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.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

One of the Boston Marathon Bombers spent 6 Months in the Epicenter of an Islamist Insurgency

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 28th, 2013

Week in Review

After the Boston marathon bombing all we’re hearing from those on the left and in the mainstream media is that it was a terrorist attack.  And probably not related to the bombers’ religion.  Islam.  Even though the bombers were ethnic Chechens.  Who lived for a time in Dagestan.  Where Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older brother, lived for 6 months last year.  But what does that mean?  It’s not like Dagestan is a hotbed of Islamist extremism (see Two militants shot dead in Russia’s Dagestan by Alexei Anishchuk posted 4/24/2013 on Reuters).

Security officers shot dead two suspected militants in Russia’s volatile North Caucasus republic of Dagestan, the epicenter of an Islamist insurgency, the National Anti-Terrorist Committee said on Wednesday.

Moscow is struggling to quell the persistent attacks by Islamist militants more than a decade after it fought two separatist wars in the adjacent republic of Chechnya.

Well, I guess that’s exactly what Dagestan is.  A hotbed of Islamist extremism.  Nay, the epicenter of an Islamist insurgency.  Where Tamerlan lived for 6 months.  And from some accounts wanted to stay in Dagestan.  The epicenter of an Islamist insurgency.  Just so he could spend time with his mom and dad.  Apparently.

At least this was what those on the left and in the mainstream media would have you believe.  Because they can’t say things like ‘Islamist extremism’.  ‘Muslim terrorist’.  ‘Islamist militants’.  Or ‘radical Islam’.  For one it doesn’t fit the narrative.  President Obama killed Osama bin Laden.  Winning the War on Terror.  And when you won that war you can’t refer to your vanquished enemy as if they still exist.  So that’s one reason.  Another reason is that the American left just hates Christianity so much that they want to show nothing but tolerance to Islam.  Because Islam hates Christianity, too.

And then there’s that other reason.  President Obama was going to kill them with kindness.  Sort of like FDR with Joseph Stalin.  Who was going to make Stalin like him.  And once he did FDR was going to turn on that FDR charm to get whatever he wanted from him.  (Ironically, it was Stalin who got everything he wanted from FDR).  Which was what President Obama was going to do.  For he was sure the only reason why radical Islam was attacking America was because of George W. Bush.  Bush made the Islamists hate America by acting so tough and mean to them.  So President Obama was going to show them the softer side America.  (The side that didn’t have drones raining down death on the occasional innocent bystander).  A George W. Bush-free side of America.  And turn on the Obama charm.  It just couldn’t fail.  And it would have worked, too, if only it hadn’t failed.

Islamists hate us.  And want to kill us.  Case in point the Boston Marathon bombing.  This despite Osama bin Laden being dead.  And President Obama’s charm.   In fact, they don’t respect President Obama.  They respect George W. Bush.  But not president Obama.  Because tough and mean they respect.  But displays of weakness?  They look at that with contempt.  Which is why terrorist activity increased during the Obama presidency.  Because they just don’t respect a man dripping with weakness.  And you just can’t drip more weakness than when you go out of your way so as not to offend the people trying to kill you.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The British foil al Qaeda Plot in Britain following al Qaeda’s Defeat in the War on Terror

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 28th, 2012

Week in Review

If you’ve been paying attention to the US presidential campaign you probably have heard that President Obama killed Osama bin Laden.  And defeated al Qaeda.  This was May 2, 2011.  Which is why the Benghazi attack took this administration by surprise.  And why they were reluctant at one time to call it a terrorist attack.  For with the killing of bin Laden the War on Terror was over.  Was this just an isolated incident?  Or was al Qaeda keeping busy even with the death of Osama bin Laden?  As it turns out, yes.  In fact, it was business as usual for some in the immediate months following bin Laden’s death (see ‘Terror suspect trio plotted to massacre crowds using a car fitted with knives and detonating eight suicide bombs in attack bigger than July 7’ by Chris Greenwood posted 10/22/2012 on the Daily Mail).

Three British Muslims were accused yesterday of plotting a suicide bomb attack designed to wreak more devastation than the July 7 attacks.

The Al Qaeda-inspired trio masterminded a conspiracy to detonate eight home-made rucksack devices, a court was told.

They bragged how the attacks would have caused ‘mass deaths’ in crowded areas. One of the men was secretly recorded saying the 2005 London attacks had ‘gone a bit wrong’ because the killers forgot to put nails in their bombs.

They also discussed mass poisoning and fixing blades to the wheels of a vehicle before driving it into a crowd of people, and boasted their plot would be ‘another 9/11’.

The trio raised thousands of pounds to fund the plot by posing as street collectors for the humanitarian charity Muslim Aid, the jury was told. Two of the men are alleged to have travelled to Pakistan to attend a terrorist camp and received training with explosives, weapons and poisons. They are said to have recorded ‘martyrdom videos’ explaining their actions which were to be released to the media after their deaths…

Two of the men – unemployed graduate Irfan Naseer, 31, and former security guard Irfan Khalid, 27 – are accused of twice travelling to terrorist camps in Pakistan. They spent 15 months learning how to make bombs, use weapons and create poisons ‘for the sole purpose’ of bringing their knowledge to Britain and using it, the court heard.

When they returned in July 2011, they teamed up with Ashik Ali, 27, whose ground-floor flat was transformed into a safe house to experiment with explosive chemicals. The court heard Naseer was recorded agreeing with another man that July 7 had ‘gone a bit wrong’ because the bombers did not use nails.

Naseer, a heavily-built man known as ‘Chubbs’, used knowledge from his pharmacy degree to mix the chemicals. He bought an instant cold pack, in the mistaken belief it contained ammonium nitrate.

The men were recorded talking about training with AK-47 assault rifles and grenades as well as firing a rocket launcher and the vehicle blade plot, which was in the Al Qaeda magazine, Inspire…

The terrorist cell was allegedly inspired by internet videos and the writings of Osama Bin Laden and US-born Yemeni extremist Anwar Al-Awlaki, who was killed in a drone strike 12 days after the suspects were arrested.

These men were in Pakistan when President Obama killed Osama bin Laden.  So they must have known of his death.  And the end of the War on Terror.  Yet they returned to England and continued their planning and preparations.  Lucky for the British that they didn’t let their guard down.  For it appears radical British Muslims in Britain didn’t get the memo that the War on Terror was over.  Which is why the British pulled their people out of Benghazi as the radical Islamists were increasing their attacks against Western targets.

The world is still not a safe place.  Al Qaeda is not defeated.  And the War on Terror continues on.  Where some of the Islamists are still trying to inflict another 9/11 on the West.  And this after the death of bin Laden.  Which explains the rise of Islamist violence in Benghazi.  And the death of four Americans.  Casualties in a war that the Americans had declared victory in that the other side never acknowledged.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Another terrorist attack in Nairobi, Kenya

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 29th, 2011

Week in Review

More trouble in the greater Middle East.  Well, more around the Horn of Africa.  But it’s an Islamic problem (see Second big blast heard in Kenyan capital; injuries by Reuters posted 10/24/2011 on the Chicago Tribune).

A large blast was heard in the Kenyan capital Nairobi on Monday evening, a Reuters witness reported. Kenyan media said the blast had been at a bus stop, and that people had been injured.

Earlier on Monday a grenade exploded in a Nairobi bar, wounding 13 people, two days after the U.S. embassy in Kenya warned that an attack was imminent as the east African nation fights Islamist militants in neighboring Somalia.

The U.S. pulled out of their aid mission to Somalia back in 1995.  Islamist terrorists bombed the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1998.  And Somali pirates are menacing the waters off the Horn of Africa.  Not quite the stable area.

We demanded that Hosni Mubarak step down in Egypt.  During the Arab Spring.  The supposed dawn of democracy in the region.  But we’re not seeing democracy.  Yet.  Muslims are attacking Christians.  And the government doesn’t do much to stop it.  That didn’t happen under Mubarak.

Not learning the lesson of Egypt, we went into Libya.  And supported the rebel opposition.  Even though we did not know who they were.  And after learning that there are elements of extreme Islamism in the opposition.  And so Gaddafi is dead.  Killed without a trial by the rebels.  (Saddam Hussein got a trial).  So what’s next?  Democracy?  Like in Egypt?

Pulling out of Iraq?  Cutting military spending?  Put it all together and one thing is for sure.  It doesn’t give you a warm fuzzy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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