Never Forget

On October 12th, 2000 the USS Cole DDG 67 was bombed killing 17 US Sailors. Please help me honor them so they are not forgotten.

One of Hussein obama's first act as the U.S. Commander in Chief was to pardon one of the USS Cole Bombing Masterminds.

Tags:

 

One Question That Needs Answering

Jack Cashill is the man responsible for "Mega-Fix".

What did Obama do on 9/11/2012?

Posted by ilona trommler

What did Obama do on 9/11/2012?    Jack Cashill asks if BHO pulled a Clinton a la '96 during Benghazi attack

Jack Cashill

On this past Sunday morning, Chris Wallace of Fox News grilled the administration’s newly anointed flak catcher, White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer.

One critical question was how Obama spent that long night of Sept. 11, 2012, while his charges were busy dying in Benghazi.

“With all due respect,” asked Wallace, “you didn’t answer my question. What did the president do that night?” This was a good question and one that prompts a careful look at the time line.

At 3:40 p.m. Washington time on Sept. 11, 2012, U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens in Benghazi called his No. 2 man, Greg Hicks, and told him, “We’re under attack.”

(All times cited will be EDT, six hours earlier than Libyan time).

At 4:05 p.m. the State Department Operations Center issued an alert to all relevant agencies, “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.”

At 4:25 p.m. a six-member CIA team headed by Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods arrived at Stevens’ compound from the nearby annex.

Under heavy fire, Woods’ team recovered the body of Foreign Service IT specialist Sean Smith but could not find Stevens’ body in the burning building.

At 5 p.m. President Barack Obama had a pre-scheduled meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who briefed him on the Benghazi situation.

At 6 p.m. Woods and his CIA team arrived back at the annex, which they would defend Alamo-style for the next six hours. They would kill an estimated 60 Libyans before the night was through.

At 6:07 p.m. the State Department Operations Center shared a report from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack. The terror group also called for an attack on the Embassy in Tripoli.

At 7:30 p.m. or thereabouts Obama engaged in an hour-long phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama hoped to mend fences with Netanyahu to help secure the Jewish vote in the upcoming election.

After roughly 8:30 p.m., there is no known accounting of Obama’s time or whereabouts.

At 11:15 p.m. Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, another former SEAL, were killed in a mortar assault at the annex. Doherty had just arrived as part of a six-man team from Tripoli.

At 1:40 a.m., having evacuated the annex, the first group of Americans flew out of Benghazi bound for Tripoli. They saw Stevens’ body at the airport and confirmed his death.

Said Pfeiffer to Wallace when asked about Obama’s evening, “He was in constant touch with his national security team and kept up to date with the events as they were happening.”

Wallace then listed all the critical people with whom Obama had little or no conversation – the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs.

Pfeiffer clarified, “He was talking to his national security staff, his National Security Council – people who would keep him up to date as these things were happening.”

“Was he in the situation room?” Wallace asked.

“I don’t remember what room he was in that night,” said Pfeiffer. “That’s a largely irrelevant fact.” No, it is not irrelevant at all.

I cannot say for sure where Obama was that evening, but if the night of July 17, 1996, set a precedent, Obama was likely in the White House family quarters.

For the record, at 8:35 p.m. on that turbulent night in the election year of 1996, President Bill Clinton and wife Hillary left a Washington fundraiser and headed back to the White House by motorcade.

At 8:31 p.m., two FAA veterans at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center observed a target arching and intersecting with Paris-bound TWA Flight 800 as it headed east off Long Island’s south shore.

A manager from that center rushed the radar data to the FAA technical center in Atlantic City, and from there it was faxed to FAA headquarters in Washington and rushed “immediately” to the White House situation room.

It was in this room, “in the aftermath of the TWA Flight 800 bombing,” as Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos unwittingly told Peter Jennings on Sept. 11, 2001, that all key parties converged.

“This looks bad,” said Ron Schleede of the National Transportation Safety Board upon first seeing the data that “suggested something fast made the turn and took the airplane.”

Anti-terror czar Richard Clarke got the message too. By 9 p.m., he was driving in to the White House to convene a meeting of his security group, not at all the norm for a plane crash.

“I dreaded what I thought was about to happen,” Clarke wrote in his best-seller “Against All Enemies.” Clarke called it “The Eisenhower option,” a retaliatory strike against Iran.

When President Clinton met with friendly historian Taylor Branch on Aug. 2, 1996, he also traced the TWA 800 disaster to Iran. “They want war,” Branch quoted Clinton as saying.

On the night of July 17, however, the president chose not to join Clarke and the other agency representatives in the situation room.

Clinton remained holed up in the family quarters with Hillary. Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson and others have confirmed the president’s location that evening.

Patterson was in a position to know. He carried the nuclear football for the president, and he too was in the White House that night, though purposefully kept out of the loop.

The one person Patterson has tentatively cited as being in the family quarters with the Clintons is Sandy Berger, the deputy director of the NSA and the Clintons’ politicalconsigliere.

As it happened, National Security Adviser Tony Lake, Sandy Berger’ boss, was not invited to the family quarters. Lake was known to excuse himself from meetings when they turned political.

That night Berger and the Clintons gathered information from the FAA radar, from the satellite data and from the eyewitness accounts and translated the data into electoral strategy.

By 3 a.m. Clinton had apparently gathered enough information to call Lake with the following message: “Dust off the contingency plans.”

Dust them off, yes, but let’s not get too serious about them. In late summer 1996, with the election comfortably in the bag, war was the last thing the Clintons wanted or needed.

On Sept. 11, 2012, war was the last thing Obama wanted or needed as well. He had already bagged Osama bin Laden, pacified al-Qaida and liberated Libya.

Or so he repeated endlessly. Foreign policy was alleged to be his electoral strong suit. Given the political dynamics, Obama likely retreated, just as the Clintons had, to the family quarters.

As Pfeiffer said, Obama probably did talk to “people who would keep him up to date as these things were happening.”

Obama and certain of these people, the political insiders, would have spent the night translating national security data into electoral strategy.

After all, Obama had a big fundraiser the next day in Vegas. That did not allow much time to establish an alibi that would preserve his carefully crafted bin Laden-slayer narrative.

It was a close call, but with a little help from the media – a special shout-out to CNN’s Candy Crowley! – the alibi worked just well enough to get the man re-elected.

History does repeat itself.

Benghazi Links and Articles

DiGenova: Whistleblowers 'Are Trying To Rescue The Country From The Sleepwalking It's In'

by Debra HeineMay 6, 2013 10:17 AM PT

In response to Benghazi Witness: 'You Should Have Seen What (Clinton) Tried to Do to Us That Night':
In an interview on WMAL, this morning, Mark Thompson's lawyer, Joe diGenova charged that due to media malpractice, the country has been sleeping through the Benghazi story..
Continue reading

 

Benghazi Witness: Special Forces Told to Not to Provide Backup in Benghazi

by Elizabeth SheldMay 6, 2013 9:51 AM PT

CBS News is reporting that Benghazi witness Greg Hicks told congressional investigators that "a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa."
Hicks also reported that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were prepared to board a C130 from Tripoli before the attack on the Benghazi annex. Gibson received a call saying "you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight ... They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."
Continue reading

 

 

Suddenly Benghazi No Longer 'Fox-Induced Hysteria'?

by Ace Of SpadesMay 6, 2013 9:50 AM PT

Where do we go to get our reputations back?A review of the hyperpoliticized reactions of the left to criticism of and well-founded questions about Benghazi on the right demonstrates, once again, that They accuse us of Their Own sins.
Continue reading

 

Benghazi Witness: 'You Should Have Seen What (Clinton) Tried to Do to Us That Night'

by Elizabeth SheldMay 6, 2013 5:05 AM PT

Mark I. Thompson will make the allegation that Hillary Clinton "tried to cut the department's own counter-terrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making" as they responded to the Benghazi attacks.
Thompson is a former Marine and the current deputy coordinator for operations in the agency's counter terrorism bureau. He will appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday to testify about the Benghazi attacks.
Continue reading

 

 

Benghazi Eye Witness: Requests for Help Refused

by Elizabeth SheldMay 5, 2013 4:07 PM PT

Sharyl Attkisson at CBS News reports that an eyewitness on the ground at Benghazi was refused repeated requests for help.

"We relied on Washington for dispassionate assessment," one eyewitness told CBS News. "Instead, they [Washington officials] were asking us what help we needed. We answered: 'Send reinforcements!' "
But they were told immediate help wasn't available.
Embassy personnel say they repeatedly asked the Defense Attache on site in Tripoli for military assistance.
"Isn't there anything available?" one Embassy official says he asked. "But the answer was 'no.'"
"What about Aviano?" the official pressed, referencing the NATO air base with US assets in northeastern Italy. "No," was the answer.

Continue reading

 

 

Whistleblower Lawyer: ARB's Gen Pickering 'Became Physically Ill' at Thought of Dealing with Hillary

by Debra HeineMay 4, 2013 9:00 PM PT

When the Accountability Review Board’s report on Benghazi came out, last December, John Bolton noted that the State Dept. was basically investigating itself, and suggested that their assertions might not hold up to scrutiny.
It looks like the ARB's findings are indeed not holding up to scrutiny. The report is being savaged by the attorneys who are representing material witnesses who they say were ignored by the ARB.
Continue reading

 

Are You A non- Muslim?

Warfighting 101

Mark Alexander has a long piece today, but it is well worth the time it will take you to read it.
Here is the last section of his essay. I encourage you to make the jump and read the whole thing.

Afghanistan remains an ideal breeding ground for the active cadres of "Jihadistan," a borderless nation of Islamic extremists comprising al-Qa'ida and other Muslim terrorist groups around the world.

A borderless nation, indeed. The "Islamic World" of the Quran recognizes no political borders. Though orthodox Muslims (those who subscribe to the teachings of the "pre-Medina" Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass murder, large, well-funded sects within the Islamic world subscribe to the "post-Mecca" Quran and Hadiths (Mohammed's teachings). It is this latter group which calls for jihad, or "holy war," against all "the enemies of God."

For the record, these "enemies," or infidels, are all non-Muslims.

Are you a non-Muslim?

Jihadists, then, are characterized by the toxic Wahhabism of Osama bin Laden and his heretical ilk -- those who would remake the Muslim world in their own image of hatred, intolerance, death and destruction. In the words of bin Laden himself: "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us."

Does Barack Hussein Obama get the message?

Given his penchant for appeasement and for ill-advised withdrawal timelines from Iraq and Afghanistan, one would think not.

Moreover, the Obama administration's newly released quadrennial outline for national and homeland defense makes no mention of "Islam," "Islamic" or "Islamist," preferring instead to reference "violent extremism."

Obama's "Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism," John Brennan (a.k.a. "Terrorist Czar"), has deflected criticism of the quadrennial reports, and of Obama's re-warming of the Clinton model for treating terrorists as "criminals" rather than "enemy combatants."

"Politics should never get in the way of national security," says Brennan, who insists that Obama's detractors are "misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe." The thin-skinned Brennan has also charged that "politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qa'ida."

Obama's foreign policy is driven by nothing if not politics, and this includes his Afghanistan strategy. It's a strategy necessitated by his phony bravado during the 2008 presidential campaign -- a strategy with the ultimate aim of an easy political out.

Carnegie Endowment policy analyst Robert Kagan observes, "The new doctrine that seems to enjoy enormous cachet among the smart foreign policy set is: Fight wars until they get hard, then quit."

I prefer John Stuart Mill's assessment: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. ... A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Heritage Morning Bell-SOTU

A Speech Only Washington Could Love
The more things change, the more things stay the same. A little over a year ago, President Barack Obama came to office expecting to pass a "big bang" of policy changes all in the first year: health care, cap-and-trade, and banking regulation. With the big-bang strategy officially a failure, President Obama's State of the Union address last night desperately tried to keep all of these legislative efforts alive while also acknowledging that the country has firmly rejected his policy agenda.

The result was an incoherent mess of promised tax cuts for small businesses coupled with the threat of tax hikes from his health care and energy proposals; more federal money to encourage banks to lend to businesses, coupled with new taxes on banks and individuals; the continued waste of his $862 billion stimulus plan and $2 trillion in new health care spending, coupled with a delayed and temporary spending freeze. As one of the longest State of the Unions in the past 45 years, we cannot cover everything here. But our crack team of Heritage experts did hit almost every issue last night, and you can read their full reactions here.

Highlights include:

The New Hire Tax Credit
The tax credit for new hires is another recycled idea from Washington. Last tried in the 1970s, the tax credit proved to be a windfall for big businesses that were planning to hire anyway. Small businesses, the engine of job growth, did not use the tax credit largely because they were unaware of it and did not understand how to take advantage of the credit. The jobs tax credit proposal will likely also delay hiring since businesses that understand the tax credit now face an incentive to postpone hiring decisions to take advantage of the tax credit. Extending the Bush tax cuts and undoing the heavy taxes in the health care legislation is a better step to job creation than this tax credit.

The Bank Tax
President Obama tonight called for a new tax on banks and other large financial institutions, “a modest fee,” he said, “to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.” That sounds great, but in truth, the new tax would do nothing of the kind. Mr. Obama knows that almost every major bank has paid-back their bailout funds, with interest. Taxpayers made substantial profits on those repayments. On the other hand, most of the companies that still owe billions to taxpayers, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and auto firms GM and Chrysler, would not be subject to the tax. In short, Mr. Obama would tax those that have paid back taxpayers and exempt those who have not.

The Spending Freeze
Obama’s spending freeze would apply to a narrow sliver of spending (somewhere around 1/8th of total spending) and at best, savings would be less than one percent of the total budget. Moreover, it explicitly exempts the very entitlement programs driving future deficits. At a time when the deficit is $1.4 trillion and we face a sea of even worse red ink as far as the eye can see, such a freeze is tantamount to bailing out – forgive the double entendre – the Titanic with a dixiecup. And it would start next year, conveniently after the elections. Freezing spending is the right idea, but this freeze falls short of real action.

Energy Production
His calls for new nuclear power, offshore oil and gas exploration, and other new energy technologies are certainly welcome. The problem is that his program of subsidies, special tax treatment, and government support will not work. While government programs can create jobs in specific sectors, the President ignores the evidence that these programs end up killing more jobs than they create. Spain has already gone down this road, and its experience should give the President caution. Between 2000 and 2008, the Spanish government spent $36 billion in taxpayers' money on wind, solar and mini-hydro development. Each green job created cost on average $758,471.

Foreign Policy
Many around the world have expressed concern that a U.S. administration so focused on domestic priorities and troubles as the current one will be too inward-looking to be deeply engaged in the world. Judging by its placement in his list of priorities, foreign affairs did seem like an afterthought, briefly addressed. In Afghanistan, allied nations are hardly coming together to support the President’s surge — indeed French President Nicolas Sarkozy very publicly stated this week that he would not be contributing any more troops to the endeavor, this on the eve of the Afghanistan conference in London.

And the fight on terrorism has not, as stated, been advanced by the Obama administration — quite the reverse as the nation has become more vulnerable. Nor has the administration distinguished itself by its support for human rights in Iran — in fact it missed a critical moment to get involved during last summer’s uprisings against the Iranian regime. As for the President’s aspiration to control nuclear materials around the world, a goal to be reached through an international conference — that horse left the barn a long time ago.

In “Government’s End,” Jonathan Rauch writes: “Economic thinkers have recognized for generations that every person has two ways to become wealthier. One is to produce more, the other is to capture more of what others produce. … Washington looks increasingly like a public-works jobs program for lawyers and lobbyists, a profit center for professionals who are in business for themselves.”

From complicated new tax credits that small business owners don’t have the time or expertise to take advantage of, to new energy, financial and trade regulations that only large corporations have the lawyers and lobbyists to take advantage of, every policy proposal in Obama’s speech last night is a boon for the lawyer/lobbyist economy in Washington and a hindrance to wealth-creating Americans everywhere. This was a speech only the entrenched interests in Washington could love.

Google will not say what "Islam is....."

Google is scared.


They say its a bug.


Yeah....I don't believe them either.



h/t All American Blogger who tried this.

(I tried it too and got the same results as All American Blogger)


Use Bing.

Achmed the Dead Terrorist has new friends

14 "alleged" terrorists die of incompetent wiring, faulty components, and a massive explosion,.......but mainly of massive explosion.


Their own. Apparently they attended Achmed's training camp......

Achmed:

.....So, look as a suicide bomber have you had training?~Of course, we had this suicide bomber training camp.~Ah, is that a nice facility?~It used to be...~What happened?~New guy! The idiot tried to practise!~What did you guys learn from that?~Location, location, location....

.....Oh, if you must know, I am a horrible suicide bomber...~What happened?~I had a premature detonation...~I set the timer for 30 minutes, but it went off in 4 seconds!

CNN reports that they "mistakenly" blew up.
Nope.
Anytime terrorists are "blowed up real good" by their own bombs, that's not a mistake


h/t Say Uncle

Myths and Facts

Middle East Myths and Facts
Joel Gilbert
Family Security Matters

9/11 Attacks

Myth: On 9/11, America was attacked by “evil” hijackers because they were “against freedom.”

Fact: America was attacked by deeply religious people with the goal of changing U.S. foreign policy to advance the cause of Islamism, the movement for revival of Islamic society from 300 years of decline. Al Qaeda wanted the U.S. to withdraw support from secular autocrats in the Muslim world, in order for Islamists to take power through free elections.

The U.S. government, in fact, changed its Middle East strategy from supporting secular Western allied governments to demanding free elections throughout the Muslim world. In the Palestinian territories this resulted in the HAMAS takeover, while the U.S. demand for free elections in Egypt and elsewhere brought Islamist gains.

Finally, the Bush administration withdrew support from U.S. ally Pervez Musharaff in Pakistan – putting the country with nuclear arms in jeopardy of an Islamist takeover. This was reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s pushing aside U.S. ally, the Shah of Iran in 1979, as both Presidents mistakenly believed the removal of these autocrats would result in the break out of Western secular democracy.

Thus, the 9/11 attacks were successful only because America played into the hands of the Islamists when the Bush administration adopted Al Qaeda’s policy of “reform” in the Muslim world.

Heritage Morning Bell - The System Failed

The System is Failing

This past weekend the American public learned that not only was the Obama administration briefed about the bombing technique attempted on Flight 253, not only did the United States have information that a Nigerian was being prepared for a terrorist attack by al Qaeda in Yemen, but our government also knew that an “Umar Farouk” was involved.

Following these revelations, the Obama administration again took to the Sunday shows to defend their national security record. Last week Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano tried to convince Americans that “the system worked”. She failed. This Sunday, Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan did admit that the system failed on Christmas Day but still insisted: “Every other day the system has worked this year….The system is working.”

No, it is not. The complete failure of the Obama administration to connect the dots on the Flight 253 bomber was not an isolated incident. On June 2nd of this year, Adulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, upset about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, shot and killed one soldier and wounded another while they were standing outside a military recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas. And on November 5th, Nidal Malik Hasan, also upset about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 12 people and wounding 31 others. And on December 10th, five young men, all Muslim extremists from Northern Virginia, were arrested in Pakistan at the home of a man linked to a radical jihadist group.

Since 2001, there have been 28 failed terrorist attacks against the United States. That averages out to about three foiled attempts per year. In 2009, there were six failed attempts — the most in one year. As troubling as these incidents are by themselves, Americans should be concerned about a White House that looks at this body of evidence and then declares “the system is working.” No, it is not.

The problem is not, as Brennan would have us believe, an isolated incident of “human error.” It is a failure of leadership. A failure by the occupant of the White House to admit we are at war and use the tools at his disposal to protect.

Instead of providing stability and confidence in the intelligence community by seeking the renewal of key investigatory authorities authorized under the USA Patriot Act, President Obama has settled for a six-month extension tacked on to the Defense appropriations bill.

Instead of going to Congress and pushing for a comprehensive war-on-terror detainee system, President Obama has punted the issue to the Federal Courts.

Instead of promising victory for our war on terror efforts in Afghanistan, President Obama sent fewer troops than were required for a maximum military effort and gave al Qaeda a set date for our withdrawal.

Faulting the administration for a lack of leadership is not meant as a partisan criticism. Scoring political points won’t make us safe. The terrorists don’t care if they kill Republicans or Democrats or the West Wing is held by the left-wing or the right-wing. Nobody wants the White House to fail in this mission. But the President needs to stop blaming his predecessor and look forward.

He needs to start over. Make winning the war against terrorism the top priority of his administration and act like a war president day in and day out.

DCExaminer Morrning Email Blast

TODAY'S WASHINGTON EXAMINER EDITORIAL SECTION HIGHLIGHTS

Obama is moving America right
Examiner Editorial
"Only a fourth of all Americans approve of the direction Obama and Congress are taking the country, according to a Gallup survey. A similarly dismal proportion approve of the job being done by Congress under the leadership of Reid and Pelosi."

The GOP case for big change in Washington in November.
Hugh Hewitt, Examiner Columnist
"The withering of our defenses was on display on Christmas Day, and Obama's months of dithering on Afghanistan following months of apologies and bows abroad telegraph the need for a robust congressional check on the president's deeply ingrained instinct for appeasement."

Why 2010 could be a tough year for U.S. in the war on terrorism
James Carafano, Examiner Columnist
"The new year marks the end of the first decade of the long war. If the last 12 months are any measure, it seems as if Washington is again forgetting to take bin Laden's words seriously."

Does Janet Understand The Nature of the Enemy?

Napolitano: No War Here

William Kristol

It's worth reading (don't worry, it's short) Janet Napolitano's op-ed in USA Today.

As if to confirm Dick Cheney's claim that the Obama administration doesn't understand we're at war, Napolitano never uses the word...war. Nor does she mention Islam, Yemen or Nigeria -- nor any of the details of the incident, nor the particulars of the government failures over the last few months.

Lots of op-eds ghost-written for cabinet secretaries are stupid. But this one may outdo them all in its vagueness and avoidance of substance, in its managing to be at once bureaucratic and cloying, and in speaking to the American people as if they are children. She attempts to reassure, and fails.

By the way, since this was a plot hatched overseas by people whom our intelligence agencies are listening in on and trying to bump off -- is Napolitano really the appropriate lead official? It's revealing who the White House put out Sunday -- Napolitano and press secretary Robert Gibbs. For the Obama White House, it's all spin and TSA procedures. Do we still have a CIA director? I'd heard Panetta wasn't getting along with the White House...but is he even in the loop?

Hey Hey Ho Ho Napalitano Has To Go

and if CIA screwed the pooch, Panetta needs to be replaced as well.

Obama: U.S. Knew of Nigerian Terror Threat But Did Not Act
Wednesday, 30 Dec 2009 10:52 AM
By: Jim Meyers

President Obama has acknowledged that the United States had early signals that a terrorist attack was being plotted in Yemen and failed to take adequate steps to prevent it.According to a page one story in the New York Times, two federal officials told the paper that U.S. intelligence was aware that a Nigerian Muslim was preparing an attack, yet officials did nothing to give warning of such an attack.

The paper reported Wednesday: "Two officials said the government had intelligence from Yemen before Friday that leaders of a branch of Al Qaeda were talking about 'a Nigerian' being prepared for a terrorist attack." Although the attacker was not named, officials said his identity would have been evident had it been compared with information about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian charged with trying to blow up an American passenger jet on Christmas Day.

But despite those signals, the administration never raised a terror alert, and would-be bomber Abdulmutallab was allowed to board a plane bound for the United States.

Former VP Dick Cheney's Statement on Zero

Dick Cheney: Barack Obama 'trying to pretend'

"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.


“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war."

Moozie Wanted His Patients Prosecuted For War Crimes

Report: Hasan Wanted Patient War Crimes Trials
November 17, 2009Dallas Morning News

Fort Hood massacre suspect Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan sought to have some of his patients prosecuted for war crimes based on statements they made during psychiatric sessions with him, a captain who served on the base said Monday.

Other psychiatrists complained to superiors that Hasan's actions violated doctor-patient confidentiality, Capt. Shannon Meehan told The Dallas Morning News.

One day after the Nov. 5 attack that killed 13 and wounded 29, a Fort Hood official said she had never received complaints about Hasan's job performance. Col. Kimberly Kesling, deputy commander of clinical services at the base's Darnall Army Medical Center, also said he was a "hardworking, dedicated young man who gave great care to his patients."

Fort Hood officials did not respond to interview requests late Monday. They have declined in recent days to say anything about the major, citing the ongoing investigation. . Meehan said he learned of Hasan's prosecution requests from another base psychiatrist. That psychiatrist could not be reached for comment Monday.

The revelations add to a portrait of Hasan as a man at odds with many of those around him -- emotionally, religiously and ideologically. He was, by various accounts, lonely, paranoid and increasingly zealous in his fundamentalist Islamic beliefs. He had been writing e-mails to a radical cleric in Yemen who called the U.S. war on terror a "war against Muslims" and advocated killing Soldiers.

It wasn't clear Monday what information Hasan received from patients and what became of his requests for prosecution. ABC News, citing anonymous sources, reported that his superiors rejected the requests, and that investigators suspect this
triggered the shootings.

Hasan may have been legally justified in reporting what patients disclosed, said Patrick McLain, a Dallas lawyer who specializes in military defense work and is not involved in the Hasan case. But it's impossible to be sure without knowing exactly what they said, he added.

"He was right on his authority to report it," said the ex-Marine, who formerly served as a court-martial judge. The Army teaches all service members that they have a duty to report evidence of war crimes.

Hasan's civilian lawyer in Central Texas, retired Col. John P. Galligan, did not respond to interview requests Monday. His client remains in a San Antonio military hospital, paralyzed from the waist down by police gunfire and facing premeditated murder charges.

Meehan, the Fort Hood captain, expressed skepticism with Hasan's requests that patients be prosecuted. "They're going in there confessing their pain and their guilt," he said, describing Soldiers' postwar visits to therapists. "He's trying to turn it
into a war crime."

Meehan recently wrote a book called Beyond Duty, depicting his traumatic experience as a tank platoon leader in Iraq. It describes a strike he ordered that accidentally killed an Iraqi family with six children -- the sort of "collateral damage" that McLain said was clearly distinct from a war crime.

Later, an improvised explosive device left Meehan with a traumatic brain injury. He received therapy at Fort Hood from people other than Hasan, which he credits with saving him from crippling depression. He is retiring from the military, effective next week.

Meehan said one of his doctors tried to give Hasan a copy of the book last month. Hasan refused. The captain said he had previously avoided Hasan, who was one of a small crew responsible for interviewing Soldiers and writing up summaries of their condition.

"I heard he was not one you wanted to go to" because he didn't finish his work promptly, Meehan said. "Apparently the reason it took so long is he was turning it over to legal."

Meehan said one little-known consequence of the massacre is that Hasan's colleagues must re-evaluate every case he handled. Another challenge, he said, is persuading patients to keep opening up to therapists.

"I really hope Nidal's horrific actions do not give Soldiers pause when considering [whether] to tell their given stories," Meehan said.

President Barack Obama vowed Saturday to examine all the events leading up to the Fort Hood attack, including reports that the Army and FBI missed warning signs about Hasan's extremist sympathies. Several congressional leaders have promised their own inquiries.

A closed-door briefing Monday for the Senate Armed Services Committee was postponed at the administration's request, said committee spokesman Bryan Thomas.

Senate leaders and several committee chairmen are scheduled to receive a classified briefing this morning, said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to testify publicly before Leahy's committee. His appearance had been previously scheduled and wasn't directly prompted by the Fort Hood tragedy.

Blog editor note: See related article on Holder here

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the panel, said he would ask whether there was evidence Hasan was disloyal and should have been removed from the Army.

"Nobody should be advanced in rank and no one should be kept in the military if their loyalty is to anything other than the United States," the Alabama senator said.

Sell My Clothes, Cause the End Is Near

Thats the only explanation for this latest excuse, in a long list of excuses, the Army uses for not removing Hasan from the Officer Corps and placing him under arrest for violating his oath to the Constitution and communicating with known enemy personnel.

Let's see:

The Army says it didn't investigate the mooozie's communications with a known Al'Qeda supporter because "it was a free speech issue" and "he was asking for guidance from a spiritual leader".

Are you effing kidding me? Islam is the religion that drives these whackos to murder innocent people in the name of a nutjob pedophile to establish world domination. The "spiritual leaders"are the ones who encouarge the whackos to perpetrate these acts of terrorism.

The goat-humping moozie nutjob was communicating with the enemy. Its called treason. Its called aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war.

We are at war with these sub-humans.

What have we come to? Where the hell am I? Has everyone in the DoD lost their minds?

Are we not right now, as you read this, engaged in armed conflict with Islamist extremists who want infidels (that's me and you), wiped from the face of the earth? Are they not the enemy? Have they not been killing everyone who does not believe their twisted ideology since recorded time?

They sure act like the enemy.

The Army failed its own miserably on this. That officer should have been relieved of his commission when they found the first communication and he should have been arrested and placed in custody.

They have no problem arresting civilians for doing the exact same thing.

Free speech my butt. Sprirtual leader???? GMAFB

Robert Spencer in Front Page Magazine

Jihad at Fort Hood
Robert Spencer - Nov 06, 2009 FrontPage

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, murdered [fourteen] people and wounded twenty-one inside Fort Hood in Texas [Thursday], while, according to eyewitnesses, "shouting something in Arabic while he was shooting."

Investigators are scratching their heads and expressing puzzlement about why he did it.

According to NPR [1], "the motive behind the shootings was not immediately clear, officials said." The Washington Post [2] agreed: "The motive remains unclear, although some sources reported the suspect is opposed to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and upset about an imminent deployment."

The Huffington Post spun faster, asserting that "there is no concrete reporting as to whether Nidal Malik Hasan was in fact a Muslim or an Arab."

Yet there was, and what's more, Major Hasan's motive was perfectly clear - but it was one that the forces of political correctness and the Islamic advocacy groups in the United States have been working for years to obscure. So it is that now that another major jihad terror attack has taken place on American soil, authorities and the mainstream media are at a loss to explain why it happened - and the abundant evidence that it was a jihad attack is ignored.

Ignoring facts isn't sensitive; it is suicidal

EDITORIAL: Too scared to recognize terrorism

The United States is engaged in a global struggle with violent adherents to an extremist Islamic creed. It does not besmirch the Muslim faith - or the vast majority of American Muslims - to admit that fact.

The politically correct tendency to define attacks as something other than terrorism simply to avoid addressing the motives of the attacker is dangerous. Anyone who shouts "Allahu Akbar" and opens fire on a crowd of unarmed people is a terrorist.

If Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is not a terrorist, no one is.

Family Security Matters/Frank Gaffney

Obama Lies----Soldiers Die

Assault on the Military
In recent days, Team Obama's hostility towards the uniformed services has been increasingly in evidence.

Consider the following, illustrative examples:

Dissing his commanders:

Last spring, President Obama replaced the commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan with a man skilled at waging counter-insurgency operations: Gen. Stanley McChrystal. He did so in pointed rebuke to what amounted to a "counterterrorism" campaign waged by the Bush administration – trying to kill or neutralize key Taliban and al Qaeda operatives without having sufficient forces to clear or hold territory and protect the affected population.

At the time, President reinforced his contention that Afghanistan was a "necessary" war. He assigned additional forces to the theater so as to enable his new commander to engage in the sort of operations required to win the "hearts and minds" of the Afghan people and defeat the insurgency.

But that was then, this is now. Gen. McChrystal and his bosses, Central Command's Gen. David Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, believe that as many as 60,000 additional troops are needed to avert failure in Afghanistan. But
President Obama and his key advisors, notably White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and campaign strategist David Axelrod, have evidently concluded that the public – or at least the Democrats' base – has no stomach for such a build-up.

So the theater commander who thought Mr. Obama meant what he said five months ago has been left hanging in the wind. His request has become a political football in Washington and the President's partisans have reviled the general for making known his professional assessment of the situation. Morale in Afghanistan has reportedly plummeted, compounded by Washington's growing incoherence about the threat posed by the Taliban – who wants to be the last guy killed fighting an enemy it turns out we are happy to have run the place? – and by restrictive rules of engagement that are getting troops killed unnecessarily.

Oil for Blood - Corrupt and incompetent

Obama and his ilk demanded NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Apparently, that's all OK, now......there's HOPE and CHANGE.

We've started negotiating with terrorists now. Except the West is accepting the ransom for a terrorist.

Now, we've traded Blood for Oil. Obama knew about the early release of the Lockerbie bomber every step of the way.

And when it happened, they LIED about knowing about it. The additional shame is that they lied about it and couldn't conceive that Great Britain would call them on it.

Corrupt AND incompetent.

Besides Healthcare, Zero Puts America At Risk

Obama Administration’s Decision to No Longer Wage War with Jihadists is a Dangerous Mistake

Commenting on the Administration's report on dropping the use of words such as War on Terror and Jihad, the director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the author of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West, and The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy, told HS Today: “As we read [Brennan’s speech], we realize that the administration is going backward in understanding the threat and explaining it to the public.”

Going Backward

“They say the doctrine is ‘to safeguard the American people from the transnational challenge that poses one of the greatest threats to our national security – the scourge of violent extremists who would use terrorism to slaughter Americans abroad and at home.’ What does that mean? Nothing. It is as if they speak in abstract. Which ‘transnational challenge is posing the greatest threat to U.S. national security?’ It is the global Jihadist threat, with its two networks, the Salafists and the Khomeinists, not the Nazis, the Soviet Communists or militaristic regimes. Why is the Obama administration regressing into a level way below what most educated Americans understand?”

Wishful Thinking Can't Change Ideologies

Phares said “the administration criticizes the narrative of its predecessor and we do as well, but instead they propose something weaker and in some aspects dangerous to U.S. national security. After eight years of confrontation with a world web of Jihadists, both Salafists and Khomeinists, on two major battlefields in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and in various regions of the world such as Pakistan, Somalia, Indonesia, the Levant, the Maghreb, and as the threat penetrates the West with homegrown cells, the administration's doctrine on the threat understanding is entirely disconnected from reality.

“In short, " Phares said, "the new doctrine asserts that the U.S. is no longer engaged in a ‘war on terrorism.’ They disengage from the conflict as if is in a wishful, thinking that they can redesign world realities in different colors and names. As if one party in a conflict can decide on the ideology and the strategies of the foe.”