Blog @ MoreWhat.com

First homeland security princess Janet Napolitano said the systems worked in the Flight 253 incidents. Second, President Obama was uncharacteristically silent as an opportunity to pontificate presented itself. Third, Napolitano initiated damage control for her earlier pathetic appraisal of national security. Fourth, President Obama, for reasons we can imagine, broke his silence on the matter and part of a report from the Obama hijacked VOA News is below.

The president’s demeanor was serious as he faced reporters in Hawaii, where he is vacationing with his family. He talked about the steps that have been taken to improve airline safety since the attempted attack. And he sought to reassure the American people, saying that the government is doing all it can to keep the public safe and secure.

He said extra law enforcement officers will be put on many flights, and that the passenger screening process is being reviewed - including revising the computerized lists used to detect high risk individuals.

The president added that he is conferring with his national security team. He spoke of their determination to deal with the terrorist threat. “We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us - whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. homeland,” he said.

President Obama urged Americans to be vigilant but confident as they travel during the current holiday season and throughout the coming year

Sorry Mr President but it appears the only ones concerned about national security are those you and your cronies have labeled violent fringe right wingers who attend tea parties. As far as extra law enforcement goes Barry, there is no extra. There’s what you have and what you use. There’s no extra. Review this if there is something you want to review. See below.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate CIA interrogations of high-value detainees came under attack Sunday from key figures in both parties.

The intelligence community has every reason to doubt your sincerity.

The White House will not weigh in on the case of the three Navy SEALs facing court martial for allegedly mistreating an Iraqi terror suspect believed to have been behind the slaying of four Americans in 2004

And it is fortunate those who serve in the military have their own leadership who inspire them as their Commander-in-Chief has abandoned that role.

Why do 2010 and 2012 keep coming to mind? Sorry, it’s just another rhetorical question. But feel free to answer if the notion strikes.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Barry from DC’s homeland security princess, Janet Napolitano, first stated the US national security system worked in referring to an attempt to detonate explosives on board a US airliner landing in Detroit on Christmas. Today she is stumbling over herself to produce damage control for her previous appraisal. No doubt this is taking place at the ‘urging’ of others in the Obamanation.

But let’s not focus only on the Obama Administration’s reaction to a failed terrorist attack. Failed only because the terrorist fortunately botched the assignment. Members of the US Congress are equally disappointing in their response to the event.

from the House Committee on Homeland Security…..

The reported act of terrorism – whether directly related to al Qaeda or not – and the response to it will be the focus of an oversight hearing next month. The Committee will get to the bottom of what did and did not happen with Mr. Abdulmutallab and what security precautions need to take place in the future.”

from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security….

WASHINGTON - Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., and Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Me., announced Monday that they would convene a hearing in January to examine the layers of security meant to protect airline passengers from terrorist attacks but which accused terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab successfully evaded.

Hearings scheduled for January!!! So this is how are fine leaders respond to dropping the ball on national security. Not to worry folks, your elected and appointed leaders are on the job. They’re not concerned enough to interrupt their Christmas and New Year’s plans to deal with security breaches so you should not worry either. Just continue as before….. clueless.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Open thread: Obama’s statement on the Christmas Day jihadi attack; Perfunctory, hasty, and bloodless (Michelle Malkin)

Another event to once again raise the discussion on national security. Not like the status of US national security is ever erased from the American consciousness but one has to wonder if that includes the Obama Administration? The President has been criticized for not being more visible on this and other issues since heading to Hawaii on vacation. His security princess, Napolitano, stated after the Flight 253 incident, the first of two, that ‘the system’ was working properly. That someone was able to board a commercial aircraft and attempt to detonate explosives on final approach contradicts Napolitano’s conclusion. Unless only doing something after the fact is her idea of national security. And even then, simply notifying other commercial aircraft of the conditions on Flight 253 is of little value.

For those who missed it a Delta or Northwest (owned by Delta) flight, number 253, had a Nigerian passenger who attempted to detonate explosives on board as summarized above. A strange coincidence, or not, involved the same flight number on a subsequent flight in which another passenger was either detained and/or arrested for causing a disturbance. One troubling set of circumstances finds reports about the first incident suggesting the description of the ‘perp’ as a terrorist was premature and early reports about the second incident being characterized as a second terrorist attack. How’s that for a spot on press response?

Here’s a more recent account of the second incident.

A U.S. law enforcement official says an unruly passenger was detained Sunday when a Northwest Airlines flight landed in Detroit, Michigan, but he was later declared as not a security threat.

The plane was on the same route and carried the same flight number as one on Friday, when a Nigerian man allegedly tried to blow up Northwest Flight 253 just before landing.

In the latest incident, security personnel arrested a passenger upon landing Sunday because he was verbally abusive to the flight crew and had locked himself in the airplane bathroom for a long time.

The pilot radioed for emergency help. Passengers were evacuated and dogs sniffed the luggage which was spread out on the tarmac.

A law enforcement official tells news agencies that the passenger turned out to be a businessman who got sick during the flight .

And another recent update provides an excerpt on the initial incident.

Passengers have told investigators the man went into the bathroom for 20 minutes before landing, and then when he went to sit down, said he had stomach problems, and pulled a blanket on himself.

Just as the plane was getting ready to land, they heard a pop, smelled smoke and then saw the man on fire.

A Dutch passenger jumped on the Nigerian to subdue him, and blankets were used to put out the fire.

Does this brief review adequately establish Napolitano’s press statements are absurd? Certainly everyone is entitle to their opinion but you can guess that most Americans expect a different outcome in order to state the ’system worked’ when discussing US national security.

On the topic of President Obama’s silence on the matter in recent reports this blog’s reaction. It is reminiscent of an old expression about incompetence that begins with ‘better to be viewed as an idiot than….’. You probably know the rest.

Some related items are provided below on the explosive (PETN) reportedly used in the first incident.

a highly explosive organic compound belonging to the same chemical family as nitroglycerin—i.e., the nitric acid esters of polyalcohols.

PETN was introduced as an explosive after World War I. It is used by itself in detonators and detonating fuses (Primacord) and in a mixture, called pentolite, with an equal amount of trinitrotoluene (TNT) in grenades and projectiles.

PETN is a colourless, crystalline material that is generally stored and shipped as a mixture with water. It is less sensitive than nitroglycerin but is easily detonated. Valued for its shattering force and efficiency, PETN is the least stable of the common military explosives but retains its properties in storage for longer periods than nitroglycerin or cellulose nitrate (nitrocellulose) does. PETN is also used in medicine as a heart stimulant.

Yup, good old-fashioned human technology about a century old.

OSHA does not have a PEL for pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), which is used both as a drug for preventing angina pectoris and as an explosive.

If you really need to know what a PEL is the following link explains along with many other items typcially covered on a MSDS or Material Safety Data Sheet. And one last related OSHA link.

OSHA has data on PETN. Now if only DHS had detection methods for this well-known explosive and implemented them to avoid a Flight 253 problem.

As a final note for this post a political point is in order. Bush bashers frequently express 9/11 happened on the Bush 43 watch so it was his fault. This blog has stated in the past that there is plenty of blame to go around regarding US national security. A couple of things to keep in mind. 9/11 was not conceived, planned or otherwise arranged by terrorists in less than eight months which is the time George W Bush was in office prior to the attack. Before that President Clinton completed two terms in office and posts here as well as information freely available elsewhere indicate some dropping of the ball as regards terrorism and Osama bin Laden, etc.

When Bush 43 took office and after 9/11 occurred it became his war on terror and he owned the problem. An unfortunate downside to pursuing public office. Post 9/11 the Bush Administration was successful on matters of national security for two terms. The same ownership transfer now applies to President Obama. Given the Flight 253 episode(s), Napolitano’s statement, Obama’s silence, the previous and now infamous warning by VPOTUS Joe Biden the national security situation is once more front and center.

Nothing about current US national security policy inspires confidence.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It is not uncommon for President Obama to be characterized as an appeaser. From this World Apology Tour to a fruitless response on Iranian nukes to his recent Afghanistan exit strategy and everywhere in between, Obama the commuity orgranizer and campaigner appeases. Some even suggest his speech given after picking up his Nobel was lauded by libs and conservatives alike. But there’s another take on that one. And it is right.

As Bill Clinton taught the Dems, if you have to “confront” a liberal audience about some obvious truth, be sure to choose a hapless or unappealing one. Clinton bravely took on rappers; Obama took on Scandinavian pacifists.

The piece goes on to explain the real story of Obama’s Nobel speech. Which, by the way, leads nicely into a discussion of an older Obama speech.

from….

Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win
Washington, DC | August 01, 2007

Thanks to the 9/11 Commission, we know that six years ago this week President Bush received a briefing with the headline: “Bin Ladin determined to strike in U.S.”

It came during what the Commission called the “summer of threat,” when the “system was blinking red” about an impending attack. But despite the briefing, many felt the danger was overseas, a threat to embassies and military installations. The extremism, the resentment, the terrorist training camps, and the killers were in the dark corners of the world, far away from the American homeland.

Then, one bright and beautiful Tuesday morning, they were here.

That a boy, Mr President, take another opportunity to bash President George W Bush. What was stated in the reference at the top of this post applies. ‘The speech was the usual collection of truths, half-truths, and deceptions.’ That of course referred to the Nobel speech and this one and all Obama speeches.

But then everything changed.

We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists’ base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.

Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century’s stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Barack Hussein Obama speaks of these things as if it all started with George W Bush. Well, not exactly. There is plenty of blame to go around. But what is troublesome here is President Obama cherry picks the 9/11 Commission report to bash Bush. How about the other players?

from the 9/11 Commission….

Early Efforts against Bin Ladin

Until 1996, hardly anyone in the U.S. government understood that Usama Bin Ladin was an inspirer and organizer of the new terrorism. In 1993, the CIA noted that he had paid for the training of some Egyptian terrorists in Sudan. The State Department detected his money in aid to the Yemeni terrorists who set a bomb in an attempt to kill U.S. troops in Aden in 1992. State Department sources even saw suspicious links with Omar Abdel Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh” in the New York area, commenting that Bin Ladin seemed “committed to financing ‘Jihads’ against ‘anti Islamic’ regimes worldwide.” After the department designated Sudan a state sponsor of terrorism in 1993, it put Bin Ladin on its TIPOFF watchlist, a move that might have prevented his getting a visa had he tried to enter the United States. As late as 1997, however, even the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center continued to describe him as an “extremist financier.”1

1992, 1993, 1996, 1997 are specifically mentioned above. And who was President then. Wow, bin Laden was just a financier. Excuse me, ‘extremist financier’.

In 1996, the CIA set up a special unit of a dozen officers to analyze intelligence on and plan operations against Bin Ladin. David Cohen, the head of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, wanted to test the idea of having a “virtual station”-a station based at headquarters but collecting and operating against a subject much as stations in the field focus on a country. Taking his cue from National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, who expressed special interest in terrorist finance, Cohen formed his virtual station as a terrorist financial links unit. He had trouble getting any Directorate of Operations officer to run it; he finally recruited a former analyst who was then running the Islamic Extremist Branch of the Counterterrorist Center. This officer, who was especially knowledgeable about Afghanistan, had noticed a recent stream of reports about Bin Ladin and something called al Qaeda, and suggested to Cohen that the station focus on this one individual. Cohen agreed. Thus was born the Bin Ladin unit.2

In May 1996, Bin Ladin left Sudan for Afghanistan. A few months later, as the Bin Ladin unit was gearing up, Jamal Ahmed al Fadl walked into a U.S. embassy in Africa, established his bona fides as a former senior employee of Bin Ladin, and provided a major breakthrough of intelligence on the creation, character, direction, and intentions of al Qaeda. Corroborating evidence came from another walk-in source at a different U.S. embassy. More confirmation was supplied later that year by intelligence and other sources, including material gathered by FBI agents and Kenyan police from an al Qaeda cell in Nairobi.3

The CIA during the Clinton years puts some money into studying bin Laden the ‘financier’. It seems the big breakthrough was entirely a chance event.

By 1997, officers in the Bin Ladin unit recognized that Bin Ladin was more than just a financier. They learned that al Qaeda had a military committee that was planning operations against U.S. interests worldwide and was actively trying to obtain nuclear material. Analysts assigned to the station looked at the information it had gathered and “found connections everywhere,” including links to the attacks on U.S. troops in Aden and Somalia in 1992 and 1993 and to the Manila air plot in the Philippines in 1994-1995.4

It took them years to go from bin Laden the financier to bin Laden is much more than that. Yet Obama suggests George Bush is responsible for 9/11. Obama cited this report but not this part or any other than the one that suited his agenda.

By the fall of 1997, the Bin Ladin unit had roughed out a plan for these Afghan tribals to capture Bin Ladin and hand him over for trial either in the United States or in an Arab country. In early 1998, the cabinet-level Principals Committee apparently gave the concept its blessing.9

On their own separate track, getting information but not direction from the CIA, the FBI’s New York Field Office and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York were preparing to ask a grand jury to indict Bin Ladin. The Counterterrorist Center knew that this was happening.10 The eventual charge, conspiring to attack U.S. defense installations, was finally issued from the grand jury in June 1998-as a sealed indictment. The indictment was publicly disclosed in November of that year.

Gee, then they were thinking it might be good to get this guy.

Regarding a plan to capture bin Laden…..

Director Tenet discussed the high risk of the operation with Berger and his deputies, warning that people might be killed, including Bin Ladin. Success was to be defined as the exfiltration of Bin Ladin out of Afghanistan.28 A meeting of principals was scheduled for May 29 to decide whether the operation should go ahead.

The principals did not meet. On May 29, “Jeff” informed “Mike” that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate’s Near Eastern Division. The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation.

Most of us are aware of the fumbling during the Clinton years on the topic of terrorism and bin Laden. You can go back further than that for example when the US financed bin Laden when the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan. The point here should be obvious. Pay attention to President Obama’s agenda and tactics. And stop blaming Bush for everything.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

You could be a little troubled these days with all the talk about politicians and how they respond to matters and issues of the day. President Obama is certainly not immune to analysis or the opinions it generates. Since the mainstream media or those organizations generally considered to be the establishment media rarely open a critical eye toward the President the rest of us must fill the void. After all, the President has pledged his administration would be transparent and accountable. So let’s all help him fulfill that promise.

On the topic of shootings at Fort Hood by Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan the President said the following among other things. “But it is all the more heartbreaking and all the more despicable because of the place where it occurred and the patriots who were its victims.” It should come as no surprise that the community organizer-in-chief is often credited for being a great orator. And he has taken a lot of heat for his habitual use of teleprompters. But make no mistake, little if anything he says in public has escaped the scrutiny of the PR machine and focus groups or the rest in his inner circle. In evidence in the quote above is selecting the word ‘its’ when referring to the ‘victims’ of Hasan. There’s that strategy to appease the terrorists by calling these events ‘man-made’ disasters.

Sorry Mr President but all this is a little troubling. In his weekly Internet and radio address, Mr. Obama says those who responded to the rampage represent the best of America. “We saw soldiers and civilians alike rushing to aid fallen comrades; tearing off bullet-riddled clothes to treat the injured; using blouses as tourniquets; taking down the shooter even as they bore wounds themselves,” he said. Mr President, did you once acknowledge Kimberly Munley by name?

The president, hoping to calm potential ethnic tension, reminds the public about the diversity of those who defend the U.S. “They are Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and nonbelievers. They are descendants of immigrants and immigrants themselves. They reflect the diversity that makes this America. But what they share is a patriotism like no other,” he said.

Just by virtue of the fact the statement above was made in response to the Fort Hood shootings by Hasan demonstrates the flaw in that argument. This one must have gotten by the PR machine or the arrogance of the White House assumed you wouldn’t notice. Hasan wasn’t sharing that patriotism part, Mr President. At least at the end of the item below you refer to Hasan’s actions as a ‘crime’. Pat yourself on the back, Mr President.

My prayers go with those who were killed or injured as well as for their families. A special acknowledgment should be expressed for those who responded to the call that day. Although it has been reported Kimberly Munley does not want to be called a hero her actions were incredibly proficient and courageous. Hope she recovers from her injuries as if they never happened. Same sentiment for the others injured.

Let’s not dishonor those who died with more appeasement, Mr President.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Beltway snipers and the Fort Hood killer: Peas in a jihad-inspired pod (Michelle Malkin) 

Absolutely unbelievable! Apparently the audacity of the O is contagious. Or maybe this is a product of his recent World Apology Tour. The UN has raised a question on whether the US is killing people indiscriminately with the use of UAVs. Perhaps they should have first asked this question to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah or any other terrorist group. For that is what terrorists do. Absolutely unbelievable! If anyone requires further explanation of this issue there is no point continuing a discussion. The world is truly losing its collective mind. This is beyond audacity. That the UN is the source is the only thing that is not a surprise.

What the hell do they think 9/11 was if not indiscriminate killing? In more than eight years has the UN accused al-Qaeda of violating international law for that? Nearly 3000 civilians killed in the attack on the WTC and the UN wants to know about drones? Wow! And this same organization is involved with determining whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons. How vulnerable do you feel right now?

It will take some time to nominate another story that even comes close to comparing to this one on the absurd meter.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings says the use of armed unmanned aircraft by the United States to hunt down terrorists could be a violation of international law. Philip Alston said Tuesday that Washington must explain how it is sure the United States is not killing people indiscriminately with these aircraft.

U.S. officials have never confirmed the use of Predator drones, but it is widely reported that the Central Intelligence Agency has used them to kill suspected terrorist leaders operating in Pakistan’s largely ungoverned tribal areas along its border with Afghanistan.

U.N. Special Rapporteur Philip Alston questioned the legality of their use under international law. “My concern is that these drones, these Predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions are not, in fact, being carried out through the use of these weapons,” he said.

U.S. officials never acknowledge these strikes, saying they do not discuss operational or intelligence matters.

The Special Rapporteur, who is an independent expert appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, said the U.S. response has been “untenable” and that Washington needs to be more willing to discuss aspects of its drone program. “Otherwise you have the really problematic bottom line, which is that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a program that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws,” he said.

Alston said the United States should explain who is running the program and what precautions are being taken to ensure that these weapons are used within the framework of international law. He added that there must also be accountability and review mechanisms in place regarding their use.

Could someone explain how this solves anything?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:
Pressure Mounts on Iran Uranium Enrichment Program (Right Truth) 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has drafted an agreement to supply enriched uranium to Iran following three days of negotiations at its headquarters in Vienna. If all parties agree to it, the deal could mark a breakthrough after a years-long international standoff over Iran’s nuclear program.

The draft agreement was announced to reporters by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who has given all parties involved until Friday to approve it.

“I have circulated a draft agreement that reflects, in my judgment, a balanced approach on how to move forward,” he said. “The deadline for the parties to give, I hope, affirmative action is Friday, two days from now. And if we do get affirmative action, then I hope that we will have an agreement that we can send to the (IAEA) board of governors.”

ElBaradei said France was included in the draft agreement. Talks this week gathering Russia, the United States, France, Iran and the IAEA, stalled on Tuesday over Iran’s reluctance to have France participate in any deal on enriching its uranium. ElBaradei however described the discussions as constructive and forward-looking.

The IAEA chief did not elaborate on the draft deal, but news agencies report that it is essentially similar to an agreement reached in Geneva earlier this month. That deal would commit Iran to shipping about 75 percent of its lightly enriched stockpile of uranium to Russia for further enrichment.

The material would then be shipped to France to be converted into metal rods before being delivered back to Tehran. The rods would be used to power a research reactor in the Iranian capital making medical isotopes.

More broadly, if all parties agree to the deal, it would defuse international concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes , but western nations fear Tehran is trying to build a nuclear bomb.

Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama is said to be struggling over what to do in Afghanistan. Does the rookie believe ignoring intel, military and state warnings is the answer? What does this say about his campaign rhetoric to get elected and his desire to maintain favor from the far left antiwar liberal standard?

Officials: Obama advisers are downplaying Afghan dangers

By JONATHAN S. LANDAY, JOHN WALCOTT AND NANCY A. YOUSSEF
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration reconsiders its Afghanistan policy, White House officials are minimizing warnings from the intelligence community, the military and the State Department about the risks of adopting a limited strategy focused on al-Qaida, U.S. intelligence, diplomatic and military officials told McClatchy Newspapers.

His worry about public opinion ,aka far left support, and resistance to his own advisors is of such concern the report cited here mentions the problem twice in the first seven paragraphs.

However, the officials said, in their effort to muster domestic support for a more limited counterterrorism strategy that would concentrate on disrupting and dismantling al-Qaida, White House officials are neglecting warnings from their own experts about the dangers of a more modest approach.

Given the antiwar sentiment on the left that both candidate Obama and Clinton pandered to in 2008 their ability to do the right thing and at the same time protect their political futures are at odds with each other. With their own ‘experts’ and others suggesting the simmering conflicts are providing renewed strength for al-Qaeda now is not the time for indecision. Biden’s warning of a test for Obama may be just around the corner contrary to the original forecast.

Instead of national security and defense the liberal new direction is focused on an ill-conceived domestic policy Those issues can and should wait based on the pathetic proposals offered to date. The other matters are of immediate concern and need to be handled effectively. And yes, elections have consequences.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from September 11, 2008

At the dedication of a memorial at the Pentagon, President Bush remembered those who lost their lives there on September 11th, 2001. (Sept. 11)

Never Forget

Another question mark in foreign affairs is Saudi Arabia. Even without President Obama bowing to Saudis for all the world to see, the US has maintained a strange relationship with this Arab country for many years. Most would agree it is simply a matter of hedging bets on oil supplies. But even the country noted as the home of 9/11 hijackers and the birthplace of Osama bin Laden is not exempt from terrorist action within Islam.

Deputy Interior Minister Prince Muhammad bin Nayef was receiving visitors at his home in Jeddah late Thursday when the bomber got close and detonated his explosives. The prince had opened his house to visitors as part of observances for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Imagine that. Open the house for visitors during Ramadan and have a terrorist try to kill you. Yes, Ramadan, the Islamic event of fasting and asking forgiveness for one’s sins. Gotta love this religion of peace. So many contradictions, so little time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For the liberals who love to label anyone expressing a strong disfavor toward ‘foreigners’ as xenophobic try on this report. Obviously this blog did not produce this report but of course extends its profound gratitude to Voice of America for presenting it. There are some who believe that Jews and others who support them are overreacting to threats from their Arab ‘neighbors’ who surround them as well as to the actions that go beyond threat level. This should be yet one more wake up call to those same liberals and another example of the mounting evidence demonstrating Muslim hate.

And the current US President is going to cozy up to the world’s Muslims yet again. Do you suppose he will start by bowing this time too? How embarrassing. And it is ironic the POLS mentioned in this story are Democrats, liberals, whatever.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(from left) Reps. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Joe Crowley (D-NY) with poster showing excerpt from Saudi school book

Lawmakers in the U.S. Congress say Saudi Arabia has failed to remove offensive material from textbooks used in the kingdom’s schools, including language promoting hatred of and violence against Jews. Three House Democrats used a news conference coinciding with U.S. President Barack Obama’s stop in Saudi Arabia to draw attention to the problem and urge the president to press Saudi leaders on the issue.

Congress has complained for years about hate-promoting language in textbooks used in Saudi Arabia’s schools, and about books used in other countries in the Arab world, notably Egypt, as well as in schools in the Palestinian territories.

Where Saudi Arabia is concerned, the issue has been raised repeatedly by the U.S State Department in its annual religious freedom report, and by the independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

In a news conference, lawmakers said that despite assurances from various Saudi officials over the years that offensive and inaccurate material would be removed from textbooks, it appears little has been done.

Representative Anthony Weiner, a Democrat from New York, displayed a 10th grade textbook, smuggled out of Saudi Arabia and translated by the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Gulf Affairs, and he read one extract. “This is to be taught to children age 15: “The Prophet said, “the hour [of judgment] will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. . . “O Muslim! O Servant of God! There is a Jew Behind Me. Come and kill him.” This is the language that is being taught to students as young as age 15,” he said.

A report prepared by Congressman Weiner’s office, with assistance from the Institute for Gulf Affairs, examined seven textbooks in circulation in Saudi Arabian public schools and used in the 6th through 12th grades in 2008 and 2009.

Among portions translated for the report are those inciting hatred of Jews and Zionism, encouraging jihad against Jews and Christians, endorsing punishment for homosexuality, demeaning women, and affirming the right of parents to force children into marriages against their will.

Representative Shelley Berkeley, a Democrat from Nevada, says Saudi Arabia, which wants to be seen as a leader in the Arab world, must take the lead in eliminating intolerant, hateful material from its textbooks.

“Until they change their textbooks and help educate the younger generation of Saudis that are in their elementary schools and in their secondary schools, and take these hateful teachings out of the textbooks and substitute what we would consider appropriate, tolerant language in teaching for these kids, I am afraid we are just going to see a perpetuation of what we see now, cycle after cycle of hatred and intolerance,” she said.

Congressman Weiner says the Saudi government must decide which side of the debate over tolerance it wants to be on. “Do they want to be on the side where President Obama and the American people are, where we want to reduce the tensions and stop passing hate from generation to generation, or do they want to continue their age-old ways of exporting the worst type of hate, which unfortunately leads to terrorism, misunderstanding and distrust all over the world,” he said.

In its report this past April, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom named Saudi Arabia a Country of Particular Concern, saying promises and Saudi commitments to the U.S., including pledges to reform textbooks, remain unfulfilled.

The report issued by Congressman Weiner’s office quoted a pledge in 2006 by Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki Al-Faisal, that the government had removed intolerance from old textbooks, and implemented a comprehensive internal revision and modernization plan.

Saying patience in Congress with Saudi Arabia has worn out, Weiner said President Obama has an opportunity to prod Saudi Arabia to take action once and for all on the issue.

The first story is a bit of a surprise. The second, another in a series of stories on Dick Cheney is not. And the third, on Gitmo and the detainees continues. President Obama also suggests ‘loose nuclear materials’ will be secured in four years. Funny how US Presidents always seem to provide time lines that coincide with the election cycle for the term of the office they hold. Doesn’t do much for the public confidence factor. Is Obama’s stance on Gitmo based on a reasonable approach, his own personal opinion or the concern that not closing the facility will break one more campaign promise to his followers?

The bomb plot story has a time line indicating it is a legacy operation from the Bush Administration. You remember him. The President many love to bash yet are willing to forget he kept the US safe since 9/11 along with the man in the second story listed here by the name of Dick Cheney. BTW, another story indicates Cheney’s popularity in the polls has risen since his return to public discourse on the topic of terrorism. And another story suggests ‘the muscle’ for the GOP resides in Cheney, Limbaugh and Gingrich. Another ‘funny’ item in the sense of interesting or unusual is that President Obama mentions in the third story presented here that his number one job is to keep America safe.

A familiar pattern seems to be emerging here. Other reports suggest Obama cannot distance himself from items associated with the previous administration no matter how hard he may try. He has at least altered action of promises made to his legions of followers and been criticized by them for not being to the left enough. His actions would indicate he agrees there is some wisdom in what Bush and Cheney accomplished yet he cannot bring himself to say it. But his actions reflect that at times. And yet the left side of politics continues to bash the past and criticize the present. While the rest of us realize things weren’t so bad during the Bush years. Sure, there were reasons to be concerned. One example would be Bush pushing the shamnesty immigration policy that was soundly defeated by public outrage. The fall from grace on fiscal discipline is another. But the number one job as described by Obama in the third story here was a complete success.

Those who support keeping Gitmo open and handling the detainee question as in the Bush years express the notion that it has worked. Those who oppose it suggest their is something wrong, immoral or impractical about it. Try this parallel. The use of self-defense in protecting one’s life and the lives of others. No reasonable person wishes to kill another. But sometimes it is necessary. Consider you have a weapon in your possession. An armed intruder violates the sanctity of your home and the scenario places you face to face with the threat. As the intruder raises his weapon toward you there are two choices. It might be nice to talk it over and find a mutually agreeable resolution to this conflict. But most reasonable people would understand the intruder already made his decision which leaves you with one choice. It is unfortunate. But not unlike the Gitmo and other terrorism questions choosing the ‘nice’ choice may end your life or the lives of others.

Try stirring that ingredient into your humble pie.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Four men arrested in an alleged plot to blow up a synagogue, a Jewish community center, and U.S. warplanes are expected to appear in federal court Thursday in White Plains, New York.

Federal prosecutors say New York City authorities arrested the men Wednesday, following a year-long undercover operation. In a statement Wednesday, prosecutors say the suspects tried to buy plastic explosives from an undercover FBI informant to use in an attack on a New York synagogue.

They are also accused of trying to obtain surface-to-air missiles to attack military planes at an Air National Guard Base near New York City.

Federal prosecutors say the four men have been charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. They have also been charged with conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles.

Officials say three of the defendants are U.S. citizens and one is of Haitian descent.

Authorities say one suspect, James Cromitie, told an informant that his parents once lived in Afghanistan and that he was angry about the killings of Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan by U.S. military forces.

The other three suspects are David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen.

A local newspaper, the Times Herald-Record, says an area mosque leader has described one of the men, 21-year-old Payen, as a “strange kid” with “a lot of psychological problems.” The newspaper quotes mosque leader Hamin Rashada as saying Payen would occasionally attend services and that his statements on Islam often had to be corrected.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has defended the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation methods, saying they were necessary to get information from terrorists and save American lives.

In a speech Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Cheney said President Barack Obama and other officials have largely “mischaracterized” the previous administration’s approval of such techniques.

He said they were “essential,” “justified,” “successful,” and the “right thing to do” and that they prevented the violent deaths of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of people.

The former vice president, who played a major role in crafting U.S. anti-terrorist policies under George W. Bush, said the methods were always given legal review before approved and that torture was never permitted.

President Obama says the Bush-approved simulated drowning technique known as water-boarding was torture and vows to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Cheney has sharply criticized Mr. Obama’s national security policies, saying he is making the United States more vulnerable to terror attacks.

Former Vice President Cheney has said he has made a request to declassify two CIA memos that he says outlines, in detail, the successes that came from using harsh techniques during interrogation of terror suspects.

Al-Qaida actively planning to attack US

U.S. President Barack Obama says al-Qaida is actively planning to attack the United States again.

In a speech in Washington Thursday, Mr Obama said these are “extraordinary times” for the country, fighting two wars and facing a range of challenges. He said his single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe.

The president said the U.S. must use all its elements of power to defeat the threat posed by al-Qaida terrorists, and he added that steps have already been taken to ensure the country is secure.

Addressing an audience of senior Cabinet officials and members of Congress, Mr. Obama said these steps include providing the necessary resources to fight the extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, and investing in military and intelligence capabilities. He also said his administration has “re-energized” a global effort to curb proliferation of nuclear weapons - in the president’s words, “to deny the world’s most dangerous people access to the world’s deadliest weapons.”

Mr. Obama said all “loose” nuclear materials in the world should be secure within four years.

He said the United States is better protecting its borders and increasing its preparedness for any future attacks or natural disasters. The United States is building new partnerships around the world, the president said, “to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates.”

Mr. Obama said the United States has renewed American diplomacy, so that the U.S. once again has the “strength and standing to truly lead the world.”

Obama defends decision to close Guantanamo prison

President Obama has defended his decision to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying the facility set back the moral authority of the United States.

Although hundreds of people have been detained at Guantanamo during the past seven years, Mr. Obama said, the military commissions set up to try those detainees have handled only three cases.

Continued operation of the prison at Guantanamo has “weakened” U.S. national security, according to Mr. Obama, who announced his intention to transfer some of those held in Cuba to so-called “supermax” prisons - ultra-secure detention facilities - in the United States.

The president’s plan to close Guantanamo by January of next year has attracted widespread criticism in the United States from those who oppose the transfer of dangerous suspects to U.S. states.

Mr. Obama pledged that his administration will not release anyone who would endanger U.S. national security or the American people.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has sharply criticized Mr. Obama’s policies on Guantanamo and other issues, also is speaking out on national-security issues Thursday.

Mr. Obama says the Guantanamo detention camp has been an obstacle to getting allies to cooperate with the United States in fighting worldwide extremism.

He described the prison as a “mess” and said it was a “misguided experiment” begun by the administration of former President George W. Bush.

Mr. Obama said all pending cases at Guantanamo will be reviewed.

US Must Not Abandon Principles

President Obama has said that after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States entered a new era, in which enemies did not abide by any laws of war and presented new challenges to the application of U.S. law.

Mr. Obama said the government needs new tools to protect the American people, prevent terrorist attacks and prosecute those who carry them out.

He said that faced with an uncertain threat to the United States after the September 11 attacks, the government made a series of hasty decisions in an effort to protect Americans, and did so based on fear rather than foresight.

He said the U.S. cannot afford to set aside its principles, something he accused both Democrats and Republicans of doing.

President Obama called on both parties to take a new approach, rejecting torture and recognizing the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

The president said the United States needs to update its institutions to deal with the threat of extremism, but must do so within the the rule of law and with due process, checks and balances and accountability.

President Obama said the legal approach for fighting terrorism over the last eight years was neither effective nor sustainable, and failed to adhere to America’s values.

Mr. Obama said that is why he chose to ban so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, such as water-boarding. He said he rejects the assertion that such methods are the most effective means of interrogation.

He said they undermine the law, alienate the U.S. internationally, and increase the enemies’ will to fight.

Some detainees to be tried in US federal courts

President Obama says whenever feasible, detainees at Guantanamo who have violated American criminal laws will be tried in American federal courts.

Mr. Obama noted that terrorists including Zaccarias Moussaoui, identified as the 20th hijacker in the September 11 attacks, was convicted in a U.S. court and is serving a life prison sentence.

He said detainees who violate the laws of war will be tried through military commissions, saying such panels have a history in the United States dating back to the first U.S. president and the Revolutionary War.

The president said his administration is bring the commissions in line with the rule of law, instead of using what he called the same “flawed” commissions of the last seven years.

Many challenges remain before closure of prison

President Obama says there are detainees at Guantanamo who in effect “remain at war” with the United States.

He acknowledged challenges in closing the facility, and said his goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees.

He said the toughest decision on the closure is what to do with detainees who cannot be prosecuted but yet pose what he called a “clear danger” to the American people.

The president said if the U.S. determines it must hold someone indefinitely to prevent a terror attack, then it must be done with a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight.

Review of state secret doctrine nears completion

President Obama says his administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of the state secret doctrine.

Mr. Obama noted the doctrine has been used for many decades by presidents to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. He said the practice is “absolutely necessary” to protect national security, but he is concerned that it has been overused.

He said governments must not protect information merely because it reveals violations of the law or embarrasses the government.

How perfect is this? Those who work in law enforcement or other government entities related to national defense or security are rarely given a break by their critics. The article posted below is no exception. After 9/11 there was no shortage of criticism when law enforcement and intelligence agencies or departments came under fire for dropping the ball on terrorism. Some time later the public had their nose out of joint over delays at airports across the country. From time to time complaints of people being unfairly added to watch lists is raised. And there is the brief respite before the ACLU sticks their nose in it. This story features the OMG I’m on a list report.

From September 11, 2001 to November of 2008 there was little cause to worry about whether or not we would be attacked again on American soil by terrorists. As the months went by from that dreadful event each day served as evidence those involved in national defense and security were successful. If President Bush can sustain near continuous insults from his critics then it is certainly fair to give him credit for no attacks since, along with everyone under his leadership. But it’s a new day. Who knows how long it will continue. And in this case the FBI is still taking flak.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI, says the government’s terrorist watch list of known or suspected terrorists has grown to one million entries. The list - used by intelligence and law enforcement agencies to prevent terrorist acts - has been growing steadily since 2003 when the FBI set up a terrorism screening center to store, analyze and share information about suspected terrorists. While the list is touted by the FBI as an important counterterrorism tool, it has generated controversy and complaints.

Caught in a security net

For some travelers, passing through airport security isn’t easy. David Nelson says he is often detained at check points. “I said what do you mean, terrorist? Do I look like a terrorist,” he asked. “I mean come on now.”

Another man called David Nelson also has been routinely detained by security screeners. They are among hundreds of travelers named David Nelson who have been stopped because they are on the U.S. government’s so-called “No Fly” list of known or suspected terrorists.

David Nelson says he is often detained by airport security

The list has been a source of frequent complaints by thousands of innocent travelers whose names have appeared on the list.

The No Fly list

The FBI says the No Fly list is a small part of the government’s consolidated terrorist watch list, which is compiled mostly by intelligence and homeland security agencies.

All the information is managed and housed at the FBI’s Terrorism Screening Center outside Washington. The agents gather and analyze information daily. They then pass it along to other law enforcement agencies.

“You want it (the watch list) to be accurate and complete. Complete is the key word because you do not want to miss anybody,” said Tim Healy, the Center’s acting director. “It is a balancing act between private citizens and their concerns and the safety of the United States and that is a balancing act that occurs everyday.”

Tim Healy

Audit findings - watch list is growing

An audit by the Government Accountability Office found that the TSC’s consolidated watch list has grown significantly from 288,000 entries in 2005 to a million entries in 2009, containing 400,000 names.

Authorities say the watch list is one tool used to reduce the terrorist threat. Its main purpose is to make sure individuals on the list are properly screened when they are stopped by police for traffic violations, or when people try to enter the country from international destinations. A call by police to the Terrorist Screening Center can quickly determine if the name on the list is a positive or negative match.

“We are involving state and local law enforcement in information sharing and we are involving other federal entities in information sharing of known and suspected terrorists, which is a good thing,” Healy said.

Procedure to get names removed from list

But some say this government effort is flawed. Jay Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington says the watch list violates citizens’ rights.

“Everybody agrees that Osama bin Laden and his henchmen should be on a terrorist watch list. We don’t have a problem with that,” Stanley said. “But the government needs to do this very carefully, they need to set up extremely strict procedures. Not only do they have to be very careful before you’re put on the list but that you have the right to get off the list.”

Jay Stanley

The Department of Homeland Security says 51,000 people have filed so-called “redress” requests since 2007, claiming they were wrongly put on the watch list.

The FBI will not disclose specifics of how the records or names on the list are generated. But the FBI’s Tim Healy says there is a procedure in place to get names removed.

“If you have experienced an encounter when you are flying and you think you are on the watch list or even if they told you, you are on the watchlist there is a process you go through,” he said. “The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) will start going through their process and say is this guy actually watchlisted and what can we do to help this individual out.”

The FBI says 33,000 entries were deleted from the watch list last year based on outdated information and cleared investigations. And it says 95 percent of the people on the list are not US citizens. But Rachel Meeropol, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, says with a million entries the watch list has grown too big.

“Whenever you cast a net that wide you are diffusing law enforcement resources from focusing on the individuals for whom there actually is evidence of a connection to terrorism,” Meeropol said.

As security at the nation’s airports and on the borders has been tightened, the FBI defends the watch list as a valuable counterterrorism tool not just for the United States.

They say information from the list is also being shared with Canada, Australia and other US allies in the global effort to track down known or suspected terrorists.

Trackposted to Nuke’s, The Pink Flamingo, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Sometimes it is good to delay publishing one’s opinion on a topic even when the facts are right there in front of you and your frustration level could use the release of expressing the obvious about someone who has been entrusted with leading your nation, that you love and is entirely wrong. It is only good when someone with a great deal more credibility does it for you. And that expression includes the credibility of many more who feel the same way. The excerpt below explains it.

The Interrogation Memorandums
By Gary Berntsen
April 22, 2009

President Obama’s release of these memos took place despite substantial protest. The four most recent CIA Directors-John Deutch, George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden-all recommended against the release of these memorandums. President Obama’s own newly appointed Director of CIA, Leon Panetta, also recommended against releasing the documents. Yet President Obama, in a seemingly relentless effort to discredit his predecessor, George W. Bush, made the memorandum available to the public anyway.

As with other references presented on this blog it adds to the growing criticism of a new President and dispels much of the inflamed rhetoric employed by the far left strictly for political purposes. While some on the left may express genuine concern and honest, although misinformed, opinions on critical issues or even which issues are critical the dominant theme especially with regard to national security dooms us to repeat history if we follow suggestions to ignore it.

Which brings us back to the beginning. President Obama like many others in the past expressed an interest in being surrounded by smart people who disagree with him to give him advice. Based on his recent choice for CIA chief who advised him not to disclose the memos it is obvious again Mr Obama had no intention of listening to those who present arguments contrary to his own. Just like calling the GOP the party of ‘no’ and doing your best to shut them out since you have a political majority in Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Jeff Jacoby emphatically emphasizes the need to consider context when discussing the uproar caused by President Obama releasing the so-called ‘torture memos.’ Reading the excerpt below out of context is something else that should be emphasized. Don’t do it. Read the entire piece but start with the quote provided as it is central to this point but does not include Jacoby’s entire opinion. This may put things in perspective for you on the topic of ‘enhanced’ or ‘brutal’ interrogation techniques or if you must, ‘torture.’

The opinion on this blog includes what Jeff Jacoby states below. The remainder of his argument and opinion is compelling as well.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A tortured debate over the ‘torture memos’

Jeff Jacoby (Boston Globe)

What’s missing from all this sanctimony and censure is any acknowledgement of the circumstances under which the CIA interrogations took place, let alone the successes with which they have been credited. That may be a good way to score easy political points. It doesn’t add much to the public discourse.

Context matters. Actions that are indisputably beyond the pale under normal conditions - waterboarding a prisoner, for example - can take on a very different aspect when conditions are abnormal, as they surely were in the terrifying wake of 9/11.