Bloodthirsty Liberal

Let me put this as succinctly as I can:

To elaborate:

Dick Cheney is not the most popular of politicians, but when he offered a harsh assessment of the Obama Administration’s approach to terrorism last May, his criticism stung—so much that the President gave a speech the same day that was widely seen as a direct response. Though neither man would admit it, eight months later political and security realities are forcing Mr. Obama’s antiterror policies ever-closer to the former Vice President’s.

In fact, the President’s changes in antiterror policy have never been as dramatic as he or his critics have advertised. His supporters on the left have repeatedly howled when the Justice Department quietly went to court and offered the same legal arguments the Bush Administration made, among them that the President has the power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely without charge. He has also ramped up drone strikes against al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan.

However, the Administration has tried to break from its predecessors on several big antiterror issues, and it is on those that it is suffering the humiliation of having to walk back from its own righteous declarations. This is Dick Cheney’s revenge.

And as he is probably too busy shooting defenseless little furry creatures (deer, not hippies—although now that you mention it…), let me respond in his stead.

Ahem.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Boy, it sure must suck to have to adopt the policies of someone you find the most evil entity to walk the earth since Rasputin last pulled the wings off a fly.

It would be like me having to admit Al Gore was right. As if.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gitmo, KSM’s trial—the administration has thrown its policies into reverse so many times, they’ve stripped the gears.

As long as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were responsible for keeping Americans safe, Democrats could pander to the U.S. and European left’s anti-antiterror views at little political cost. But now that they are responsible, American voters are able to see what the left really has in mind, and they are saying loud and clear that they prefer the Cheney method.

Mr. Holder has nonetheless begun a campaign to defend his decisions on Abdulmutallab and KSM, telling the New Yorker last week that “I don’t apologize for what I’ve done” and that trying KSM in a civilian court will be “the defining event of my time as Attorney General.”

That’s about the only thing he’s said I agree with.

President Obama has had to eat so many of his words, I don’t see how he stays so trim (probably because they’re so empty and free of substance to begin with):

“We know that [Abdulmutallab] travelled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies,” Obama says. “It appears that he joined an affiliate of al-Qaeda, and that this group, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America.”

What does “crushing poverty” have to do with it? Abdulchocolatelab, or whatever his name is, wasn’t crushed by no stinkin’ poverty. He came from a family of means, and looked a little chubby to me.

But to repeat the question in the title, why did my president tell me the G-string Jihadist (not my invention, but perhaps better than Bomb Crotchit, which was) was an “isolated extremist” when that was the farthest thing from the truth?

Next thing, he’ll tell me the fellow passengers who subdued the Fruit-of-the-Boomer “acted stupidly”.

No, but he himself does speak stupidly:

The video also contains thinly-veiled criticism of the counter-terror strategy of George W. Bush. Obama says that the current administration has “refocused the fight” against al-Qaeda on Afghanistan and Pakistan, while “bringing to a responsible end to the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.”

I don’t know why he puts down the war in Iraq so often. If he weren’t so ideologically blinded, he could claim credit for this (even though it’s no thanks to him):

A very good and very welcome piece of news to start off the New Year: No American soldiers lost their lives in combat in Iraq last month.

Combat fatalities have been steadily decreasing since June of 2009, when troop drawdowns in Baghdad and other cities began in earnest. Since July, American forces have suffered five or fewer combat-related deaths each month. Casualties among Iraqis have also decreased to their lowest levels since the war began in 2003.

Said General Raymond Odierno, top commander in the Iraqi theater: “[This] is a very significant milestone for us as we continue to move forward. …”

Obama betrays himself as a man afraid to stand up for himself. He always needs the specter of Bush to stand beside him. Who ever said Iraq was behind 9/11? That comment, and the “isolated extremist” comment (and who can forget the “system worked” comment?), betray him as philosophically unprepared (or worse, opposed) to defending this country from enemies foreign and domestic.

Speaking of isolated extremists, do you think this fellow was one?

Danish police on Friday shot and wounded a man trying to enter the home of an artist who drew controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

The man, a 27-year-old Somalian who was armed with an axe, was caught trying to break into the home of Kurt Westergaard at 10pm local time, police said.

Police shot the man, injuring him in his leg…

Extremist, sure. But isolated? My ass.

Mark Steyn’s comment:

[A] significant percentage of Muslims in the west do not understand concepts such as pluralism and freedom of expression. A further percentage understand them very well but reject them as loser fetishes incompatible with the requirements of Islamic supremacism - and have a shrewd sense that when, push comes to shove, a lot of these fine liberal concepts crumble to nothing.

Or, if I may observe: never bring a quill to an axe fight (or an axe to a gun fight, I suppose).

They say in the realm of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

I don’t know about that, but in the Empire State, a blind man can still land a pretty solid kick in the nuts:

“This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn’t just attack, it’s anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country,” he said.

Paterson’s comments break with Democrats, who generally support the President’s decision.

“Our country was attacked on its own soil on September 11, 2001 and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost,” he said. “It’s very painful. We’re still having trouble getting over it. We still have been unable to rebuild that site and having those terrorists so close to the attack is gonna be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers.”

Paterson also said that the White House warned him six months ago this very situation would happen.

BEEP!! BEEP!! BEEP!!

W-a-a-a-a-it a minute.

President Obama conveniently decamped to Germany, conveniently waited until after the NY-23rd election (and others), conveniently let Eric Holder take the heat—and this has been administration policy almost from the beginning!?!?!?!?!

What a [bleeping] pile of chicken [bleep] ([heaping] pile of chicken [tenders], of course).

The more I think about this decision, the less I understand it. As a means of demonizing the Bush administration, it makes perfect sense; as a means of carrying out justice, it’s absurd.

KSM wasn’t arrested by any method recognized in the US court system, was he? Or held and interrogated? Or given access to counsel? How can the government make its case if he has a right to face his accusers? You thought the outing of Valerie Plame was inappropriate (thanks to Richard-bleeping-Armitage), imagine the body count if everyone involved in his capture and arrest has to come forward in court.

I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the very decision to proceed this way calls for all charges to be dismissed. KSM was a military target, not a judicial one—I don’t see how the two can be integrated.

Then there is the matter of his many and boastful confessions, not all of them under “enhanced interrogation”. He wants to be known as the mastermind of 9/11, as the pair of hands that slit Daniel Pearl’s throat. Presented this way, he has no defense, nor cares to mount one.

Which means this is no justice at all; it’s a kangaroo court, a show trial. It’s the most cynical manipulation of the justice system I can imagine. Use the crazy guy to implicate himself while we (Team Obama) implicate the Bush administration. That’s so sleazy, I have to tip my cap in admiration.

In response, I can only say “Free KSM!” “Justice for the Gitmo 5!” I actually hope he gets off. He’ll be “dealt with” in other ways—and I’d look for impeachment proceedings aghainst this disgrace to the office to start the next day.

PS: Not to beat a dead terrorist (or soon to be), but if Miranda rights don’t count, if the chain of evidence doesn’t count, if none of the long-established rights of the accused mean a bucket of warm spit for KSM, who’s to say they will for any of us? Not to be paranoid, but who are they to decide what rights can be ignored? An American trial either means something, or it doesn’t.

Which is why this is nonsense. KSM doesn’t deserve the least little bit of American justice—except a noose. Not only is he not an American citizen, his sole purpose in his miserable life was the destruction of this country, and the death of as many of its citizens as possible. His only connection to America is having attended North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University—go Aggies!—identified by Wikipedia as the “largest publicly funded historically black college (HBCU) in the state of North Carolina”. So, if he got alienated from American society there, it was solely (get it?) in the company of African Americans. Which makes him a racist son of a bitch to boot.

So, again I ask, who is he and what has he done that requires a trial in the US justice system? Why don’t we try Italian or Senegalese or Antarctic prisoners in US courts if they’re so great for everybody?

I don’t have the answer for Afghanistan, but this piece by a veteran of that wasteland poses the right questions:

As we look back on the eight years in which we have fought the war in Afghanistan, the Obama administration is embroiled in a decision that will define its foreign policy for years to come. Although he campaigned as the anti-Bush candidate in 2008, one would be hard pressed to see any substantial differences between the two administrations with regard to how they are handling the war.

Fresh off the success in Iraq, Generals Petraeus and McChrystal have unmatched expertise in waging a counterinsurgency. But it is only fair to point out that in order to wage a counterinsurgency, you have to acknowledge the particular failings that brought about the insurgency you have to counter. There have been many mistakes in Afghanistan, as there were in pre-surge Iraq.

…

[T]he first step in isolating the enemy from the people is protecting the population from those who wish to destroy it. If you keep people safe, you gain their trust. McChrystal is not a man who will shy away from a fight. The surge in Iraq killed hundreds of insurgents using special operatives and regular infantry.

But the current rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan are simply far too constrictive to eliminate large pockets of threat. The people of Afghanistan don’t trust their government and their police forces. We are years away from relying on them as we have with their Iraqi counterparts. The ROE are a direct reflection of that: We are forced to be gentle because of the barbaric manner in which the Afghanis treat their own people. This may make us feel good, but we choose this tactic at the risk of our young men and women.

The chief problem with our Afghanistan strategy is the craven politicians who want to micromanage the war. Moveon.org opposed the escalation of force in Afghanistan eight years ago. Since 2004, however, the left has turned about-face, bellowing that we “took our eye off the ball” in Afghanistan by fighting the war in Iraq.

…

We cannot rely on senators and congressmen to win our wars. If Barbara Boxer doesn’t even realize that military protocol requires soldiers to respond with “sir” or “ma’am,” her “solution” to the problems in Afghanistan doesn’t have much credibility.

Until we as a nation understand what we are doing fighting the war on terror, we have no chance to win it. The decision as to what to do next in Afghanistan is taking entirely too long, coming from a president who literally talked about the “good war” for over two years. If we are not resolute in our methods in fighting this counterinsurgency we might as well just bring everyone home.

What the writer seems to be arguing for, in my interpretation, is the return of Dick Cheney. No apologies, no second-guessing—just lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

As that is unlikely, however, I don’t know what we should do. Neither does the president.

Only one of us has an excuse.

Same [bleep], different president:

The Obama administration promised Congress on Tuesday to negotiate stronger privacy protections for Americans under terrorism surveillance but insisted on retaining current authority to track suspects and obtain records.

Liberals on the House Judiciary Committee were left unsatisfied, clearly wanting the administration to go further and pledge to curb what they consider abuses of the Bush administration.

They repeatedly insisted that the law be rewritten to require better justification for wiretaps and subpoenas, and Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., even compared the Obama administration’s position so far to that of the Bush administration.

“You sound like a lot of people who came over from DOJ (the Department of Justice) before,” Conyers told Todd Hinnen, deputy assistant attorney general.

Well, of course he does. President Obama may be misguided and overweening, but it does him no good to allow another 9/11 to happen on his watch. If it did, I’d stay below the eight floor if I were you.

An idea so advanced and far-reaching, only a person possessed of a mind far beyond that of mere mortals could conceive of it.

Such a person could be described only as articulate, bright, nice-looking and clean:

The Obama administration is looking at creating a courtroom-within-a-prison complex in the U.S. to house suspected terrorists, combining military and civilian detention facilities at a single maximum-security prison.

Several senior U.S. officials said the administration is eyeing a soon-to-be-shuttered state maximum security prison in Michigan and the 134-year-old military penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., as possible locations for a heavily guarded site to hold the 229 suspected al-Qaida, Taliban and foreign fighters now jailed at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba.

The officials outlined the plans — the latest effort to comply with President Barack Obama’s order to close the prison camp by Jan. 22, 2010, and satisfy congressional and public fears about incarcerating terror suspects on American soil — on condition of anonymity because the options are under review.

Ah yes, one sees the problem.

If I may offer a suggestion, a pale, watery suggestion, feeble in inspiration and weak in foresight. Perhaps one could build a facility on an island, preferably one far enough from the US mainland to discourage escape—ninety miles ought to do it. I’m seeing such an institution carved out of a larger prison camp, a whole nation incarcerated under an oppressive and cruel ruler, with no regard for individual liberty or inalienable rights. That way, even if one of these hardened terrorists should slip past the dogs and through the razor wire, they’d be met with more dogs and no-nonsense soldiers with AK-47s.

Perhaps something that looks a little like this:

A dream, I realize, a fantasy, but if President Obama can find such a tightly guarded, heavily armed camp on an island ruled by a dictator perhaps just ninety miles from our shores, he would prove yet again his wisdom and sagacity.

I blame the perfidious influence of that evil terror master Dick Cheney:

Dozens of terrorism suspects remain on a U.N. sanctions list despite having likely died and information on others is so scant as to render their inclusion useless, a U.N. ambassador said on Tuesday.

These flaws make it tough to impose bans on people and companies on the list linked to al Qaeda and the Taliban, even as new threats emerge in countries like Somalia, said Thomas Mayr-Harting, who chairs the U.N. Security Council’s Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee.

Of 513 entries on the list, 38 people are reported or believed to be dead, Mayr-Harting, who is also Austria’s ambassador to the United Nations, told reporters.

“It is not the purpose of the list to contain dead people,” he said.

First of all, can the Washington Post not afford punctuation? That first sentence is crying out for two more commas, if you ask me.

So, who would you rather have the job of liquidating terrorist threats, the UN or Dick Cheney? One can’t even keep track of them after they’ve stopped moving, and the other was willing to terminate them with extreme prejudice (more’s the pity that he did not).

If Congress would like to hold hearings about how far the Bush administration went (or thought of going) to protect this country, I couldn’t be happier. Anything to demonstrate to Americans how far to the left the Democratic leadership is of mainstream thought would be most welcome. Dick Cheney against John Kerry would be like a doberman against a miniature poodle in a dog fight.

Among the many, many, many Bush policies in the war on terror continued by President Obama is the use of Predator drones to nail Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists from the sky (and perhaps a few innocent bystanders or wedding partyers—sorry).

Funny thing, they don’t seem to like it:

On June 29, 2009, jihadist websites posted a new 150-page book by senior Al-Qaeda commander Abu Yahya Al-Libi titled Guide to the Laws Regarding Muslim Spies. The book’s two introductions, one by Ayman Al-Zawahiri and one by Abu Yahya himself, make it clear that it was written in an attempt to find a means of dealing with the recent campaign of Predator strikes and other covert operations against Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in Waziristan. The two Al-Qaeda commanders, and Abu Yahya in particular, betray deep distress at the devastating effectiveness of the alliance’s [i.e. NATO’s] shadow war, as well as paranoia regarding the ubiquity of hidden enemies.

Look, up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane!

It’s divine justice!

Hey, United Nations, European Union, Red Cross, Amnesty Int’l, and all the rest of you quasi non-governmental organizations: Israel says “bite me”. (Actually, that would be me.)

Soldiers from all Western armies, including Israel’s and Britain’s, are educated in the laws of war.

Commanders are educated to a higher level so that they can enforce the laws among their men, and take them into account during their planning.

Because the battlefield - in any kind of war - is a place of confusion and chaos, of fast-moving action the complexities of the laws of war as they apply to kinetic military operations, are distilled down into rules of engagement.

…

The insurgents that we have faced, and still face, in these conflicts are all different. Hizballah and Hamas over here, Al Qaida, Jaish al Mahdi and a range of other militant groups in Iraq. Al Qaida, the Taliban and a diversity of associated fighting groups in Afghanistan. They are different but they are linked.

They are linked by the pernicious influence, support and sometimes direction of Iran and/or by the international network of Islamist extremism.

…

Do these Islamist fighting groups ignore the international laws of armed conflict? They do not. It would be a grave mistake to conclude that they do. Instead, they study it carefully and they understand it well.

They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy’s main weaknesses.

…

By taking these actions and many other significant measures during Operation Cast Lead the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other Army in the history of warfare.

There’s a great deal more, but it boils down to this: since Islamist fighters obey no known laws of war, the rest of us have to do the best we can—and nobody does better than Israel.

And the rest of y’all can just go [bleep] yourselves.

BTW, this address was given on June 18th. Where have the media been for the past three weeks?

President Obama might be Muslim Public Enemy Number One:

“One of the basic catalysts of terrorism in the FATA [Federally Administrated Tribal Areas] and the Swat district are the U.S. drone attacks in North and South Waziristan. The martyrdom of hundreds of innocent civilians as a result of these attacks is a very big tragedy which is condemned.

“It is demanded that the U.S. should immediately stop its barbaric activities [attacks in Pakistan]; this is a clear violation of the UN Charter.”

Obama has been launching drone attacks like an adolescent on a flight simulator video game. Blam! Pow! It’s one of the few initiatives of his that I support. But maybe the Barbarian-in-Chief and I have been wrong.

Here’s another critic:

Following are excerpts from a Friday sermon delivered by Sunni scholar Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi, which aired on Qatar TV on June 5, 2009.

The man [Obama] tried to quote from the Koran, as well as from the Torah and the New Testament. He drew a parallel between the Koran and the Torah in their call for peace. He quoted the Talmud and the Torah as saying that the Torah calls for peace. Never have I seen a single verse, paragraph, or sentence in the Torah which calls for peace. Everything in the Torah constitutes a call for war.

[…]

[The Torah contains] the notion of annihilation. We saw it when the Europeans went to America – they tried to annihilate the Indians. When they went to Australia, they tried to annihilate the aboriginal people. Indeed, they annihilated them. This is a biblical notion – annihilate them totally, do not leave a living soul among them. How could Obama draw a parallel between the Koran and the Torah?

Elsewhere in Islam:

“No, [we will not stop if the U.S. leaves Afghanistan]; our jihad is against the Kuffar [infidels] in order to get back our lands that the Kuffar has occupied. Our jihad is meant to make supreme the Word of Allah and to establish the system of Shari’a. Our jihad isn’t limited only to Pakistan and Afghanistan; this division that ‘this is Pakistan’ and ‘this is Afghanistan’ has been created by the Jews; we reject it. We, all Muslims, whether they be in Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Palestine or anywhere in the world, are all brothers. This division has been created among Muslims; we do not accept this division.

So the Jews annihilated the Indians and the Aborigines—and partitioned Muslim lands? They sound like some real badasses.

PS: I find this a little much:

“One white ass has gone; a black ass has taken over in his place. To have any expectations will corrode our belief. We put our trust only in Allah.