Blog @ MoreWhat.com

When the words war and crimes are used together it speaks to an underlying problem. As a species we have failed to render armed conflict obselete. And given that two or more sides of an issue engage in the practice from time to time additional problems arise in the aftermath. Someone always wants to justify war by finding someone to accuse of war crimes. As if having rules for war somehow makes it more palletable or civilized.

It is no surprise that the United Nations is central to this story. Neither is it a surprise that it surrounds the Israeli/Palestinian problem or that others can cloak their real intentions as participants in the international organization. So after more than a year since the conflict in question took place there’s a new wrinkle in the situation.

The U.N. General Assembly has adopted a resolution renewing pressure on the Israelis and Palestinians to conduct independent and credible investigations into crimes committed by both sides during the 22-day Gaza conflict that erupted in December 2008.

The General Assembly voted to give Israel and the Palestinians five more months in which to conduct investigations of alleged war crimes that are “independent, credible and in conformity with international standards.”

The US continues to support Israel and says the Goldstone report is flawed. Other countries line up on familiar sides of the issue as with any other item involving Israel. It’s a logjam that demonstrates absolutely no probability for resolution. Not just about the 22-day conflict in 2008 but everything else involving the Middle East.

There is nothing ‘united’ about these nations. It should be possible for a large group of nations to impose their will on the occasional problem areas from time to time. But not when the large group supports their own interest rather than the world at large and politics trumps all else.

Just another example that the United Nations is one useless organization.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For more information on the topic click here

I’ll be home for Christmas are familiar lyrics and just as familiar is the fact that those who serve in the military are likely to lament ‘if only in my dreams’ as the next lyric this time of year. In addition to all they do for our nation and regardless of their religious affiliation being away from family, friends and important events at home is one more burden they bear.

Today’s post is handed off by excerpt and link to someone who can speak to this topic from experience. A topic we all need to keep in mind. And one we can all find ways to help lighten the load. The least we can do for what they do for all of us.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

When I landed in Iraq, one of the first things I was told was, “In Iraq, every day is Monday.” And to that I’d add: “And the Grinch always steals Christmas.”

Especially for the men on the line, there is no weekly or even monthly rhythm of life like we have in the States. You just do what you do, day in and day out, until you go home. Then one day you go to the dining facility (if you’re fortunate enough to be working from a base), and there’s a cake and some Christmas decorations. A few days later, there’s another set of decorations. Your friends tell you “Merry Christmas,” then “Happy New Year,” and you just keep working. In my case, that meant preparations for a New Year’s offensive. For others, that meant another patrol. For still others, it meant another broken tank to fix, more rounds to load into the howitzer, or more time hunched over a radio.

A regular feature on MoreWhat.com is the Forum section that currently lists various stories referred to as Upbeat Conservative News. Frequently a list of those stories are posted on the blog. A few stories from the last couple of days merit some additional emphasis. This post begins with Navy SEALs accused by a terrorist of punching him and the subsequent court martial.

This story has not been carefully researched on this blog. So correct me if I’m wrong but reports read thus far suggest the decision to proceed with a court martial is based solely on the accusation from a terrorist. If any evidence to support the accusation has been presented, please advise in the comment section. Given other similar stories since the election of Barack Obama as President of the US a trend seems to be growing. Not only did the Messiah launch his administration with a World Apology Tour and appeasing sources of threat to our national security but he has made every effort to diminish the defense and security of our nation. The SEALs’ story rises as just another target of his agenda.

From the Upbeat Conservative News listing in the forum the following link is provided for this story. Upbeat Conservative News, 40 Congressmen: Dismiss SEALs Case It is also interesting to note that a simple Google search on this topic returns results from sources not generally regarded as the MSM. So the mainstream media apparently deems this story unworthy of their attention.

On a related topic it is suggested the Obama administration is holding back intel on the recent Ft Hood tragedy and its ‘alleged’ perp. Here’s a link to the story from Upbeat Conservative News. From the intent to close Gitmo and send terrorists to civilian prisons around the country to the Afghanistan ‘exit strategy’ and doing nothing about other foreign threats to the US, like Iran and North Korea, these two stories highlight the continuing reckless policies of Barack Obama.

Although not as serious but equally troubling are several other stories from the UCN listings in the forum. BTW, while the feature is named Upbeat Conservative News you may think some of the stories are not so upbeat. Understand that troubles caused by liberals are still upbeat since they improve the chances the public as well as elected representation will move to the right as a result of damage caused by the left. Back to the UCN stories.

Much of the climate change fracas is centered on left versus right, real science versus fake science and the like. But a story in UCN suggests the real push behind the AGW fiasco. It mirrors the agenda of Al Gore and making billions off this scam. How about an organized effort to essentially steal money and technology from the most successful countries in the world and GIVING it to others in the name of combating climate change? More redistribution of wealth for Obama and his socialist buddies.

Last but certainly not least is the comic relief of the Obama administration’s economics’ crew. Summers says the recession is over and Romer says its not. These are the people advising Obama on matters economic. Could this be one indication Obamanation has no clue? Oh, you say that’s not fair? C’mon! If for no other reason members of the ‘administration’ should be able to present information without looking like idiots. But the primary reason this is bad points to the idea that on fundamental financial data Obama’s top two money dudes are polar opposites. Ain’t it great?

So that’s it for Moan-day December 14, 2009. You’ve been briefed. Okay you’ve been boxer/briefed.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Free the SEALs (Michelle Malkin)

The Day of Infamy

The attack on Pearl Harbor was the culmination of a decade of deteriorating relations between Japan and the United States over the status of China and the security of Southeast Asia. The breakdown began in 1931 when Japanese army extremists, in defiance of government policy, invaded and overran the northern-most Chinese province of Manchuria. Japan ignored American protests, and in the summer of 1937 launched a full-scale attack on the rest of China. Although alarmed by this action, neither the United States nor any other nation with interests in the Far East was willing to use military force to halt Japanese expansion.

Over the next three years, war broke out in Europe and Japan joined Nazi Germany in the Axis Alliance. The United States applied both diplomatic and economic pressures to try to resolve the Sino-Japanese conflict. The Japanese government viewed these measures, especially an embargo on oil, as threats to their nation’s security. By the summer of 1941, both countries had taken positions from which they could not retreat without a serious loss of national prestige. Although both governments continued to negotiate their differences, Japan had already decided on war.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was part of a grand strategy of conquest in the Western Pacific. The objective was to immobilize the Pacific Fleet so that the United States could not interfere with these invasion plans. The principal architect of the attack was Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet. Though personally opposed to war with America, Admiral Yamamoto knew that Japan’s only hope of success in such a war was to achieve quick and decisive victory. America’s superior economic and industrial might would tip the scales in her favor during a prolonged conflict.

Pearl Harbor: 68 years (Michelle Malkin) 

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) 

Another example of how political motivation blurs the lines in the GOP on being a politician or standing for conservative values.

Republicans are unanimously opposed to the sweeping legislation.

Signaling the unease of some freshman Democrats in swing districts, Rep. John Adler of New Jersey said Friday he will vote against the bill. Mr. Adler, who won his first term in 2008 with 52% of the vote, said the House bill “does not do enough to contain costs.”

He added, “Congress should not pass a bill that costs more than $1 trillion” over 10 years.

Are Republicans unanimously opposed to HR3962 and the other healthcare reform plans proposed by the Democrats for purely political reasons or because this reform violates conservative principles? There is the distinct possibility current reforms violate sections of the US Constitution as well but that’s another story for another time. As is the question of why this unanimous GOP opposition is not demonstrated on other issues like illegal immigration?

The Democratic majority has been unable to produce party unity on healthcare reform as reports indicate the Saturday vote on HR3962 may be delayed. Vulnerable Democrats are worried about the 2010 elections. The GOP has similar concerns about their possible comeback in those same elections. And yet both parties seem unwilling to accept widespread rejection by the public and respond responsibly. The fight is purely political.

The Senate may not be able to arrange a vote until next year. That would take a toll on Obama’s first term. The liberal agenda now seems destined to ride completely on the outcome of healthcare reform legislation. If incomplete into next year their 2010 aspirations are vulnerable. But the GOP may suffer along with them as voters express their anger at the ballot box.

As this fiasco continues other issues suffer from neglect, incompetence or both. The President’s support is fading. Congressional approval ratings are still in the tank. There is no economic recovery. Unemployment has reached a new high above 10% and some say it is actually higher. And all politicians can do is play politics with an issue most regard as secondary at best.

Shelve the damn healthcare issue for now. Attend to national security, national defense, border control, immigration enforcement and domestic policy related to economic matters. In other words, limited government that reduces taxes, national debt, deficits and spending. If those items are ever effectively solved then revisit healthcare reform if anyone other than liberal politicians is interested.

Until then, get conservative or get out.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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

Ah, a reminder of another one of President Obama’s dangerous image over substance agenda items. Just like elections have consequences so do campaign promises. Especially those promises that were only designed to win an election. Gee, admit you were wrong and abandon a misguided campaign promise or further endanger your country for fear of ending your political career. For those genuinely engaged to serve their country this would not be a difficult decision. For those with other priorities it is a risk worth taking.

Mr President, do the right thing. Closing Gitmo is a bad idea.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has acknowledged that it will be difficult to meet the January 22, 2010 deadline to close the U.S. detention center for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

But Holder told reporters Tuesday that officials will try to meet that goal, saying the prison will eventually be closed.

Holder made his comment days after the House of Representatives voted to block detainees at Guantanamo from being transferred to U.S. soil. The measure last Thursday passed by a vote of 258 to 163, drawing support from both Democrats and Republicans.

President Barack Obama has said he wants to close Guantanamo by next January. He says closing the facility is crucial to restoring America’s image in the world and to creating a more effective anti-terror approach.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that closing the facility has proven more complicated than anticipated. Many members of the U.S. Congress also have voiced concerns about bringing terrorism suspects to the United States.

A task force has cleared 75 of the remaining 223 Guantanamo prisoners for release as part of an effort to close the facility. The review team has been examining each prisoner’s case to determine who will be held for trial and who can be sent home or resettled in other countries.

Although a favorite target of liberals is former President George W. Bush liberals have their own presidential problems. Now Bill Clinton has reentered the political discussion and if memory serves was given some sort of BS envoy job by Obama. Not less BS than the job given to the former First Lady HRC. Both of the Clinton’s have meaningless posts in the Obama Administration but apparently feel the need to ‘back’ the Messiah anyhow. And there’s Jimmy Carter who did no favors for the current Admin.

Yet the libs continue their worn out GOP bashing amid all the clamor their impotent party and fringe supporters create. Fringe components like nutroots, MoveOn and the Soros gang bashed Cheney, Rumsfeld, Patraeus and US troops with their antiwar sentiment leading up to the 2008 election. Obama began with campaign rhetoric convincing supporters the US would immediately withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and punish everyone in the Bush Administration.

The fringe and not so fringe left want government everything from bailouts to stimulus to free healthcare as well as shamnesty for illegals, same sex marriage, abortion paid by tax dollars and more expense to the American public through AGW, cap and tax and a crushing debt exacerbated by President Obama and tax cheat Tim Geithner.

Congress is still muddled in Obamacare and cannot turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse. Okay, there’s not enough lipstick on the planet to accommodate this pig. Dems don’t appear to have the strength to finish Iraq or Afghanistan as required, fail to handle problems like Iran and North Korea properly and hand the Russians a gift by abandoning allies in Europe with an another appeasement missile defense plan.

As indicated by all the tax cheat nominations and withdrawals, plus the ACORN connection and shady resumes of most of the Messiah’s chosen few Michelle Malkin is not the least off the mark emphasizing the Culture of Corruption and placing it squarely on the liberal majority in Washington. The GOP had their fall from grace and lost the majority in the last two elections. It is now the Dems turn and they have wasted no time promoting a ‘throw the bums out’ option for voters in 2010.

Elections have consequences. Democrats wanted to be the majority and got their chance. Their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is once again being confirmed. It is way past time to point fingers and blame those who were previously the majority.

To the Democratic Party:

You wanted the job, you got it. Now govern properly and abandon your insane agenda or pay the price next year.

Complete the jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abandon your present course on healthcare. Reduce spending and increase tax cuts. Stop the bailouts and porkulus madness. Forget cap and tax. Give up shamnesty and improve national security and defense. Follow the rule of law and the founding documents. Correct the other items mentioned above.

Once you get that completed come back here for the next task list.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

This blogger regularly albeit infrequently promotes reading George F Will’s columns. That remains. Similar to a previous misunderstood column criticizing the way Americans present themselves Mr Will may or is again coming under fire to some degree. It is unpopular in conservative circles to suggest abandoning military combat operations before victory is secured. But George F Will does make a point, unpopular or not. And he may end up being right but not necessarily for the reasons given below.

Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck’s decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen’s, is squandered.

For several reasons this blog disagrees with the last two sentences presented above. You can of course make your own evaluation. Another opinion on this topic is at the WSJ.

The questions and concerns being raised are legitimate. Clearly, the mission has not been going well. Problems with our basic strategy, especially on the economic and development side, still need immediate attention. Moreover, our Afghan friends have a crucial role to play in both security and development, and if they fail to do so the overall warfighting and state-building effort will not succeed.

Both with Mr Will and the WSJ piece from a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (O’Hanlon), the downside is discussed. The WSJ piece includes the upside.

These problems need to be corrected soon. Even then, it will take at least 12-18 months to see results. Our chief challenge in Afghanistan is building state institutions and that is an inherently slow process. But as we debate new changes to our strategy this fall, we would do well to remember all that is working in our favor in this crucial effort.

Analyzing armed conflict while it is occurring and from an historical perspective is an unending endeavor. The only decisive outcome is whether those who risk making the ultimate sacrifice were at least allowed every conceivable opportunity for victory. After all, for the rest of us this analysis endeavor is merely Monday quarterbacking.

Perhaps the only statement on war with which we can all agree includes some expression of its futility. But this is what humans do when adequately provoked or someone decides all other options have evaporated. Until we morph into the perfect beings we sometimes think we are this practice will not become obsolete.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Plan for Guard Troops on Border Stalls Over Money
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:40 PM

WASHINGTON — A government plan to use National Guard troops to help stem Mexican drug violence along the southern border is stymied by disagreements over who will pay for the soldiers and how they would be used.

Ordered by President Barack Obama in June to help secure the border with Mexico, the Pentagon and the Homeland Security Department drafted a $225 million plan to deploy temporarily 1,500 Guard troops to supplement Border Patrol agents.

The two agencies are wrangling over how to structure the deployment, but the primary sticking point is the money, according to senior administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

In days where economics and government spending feature the term ‘trillions’ to quantify dollars in the equation the Obamanation has the audacity to propose immigration reform as a major agenda item. If $225 million is a sticking point for a National Guard presence on the southern US border to protect against a criminal element in the drug trade how can one believe the liberal agenda on national defense and border security is anything more than a call for OPEN BORDERS on a permanent basis. Or at least until our nation collapses under the pressure of providing economic support for foreign nationals that their home country refuses to address?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Has the economic situation become so bleak in some people’s eyes or the state of Michigan that an interest in managing a prison hosting Gitmo detainees is seen as sensible? Desperate circumstances require desperate measures, maybe, but this smells like public prostitution with a government pimp. When you begin accepting ideas that would never have been considered in better economic times, red flags should be noticed not ignored.

If the state of Michigan sees Gitmo detainees as a key to their economic salvation the fall of the American auto industry has not been greatly exaggerated. And a question arises about Michigan’s commitment to save that industry. Democrats including Obama may have painted themselves into a corner with a deadline to close Gitmo. Republicans oppose Gitmo North but liberals are typically ready, willing and able to do whatever it takes to pursue their agenda even if that includes failure.

Members of Congress, voicing fears that the prisoners would endanger their constituents, blocked the use of money in the $106 billion war-funding bill from going toward the prison’s closure, and House members in their defense appropriation bill have included a ban on transferring the detainees to U.S. soil

Some of what Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) has to say on the issue may be a little peculiar but one sentence of his quotes from The Hill’s article makes the obvious point. “And the only reason [Democrats] want to do it is for a few dollars.”

Those supporting Gitmo North should snap out of it and seek therapy. It won’t help but it may keep them out of circulation and let the smart ones decide the issue. This may not simply be a Michigan concern. Neighboring states or the entire nation have reason to be troubled by any detainee containment in the US given the risks known and unknown that come with the problem.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from Maggie’s Notebook….

Michigan Kansas Terrorist Prison Courtroom: Jon Stewart Gitmo Video

Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas may be the home of a new experimental stateside “Gitmo.” The Standish Maximum Correctional Facility in Standish, Michigan may be the second such facility. See a hilarious (allbeit liberal) video below with Jon Stewart. 

Ordinary people who accomplished an extraordinary feat to save the world from tyranny.  The lessons taught by the actions of these remarkable individuals stand as testimony to what becomes necessary when the world ignores the threats to peace and liberty.  To honor their service and sacrifice let us not allow this to happen again. You can watch a short video by clicking on the picture above as well as explore other features which commemorate this day in history.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com