserves.” Of course not, it doesn’t fit the narrative.

The Obama administration told a judge late Monday that it will continue to withhold information regarding past detainee policies for national security reasons, a decision assailed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had been seeking Bush-era documents “including a presidential directive authorizing CIA ‘black sites,’” CIA inspector general records, Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel documents about the CIA’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

In the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, U.S. District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York had ordered the Obama administration to either turn over various documents pertaining to detainee policies by August 31 or provide justification for withholding them.

Coming on the heels of Cheney’s FOX News Sunday interview, in which the former Vice President leveled criticism toward the current President that he is increasing America’s vulnerability to terrorism, is an interview by Jake Tapper with the president’s National Security Adviser, Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.). Jones claims that under the Obama Administration, we have been more successful in putting terrorists out of business and in improving international relations:

“This type of radical fundamentalism or terrorism is a threat not only to the United States but to the global community,” Jones said. “The world is coming together on this matter now that President Obama has taken the leadership on it and is approaching it in a slightly different way – actually a radically different way – to discuss things with other rulers to enhance the working relationships with law enforcement agencies – both national and international.”

Jones said that “we are seeing results that indicate more captures, more deaths of radical leaders and a kind of a global coming-together by the fact that this is a threat to not only the United States but to the world at-large and the world is moving toward doing something about it.”

The former Marine General didn’t provide any specific numbers to back up his claim, but he said “there is an increasing trend and I think we seen that in different parts of the world over the last few months for sure.” He added that he was not “making a tally sheet saying we are killing more people, capturing more people than they did — that is not the issue.”

But the numbers are going up, he said. “The numbers of high value targets that we are successfully reaching out to or identifying through good intelligence” from both the CIA and intelligence agencies from US allies has made the difference, he said. “We have better human intelligence; we know where the terrorists are moving. Because of the dialogue and the tone of the dialogue between us and our friends and allies…the trend line against terrorism is positive, and that’s what we want. If we have a positive trend line we have a safer country.”

All this was going on under the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration is an inheritor of those successes, including cooperation amongst foreign nations in the GWoRIT.

Many of the tools and policies put in place in waging the Overseas Contingency Operations are Bush era creations, which President Obama has kept in place in his continuation of “Bush’s War(s)”.

Steve Schippert writes:

Someone is going to point to Pakistan to help him out here, where Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud was finally introduced to the working end of a Hellfire missile.

That’s a load of garbage the instant anyone attempts to take that easy way out. The cooperation within Pakistan has got jack to do with President Obama’s suddenly deft foreign policy prowess nor his wild popularity with global media and resulting coverage – which is to be astutely distinguished from wild popularity among world leaders. Pakistan’s cooperation was being lined up mostly by the Taliban itself, which made its insurgency against the government of Pakistan so bold that the Pakistanis could push it off no longer. They simply had to deal, and have been for the better part of the year.

Predator drone attacks? Those began under President Bush and continue on under President Obama. Under Musharraf and during the Bush tenure, Pakistani authorities handed over to us, Abu Zubaydah and KSM. How have relations improved under Obama’s watch?

The GWoRIT has not been waged ONLY militarily and ONLY in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s been waged globally, with kills and captures of leaders and operatives happening all the time, in 102 different countries, in cooperation with our CIA and FBI and our military. This all happened under President Bush.

Cowboy diplomacy and “go-it-alone” unilateralism? “You’re either with us, or with the terrorists”? America’s standing harmed; we’re hated all over the world….spin and the stuff of talking point mantra myth-perceptions.

“There is no military solution.”

So sick of this strawman! When had the Bush Administration ever claimed its solution to fighting terrorism was strictly a military one? When was its approach to Iraq and Afghanistan ever strictly a military solution?!

Reaching out to the Muslim community? Not exclusively unique to President Obama.

Closing Gitmo? Really?!? Please wake me when it actually happens.

The War in Iraq? President Obama rode in on the coattails of the surge success he opposed and is merely surfing the waves of SOFA, signed under President Bush.

The War in Afghanistan? He’s acting more like Bush, than not.

NSA warrantless wiretaps much criticized under Bush continue under Obama (partial list of plots averted under Bush)….Rendition programs begun under Clinton, leaked under Bush (which did harm our relations by embarrassing allies implicated in cooperation with the Bush Administration on the GWoRIT- but that’s thanks to the NYTimes, USAToday, and WaPo. We just can’t be trusted with keeping secrets), continue under Obama….