Obama Admin Revealed to Be Lying More About Embassy Attacks

The Obama administration is showing that they were knowingly derelict in their duty to protect American citizens and territory. More and more, it is looking like the administration had knowledge ahead of 48 hours, more like 3 days. Also, it looks like they are in a state of denial about whether or not the attacks were premeditated. Do we want this type of childish, amateurish handling of our security? I don't. First, the newest info on how much the admin knew and when did they know it. From this was CNN:

Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.
Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.
He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business.
"The situation is frightening, it scares us," Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.

OK, this is not actionable in the sense of sending an assault team to clear out some baddies. However, wouldn't this merit Marine protection? Increased alerts? Something? Our admin and state department did nothing while everyone except them, it seems, seemed to take the threats seriously....PATHETIC....

Meanwhile, AmbASSador Susan Rice, a known liar, has said that there is "no indication" the attacks were premeditated...in other words, the whole "the stupid movie cannard caused all this":

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.
“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.” In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.
“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”"

FOLKS? FOLKS? These are cryptoislamofascists who raped and killed and dragged a Unied States Citizen, much less an ambassador, through the streets shouting Allah is great, and you call them folks? You stupid twit! Obviously, the fact that safehouses were compromised and key details of the Ambassador being in country being leaked show premeditation. Even the libyans are calling b.s. on the whole "spontaneous combustion" crap:

Libya President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf said Sunday that 50 arrests have been made in connection with last week's "preplanned" attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.

"The way these perpetrators acted and moved -- I think we, and they're choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, I think we have no, this leaves us with no doubt that this was pre-planned, determined," Magariaf said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

This administration does not want to admit how badly they fumbled the ball and how they have made the world less safe, not more so, for Americans.....
And, the narrative of the Ambassador not being dragged or that the people around him on video are looking like that is garbage too, as breitbart is reporting a new video showing someone reportedly to be Stephens being dragged and the scumbags chanting and such....

This needs to stop......We need the truth...we need real leadership that will hunt down the scumbags, that will go after them...but most of all, will inspire again the respect that you do not mess with Americans. Appeasement and capitulation doesn't work. Obama doesn't work. Let's begin again.....

Obama and DOJ Doing Al-Qaeda's Stalking for Them

You know the cannard that some film no one ever heard of "caused" the attacks on US embassies and consulates, that Obama's spiking Osama's head and the anniversary of 9/11 had nothing to do with it, but some little movie no one heard of really ticked off the peace loving peoples of LIBYA and EGYPT to the point that Americans were killed? Yeah, that lie. Well, Obama's DOJ is endangering lives by outing people associated with the film, opening them up to attacks by Islamofascists. So, Dinesh D'Souza, you better be careful what you say about Islam. Because, if you ever said anything bad, then Obama will out you because you made a film that is troublesome to him. I'm just saying. Read this trouncing of a person's rights by an abusive dictatorial regime--the United States Government--Im sad to say:

slamic extremists kill an Ambassador abroad and a U.S. citizen’s name and past problems with law enforcement are suddenly in the news?? This is outrageous. They’re looking to undermine the film by destroying him instead of focusing on the murderers. There’s no excuse for this coming from the Feds and Holder.

Federal authorities have identified a southern California man once convicted of financial crimes as the key figure behind the anti-Muslim film that ignited mob violence against U.S. embassies across the Mideast, a U.S. law enforcement official said Thursday.

Attorney General Eric Holder said that Justice Department officials had opened a criminal investigation into the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other diplomats killed during an attack on the American mission in Benghazi. It was not immediately clear whether authorities were focusing on the California filmmaker as part of that probe.

So, Holder and Co. have just made this person's life over. This person is now going to have to go into hiding. And who knows, this could be wrong. I mean, considering the President's advisers, maybe he got the info from Spike Lee, the guy who put an elderly couple's lives in danger because he listed their address as where George Zimmerman lived (the whole Florida shooting thing).

Completely pathetic and demonstrative of the fascism and elitism of this administration.

Obama Admin and State Dept: Egypt was an Ally, but they Weren't But they are...Sorta....

Gaffemaster in Chief Obama has done it again. Suposedly the most sophisticated consumer of intel ever, he has stepped in it again. His statement about Egypt and the subsequent clumsy and amateurish walking back and counterresponse are pathetic and indicative of a president who is in over his head and doesn't understand the world as it is.



He can't say whether Egypt is an ally or not? I thought you were the chosen one, the most sophisticated blah de blah ever who can't take the time to meet with Bibi Netanyahu because he has to get his groove on with JayZ and Beyonce? Here are some transcripts:

OBAMA: I don't think that we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy. They are a new government that is trying to find its way. They were democratically elected. I think that, uh, we are gonna have to see how they respond to this incident. Uh, how they respond to, for example, maintaining the peace treaty with Israel.
OBAMA: So far, at least, what we've seen is in some cases they've said the right things and taken the right steps. In others, how they've responded to various events may not be aligned with our interests.

Huh? Where is the clarity? Where is the intellect? I'm laughing at the superior intellect....


I'm Laughing at the Superior Intellect


Prior to the Muslim Brotherhood business, Egypt had always been an ally. We give 'em $1.5 billion a year. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, of the Arab countries in the Middle East, those are the two strong allies we've always had. The Camp David accords were with Israel. So Obama has "clarified" now. "President Barack Obama didn't intend to signal any change in the US-Egypt relationship last night when he said Egypt is not an 'ally,' the White House told The Cable today."Listen to this horsepuckey:

"I think folks are reading way too much into this," Vietor said. "‘Ally' is a legal term of art. We don't have a mutual defense treaty with Egypt like we do with our NATO allies. But as the president has said, Egypt is longstanding and close partner of the United States, and we have built on that foundation by supporting Egypt's transition to democracy and working with the new government."

Here is that arrogance again. You see, it's a legal term. You wouldn't understand, feeb. Give me a break. YOU DON'T GET IT, OBAMA! Islamofascists are on the march and want to see us and Israel destroyed, in reverse order. You supported a group of 7th century barbarians rise to power in Egypt and Libya because your ignorant whelp of an adviser Samantha Powers sat on your lap just right or whispered in your ear. You cannot do the soft sell with these. They know our tactics and our weaknesses. They are exploiting them. AND YOU, with your "I just want them to like us" nonsense is getting Americans killed! Disgusting!

Obama's Arrogance at Fault for Lack of Preparedness at Embassies?

In a post-9/11 world, George W. Bush saw the need for frequent intel briefings. He was known to cancel other things, risking political backhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giflash, to get his briefings to make decisions. Not so with Barack Obama. Maybe if he had actually had a briefing recently, he could have known something was up in regards to the embassy and terror attacks:

How long had it been since President Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting in the lead-up to the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Egypt and Libya? After all, our adversaries are known to use the anniversary of 9/11 to target the United States.

According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli. The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack.When I asked National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor if the president had attended any meetings to discuss the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) since Sept. 5, he repeatedly refused to answer. He noted that Obama had attended a principals meeting of the National Security Council on Sept. 10 and reiterated that he reads the PDB. “As I’ve told you every time you ask, the President gets his PDB every day,” Vietor told me by e-mail, adding this swipe at Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush: “Unlike your former boss, he has it delivered to his residence in the morning and not briefed to him.” (This new line of defense was echoed this morning by my Post colleague, Dana Milbank, who writes that Bush was briefed every day by his intelligence advisers because he “decided he would prefer to read less.”)

Vietor’s reply is quite revealing. It is apparently a point of pride in the White House that Obama’s PDB is “not briefed to him.” In the eyes of this administration, it is a virtue that the president does not meet every day with senior intelligence officials. This president, you see, does not need briefers. He can forgo his daily intelligence meeting because he is, in Vietor’s words, “among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet.”

Yes, because having someone give you additional details makes you stupid. The way these people use Bush as a crutch and blame is pathetic.

Truly sophisticated consumers of intelligence don’t see it as a sign of weakness to “be briefed” by the experts. Most of us, if we subscribed to a daily report on, say, astrophysics, would probably need some help interpreting it. But when it comes to intelligence, Obama is apparently so brilliant he can absorb the most complicated topics by himself in his study. He does not need to sit down for up to an hour a day with top intelligence officials, or hold more than 100 “deep dives” in which he invites CIA analysts into the Oval Office and gives them direct access to the commander in chief to discuss their areas of expertise. Such meetings are crutches this president does not need.

No, he wants to party and get his ESPN on, don't you get it? It's not about being a leader, it's about being seen and communicating...not doing.

Obama has more important things to do — such as attend Las Vegas fundraisers.

No doubt the intelligence community has adapted to its diminished access to the commander in chief and is finding a way to get the president the intelligence he needs. Members of the community have endured a lot these past 3 1/2 years — accusations of torture from the Oval Office; more than 100 criminal investigations from the Obama Justice Department that resulted in zero — zero — criminal charges being filed; a president who is quick to claim credit for killing Osama bin Laden while denying credit to the CIA interrogators who made the mission possible. They’ll survive not being invited more frequently into the Oval Office.

But the hubris of a president who believes he does not need to meet regularly with them is astounding. When President John F. Kennedy gathered every living American Nobel laureate for dinner at the White House in 1962, he declared it “the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” Apparently, in this administration’s view, Kennedy had it wrong — the most extraordinary collection of talent and knowledge ever gathered in the White House is when Barack Obama reads his daily intelligence brief alone.

So, since Obama is so smart and is so prescient and such, why didn't the Marines have the necessary armaments? Why were we relying on Egyptian and Libyan security instead of beefed up and armed Marines? So, I must ask: Isn't this a gross dereliction of duty, especially since this president needs no briefers and is the smartest man ever? What did he know and when did he know it, and why didn't he act...Let's see his PDBs for the last month. He couldn't have missed anything, because he is the chosen one.

This arrogance is typical of this narcissistic insecure little manchild. And it is getting Americans killed.

WaPo Obama Boosters Clueless About MidEast

While talking about how the Embassy and Consulate attacks could be the biggest challenge for Obama, Obama Propagandists had this gem to say about the MidEast and North Africa:

The attacks offered a vivid reminder that despite more than a year of turbulence that has produced a more democratic Middle East and North Africa, violent extremists remain a potent force. And it is still unclear whether the new governments in Libya and Egypt are able, or willing, to confront those bent on attacking U.S. interests.

A more democratic Middle East? One where more and more women face sharia law? That is democratic? One where apostates face death sentences because they are not devout followers of the religion of Islam? More democratic? Give me a break. Unless you are talking about democracy in the Aristotle definition of rule by the mob or frenzies.

The Middle East is about as democratic as Ronald Reagan was liberal.

Then, the part about whether the new governments are able or willing to confront the attackers? Hello, morons! The attackers were fellow travellers in the islamist fanaticism! The President of Egypt is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, a known supporter of terrorists! This Morsy guy even wants us to go after people who made the film, as if we were dictators like he and his brotherhood are:

The Egyptian government is struggling to walk a fine line on this situation. On the one hand, the Egyptian public is deeply offended by the video and looks to its government to defend the faith. While President Morsy has made some lukewarm statements about the responsibility of the Egyptian government to protect diplomatic missions, he has issued much stronger words denouncing the film.

Indeed, he has demanded the United States take "all possible legal action" against the producers of the movie, an indication he does not fully understand our First Amendment. This is a widespread problem across the Arab world: People who have lived their lives largely under dictatorship simply cannot understand how a film can be made without government sanction. Their protest against the film is a protest against America.

Disgusting.....

9/11/2011...Images, Memories, Prayers...from Mark

President George W. Bush with some powerful words yesterday in Shanksville, where the brave passengers of Flight 93 saved the Capitol or the White House from destruction...


It was ten years ago today...on a beautiful Tuesday morning....over 3000 people would go to work, or out to eat, or what have you....and never come home...

19 scumbag islamofascist thugs would use innocent people and aircraft as weapons to try to pry us into fear...Here are some images and remembrances from that horrible day...


Shortly after the attacks, our Commander in Chief told the bravest and finest we were with them and made a vow....



A vow that not only led to a new emphasis on those who fear us because we are free, but led to freedom for millions who had been under the heel of brutal e dictators...And the justice for this, while it may never be complete in this life, the cowardly dirtbag who orchestrated this has been sent to hell...



And though that particular devil is gone, there are more out there, looking to try to do what UBL and others have tried and failed to do: Bring America to her knees. As long as America has the brave men and women of the military and the law enforcement and first responders, as long as we are a people of freedom and liberty under God; then no group of religious fascist fanatics can destroy us....God bless the men and women who serve us....

God bless our brothers and sisters who ran into the maelstrom as others fled, seeking to save everyone they could...and God bless those who took things into their own hands to defeat evil with a cry of "Let's Roll..."

May we never, ever forget the Fallen....




Let us continue on to live our lives as they lived, striving to be all we can be and live out this unique American Dream, but with a renewed vigilance and understanding of how rare, precious, and special is our gift of liberty. Let us live in freedom, hoping for peace but ready to defend the cause of justice and liberty...God bless America....

OBL Death: How Has That Respect for Islam Paid Off for us?

I don't see anything about clerics cheering our dedication to respecting differences. However, I do see these Headlines

BIN LADEN SUPPORTERS RAGE ON THE STREETS OF LONDON, VOW REVENGE...

Stage mock funeral in front of US embassy...

Confirmation of death -- from al Qaeda...

...warns US of 'curse'

'their blood will be mixed with their tears'

Yeah, they really appreciate our respect for the so called religion of peace, don't they?

Obama's Two Faced Admin: Holder vs. Himself on Terrorism

From our good friends at National Review:

When it comes to terrorists, the AG is at odds with himself.


Why does the Obama Justice Department seem to have trouble mounting a full-throated, compelling legal defense of Osama bin Laden’s killing? The problem for Eric Holder the attorney general could be Eric Holder the private attorney.

In 2004, Mr. Holder chose to file an amicus brief on behalf of Jose Padilla, the al-Qaeda terrorist sent to our country by bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to carry out a post-9/11 second wave of attacks. In the brief, Holder argued that a commander-in-chief lacks the constitutional authority to do what his boss, the current commander-in-chief, has just done: determine the parameters of the battlefield. By Holder’s lights — at least when the president is not named Obama — an al-Qaeda terrorist must be treated as a criminal defendant, not an enemy combatant, unless he is encountered on a traditional battlefield.

Doh! So, A President cannot determine the parameters of the battlefield. But I guess that is only when the President's last name is Bush. No problem, Holder will just do what his boss does, leave past values and promises in the dust and change colors like a chameleon:

It would be useful if staffers at congressional oversight hearings passed around copies of Holder’s Padilla brief. It is a comprehensive attack on Bush counterterrorism, an enthusiastic endorsement of the law-enforcement approach in vogue during the Clinton era (when Holder was deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, who also signed on to the Padilla brief). This might explain why Holder sometimes has difficulty answering seemingly easy questions. That’s what happened this week, when the Senate Judiciary Committee quizzed the attorney general on the lawfulness of the U.S. military’s targeted killing of bin Laden.

This should be a no-brainer, unless you are a transnational progressive, such as those in the Human Rights Watch crowd, which does not concede the primacy of American law when it comes to American government action; or a pedant such as Fox’s Andrew Napolitano, who seems to think the Constitution’s words “declare war” have a talismanic quality, as if Congress were powerless to authorize warfare without uttering them.

A few days after the 9/11 atrocities, Congress — by huge bipartisan margins — enacted a sweeping authorization of the use of military force (AUMF). The AUMF, which was promptly signed by President Bush and has been reaffirmed repeatedly in congressional appropriations signed by Presidents Bush and Obama, states in pertinent part:

The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Congress could not more clearly have empowered the president to launch military operations against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. No one was more responsible than bin Laden, who — to use the crystal clear AUMF terminology — planned and authorized the suicide-hijackings.

Not only did the AUMF put our nation on a firm war footing, Congress imposed no geographical or situational limitations on combat operations against those determined by the commander-in-chief either to have carried out 9/11 or to have harbored those terrorists. Manifestly, either Pakistan is our ally — as its government and ours both profess — in which case killing bin Laden on its soil is routine (there having been many U.S. strikes against the enemy in Pakistan), or Pakistan was harboring bin Laden in Abbottabad, in which case the AUMF expressly authorizes not only attacks against al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan but against Pakistan itself. Q.E.D.

Except it’s not that simple for Eric Holder the attorney general, because Eric Holder the private lawyer advocated greater legal protections for terrorists.

Which begs the question: why does the Obama administration have more respect for the rights of dirtbag terrorists than American citizens?

OBL: A Real Example of the Islamofascist Manhood

The piece of garbage used one of his wives as a human shield when the attack went down. Yeah, Sharia law and the religion of peace are so progressive when it comes to women's rights. Where is the outrage at islamofascism on the part of the NOW cows? Hmmm? Check it out:

Mr Brennan said bin Laden was hiding behind women, who were used as a human shield, when he was confronted by US special forces troops. One woman was killed.

Brennan told the press during the briefing that the woman used by bin Laden as a human shield during the raid on his compound was “presumed to be his wife”.

A dirtbag, mass murderer, and a man who hides behind women when the chips are down. And we actually respected his "religion" enough to bury him on time and with the proper ritual. I guess we wanted him all done up nice when he entered Hell.

KSM Gave UP Cowardly Osama

From the UK Telegraph:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks gave up the name of Osama bin Laden’s personal courier to the CIA after being “water boarded” at Guantanamo Bay, resulting in a raid on a compound in Pakistan where bin Laden was being hidden by the Pakistani government that ended with Osama bin Laden being killed in a firefight.

Abu Faraj al-Libi also an al-Qaeda “leader” held at Guantanamo Bay helped bin Laden find places to hide in various places in Pakistan according to top secret government documents.

Interrogation and torture of Abu Faraj al-Libi led him to give up the name of a courier that led the CIA to the compound where bin Laden was hiding.

So, enhanced interrogation techniques work, I don't care what Amnesty International says.

And thank you, Mr. Obama, for breaking your campaign word to your liberal lovers and keeping the BUSH policies of enhanced interrogations, rendition, keeping GITMO open, and following the surge methods you said you hated.

Islamofascism Delenda Est: Bin Laden Killed

Breaking News: America Gets a Victory

Multiple sources are reporting that Osama Bin Laden was killed one week ago by an American attack. Reportedly, we have the body and have confirmed the identity with a DNA match.

The spiritual mastermind behind the worst day in American history has been killed, but much more work still remains to destroy the radical ideology that he promoted.

Islamofascism must be destroyed.

President Obama was due to address the nation at 10:30PM tonight, but is late. I had heard from other sources that the military had been ordered to Condition BRAVO which typically precedes significant national security events.

DEVELOPING.

UPDATE: President Obama delivered the best speech I have ever heard from him. OBL was killed by an American ground operation in Pakistan.  A crowd has gathered outside the White House celebrating this victory against al Qaeda and Islamofascist Terrorism.

UPDATE 2: Statement from former Presidents Clinton and Bush (43):

Bush called the operation a “momentous achievement” that “marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001.”

“I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission. They have our everlasting gratitude,” the former president said in a statement. “The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.”

Former President Bill Clinton, who was in office for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, also issued a written statement.

"I congratulate the President, the National Security team and the members of our armed forces on bringing Osama bin Laden to justice after more than a decade of murderous al-Qaida attacks," he said.

Mark's Remarks

I also give thanks for the men and women of our armed forces, and for President Obama reneging on campaign promises to lefties, like MAINTAINING BUSH POLICIES of rendition, enhanced interrogations, keeping GITMO Open, and keeping a troop presence in the Mid East. Thank you, Mr. Obama, for not honoring your word to your supporters. I am with Glenn Beck--bury the guy somewhere in the Grand Canyon with a ham sandwich as a hat. Again, we pay too much respect to the "religion of peace." You know, one of the cowards protecting Osama actually used a woman as a human shield and she was killed as well as the cowardly terrorists? We need to quit worrying about what the radicals think. They will hate us as much as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn do already.

And don't believe the hype that this proves Obama's foreign policy and military bona fides. Don't fall for the hype that this means reelection is a slam dunk. Yes, there will be a poll bump, but remember this: George HW Bush had a 90+% approval rating going into election season of 1992. See how that turned out. Remember the Israeli election in the 1970s--everyone thought the daring Israeli raid would give the ruling Labor party the victory, but rather conservative Menahem Begin won. Don't get discouraged. Today is indeed a day for reflection and a sigh of relief. However, the war continues. And we should marvel that in spite of our President weakening America's economy and standing with the world, our men and women in the armed forces and clandestine services are able to do such an amazing thing.

3:37pm Mark's Remarks Update

I was shocked that the President ONLY used I, Me, My less than 25 times in the speech last night. Unlike Matt, I don't think it was any great speech. I rank it with all the other self promoting speeches. Only when talking about President Bush's era do we get the words "our" or "your" or "we", and some of it is taking credit for things he wasn't involved in and may not have supported. Mark Steyn agrees with me:

Personally, I would have liked bin Laden’s death to have been announced by whatever lowest-level official was manning the night desk at the Department of Nondescript Bureaucrats, preferably reading it off the back of an envelope. But, if you’re going to put the head of state on TV to announce it himself, it would have been better to have been all brisk and businesslike – “At 0800 hours American military assets entered an address at 27b Jihadist Gardens, etc” – and finish off with a bit of Churchillian sober uplift about it not being the end or the beginning of the end but maybe the end of the beginning.

Instead, as Stephen Hunter, the novelist and Washington Post film critic, writes:

Any joy one might feel in the intelligence of our analysts and the bravery of our door kickers was significantly diminished by Obama’s malignant narcissism. The first part of the announcement, evoking 9/11, was vulgarly overwritten as per Obama’s view of himself as some kind of gifted orator. The adjective bloated compote was unworthy of the subject, banal and self-indulgent.

I was, I confess, a little stunned by the first part of the President’s speech. It was, as Mr Hunter says, overwritten. It managed to be both overwrought and generic – all that telepromptered overload about cloudless Tuesday mornings was not only tackily over-prettified but came over as unfelt and hand-me-down, like a course exercise in some third-rate creative-writing school’s Soaring Oratory class. Or, at any rate, as if they’d loaded up a first draft of September’s tenth anniversary speech into the machine. The official announcement was delayed for all this? If ever there was a moment for the commander-in-chief to be real, plainspoken and off his glassy-eyed follow-the-bouncing-ball routine, this was it. It’s as if nobody around him knows how to write except in the one tinny key.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m happy to rally round the flag, and rally round the President, but rally round this speech? No thanks.

I find the 5th and 6th paragraphs to be really disgusting and duplicit:

We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda -- an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.

Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort. We’ve disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.

Um, Barry, you during Sept. 2001 were writing editorials about how we must be sure to be nice to Islamists and were more worried about coddling those who worked against us. During your administration you have actively worked to negotiate with the Taliban. It was our military under President Bush, who removed the Taliban, while you and your anti war lefty buddies were calling them terrorists and worrying about treating our prisoners with respect, even while people like Matt Maupin and Danny Pearl were tortured and killed with no respect for human decency.

Typical, narcissistic Obama. And typical at giving mixed messages. On the one hand, WE GOT HIM. On the other, we had to bend over backwards to give him a decent burial and respect his "religion." Obama has to do, as Bush so irritated me with doing, the traditional, we are not at war against Islam blah de blah de blah. These savages out there don't care we gave him a decent burial or that we tried to lower casualties. They only understand annihiliation. Ugh. Andy McCarthy at NRO agrees with me:

Still, the operation cannot but underscore the mind-bending inconsistencies in Obama’s counterterrorism — gold-plated due process for some 9/11 terrorists but assassination for others; the haste to close Gitmo even as it continues to serve valuable security purposes; the paralysis of interrogation policies that (as Shannen, Steve, and others point out) were key to obtaining intelligence that not only thwarts attacks but enabled us to find bin Laden; the crackdown against al Qaeda while engaging the Muslim Brotherhood despite its sustenance of Hamas; the avowed commitment to fight terrorism while demonstrating indifference to the promotion of terrorism by Iran, Syria, and other rogue regimes; rhetorically lashing out at the Taliban (as Obama did in yesterday’s speech) while seeking a negotiated settlement with the Taliban; and so on.

Obama rarely talks about the war — indeed, he resists referring to war as “war.” This, coupled with his paradoxical approach to it, will limit the political benefit he derives from positive developments in the war, including one as extremely positive as taking out bin Laden. Meanwhile, the urgency of debt, unemployment, and climbing consumer prices will very quickly divert the public’s attention from bin Laden. The 2012 election will probably not be any more influenced by yesterday’s successful operation than the 1992 election was by victory in the Gulf War.

Congressman Allen West Statement on Somali Pirate Killings

Release:

(WASHINGTON)  ---- Congressman Allen West (FL-22) released this statement today:

"The situation that occurred off the coast of Somalia is nothing short of a brazen attack on our fellow countrymen by a group of terrorists.

Piracy is nothing new in this region. One cannot forget the First Barbary War of 1801 between the U.S. and the North African Muslim states known as the Barbary States.

The disturbing trend of more frequent and violent attacks by Somali pirates in this current period of time is something that the free world must take seriously. 

This horrific tragedy is a reminder that the United States must continue funding and supporting a strong Naval-Maritime force to maintain open sea lanes of transit and ensure the safety of all ships that cross these routes.

I pray for the those who were lost, and for comfort for their loved ones left behind."

Is the TSA Going to do Vivisections on Grandma Now?

You know, we have this bloated and inefficient and invasive system of screening passengers right now, with the excuse of "it's for security." Better to be groped or exposed nude via scanner than get blown up in an airplane. So I guess the next level is better to have limbs severed or have grandma vivisected for inspection rather than have a bomb go off. It seems al queda has already moved past bombs that are grope proof:

Jihadis bent on concocting a "new kind of terrorism" are brainstorming how to surgically implant explosives to make undetectable Frankenbombers.

"What is your opinion about surgeries through which I can implant the bomb ...inside the operative's body?" an apparent mad surgeon recently asked an online forum used by Al Qaeda affiliates.

He called on bombmakers and doctors to cook up the perfect solution to murder "larger numbers of unbelievers and apostates."

I mean, seriously, when are we going to stop with the PC garbage and get real? The answer, not the 100% answer or the most kind answer, but the best answer, is to profile and do what Israel does. Israel is in terrorism central geographically, and I don't hear about their planes blowing up or anything. Something to think about before we start cutting off arms and legs and such.

Hey Hey! Ho Ho! Eric Holder's Gotta Go!

At least, that is what Ed Morrissey says. And I agree with him:

The failure of Holder’s DoJ to win anything more than a single conspiracy count against Ghailani as a result of using a process designed for domestic criminals than wartime enemies shows that the critics had it right all along. It also shows that both Obama and Holder have been proven spectacularly wrong, since a man who confessed to the murder of over two hundred people will now face no more than 20 years, with a big chunk of whatever sentence Foopie receives being reduced by time already served. . . . There could be no greater failure by the DoJ in this war on terror than to get these decisions wrong, especially in light of the avalanche of criticism over those decisions and the administration’s reaction to it

Between having KSM being tried in NYC, wanting to house terrorists in Illinois, as well as the whole Black Panther Voting Case debacle, this statist leftist hack needs to go.

More Reactions from Gitmo Detainee Trial Results

Peter King (R-NY), rips into the incompetent administration of Barack Obama and the inept Attorney General Eric Holder:

“I am disgusted at the total miscarriage of justice today in Manhattan’s federal civilian court. In a case where Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was facing 285 criminal counts, including hundreds of murder charges, and where Attorney General Eric Holder assured us that ‘failure is not an option,’ the jury found him guilty on only one count and acquitted him of all other counts including every murder charge.

“This tragic verdict demonstrates the absolute insanity of the Obama Administration’s decision to try al-Qaeda terrorists in civilian courts.

“This case was doomed from the beginning when the judge excluded DOJ’s key witness who admitted selling the explosives to Ghailani. Where is the justice for the more than 200 people killed and 4,000 injured in the terrorist bombings of our U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania?

“This is a tragic wake-up call to the Obama Administration to immediately abandon its ill-advised plan to try Guantanamo terrorists like the admitted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in federal civilian courts. We must treat them as wartime enemies and try them in military commissions at Guantanamo.

“As the next Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, I intend to hold hearings and conduct the necessary oversight on this critical homeland security issue in the 112th Congress.”

Go get em Pete!

Keep America Safe, headed by Liz Cheney issued the following:

“Bad ideas have dangerous consequences. The Obama Administration recklessly insisted on a civilian trial for Ahmed Ghailani, and rolled the dice in a time of war. The Department of Justice says it’s pleased by the verdict. Ask the families of the victims if they’re pleased. And this result isn’t just embarrassing. It’s dangerous. It signals weakness in a time of war. The Ghailani trial was supposed to be a test case for future trials of 9/11 terrorists.

We urge the president: End this reckless experiment. Reverse course. Use the military commissions at Guantanamo that Congress has authorized. And, above all--accept the fact that we are at war.”

Thomas Joscelyn calls it a miscarriage of Justice:

The Department of Justice, which moved Ghailani from Guantanamo to New York for the trial, says it is “pleased” with the outcome since Ghailani will face a minimum of 20 years in prison and possibly serve a life sentence.

It is difficult to square the DOJ’s rhetoric with the carnage that was unleashed in Africa more than a decade ago. The man who helped murder more than 200 civilians was acquitted of their murders even though he is obviously guilty.

Let’s review some of the evidence presented at Ghailani’s trial. According to CBS News, government prosecutors presented all of the following facts to the jury:

1. Ghailani and another al Qaeda operative “purchased the used refrigeration truck converted to a weapon of mass destruction in Tanzania.”

2. “Ghailani then obtained some of the oxygen and flammable acetylene gas tanks joined to the TNT to enhance the explosion.”
3. “Ghailani also stored electric detonators - one and a half inch, aluminum coated, PETN charged blasting caps -- in the armoire of his Dar es Salaam house. The FBI found one, along with clothing tainted with TNT residue.”

4. Ghailani gave the suicide bomber who blew himself up in Tanzania the cell phone he used in plotting the attack. The suicide bomber made calls from this phone both the night before, and the morning of, the attack.

5. The government produced “numerous witnesses” who “placed Ghailani in 1998 in the company of known al Qaeda operatives and embassy bombers, at [a] ‘safe house’ in coastal Mombasa, Kenya, at the house Ghailani shared in Dar es Salaam, and riding in utility vehicles the conspirators used to ferry supplies to their bomb making locations.”

CBS News explains that two of the men “seen with Ghailani” have already been convicted for their role in the embassy bombings and are “serving life sentences.”

6. “Ghailani fled Tanzania using a fake name and passport the day before the bombings” and “three senior al Qaeda leaders involved with the East Africa's cell were on Ghailani's flight to Karachi, Pakistan."

It is a mystery how the jury could find that these facts failed to add up to a guilty verdict on all of the murder counts. How can a terrorist be guilty of conspiring to blow up two buildings, but then be found not guilty of the ensuing deaths?

The verdict doesn’t make any logical sense even if there is a lawyerly explanation. (One juror reportedly held out, disagreeing with the other 11 jurors until a verdict was finally reached. It may be the case that the jurors could only agree on a compromise.)

The evidence outlined above is consistent with that which was presented during Ghailani’s combatant status review tribunal (CSRT) at Guantanamo – with one noteworthy exception. Ghailani purchased some of the TNT used in the attacks, but the judge in this case barred the witness who sold the TNT to him. During his CSRT, Ghailani came up with the unconvincing excuse that when he purchased the TNT he thought he was really purchasing “soap for washing horses.”

It does not appear that the jury ever heard this absurd excuse because Judge Kaplan barred the TNT seller from testifying. Ghailani’s lawyers used equally lame excuses in their attempt to explain away the other damning evidence. They portrayed Ghailani as a “dupe” and “naïve” innocent who just happened to take part in al Qaeda’s most successful attack prior to September 11.

Instead of dispensing with Ghailani’s unconvincing story once and for all, the jury waffled. Thus, a terrorist who helped kill 224 people was found “not guilty” of their murders.

No one should be “pleased” with that verdict, even if Ghailani will likely serve many years in prison.

ABSOLUTELY. BEYOND. THE. PALE. WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT!?!?!?

Obama's Civilain Terror Trials: EPIC FAIL!

Well, as usual, when tested, the policies of Barack Obama are not just failures, they are huge mistakes. The latest comes at a time when the President is seen as weak and ineffectual and intellectually and emotionally out of touch with the American people. The latest debacle has implications in the area of foreign affairs and the fight against terrorism, or as the Administration calls it, man caused disasters or overseas contingency operations. Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama have said that the way to prosecute high level Gitmo detainees was through public criminal jury trials, as opposed to military tribunals. Well, here is the first test case. I don't think anyone who is remotely objective could come up with anything other than an EPIC FAILURE:

The first court conviction of a Guantanamo Bay detainee did little to push President Barack Obama closer to shuttering the island prison, making it increasingly likely his campaign promise will remain unmet by the time his current term expires.

Jurors in New York City on Wednesday convicted Ahmed Ghailani of conspiracy to blow up government buildings in the al-Qaida attacks on two U.S. embassies in 1998, but they acquitted him on more than 280 other charges. He is the only person transferred from Guantanamo Bay for trial since the U.S. began filling the military prison in Cuba eight years ago.

Despite the acquittals, which included murder counts for each of the 224 people killed in the bombings, the Justice Department said it was pleased Ghailani faces up to life in prison and said it would seek that sentence.

But senior officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private discussions, conceded that the one-count conviction, combined with big electoral wins for Republicans this month, will make it harder to close the prison.

OK, he is guilty of blowing up buildings, but not for the murder of the people inside? Huh? What? Seriously? I am not the only one pronouncing this a disaster:

The Ghailani case also did little to resolve the question of what will happen to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other masterminds of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists attacks.

The Justice Department had planned to prosecute those cases in civilian courts, but the administration reversed course amid political opposition. The move left a sour taste with some prosecutors, who felt the White House was letting political considerations influence the department, a criticism Democrats often lobbed at President George W. Bush.

Ghailani, like Mohammed, was held for years in a secret CIA prison overseas and subjected to some of the harshest interrogation tactics. His trial was seen as a test of whether those actions would sink the case or whether prosecutors could salvage a conviction. Prosecutors could face the same challenge in the 9/11 trials.

A federal judge prohibited prosecutors from calling a key witness in the Ghailani case, saying the witness had been identified while Ghailani was interrogated at the CIA prison.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is seen as key to any deal to close Guantanamo, said late Wednesday that he was disappointed with the Ghailani verdict and said the government was endangering the nation "by criminalizing the war."

"We are at war with al-Qaida," Graham said. "Members of the organization and their associates should be treated as warriors, not common criminals."

Even Lindsey "Democrat Lite" Grahamnesty gets it. This is a disaster. The guy gets off of murder and only gets about 20 years to life? But, he is still going to spend the rest of his life in jail no matter what as a high level prisoner, so really, once again, the Obama admin wasted taxpayer dollars and also bungled a case, allowing criminal rules of evidence to be used in what is historically viewed as military type cases.

And, as Clarice Feldman writes, no matter what, Obama's high minded ideals of civil trials and the criminal justice system just look like blatant hypocrisy anyway. Consider:

Because Attorney General Eric Holder shares with President Obama the notion that there is something wrong about military tribunals and something far better about trying captured suspected terrorists in civilian criminal courts which operate under far more rigid rules of evidence, he has flopped in suggesting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in Manhattan criminal court, something no sane New York politician will agree to.

Just days ago, the administration seemed to indicate that it recognized that the trial in New York wasn’t feasible. It still looked down on the notion of a military tribunal. The suggestion was that the administration wouldn’t try Mohammed at all — but simply hold him in indefinite detention:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, will probably remain in military detention without trial for the foreseeable future, according to Obama administration officials.

The administration has concluded that it cannot put Mohammed on trial in federal court because of the opposition of lawmakers in Congress and in New York. There is also little internal support for resurrecting a military prosecution at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The latter option would alienate liberal supporters.

The administration asserts that it can hold Mohammed and other al-Qaeda operatives under the laws of war, a principle that has been upheld by the courts when Guantanamo Bay detainees have challenged their detention.

How holding people for years without any trial (or even after they’ve been acquitted by a civilian jury) is fairer than a military tribunal, I cannot say. The article also says that Obama will make the final decision, so he may simply be hoping to run out the clock , thinking that when he’s re-elected he’ll be in a better position to force an unpopular civilian trial over the objection of local politicians. Or he may just be paralyzed with indecision, as he so often dithers on matters of great importance.

But before Holder reached that point on Mohammed, he decided to go ahead with a civilian trial of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, suspected as a key figure in the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Africa which killed 224 people. .

On Wednesday, the jury in that case decided that Ghailani was guilty on only a conspiracy count.

The outcome was not unexpected. In October, I signaled this was a likely result of the ill-considered effort to move these cases from Guantanamo for trial in civilian courts.

I wrote then:

Minutes before the start of the trial, which it seems the administration intended to be a “yes we can [successfully try these guys in civilian court]” to the naysaying legal analysts, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled the witness was barred from taking the stand because the prosecution had not proved to the court’s satisfaction that the government could have found out about the witness even if the confession he made to the CIA — a confession the government was not introducing into evidence — had not occurred.

Ghailani will not be freed despite the collapse of the government’s case. The judge also ruled that his status as an “’enemy combatant’ probably would permit his detention as something akin to a prisoner of war until hostilities between the United States and al-Qaeda and the Taliban end, even if he were found not guilty.”

Basically, this is all political theater meant to assauge the loony left kook fringe of Barry the Buffoon's base:

And from the jury’s action it appears clear that without the evidence barred by the civilian rule that the government cannot use evidence which it obtained by improper interrogation means — even if that evidence is sound in every way — the jury had insufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty of the murder charges:

The first former Guantánamo detainee to be tried in a civilian court was acquitted on Wednesday of all but one of more than 280 charges of conspiracy and murder in the 1998 terrorist bombings of the United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. …

The defendant, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, 36, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to destroy government buildings and property. He was acquitted of four counts of conspiracy, including conspiring to kill Americans and use weapons of mass destruction. …

Mr. Ghailani faces a sentence of 20 years to life in prison.

The notion that people like this should be tried under the rules of U.S. criminal law applicable to civilians is the sort of preposterous silliness that defies reason.

That even if they are acquitted in civilian courts we can and likely will continue to hold them in indefinite detention seems to me to underscore that these are show trials to appeal to the president’s left base. I don’t understand how the attorney general and president can think there is any benefit to this costly, risky enterprise. On the one hand, they stand to turn commonsense legal rulings on their heads and make martyrs of murderous thugs. On the other hand, the whole show trial aspect of it all undermines the rule of law.

Rule of Law? Constitution? What are Those? I mean, we have Security people groping women in the name of Big Sis, we are going to be forced to buy life insurance despite it not being Constitutional, and, we have a President who thinks the Constitution is "too negative."

TSA=The Sexual Assault Squad Update: GOP Response

From Byron York:

Did you know that the nation's airports are not required to have Transportation Security Administration screeners checking passengers at security checkpoints? The 2001 law creating the TSA gave airports the right to opt out of the TSA program in favor of private screeners after a two-year period. Now, with the TSA engulfed in controversy and hated by millions of weary and sometimes humiliated travelers, Rep. John Mica, the Republican who will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is reminding airports that they have a choice.

Mica, one of the authors of the original TSA bill, has recently written to the heads of more than 150 airports nationwide suggesting they opt out of TSA screening. "When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy which was soon to grow to 67,000 employees," Mica writes. "As TSA has grown larger, more impersonal, and administratively top-heavy, I believe it is important that airports across the country consider utilizing the opt-out provision provided by law."

I wonder how many private security firms will be getting calls now that the TSA has decided to allow and endorse groping as security measure? However, the problem is even deeper:

what really worries critics is that the TSA has become dangerously ineffective. Its specialty is what those critics call "security theater" -- that is, a show of what appear to be stringent security measures designed to make passengers feel more secure without providing real security. "That's exactly what it is," says Mica. "It's a big Kabuki dance."

Now, the dance has gotten completely out of hand. And like lots of fliers -- I spoke to him as he waited for a flight at the Orlando airport -- Mica sees TSA's new "naked scanner" machines and groping, grossly invasive passenger pat-downs as just part of a larger problem. TSA, he says, is relying more on passenger humiliation than on practices that are proven staples of airport security.

So, instead of just theater, why not offer some real solutions? Who does it better than anyone? The Israelis:

experts have urged TSA to adopt techniques, used with great success by the Israeli airline El Al, in which passengers are observed, profiled, and most importantly, questioned before boarding planes. So TSA created a program known as SPOT -- Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques. It began hiring what it called behavior detection officers, who would be trained to notice passengers who acted suspiciously. TSA now employs about 3,000 behavior detection officers, stationed at about 160 airports across the country.

The problem is, they're doing it all wrong. A recent Government Accountability Office study found that TSA "deployed SPOT nationwide without first validating the scientific basis for identifying suspicious passengers in an airport environment." They haven't settled on the standards needed to stop bad actors.

"It's not an Israeli model, it's a TSA, screwed-up model," says Mica. "It should actually be the person who's looking at the ticket and talking to the individual. Instead, they've hired people to stand around and observe, which is a bastardization of what should be done."

Even when they have a successful model, government bleeding heart p.c. bureaucrats still can't get it right. But, all this groping means no terrorists get on our planes, right? WRONG-O:

the GAO "discovered that since the program's inception, at least 17 known terrorists ... have flown on 24 different occasions, passing through security at eight SPOT airports." One of those known terrorists was Faisal Shahzad, who made it past SPOT monitors onto a Dubai-bound plane at New York's JFK International Airport not long after trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square. Federal agents nabbed him just before departure.

Look, the American people want real solutions. Let's get real. Grandma isn't a terrorist and doesn't need to be given a pap smear before boarding a plane. Let's get to the business of focusing and studying bad actors and focus on those who are more at risk. Of course, that requires something bureaucrats don't have: courage.

MATT'S UPDATE: This post was so informative, I thought I'd link to the TSA's Blog so that everybody could learn that AIRPORTS can opt out too!

About That Book Burning

I've been trying to get my head in the game on what exactly I think about this preacher in Florida wanting to burn a Koran on 9/11. I have mixed emotions on the subject, but I am opposed to it for several reasons.

First, I think General Petreaus has a point: Islamofascists, (not the cute and cuddly "moderate" Muslims who fart rainbows; but the real, hard core Muslims who like to chop heads and stuff) will use this event as an excuse to lash out at American serving around th globe.

Second, book burning is really anti-American. It just is. Sure, dude has the right to burn his personal property, but if this were really about that he wouldn't have made such a spectacle of himself. I don't like it when Islamofascists burn the American flag and/or shout "Death to America" either.

But...

I saw this article on Rasmussen that I think sums up part of why I hestitate to totally condemn the whole exercise:

It may well be that I'm giving Jones too much credit, but I think he and others have been driven mad by a media-elite double standard that requires the Christian religious right to be sensitive, but not Muslims.

When the controversy involves the ground zero mosque, the elites cite the First Amendment; when the controversy draws on the free-speech rights of the devout, editorial page editors switch to the issue of tolerance.
...
There is no sense of proportion. The left portrays the religious right as extremists, if they oppose, say, abortion or same-sex marriage, while it ignores Islamic cultures' unequal and at times violent treatment of women and gays.

At some point, we have to stop tolerating the violence that Muslims perpetrate on humanity. I'm not a real "eye for an eye" kind of guy, but I do think that symbolic gestures of friendship are only seen as weakness by the Islamofascists.

I guess I'd be more supportive if this preacher man had announced his intention to burn a Koran as a response to some other event much like the Islamofascists do as standard procedure.

Just seems like a really bad idea to me though...

What Does NASA Have to Do with Muslim Relations?

Is Obama hinting he is going to give SDI to al Queda? Is he willing to let Iranians build spy satellites against Israel? What in the blue hell does NASA have to do with Islamic relations? Why am I asking? Check this out:

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his "foremost" mission as the head of America's space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.

Though international diplomacy would seem well outside NASA's orbit, Bolden said in an interview with Al Jazeera that strengthening those ties was among the top tasks President Obama assigned him. He said better interaction with the Muslim world would ultimately advance space travel.

"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering," Bolden said in the interview.

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT? Excuse me, but the job of NASA is improving the standing of the United States through science experimentation and space exploration. It has NOTHING to do with improving relations with some ethnic or racial group. Give me a flipping break! You would think this would be news, but check this out:

From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the New York Times: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the Washington Post: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on NBC Nightly News: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on ABC World News: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on CBS Evening News: 0.

If you were to receive your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving the Obama administration redefining the space agency’s mission to feature outreach to Muslim countries, your response would be, “Huh?” Among all the news these distinguished outlets have seen fit to cover in recent days, the NASA story has not made the cut.

Obama Eliminating 2012 Competition with Petraeus Move?

As we all know, Obama "fired" General McChrystal. It would seem that like most liberals, McChrystal just can't keep his mouth shut. Well, Obama decided to "demote" General David Petraeus from CentCom Command to the Afghan Theater command. Of course, this also could be seen as attempting to take Petraeus out of contention for a 2012 GOP presidential run:

Barack Obama, who has in recent days turned haplessness into an art form, played a masterstroke today, making perhaps the canniest, wiliest, even wisest decision of his generally rudderless presidency. I refer, of course, to his appointment of David Petraeus to the Afghan war command, in place of the Rolling-Stoned Stanley McChrystal. In doing so, Obama has, at a stroke, taken Petraeus out of the 2012 presidential race. There has been a buzz about Petraeus and the presidency since about the fall of last year, and to many in the Republican Party—a party bereft of ideas and credible leaders—the general has increasingly taken on the aspect of a possible messiah. His impeccable military credentials, his undoubted intelligence, his mastery of personal and professional politics (you wouldn’t catch him talking to Rolling Stone in a million years), plus his undoubted (if carefully tailored) conservatism have led many to see in him a man who can take on Obama in 2012, and beat him. He is even the sort of guy who’d allow the GOP to broaden its tent, drawing in “undecideds” and independents.This can no longer happen. And Obama’s brilliant move also preserves his own Afghan war strategy (which is effectively a Petraeus-McChrystal strategy). So, in throwing out the “McChrystal bathwater,” he has been careful not to jettison the “policy baby."

To those tempted to argue that Obama has now elevated Petraeus to Eisenhower-like status, I’d point out that Eisenhower never ran for office against a president who raised him up to the military apex. I have met Petraeus, and had the chance to talk to him in an informal way, and I would be flabbergasted if he would now contemplate a political run against a man who has entrusted him with America’s most sensitive theater of war. Besides, the job Petraeus is taking would normally be a two-year stint.

So Obama has reason to be delighted with himself right now: He has sacked a recalcitrant big-mouth; he has entrusted said big-mouth’s job to a certified hero and military star; and he’s taken that star out of contention for 2012, making his own re-election that much more likely, given the headless turkey that is currently the GOP

This guy is not stupid. He is devious, cold, calculating. Perhaps he is hoping Petraeus doesn't turn it around and he becomes known as a failure. Wouldn't surprise me.