The changing of the Benghazi Talking Points for Political Reasons was not Political according to CIA

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 5th, 2014

Week in Review

Susan Rice said it.  Hillary Clinton said it.  And President Obama said it.  Over and over again.  The attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was due to a YouTube video that incited a spontaneous protest that resulted with an attack on the mission with assault weapons and pre-sighted mortars.  Highly improbable but that’s what they said.  Over and over again.  It wasn’t a terrorist attack.  Because President Obama killed Osama bin Laden and won the War on Terror.  The 2012 campaign slogan was Osama bin Laden is dead.  General Motors is alive.  And al Qaeda is on the ropes.  On the run.  No longer a threat to the United States.  That’s why we had to reelect President Obama.  For he sure couldn’t point to any successes when it came to the economy.

Of course beefing up security in Benghazi would have harmed that narrative.  So while the British were pulling out of Benghazi because a resurgent al Qaeda was making it too dangerous the U.S. State Department denied Ambassador Steven’s request for additional security.  Because a resurgent al Qaeda was making it very dangerous in Benghazi.  But the American people didn’t hear that.  No.  All they heard was that Osama bin Laden is dead.  General Motors is alive.  And al Qaeda is on the ropes.  On the run.  No longer a threat to the United States.  Of course the murder of four Americans in Benghazi said otherwise (see Former CIA official: No politics in Benghazi memo by DONNA CASSATA, AP, posted 4/2/2014 on Yahoo! News).

The CIA’s former deputy director said Wednesday he deleted references to terrorism warnings from widely disputed talking points on the deadly 2012 Benghazi attack to avoid the spy agency’s gloating at the expense of the State Department…

Morell, a 33-year veteran of the agency who has served six Republican and Democratic presidents, insisted that politics had no bearing on the revisions to the talking points and said he was under no pressure to protect either President Barack Obama or then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton…

The White House, wrapped up in a fierce presidential campaign, made only minor editorial changes to the talking points, according to the onetime CIA official.

The intelligence community’s talking points, compiled for members of Congress, suggested the Sept. 11 attack stemmed from protests in Cairo and elsewhere over an anti-Islamic video rather than an assault by extremists.

Republicans have accused the Obama administration of trying to mislead the American people about an act of terrorism in the final weeks before the November election.

Morell deleted references to extremist threats linked to al-Qaida in versions of the talking points that were used by Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in a series of Sunday talk show appearances. Morell said his actions were driven by the information provided by intelligence community analysts and the Defense Department.

The deleted references to terrorism in the talking points were not political?  His revisions to the talking points were not to protect either President Barack Obama or then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton?  Funny.  As that’s exactly what they did.  They protected President Obama and helped him win reelection.  And they protected Hillary Clinton.  Who is now the Democrat frontrunner for 2016.  Well, so far, at least.

The left is still trying to blame 9/11 (the first one in 2001) on President Bush and Condoleezza Rice.  For missing the signs that al Qaeda was a threat.  And that something big was coming.  Can you imagine the fury over Benghazi had it happened under President Bush’s watch?  While they were in a campaign season?  There would be no talking point revisions.  They would have lambasted President Bush and Condoleezza Rice.  The press would have torn into this story like a pack of hyenas tearing into a gazelle.  The media would have crapped all over the Bush administration.  But the Obama administration?  When the president, Hilary Clinton and Susan Rice all lied about a YouTube video?  Over and over again?  When the CIA revised the talking points so it didn’t sound like there was a problem with terrorism anymore?  All lies.  And a huge cover-up.  But we hear nothing but the sound of crickets from the media.

Sure, they can say it wasn’t political.  But the result of those revisions was very political.  It helped President Obama win reelection.  Because he had al Qaeda on the run.  Which he didn’t.  In fact, his foreign policy has made the world a more dangerous place.  For al Qaeda is resurgent everywhere.  In Egypt.  Libya.  Syria.  Iraq.  Afghanistan.  Yemen.  And elsewhere.  Oh, and Iran is working on a nuclear bomb.  And Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea to Russia.  Because he could.  This stuff is happening in part because people voted for President Obama believing the lie that al Qaeda was on the run.  When it wasn’t.  And because we reelected President Obama his failed foreign policy continues.  As the bad people of the world stand up and take notice.

The United States of America under President Obama is weak.  It may talk the talk but it sure doesn’t walk the walk.  So the bad guys are getting bolder.  Knowing the time is right to push the United States around.  For we are a sleeping bear that just can’t be wakened.  Apparently.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Politically Active Celebrities perform for People with Records of Human Rights Abuses

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 30th, 2013

Week in Review

The biggest names in the entertainment community are mostly liberals.  Why?  Because they are more enlightened than most, of course.  Liberals revel in being smarter and more informed than those knuckle-dragging Neanderthal Republicans.  Who are just so stupid.  As anyone is who votes for them.  Yet these smart people are often surprised to learn that something they did wasn’t all that smart (see Lopez sings ‘Happy Birthday’ to Turkmenistan head by Nekesa Mumbi Moody posted 6/30/2013 on Yahoo! News).

Jennifer Lopez sang “Happy Birthday” to the leader of Turkmenistan during a show, but her representative said she wouldn’t have performed there at all if she had known there were human rights issues in the country…

Lopez’s publicist says the event was vetted by Lopez’s staff: “Had there been knowledge of human rights issues any kind, Jennifer would not have attended…”

In 2011, Oscar-winning actress Hilary Swank profusely apologized after attending a birthday party for Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, who had been accused of torture and killings; she said she didn’t have a full understanding of the event.

Beyonce, Nelly Furtado, 50 Cent, Mariah Carey and Usher were paid handsomely to perform at parties linked to the late Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. All later announced plans to donate their performance fees to charity and said they hadn’t known the leader was connected to terrorism.

Granted, most Americans probably could not find Turkmenistan on a map.  But they should know that it’s one of those former Soviet republics in central Asia.  The crossroads of ancient history.  And beyond.  Thousands of years of history.  And thousands of years of past wrongs to right.  Because of this some of these former Soviet republics don’t exactly have stellar human rights records.  Staunch advocates of human rights (as most of the entertainment elite are) should know that there is some bad stuff happening in the area.  And should at least look up the country they’re going to on Wikipedia.

Chechnya is a hotbed of Islamist activity.  And one of the more brutal places in the world.  Islamist separatist militants fighting for a free Chechnya occupied a Beslan school in a hostage crisis in 2004.  Ending in the death of 186 children.  Chechen Islamists also were responsible for the 2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis.  With the demand that the Russians leave Chechnya.  That ended with the Russians pumping in some gas into the theater to subdue the terrorists.  Which it did.  But the gas also killed about 128 of the hostages.  Incidentally, the Boston Marathon bombers had a Chechnya connection, too.  The fighting in the area can be brutal.  And the human rights can be lacking.

How anyone cannot know that Moammar Gadhafi was a sponsor of terrorism is beyond me.  One of the greatest acts of terrorism was the Libyan sponsored bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland.  Which was in retaliation for Ronald Reagan bombing Libya.  Which he did in response to Libya’s bombing of a German discotheque frequented by American service men.  Gadhafi was a thorn in the America’s side during the Eighties.  And he was still sponsoring terrorism until he renounced terrorism after George W. Bush invaded Iraq following 9/11.  He was right up there with Saddam Hussein and the State of Iran when it comes to America’s greatest enemies.  Yet these people had no idea he was connected to terrorism.

These are not the most informed people in the world.  Yet they are treated as if they are.  And when they make a political endorsement people will listen to them.  Even if they have no idea what’s going on in the world of foreign policy.  But they will tell people who to vote for to run the nation’s foreign policy.  And the sad thing is that these people probably don’t understand economics any better than they understand foreign policy.  Yet they are making political endorsements.  Which people are listening to.  Because they sound so enlightened and smart.  And nothing at all like those knuckle-dragging Neanderthal Republicans.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Radical Islam, Mental Health Problems and Conservatives

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 2nd, 2013

Politics 101

Conservatives exact their Revenge on a Tyrannical Government in the Voting Booth

The Obama administration is working hard to protect Americans.  By keeping an eye on what they feel is the greatest threat to American security.  Anti-government conservatives.  Who they want to track.  They want to monitor.  They even want people to report friends, family members, neighbors, coworkers and acquaintances who say anything critical of government.  Even in jest.  This is why they kept the reviled and most hated Patriot Act law.  That thing the left attacked the Bush Administration for using to spy on Americans talking to people in other countries with known ties to terrorists.  Once in power, though, they found the Patriot Act not all that bad after all.  For it gave them a lot of power to track enemies of the state.  People that disagree with them.

Timothy McVeigh hated the federal government.  And he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 because of what the federal government did in the Waco Siege (1993).  Ending that siege by burning the place down.  Killing some 76 people.  And what happened at Ruby Ridge (1992).  Where the federal government brought in the FBI, U.S. marshals and the ATF to take on a man, his children, his wife and a friend.  The government laid siege to this family’s cabin in remote Montana.  That ended after government agents killed the man’s son and wife.  Both sieges were examples of excessive use of force by the federal government against private citizens.  Which angered McVeigh.  Who set off that bomb at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building to incite a revolt against the Federal government.  To get the people to rise up and throw over this tyrannical federal government.

But no one rose up.  He was alone.  The Waco Siege and Ruby Ridge started a militia movement.  Where private citizens dressed up in camouflaged uniforms.  Went to meetings.  Practiced combat drills in the field on the weekends.  And did a lot of speaking out about the abuses of the federal government.  But then they put away their camouflaged uniforms Sunday night.  And went back to work Monday morning.  For these people did not think like Timothy McVeigh.  They only talked about fending off the government’s assault on the Constitution, their religion and their traditions.  Things that they held dear.  And these same things prevented them from ever doing anything like what McVeigh did.  No.  Their fight was in the voting booth.  That’s where they exacted their revenge on a tyrannical government.  By voting them out of office.  The legal way.  The way the things they held dear told them how to exact their revenge on a tyrannical government.  Peacefully.  And lawfully.  By keeping true to the Constitution, their religion and their traditions.

The worst Attacks against America were by Radical Islamists or People with Mental Health Problems

The so-called anti-government conservatives are not a threat to America.  Unless you call being good, law-abiding citizens a threat to America.  They may be opposed to government policies they see as attacking the things they hold dear.  Burt they’re not out there committing violent acts of terrorism.  They are not inciting people to commit violent acts of terrorism.  They are only exercising their right to free speech.  Yes, there have been some who have broken the law.  But these were lone wolves if ever there was a lone wolf.  Like McVeigh.  But the most infamous mass murderers have not been conservatives.  For conservatives love America.  And the culture and traditions that made this country great.  They are proud to be Americans.  Which is why they don’t attack America.

The Boston Marathon bombers were radical Islamists.  Who hated America.   Adam Lanza suffered from mental health problems and felt no empathy for the innocent children and adults he killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre (2012).  Radical Islamists killed the American Ambassador in Benghazi and 3 others (2012).  Because they hate America.  James Holmes suffered from mental health problems and felt no empathy for the innocent people he killed in the Century movie theater in Aurora, Colorado (2012).  Jared Loughner suffered from mental health problems and felt no empathy for Representative Gabrielle Giffords or the others he shot in a supermarket parking lot in Casas Adobes, Arizona (2011).  Seung-Hui Cho suffered from mental health problems and felt no empathy for the 32 people he killed at Virginia Tech (2007).  Nidal Hasan was a radical Islamist who hated America.  Shouting “Allahu Akbar” before he killed 13 and wounded 30 at Fort Hood.  The 9/11 terrorists were radical Islamists who hated America.  They killed about 3,000 Americans in one coordinated attack (2001).  Radical Islamists bombed the American Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya (1998).  Killing in excess of 200 people.  Because they hated America.  Radical Islamists bombed the World Trade Center (1993).  Killing 6 and injuring more than a thousand.  Because they hated America.  Between 1978 and 1995 Theodore Kaczynski (aka the Unabomber) killed 3 and wounded 23 in a mail bombing campaign.  Because he was as leftist radical that hated Western Civilization.  Wanting America to stop using technology.  And suffered from mental health problems.

These are some of the worst attacks against America.  And there are two common threads in all of these attacks.  The perpetrators were either radical Islamists.  Or people suffering from mental health problems.  Neither of which embraces the U.S. Constitution, our Judeo-Christian values or our traditions.  Unlike the conservatives the Obama administration works so hard to protect America from.  No, they attack law-abiding conservatives.  Call them radical.  Anti-American.  For not blindly supporting the Obama administration’s policies.  And they blame guns.  Not the failure of our mental health system to pull these dangerous people off the streets.

Everything is Political to the left—even National Security

They blame guns because the Constitution protects gun ownership.  Another Constitutional right the conservatives support.  Giving the Obama administration another way to attack conservatives.  Telling people that conservatives would rather see innocent men, women and children die from gun violence rather than place any restrictions on gun ownership.  Which is but one way the Obama administration attacks conservatives, their religion and their traditions.

An NBA player recently came out of the closet.  Announcing that he was gay.  And the Left rejoiced.  The Daily Show audience roared with applause.  As they do every time there is positive news about anything LGBT related.  Why?  Because the left rejoices any time someone attacks American culture and traditions.  Especially those Judeo-Christian values we built the country on.  Or the concept of the traditional family.  Things the left hates.  Continues to attack.  And indoctrinates our children to reject.  So the left can pull these children away from their parents.  Teaching these kids to look to the government instead of their parents.  That the federal government is the source of all of our happiness and prosperity.  Thus making them lifelong Democrat voters.

It is hard to conclude anything else when the left believes conservatives are a greeter enemy to America than radical Islam.  Or the failures of our mental health system.  Things the left doesn’t attack.  Always finding some sympathetic way to explain them away.  Finding some way to blame them on America in general.  And conservatives in particular.  For everything is political to the left.  Even national security.  Everything is about winning the next election.  Which they work on by constantly attacking their political opponents.  Christians.  Traditionalists.  The family.  Parents.  And, of course, conservatives.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Like most Acts of Domestic Terrorism the Boston Bombings have a Connection to Militant Islam

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 21st, 2013

Week in Review

We’ve had some people with mental health problems obtain firearms and go on shooting sprees on soft targets.  Grade schools.  Colleges.  Theaters.  High schools.  The government’s answer to these?  Take guns away from law-abiding people.  As they don’t appear to want to track people with mental health problems.  Which would be easier.  Because there are a lot of warning signs.  Schools complain about strange and disturbing behavior.  Strange and disturbing enough to expel some people from school.  But it ends there.  And these people wander free amongst us.  Family members have even tried to get these people committed for public safety concerns.  But doing that today is so difficult that few can get people who are a danger to themselves or to the public committed.  Changing this would make grade schools, colleges, theaters and high schools safer than new gun control legislation.  For using guns is not the only way to kill soft targets (see Boston bombers: FBI hunting 12-strong terrorist “sleeper cell” linked to brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev by Christopher Bucktin and Andy Lines posted 4/21/2013 on the Mirror).

The FBI was last night hunting a 12-strong terrorist “sleeper cell” linked to the Boston marathon bomb brothers.

Police believe Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were specially trained to carry out the devastating attack.

More than 1,000 FBI operatives were last night working to track down the cell and arrested a man and two women 60 miles from Boston in the hours before Dzhokhar’s dramatic capture after a bloody shootout on Friday.

A source close to the investigation said: “We have no doubt the brothers were not acting alone. The devices used to detonate the two bombs were highly sophisticated and not the kind of thing people learn from Google.

“They were too advanced. Someone gave the brothers the skills and it is now our job to find out just who they were. Agents think the sleeper cell has up to a dozen members and has been waiting several years for their day to come…”

Investigators have begun piecing together how the “well-mannered” brothers of Chechen origin were radicalised. Neighbours of the family said older brother Tamerlan had recently become obsessed with Islam. He mysteriously left the US in January last year to spend six months in Russia. Yesterday senior FBI counter-terrorism official Kevin Brock said: “It’s a key thread for investigators.”

It also emerged the Bureau interviewed Tamerlan two years ago, at the request of the Russian government, but could not establish that he had ties to terrorist radicals.

This was despite his worrying Russian-language YouTube page featuring links to extremist Islamic sites and others since taken down by YouTube.

One link showed an hour-long speech by an Islamic teacher called Shaykh Feiz Mohammed, while other videos are labled “Terrorists” and “Islam”.

The radical cleric, with links to extremist British Muslims, encouraged his followers to become martyrs for Islam. He said: “Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid…”

US Government officials have said the brothers were not under surveillance as possible militants. And an FBI statement said the matter was closed because interviews with Tamerlan and family members “did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign”. But now they believe the pair, who emigrated to the United States from Dagestan about a decade ago, were part of a terror cell.

If there is a sleeper cell they may be able find a trail to them by exploring the past lives of the two bombers.  There were a lot of warning signs before the bombings we missed.  Perhaps we’ll be able to see them when we’re actually looking for them.

It almost appears that we have a problem looking at people.  Whether they’re people with mental health problems.  Or domestic terrorists.  It’s as bad as our airport security.  Where we’re patting down every grandmother and child.  We need to start profiling people.  Not so much by skin color.  But by behavior.  And with good questioning.  “Where are you traveling?  Who are you visiting?  Where does he work?  What’s his boss’ name?  Where does his wife work?  How good are you at making bombs?”  Depending on the answers to these questions security either moves on to someone else.  Or they pull this person aside for further questioning.

We need well-trained and highly skilled people.  So we don’t turn the country into a police state.  Observe everyone.  Question those whose behavior looks off in some way.  And read their body language.  Is he searching for answers?  Or do they appear too well rehearsed?  Does he seem nervous?  Is he avoiding eye contact?  Is he sweating?  Does he laugh at the bomb question?  Or does he flinch involuntarily?  Does he seem different from other travelers?  Is he carrying a large backpack and doesn’t appear interested in what everyone else is interested in?  Like a marathon?  If so perhaps security should approach this person.  Talk to him.  Ask what’s inside that backpack.  And search that backpack.  You can’t search everyone standing along a marathon course.  But you can have security mingling through the crowds looking for things that are not like other things.

Of course before you can do that you have to admit that there are people out there that want to hurt us.  That there is a War on Terror.  And not explain terrorist attacks away as workplace violence (the Fort Hood shooting).  Or say that al Qaeda is on the ropes and deny additional security requests in a hot bed of Islamist activity (Benghazi).  Just because it wouldn’t look good during an election campaign where a common refrain was Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.

To fight the War on Terror will require some in government to stop putting politics first.  The gun control debate is more about passing long-desired legislation than it is about making our kids safe.  To prevent the senseless slaughter of innocent people by people with mental health problems it would be far more effective to institutionalize these people that are a risk to themselves and to the public.  And to protect us from further acts of domestic terrorism we have to be able to say words like Muslim extremist.  Militant Islamist.  Islamist terrorist.  For even Bill Maher has said that Islam is the one faith that has a history of killing Americans.  Not all Muslims are terrorists.  But Muslims carry out the majority of terrorist attacks.  And until you accept that fact how are you going to defend the United States against militant Islam?  For you can’t fight this war with one arm tied behind your back because of political correctness.  Which means when we’re profiling people we have to look at those who are most likely to kill us in a terrorist attack.  People who travel to hotbeds of Islamist activity.  Those who are kicked out of mosques for being too radical.  People who have YouTube pages featuring links to extremist Islamic sites.  And what do these all have in common?  That word the Obama administration does not like to use attached to any acts of domestic terrorism.  Muslim.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Left Politicizes Atrocities to Attack Conservatives

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 18th, 2013

Politics 101

Democrats Quickly Politicized the Boston Marathon Bombings to attack Conservatives

What’s the difference between conservatives and liberals?  Well, for one, they respond to horrific tragedies differently.  Conservatives are sickened and saddened.  While liberals salivate with a potential opportunity to blame conservatives for these horrific events.  Which they are quick to do.  Even before the dead are identified and laid to rest.  As we can see in the Boston marathon bombings.

We don’t know anything yet.  But the media has been reporting on what we don’t know 24 hours a day since the bombings.  And on the day of the attack there have been those in the media already making the case that the bomber is possibly a ‘radical’ conservative.  Because it happened on April 15.  Tax Day.  During the Patriots’ Day holiday in Boston.  Not far from the anniversary of the fiery end of the Waco siege.  Even someone in the media wrote that they were hoping that it was the actions of an angry white man.  So it wouldn’t hurt the liberal political agenda.  More gun control.  And less restrictions on immigration.  So if the bomber(s) entered the country illegally (i.e., they’re not angry white men) that could hurt their attempts at creating new Democrat voters by giving illegal immigrants amnesty.

Former Democrat Congressman Barney Frank was quick to politicize the bombings, too.  He said the response of the first-responders proves the value of big government.  For no tax cuts or limited government would have made the response any better.  Another Democrat Congress person blamed the bombings on the sequester.  The cut in federal spending allowed these bombers to detonate these two bombs.  So on the one hand you have one Congress person saying how well the government handled the situation because we don’t have limited government or tax cuts while you have another saying the government was so weakened by the sequester that they were unable to stop these bombers.  Positions on opposite ends of the spectrum.  But with one thing in common.  They both attack conservatives.

The Left Gleefully reports a Conservative Connection in any Horrible Act of Violence even when there is None

They blamed the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, on radical gun-toting conservatives.  Anxious to prove that the shooter was a card carrying member of some conservative organization.  And were quite disappointed to find the shooter was just someone with mental health problems who the state should have institutionalized.  Who lived in his mother’s basement playing violent video games and earning high-scores with high kill numbers.  Some have even suggested that he was living in the fantasy world of the videogame when he started shooting.  Scoring points with each kill.  Reloading even before his magazines were empty (like during lulls in a videogame so you had a full magazine for the next shooting encounter).  And killing himself before the cops could kill him, resetting his game points to zero.  There are a lot of theories.  But with his suicide we can’t know for sure his motive.

Nothing would have prevented this shooting other than locking him up in an institution while he was learning about past mass shootings.  Planning his crime.  And playing hours of video games in his basement.  Adam Lanza was sick.  He was mentally unsound.  He had trouble interacting with people.  And separating the real world from the fantasy world of his video gaming.  But one thing he wasn’t was a radical conservative.  But it didn’t stop the liberal Democrats from blaming the Sandy Hook massacre on a conservative gun culture.  And using it to try and pass long-desired gun control legislation.  Instead of addressing mental health problems.  The cause of the Sandy Hook massacre.  In fact, during the last few decades the Left has made it more difficult to commit someone who is a danger to society.  And they exploded the use of drugs to treat a laundry list of childhood developmental problems.  Such as drugging a generation of kids for having attention deficit disorder.  Trusting in medication to make them safe and well behaved.  Leaving dangerous people free to hurt people.  Dangerous people like Adam Lanza.

Mental health problems are a main theme in many mass killings.  Before Newtown there was the 2012 Aurora theater shooting.  Where the shooter was a mentally sick individual.  James Holmes.  Who the state should have institutionalized.  As soon as his name was released a person in the media reported he was a member of the Tea Party.  Because he found a James Holmes in Aurora that was a member of the Tea Party.  Which they gleefully reported so they could show this horrible act of violence was by some gun-toting conservative.  Only it wasn’t THAT James Holmes.  The Aurora shooter had no connection to conservative politics whatsoever.

When Emotions are Running High the Left can Pass Legislation they’ve never been able to Pass Before

In Tucson in 2011 Jared Loughner went on a shooting spree.  Killing six.  And shooting Representative Gabrielle Giffords in the head.  The media immediately started blaming conservative Sarah Palin for inciting this rampage.  Because she had a bulls-eye on her website showing certain Congressional districts in the cross hairs.  Including Giffords’.  But was Jared Loughner incited to his crime by Palin?  No.  For he wouldn’t have gone on her website.  He was a registered Independent.  He hated George W. Bush.  He even believed that 9/11 was a government plot.  And was a paranoid schizophrenic who abused drugs and alcohol.

Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 13 people and wounded 30 at Fort Hood in 2009.  He was a major in the Army who had recently converted to Islam.  Was in communication with Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki who was a known security threat.  And reportedly shouted what Islamist terrorists shout before they start killing.  Allahu Akbar!  Which translates to “God is great.”  But instead of calling this an act of terrorism President Obama called it workplace violence.  Because he was trying to wind down the War on Terror.  So he could use that money to pay for Obamacare.  And having an act of terrorism on a U.S Army post didn’t help with that agenda.

Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 2007.  He also suffered from mental disorders going back to middle school.  Who had problems similar to Adam Lanza.  Something his college knew nothing about because of federal privacy laws.  Laws that protected the individual by putting the public at risk.  As an adult Cho chose to discontinue his therapy.  And his behavior became similar to how James Holmes would later act when he was in college.  Which is when the state probably should have committed him.  After the shooting rampage the Left blamed easy access to guns as the cause of the shooting.  Not their failed mental health policies.

One can see a general pattern.  The Left likes having these atrocities happen.  At least based on how they politicize these atrocities.  And why do they politicize these atrocities?  Because they can’t beat their political opponents in the arena of ideas.  So they turn to character assaults.  To destroy their political opponents.  By trying to blame these atrocities on conservatives.  And their cruel and unfeeling policies.  That kill school children.  And when emotions are running high they can pass legislation they’ve never been able to pass before.  Like gun control.  And they don’t run higher than when children die.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Salafists, Jihadists and other Islamist Extremists are Joining the Syrian Rebels

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 14th, 2012

Week in Review

During the Democrat National Convention two of the main themes were that GM is alive.  And Osama bin Laden is dead.  Over and over they hammered home how President Obama killed Osama bin Laden.  No doubt angering the Islamist world with excessive spiking of the Osama bin Laden football.  The only thing the president didn’t do was some taunting end zone dance.  And an ‘In your face, al Qaeda” from the president to the Islamist extremist world.  The president wanted to sound tough to dispel rumors that he’s too soft on national security.  So they made it clear to the people watching the Democrat National Convention, and to the world, that President Obama killed Osama bin Laden.

Shortly after this terrorists killed the American ambassador in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11.  Was there a connection?  Well, the Islamist extremists hated America to begin with.  And rubbing the killing of Osama bin laden in their faces probably didn’t help soften their seething hatred of Americans.  It may have played a part.  But being that it was on 9/11 and they used heavy weapons suggests that the attack was in the planning for awhile.  However the protests at embassies throughout the world following the Benghazi attack may have been inflamed by the spiking of the Osama bin Laden football.  Or the publicity of a YouTube video to blame the violence in Benghazi on that people in the Islamic world did not even see until the Obama administration brought it to their attention.

Of course, this Islamist reaction completely baffles the Obama administration.  For they have gone out of their way to be nice to these people that hate us.  When there were protests against our staunch ally in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, President Obama was quick to call for Mubarak to step down from power.  At the beginning of the Arab Spring.  Yes, he was a dictator.  Like most are in that region.  But he was a dictator that promoted regional stability.  That suppressed Islamist extremism.  Kept Iran in its place.  Prevented the flow of arms to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.  Made the Suez Canal safe for all shipping.  Kept the anti-Western Muslim Brotherhood out of power.  And made it safe for Western tourists to travel to Egypt.  But President Obama said Mubarak had to go.  He did not help him.  Did not try to broker a peace deal leaving him in power.  Or one with Mubarak in exile to live out his life.  So Mubarak stepped down.  The Muslim Brotherhood stepped up.  They threw open their border with the Gaza strip.  And talked about abandoning their peace treaty with Israel.  Causing great instability in the region.

When Libya erupted in civil war the Obama administration supported the rebels.  Even though no one knew who the rebels were.  Other than including members of al Qaeda.  Libya was no longer an active enemy of the United States.  And not even a major oil supplier to the United States.  They had even begun to clamp down on Islamist extremists in their country following the US invasion of Iraq.  Yet we supported the rebels with US air power.  Because if we didn’t the war could spill over their borders.  Leading to Libyans fleeing their country and causing a humanitarian crisis.

The Assad regime in Syria was not a friend of the US.  Saddam Hussein may have hidden his chemical weapons in Syria when the US invaded Iraq.  They are a supporter of terrorism.  A client of Iran.  They support Hezbollah in Lebanon.  So they are no friend to the US or regional peace.  Yet when they erupted in civil war the Obama administration did not help these rebels.  And the things they said would happen in Libya if they didn’t get involved there are happening in Syria.  And now because the US (as well as the international community) didn’t help the rebels someone else is (see Syria despatch: rebel fighters fear the growing influence of their ‘Bin Laden’ faction by Ruth Sherlock posted 10/13/2012 on The Telegraph).

Standing on a patch of muddy scrubland just inside Syria’s broken border fence with Turkey, the rebel commander watched glumly as the group of jihadists crossed into his country.

Scruffy, with long beards, some wearing khaki jackets and each clutching a black travel bag, the six men walked silently through the crowd of refugees who had assembled and were waiting to leave Syria. A driver in a pick-up truck quickly greeted the men and drove them away into the countryside.

“Libyans”, muttered the rebel Free Syria Army leader under his breath, shooting the men a dirty look. “We don’t want these extremist people here. Look at them; we didn’t have this style in Syria – who is this? Bin Laden?”

Even before President Bashar al-Assad has been defeated, a war within the civil war is brewing in Syria. It is a battle of ideas, a struggle for the overall direction of the insurgency that is pitting moderate-Muslims against Salafists, jihadists and other Islamist groups.

Syria’s most powerful Islamist brigades have united under a new “liberation front” to wage jihad against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and turn the country into an Islamic state.

President Obama’s foreign policy has not been much of a success.  In fact, he has made the Middle East, North Africa, the United States and the world a less safe place.  If he had purposely tried to help the Islamist extremist he probably could not have done a better job.  The Arab Spring was less about replacing dictatorships with democracy than replacing one kind of dictatorships with another.  A dictatorship of Islamist extremists.  Salafists, jihadists and other Islamist groups.

None of this is spontaneous.  And none of this had to do with a YouTube video.  Not even the spiking of the Osama bin Laden football.  But the spiking of the Osama bin Laden football is no doubt working as a recruiting tool to bring more jihadists into these extremist groups.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Taliban shoot a 14 Year Old Pakistani Girl in the Head because she is Anti-Taliban and Secular

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 13th, 2012

Week in Review

After the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi and the assassination of the America ambassador as well as three other Americans President Obama, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other members of the Obama administration blamed a spontaneous uprising in response to a YouTube video.  They all dismissed this as an act of terrorism.  Despite it happening on the anniversary of the worse terrorist attack on the Untied States.  9/11.  Because with the killing of Osama bin Laden President Obama had for all intents and purposes said the war on terrorism was over.  And that he won it.  So there was no need to increase security in Benghazi, a hot spot for al Qaeda activity.  Despite the Americans in Benghazi asking for additional security.

President Obama constantly told the Muslim world that they were not our enemy.  That it was only al Qaeda.  And the Taliban.  The president has gone out of his way to appease the Muslim world.  When a Muslim attacked Americans at Fort Hood President Obama refused to call it an act of terrorism.  Calling it a case of workplace violence.  Even though the shooter, Major Hasan, had a growing interest in violent Islamist extremism before the shooting.  Others had even complained about this.  But they were ignored.  To show, it would appear, how far we would go not to show any bias towards Muslims in America.

President Obama was sure the only reason why some in the Muslim world hated America was because of what George W. Bush did.  He inflamed the Muslim world by invading Muslim countries.  And with all of his ‘war on terrorism’ and ‘Islamist extremist’ rhetoric.  President Obama could change all of that by simply being nice to those who would want to harm us.  But the problem is it’s not America they hate.  Or George W. Bush.  They hate the freedom and liberties we have in the West.  Especially the freedoms western women enjoy (see Outcry over Pakistan attack on activist Malala Yousafza, 14 posted 10/9/2012 on BBC News Asia).

An attack by Taliban gunmen in north-west Pakistan that wounded a 14-year-old who campaigned for girls’ rights has caused an outcry in the country.

Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head on her way home from school in Mingora, the main town in the Swat Valley…

A Pakistani Taliban spokesman told the BBC they carried out the attack.

Ehsanullah Ehsan told BBC Urdu that they attacked her because she was anti-Taliban and secular, adding that she would not be spared.

Malala Yousafzai came to public attention in 2009 by writing a diary for BBC Urdu about life under Taliban militants who had taken control of the valley…

The Taliban captured the Swat Valley in late 2007 and remained in de facto control until they were driven out by Pakistani military forces during an offensive in 2009.

While in power they closed girls’ schools, promulgated Sharia law and introduced measures such as banning the playing of music in cars.

This girl was not an American.  She was not British.  She was a Pakistani who just wanted to do what girls in the West can do.  Go to school.  But for having such ‘unnatural’ desires the Taliban shot her in the head.  More than a year after President Obama ended the war against Islamist extremism with the killing of Osama bin Laden.

You want to talk about a war on women?  This is a real war on women.  Where girls get shot for wanting to go to school.  How does this compare to expecting American women to buy their own birth control?

You can’t make your enemies like you.  For they don’t like you for being who you are.  And that will never change.  Unless we stop being who we are.  And stop enjoying the freedoms and liberties we enjoy in the western world.  As some women on the Left are outraged that they have to buy their own birth control I doubt they’re going to give up their freedoms and live like our enemies would want them to live.  Nor should they.  No, a sign of weakness is not making our enemies like us.  It is only emboldening them.

Let them hate us.  But don’t let them hurt us.  Peace through strength.  The Ronald Reagan way.  It’s the only thing those who want to push others around understand.  Strength.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tragedy in Norway

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 24th, 2011

The Attacks on Oslo and Utoeya Island

Our thoughts and prayers go out to those in Norway.  The Oslo bombing and the shooting rampage on Utoeya island were horrific acts of cruelty.  And no doubt will leave long lasting scars on a great and peaceful people. 

Norway is a beautiful country.  You can hear it in the music of Edvard Grieg.  Who drew inspiration from the rich cultural heritage of his beloved land.  The country.  The people.  The beauty. 

So sad that a lunatic grew up in their midst.  Unbeknownst to them.  This singular aberration from normalcy and sanity.  A merchant of death.  Who preyed on the innocent.   Because of a sick mind.

Something that Spilled out of a Diseased Mind

The man they arrested on Utoeya is Anders Behring Breivik.  And he is insane (see An Interview with a Madman: Breivik Asks and Answers His Own Questions by Beau Friedlander posted 7/24/2011 on Time World).

The 32-year-old gunman — with his blond hair, green eyes and a six-foot build — is a Nordic ideal, and for at least nine years, he meticulously crafted his plan to root out anyone different. Breivik’s rambling writings, grandly titled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, present him as a right-wing nationalist fueled by a combined hatred of Muslims, Marxists and multiculturalists. His beliefs recall neo-Nazi politics that continue to linger throughout Europe, but freshened with a new, 21st century toxicity.

As part of the manifesto, Breivik interviews himself, offering a highly personal Q&A in which he throws himself admiring questions and answers them with disturbing calm.

You can read an abridged version of this self-interview on Time World

Breivik is insane.  Or very stupid.  Because a sane person does not believe they can change the world by going on a killing spree.  Unless he is so stupid that he believes the people will rise up and join him in his crusade.  Of course, the odds are slim for that happening when you are killing not your enemies (in his case Muslims) but the people you want to join your crusade.

This was not part of an organized movement.  This bloody day was just something that spilled out of a diseased mind. 

Only an Idiot would think Mass Murder would help Advance his Agenda

And what may come as a shock to Breivik, the aftermath of his massacre is not playing out as he no doubt hoped (see Analysis: Brutal attack tests Norwegian society by Wojciech Moskwa posted 7/24/2011 on Reuters).

In a low-crime country where a single murder is front-page news, the shock from the scale of the violence would drown out any message on immigration Breivik was seeking to make, said Matlary. Even politicians who usually espouse anti-immigrant views, will above all seek to distance themselves from Breivik.

“This will surely tone down the debate on immigration ahead of local administration elections in September,” said Frank Aarebrot, political scientist at Bergen University. “In the traditional way, politicians will self-censor themselves.”

What sane person could not see this coming?  Breivik sure didn’t.  Because he’s not sane.  His actions have made the problem (as he saw it) worse.  He wanted more restrictive immigration policies?  Thanks to him, no one will dare speak about any immigration reform lest they be associated with a homicidal maniac.  Only an idiot would think mass murder would help advance his agenda.

The Rush to Judgment to Blame Islamic Terrorism

Of course, now the media is focusing on what’s really important in this massacre.  Not the dead and traumatized.  But the rush to judgment to blame Islamic terrorism (see Media Reacts to News That Norwegian Terror Suspect Isn’t Muslim by Ujala Sehgal posted 7/23/2011 on The Atlantic Wire).

Yesterday’s first reports on the massacre in Norway suggested that there was a link between the horrific attacks, which left 92 dead at latest reports, and Muslim extremists. Only later was the news released that the suspect taken by police, Anders Behring Breivik, was apparently a conservative, right-wing Christian with strong anti-Muslim and anti-immigration beliefs. Many in the media were left reeling over the fact that others were so quick to report and comment that Muslims were involved, before there was clear evidence.

In all fairness, there’s a reason a lot of people jumped to that conclusion.  Such as recent history.  Or they may have read an article in The Atlantic (see On Suspecting al Qaeda in the Norway Attacks by Jeffrey Goldberg).

Well, perhaps it was because [Jennifer Rubin] was reading the Atlantic. Shortly after the bombing in Oslo, the Atlantic re-posted on its home page a very interesting piece from last year by Thomas Hegghammer and Dominic Tierney entitled “Why Does al Qaeda Have a Problem With Norway?” You can read it here. In the piece, Hegghammer and Tierney discuss why Norway, against all odds, has become a favored target of al Qaeda. They give several reasons, among them fallout from the Danish cartoon crisis, and Norway’s participation in the war in Afghanistan. And then they bring up a third possibility: The presence in Norway of the aforementioned Mullah Krekar…

So there’s that.  And a history of terrorism by people in the name of Islam.

It is not perverse or absurd for normal people to think of al Qaeda when they hear of acts of mass terrorism. It is logical, in fact, to suspect al Qaeda. The Norway catastrophe does not negate the fact that the majority of large-scale terrorism spectaculars by non-state actors over the past decade have been committed by Muslims. For the Right, Norway should underscore the point that Christians (and Hindus, and also Jews) are just as capable of committing murderous atrocities as Muslims.

Yes, they are.  But more times than not when it is a Christian it’s usually a lone idiot and not part of a bigger international movement.

Helping the People he Hates

When you have a large scale coordinated assault directed against multiple targets, something that is very al-Qaeda-esque, you think al-Qaeda.  And you start worrying about other possible attacks.  Like the Americans did on 9/11.  Like the Spanish did during their multiple train bombings in 2004.  Like the British did during their multiple subway bombings in 2005.

Not only did Breivik make it easier for radical Muslims to get into Norway (by making everyone nervous about being too anti-Muslim), he also gave al-Qaeda a present.  Killing people al-Qaeda would have loved to kill.  Never in their wildest dreams did they think a Christian would kill a bunch of infidels for them while at the same time gaining sympathy for the Muslim people.  They must love this guy.  Helping the people he hates.

You may be able to uncover and stop international plots of terrorism, but you’ll never be able to stop the lone idiots.  A lone idiot is completely inside his head.  All but impossible to find.  Virtually invulnerable before he attacks.  And irrational as hell.  That’s why we keep reading about them in the news.  And why we’ll keep reading about them.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Going all George W. Bush in the Middle East?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 19th, 2011

Fighting Wars on the other Side of the World

In 1775, the shooting in the American Revolutionary War began.  The world’s superpower, the British Empire, had planned on taking some arms away from local rebels.  Some shots were exchanged at Lexington and Concord.  And the small British force retreated to Boston.  The rebels harassed the British column the entire way.  The war did not begin well for the British.  And it would end like it began.  Not well.  The British formally recognized the United States of America 8 years later with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

The British outclassed the Americans in every way but one.  Lines of communications.  The British lines were some 3,000 miles back to Great Britain.  About a 6 hour flight today.  Then, a couple of months by ship.  By contrast the Americans held the advantage of short, interior lines.  We could ‘hit and run’ and melt back into the surrounding country.  Like we did in 1775 during that British retreat.  As we did throughout the war.  Though General Washington wanted to defeat the British in a decisive battle, he would not get the chance to meet the British in such a battle until 6 long years later at Yorktown.  Unable to win a decisive battle, he did the only thing he could.  Not lose a decisive battle.  The American Revolutionary War was a war of attrition.  The British sued for peace when the cost of continuing the war was greater than the British people were willing to pay.  As wars are wont to be with such long lines of communications.

Military planners have learned this lesson.  You are probably familiar with a more recent war that was similar.  Where a world superpower was involved in a war of attrition half way across the world.  In South Vietnam.  The Americans came into the conflict to support South Vietnam from Communist North Vietnam.  There is no South Vietnam today.  Like the British some 200 years earlier, we won the military engagements but just couldn’t win the war.  When the cost in blood and treasure became too great, we met in Paris, too, to end the war.  We signed the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.  And we learned the British lesson of 1783.

Winning the War is Easier than Winning the Peace

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, George H. W. Bush assembled an international coalition and threw the Iraqis out of Kuwait.  Operation Desert Storm was an overwhelming victory.  However, Bush was heavily criticized for ‘not finishing the job’ in the Gulf War.  His critics said we should have gone on to Baghdad to remove Hussein from power.  We didn’t.  For a couple of good reasons.  First of all, the coalition included Arab nations.  They only joined to repel Hussein from Kuwait.  Not to remove him from power.  The other reason was that if we toppled Hussein we would own Iraq.  And we would probably end up there for years trying to ‘win the peace’.

Following the Gulf War there were uprisings throughout Iraq.  The world watched hopeful that he would be overthrown by his own people and democracy would break out.  It didn’t.  He suppressed the rebellions brutally.  So brutally that no-fly zones were established in the north over the Kurds and in the south over the Shiite population.  But we didn’t invade.  And he remained a thorn in our side.  And his people suffered.

After 9/11, the US invaded Afghanistan.  Then Iraq.  The official reason was his weapons of mass destruction that he never documented destroyed.  He had used chemical weapons against the Iranians.  And the Kurds.  Being a ‘supporter’ of terrorism there was worry he might provide these weapons to a terrorist.  So there was that reason.  The other reason was a little more convoluted.  Osama bin Laden was a Wahhabi Sunni.  He had ties in Saudi Arabia.  And there was a large Wahhabi population in Saudi Arabia providing funding to al Qaeda.  The Saudis were reluctant to shut down this funding for fear of a rebellion by the Wahhabis against the House of Saud.  But there was one thing that worried them more than the Wahhabis.  Shiite Iran.  By invading Iraq we forced their hand.  They had a vested interest in seeing us succeed in Iraq.  And in our war against al Qaeda.  We made progress against al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts in Afghanistan.  And the Saudi started to shut down their funding.  The Iraq War was a success.  But the one drawback was that we now owned Iraq.  And winning the peace was nowhere as easy as winning the war.  As George W. Bush learned.

Obama Commits Military Force in Libya

The US has some very important friends in the Middle East and North Africa.  Among these are Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.  To name a few.  These are nations with Sunni populations and/or Sunni governments unfriendly to Iran.  Egypt made peace with Israel and kept the Suez Canal open for international trade for decades.  Saudi Arabia peacefully coexists with its neighbors and is the largest oil exporter in the world.  Except for the oil embargo of 1973, they have maintained the flow of that oil at market prices to Western economies.  The US Navy’s 5th Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain.

These nations aren’t perfect.  Saudi women can’t drive a car, for example.  But they’re stalwart US allies.  One of these nations was pretty progressive as well as being a staunch US friend.  Egypt.  Egyptian women were about the freest in the Middle East, second only to Tunisia.  Egypt and Tunisia, though, were suffering economically.  Had high unemployment.  And a Muslim opposition unhappy with their ‘Western’ ways.  The largest organized opposition group is the Muslim Brotherhood.  And they can be best described as being more simpatico with Iran.  When Egypt had their uprising, the Obama administration called it a democracy uprising and called for Hosni Mubarak to give up power.  Without considering who would step into that power void.  Which did not go over well with Mubarak.  Or the Saudis.

Now Libya is burning.  Qaddafi is attacking his own people.  The US dithered for weeks.  While the Libyans cried for help.  Even other Arab nations cried for our help.  But we did nothing.  Even though Qaddafi is not a US friend.  And was a sponsor of terrorism.  As the carnage mounted, though, someone took action.  The French of all people (see U.S. Missiles Strike Libyan Air-Defense Targets by David Kirkpatrick, Steven Erlanger and Elisabeth Bumiller posted 3/19/2011 The New York Times).

American and European forces began a broad campaign of strikes against the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi on Saturday, unleashing warplanes and missiles in a military intervention on a scale not seen in the Arab world since the Iraq war…

The campaign began with French warplane missions even before the end of an emergency summit meeting in Paris, where leaders, reacting to news that Colonel Qaddafi’s forces were attacking the rebel capital city of Benghazi on Saturday morning despite international demands for a cease-fire, said they had no choice but to act to defend Libyan civilians and opposition forces.

France has a Muslim problem.  They had some riots a few years back in some Paris Muslim suburbs.  Where young Muslims were unemployed.  Unhappy.  And not all that willing to assimilate into French culture.  Though they want to live in France.  So there’s been tensions between the French and their Muslim population.  So it says a lot that France was on point in this attack on a Muslim country.  Yes, at this time the international community, including some Arab states, approve of this action.  But you play with fire whenever you attack a Muslim country.  Especially if they have oil.  And Libya has oil.  In fact, it’s some of the finest oil in the Middle East.  A low-sulfur sweet crude.

When the international community was coming together against him, Qaddafi was defiant.  Warned us to stay out of their internal affairs.

“Libya is not yours. Libya is for all Libyans,” he wrote in one letter, read to the news media by a spokesman. “This is injustice, it is clear aggression, and it is uncalculated risk for its consequences on the Mediterranean and Europe.

“You will regret it if you take a step toward intervening in our internal affairs.”

Colonel Qaddafi addressed President Obama as “our son,” in a letter jarring for its familiarity. “I have said to you before that even if Libya and the United States enter into war, God forbid, you will always remain my son and I have all the love for you as a son, and I do not want your image to change with me,” he wrote. “We are confronting Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, nothing more. What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? Tell me how would you behave so that I could follow your example?”

Could this be why the Obama administration was so reluctant to act?  Because of a father-son relationship between Obama and Qaddafi?  You gotta admit this is a strange thing for Qaddafi to say.  Makes you wonder just what was the extent of Obama’s apology tour in the Middle East.  One thing for sure, it will give fuel to those who think Obama is a Muslim.  I mean, it just doesn’t help when the bad guy calls you a son.

Regret?  We should take that threat seriously.  After some military encounters with Libyan losses in the Gulf of Sidra Qaddafi retaliated with the bombing of a German disco frequented by US troops.  When we discovered his connection to that bombing we bombed Tripoli.  In retaliation for that bombing he had a bomb smuggled aboard a 747.  Pan Am Flight 103.  Brought down on Lockerbie, Scotland.  So he has a history of getting even.  Which we need to be on guard for.

Obama now Owns Libya

So it’s war.  Missiles are flying.  People are dying (see Libya: British forces launch missile attacks on Gaddafi by Colin Freeman, in Benghazi and Sean Rayment posted 3/20/2011 on the UK’s Telegraph).

Explosions were reported at an airport east of Tripoli as a British Trafalgar Class submarine and US Navy ships and submarines stationed off Libya fired 110 Tomahawk missiles at 20 targets in what one source described as a “night of carnage”.

The missiles targeted Libyan command and control centres, radar installations and surface-to-air missile sites. Libyan officials said the attacks were “barbaric” and causing civilian casualties…

British sources and Pentagon officials said Nato would undertake a “battle damage assessment” of Libya’s military during daylight hours and would decide whether to continue with further attacks.

Sources at the Elysée Palace said Britain, France and the United States had assumed the “leadership” of the coalition in early talks between the Prime Minister, Mr Sarkozy and Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State. The “extremely purposeful conclusion” of the early talks was endorsed by the full meeting, where speakers included Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations secretary general.

Well, President Obama has his third war.  Pretty impressive for a guy that said he would get us out of Iraq (he didn’t).  That he would fully prosecute the Afghanistan War to victory (he hasn’t).  And he wouldn’t nation-build like his predecessor.  George W. Bush.  He now may.  There’s no way Qaddafi can withstand the military force now aligned against him.  So he will lose.  But what then?  Who will fill that power vacuum?  In an already unstable and changing Middle East?  He can say what he wants about Iraq and Afghanistan, but it’s different with Libya.  This happened on his watch.  And he now owns it.  It will be up to him to win the peace.  Or lose it.

Those naval operations against Libya will be based out of Bahrain.  I sure hope he doesn’t encourage any more ‘democracy’ uprisings while we’re using that base for combat operations.  It would be a shame to lose that base during the middle of these operations.  And by a shame I mean a complete and utter disaster.  Because that would greatly extend our lines of communications.  And history has shown what that can do in war.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The New Airport Security is a Pervert’s Paradise

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 17th, 2010

Poorly Paid Perverts Enjoyed the ‘Perks’ of the Job

You ever work as security guard?  I have.  There are many types that work as guards.  College students (like me) using the time to study.  Retirees making some extra scratch for a hobby (I once worked with an old fisherman that spent his whole shift tying flies).  Ex-military who are usually armed (who do more of the serious/hardcore security).  Wannabe cops (who are for the most part good guards and advance in the company).  The unskilled.  The unemployable.  And perverts.

The unskilled and unemployable get some of the worst assignments.  Poorly paid, they sit in a booth or in their car in some of the worst neighborhoods.  They’re sort of like untrained militia.  Those who hire them hope for just one phone call to the cops before they break and run.

Perverts like to work where they can watch the pretty young ladies on a security camera system.  Or peek at them in the bathroom through a strategically placed hole in a ceiling tile.  Or use their keys to enter their offices where they can snoop through their desks during the night shift.  Or sit at a low desk with the sign-in log so they could look down their blouses when the ladies bend down to sign in.  And, of course, they always stash some porn in the stack of magazines in the bottom desk drawer. 

At First it was Just Some Naked Feet, a Flash of Thigh and a Little Butt Crack

Of course, things are different today.  A lot of women are guards now.  Pornographic magazines are a big no-no.  There are more security cameras making it harder to snoop.  And leering at women is right out.  It’s hard to be naughty these days.  So what is a pervert to do?  Why, work at the TSA.

Before 9/11, airport security guards were low-paid, unskilled, rent-a-cops.  They stood at the walk-through metal detectors.  Waved a wand over you if you beeped.  And on occasion rifled through a lady’s underwear packed in her suitcase.  But that all changed after 9/11.

Well, sort of.  The people didn’t change.  They just got snappy new uniforms and a fatter paycheck.  And did pretty much the same thing.  Stood at the walk-through metal detectors.  And waved their magic wands.  But if you had a foot fetish, things were looking up.  Especially if you liked to watch lovely ladies in short skirts and low-rise jeans contort, squat and bend over to put their shoes back on.  But things were going to get even better for the perverts.

Working in a Pervert’s Paradise

Now seeing naked pictures are part of the job.  But not to worry, concerned traveler.  Only TSA personnel will see those pictures (see TSA Chief Defends New Patdown Procedure by Scott Mayerowitz posted 11/16/2010 by ABC News).

The government has reassured the flying public time and time again that any naked images of them at airport checkpoints would be destroyed immediately.

And if you suffer from modesty, or fear radiation, you can opt out of the full body scans that produce these naked pictures. 

Passengers worried that their nude photos may end up on the Internet (or concerned about the radiation from the scanners) can opt to bypass the machines. But those travelers then must undergo a more-intrusive search, including the new patdown procedure in which a same-gender TSA agent touches the inside of passengers’ inner thighs and women’s breasts.

Can a pervert still enjoy a same sex pat-down?  Well, think about it.  Are perverts ladies men?  Or do attractive women typically reject these guys?  And, if so, what would these rejected guys really enjoy?  Why, watching a fellow TSA agent violate and humiliate an attractive woman with a public breast rub and public crotch grope, of course.

That new patdown alone has generated controversy as passengers, and even some pilots, have equated it with sexual assault. Pilot unions started to advise their members to have the patdown done in private.

So this is the tradeoff.  Sexual assault for everyone that flies.  A veritable pervert’s paradise.  To prevent another terrorist attack.  Which is less likely to happen than getting struck by lightning.  Something’s not right here.  But the BIG question is this; are we any safer?

The Israelis Profiled and Studied Behavior – They didn’t Peek through Women’s Clothes

It’s hard to make the case that we are.  The nude imaging and rough pat downs wouldn’t have found the underwear bomb last Christmas in Detroit.  What stopped that?  Alert passengers who saw a person of apparent Middle-East descent acting peculiarly.  You see, there is no such thing as political correctness on a plane with a credible threat.

So what’s the answer?  Well, terrorist hate us because we support Israel.  And there’s only one group of people they hate more than Americans.  Israelis.  And they’re constantly trying to kill them.  Yet their planes are pretty safe.  Apparently, the Israelis are doing something right.  And Security experts say we should be doing what the Israelis are doing (see Amid airport anger, GOP takes aim at screening by Byron York posted 11/15/2010 on the Washington Examiner).

For example, many security 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.

Good.  We’re following the Israeli lead.  So how is that working?

“It’s not an Israeli model, it’s a TSA, screwed-up model,” says [John] Mica [the Republican who will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure].  “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.”

Leave it to government to take a good thing and screw it up.  And how bad is the TSA version of the Israeli method?

In a May 2010 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Mica noted that 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.

The problem with the TSA is the TSA.  Granted, the SPOT detection officers were probably better trained than the typical TSA rent-a-cop, but they’re still part of the same bureaucracy.  They may train but they have little hands-on experience.  There just aren’t that many terrorists trying to get on our airplanes with detectable bombs.  And the few that do are able to slip through.  Because our TSA has so little hands-on experience.

People like to point to the military as a proof that government can do something well.  But who is really training those soldiers?  Combat veterans.  Who have hands-on experience fighting bad guys.  That’s what we need.  Professionals with experience.  Not TSA rent-a-cops.  We need to get serious with security.  Like the Israelis have.

Just Because President Obama’s Wife and Daughters aren’t Sexually Assaulted when They Fly Doesn’t Mean that Yours Shouldn’t

The problem with terrorism is that you have to worry about what doesn’t happen.  It’s not the successful attacks that count.  It’s the fear of what may happen.  This terror is so great that it has made us sexually assault our women and children whenever they fly.  But based on the experts, this sexual assault isn’t making us any safer.  So why do it?  Well, part of the reason is that those making us go through it don’t have to go through it themselves (see Since the TSA molested my family, why doesn’t Obama volunteer to subject his family to the same security procedures? by Mark Hemingway posted 11/16/2010 on the Washington Examiner).

The President and his family — preferably with DHS Secretary Janet “The system worked” Napolitano — should show up at Dulles or Reagan airport on a weekday with a camera crew in tow, as airport pat downs are typically done in full view of hundreds of travelers. All of America will to see the TSA handling the President’s crown jewels. Then a rubber-gloved federal agent will run his hands all over his wife and daughter’s privates while he watches. Then I want him to turn to the camera and tell all of America that this is no big deal and we should all be good citizens and comply with the necessary security procedures.

Can you see the TSA publicly embarrassing President Obama?  Or see him watching the TSA grope his wife and children?  Of course not.  The ruling elite will always exempt themselves from such barbaric treatment.  It’s okay for us.  But not for the royal family.    

When George W. Bush was tapping phone calls of suspected foreign terrorists, the liberal left went ballistic and called for his impeachment.  Ditto for the water boarding of all those three terrorists.  That was just beyond the pale.  But taking nude images or feeling up every man, woman and child who flies is okay.  Go figure.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries