Island paradises are the new Gitmo

An obscure Pacific island nation, Palau, and popular tourist destination, Bermuda, are now receiving former Gitmo detainees. Residents of Palau aren't too happy about it, and neither is Downing Street as Britain provides for Bermuda's defense and foreign affairs and wasn't consulted about the detainee transfer.

Why would Palau and Bermuda accept unwanted terror suspects from Gitmo? For Palau to welcome the Uighurs into their land, the U.S. has pledged $200 million in aid to the country. That's $200 million taxpayer dollars to send unwanted terror suspects to an island paradise in the Pacific.

One question remains: Does the tour package include cocktail beverages with tiny umbrellas in them?

Terrorists now advised of "right to remain silent"?!

Unbelievable. Un-effing-believable.

The Obama administration Justice Department has ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value foreign suspects detained in Afghanistan.

So now after our brave troops risk death and injury to capture a terror suspect and hand him to the FBI for interrogation, instead of hearing a stern "You better start talkin'!" the terrorist will be advised:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.

Just perfect. We catch these terrorists in hope of obtaining valuable information, and now they're told they can shut up and ask for a lawyer, even at government -- taxpayer, really -- expense?!?!

I bet the terrorists are dancing in their caves upon learning this new rule.

Terrorists release imminent

The White House has overridden FBI and DHS in a decision to release Chinese Uighur detainees from Gitmo. That's right, the Obama administration is welcoming terrorists onto our homeland instead of keeping them as far away from us as possible.

Do you feel safe already? It's no wonder gun sales are up.

Have you noticed that ever since Obama entered the White House, it's all about gaining more power. Just look at how he's "helping" the economy. The government taking control of banks, insurance agencies, automakers, etc. And how many czars do we have now reporting to the President? Probably more than old Russia. Now when it comes to national security, he's assuming to be the expert and brushing off recommendations from the FBI and DHS, two federal agencies responsible for America's safety.

We're fading fast as a republic. Soon we may no longer even recognize America as a democracy. Let's pray that it's not turning into a dictatorship!

White House's "perspective" on post-9/11

President Obama is back to his leftist appeasing mode now, deciding to release Office of Legal Counsel memos about the legality of those CIA interrogation techniques. Anti-Bush liberals rejoice!

Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence (by the way, an oxymoron for this administration), seems to carry a romantic flair in doing his job. From The Weekly Standard:

...The perspective, the context, is that in the months after 9/11, "we did not have a clear understanding of the enemy we were dealing with, and our every effort was focused on preventing further attacks that would kill more Americans. It was during these months that the CIA was struggling to obtain critical information from captured al Qaida leaders, and requested permission to use harsher interrogation methods. The OLC memos make clear that senior legal officials judged the harsher methods to be legal."

Blair continues: "Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing. As the President has made clear, and as both CIA Director Panetta and I have stated, we will not use those techniques in the future. But we will absolutely defend those who relied on these memos and those guidelines."

Terrorists don't really care about the weather when carrying out their criminal acts. I remember September 11, 2001 as a bright and sunny day, too! Just another effort to dig at the Bush administration.

Obama cannot charm his way to NATO hearts

Realizing that he was wrong about our victory in Iraq, President Obama has sought to make his military mark in Afghanistan with the help of NATO allies. Unfortunately, his efforts fall short:

Gordon Brown was the only one to offer substantial help. He offered to send several hundred extra British soldiers to provide security during the August election, but even that fell short of the thousands of combat troops that the US was hoping to prise from the Prime Minister.

Just two other allies made firm offers of troops. Belgium offered to send 35 military trainers and Spain offered 12. Mr Obama’s host, Nicolas Sarkozy, refused his request.
...
Germany, Italy, Poland, Canada and Denmark said that they were considering their positions. After a meeting with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, Mr Obama tried to apply further moral pressure. “I am sure that Germany, as one of the most important leaders in Europe, will be stepping up to the plate and helping us to get the job done.”

This isn't being widely reported by the mainstream media as part of the President's hyped European G-20 tour. Why? Because it makes Obama look bad. But why aren't our European allies stepping up to the plate on Afghanistan? When Poland, Canada, and Denmark, typically our staunchest allies, still have to "think about it," then there's something very wrong.

Has the threat of the Taliban and its terror-support network diminished? Hardly. In fact, intelligence and military analysts have documented a growing Taliban.

Is the world just too caught up with the global economic recession? Maybe so, but why didn't these allies offer a few troops even as a gesture of support in the Afghan engagement?

The heart of the problem is that these world leaders see right through President Obama. They see that he was wrong about Iraq, so what makes them to be confident about his strategy in Afghanistan? They know that the President lacks foreign policy experience (they still remember his first European tour as a presidential candidate) and is trying to find a footing in that area. I think they believe that Obama is just politicking this to strengthen his reputation at home and abroad.

NATO's response would certainly have been different if it were President Bush.

Enemy combatants coming to a neighborhood near you

Attorney General Eric Holder says to expect some suspected terrorists in your friendly neighborhood:

Attorney General Eric Holder said some detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may end up being released in the U.S. as the Obama administration works with foreign allies to resettle some of the prisoners.

Mr. Holder, in a briefing with reporters, said administration officials are still reviewing individual cases of the approximately 250 detainees to determine which will be put on trial and which may be released to comply with plans to close the detention facility by next year.

Get that warm and fuzzy feeling about your government yet? I bet somewhere in Congress there's a Democrat thinking up a bill to provide government-subsidized foreclosed housing to these detainees, and wrap that in a fancy economic stimulus package.

Actually, I have no problem with this if these Gitmo detainees are released into the neighborhoods of Pelosi, Reid, etc.

Our enemies continue terrorism even as Obama ends War on Terror

Even if the Obama administration doesn't agree with Bush's War on Terror, we know what the terrorists think: starting fires in Australia and beheading a Polish geologist.

Do you feel safe?

So ends the War on Terror?

In the NYT, Roger Cohen thinks the War on Terror has ended with President Obama's interview with Al Arabiya news:

In his first White House televised interview, with the Al Arabiya news network based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, President Obama buried the lead: The war on terror is over.

Yes, the with-us-or-against-us global struggle — the so-called Long War — in which a freedom-loving West confronts the undifferentiated forces of darkness comprising everything from Al Qaeda to elements of the Palestinian national struggle under the banner of “Islamofascism” has been terminated.

What’s left is what matters: defeating terrorist organizations. That’s not a war. It’s a strategic challenge.

Is it a "strategic challenge" to hunt down the terrorists who killed thousands of innocent people in NYC? That is a disturbing categorization. Most people already agree that the War on Terror isn't a conventional war, but to call it a strategic challenge would be to absurd.

Obama already misplaces priorities

The economy is in shambles. Unemployment rate is rising. Home values are plummeting. Loans are defaulting. Banks are imploding.

And what does President Obama do during his first days in office?

Obama issues an Executive Order to close Guantanamo Bay ("Gitmo") Naval Base and review each of the detainee's case to determine whether prosecution is possible in the U.S. He's also ending waterboarding as an interrogation technique.

Frank Beckmann writes in The Detroit News:

The argument for closing Guantanamo and ending tough interrogation methods has been that the world thinks less of us because of these issues.

But the attacks of 9/11 and earlier -- the bombings of the World Trade Center, African embassies and Marine barracks in Lebanon -- all occurred before Guantanamo became an adjective and when waterboarding became a U.S. practice. The terrorists attacked anyway because of their religious hatred of the West and its way of life.

He hits the nail right on the head. Why does Obama care so much what the world thinks of America? The administration's priority is to protect Americans at home and abroad. By moving to close Gitmo so promptly, he is sending the wrong message to our enemies.

Here we go again: prosecute Bush for allowing torture

For some reason liberals cannot live with themselves knowing that they are safe because their President authorized waterboarding (claimed to be a torture method) to get valuable information out of terrorists in preventing attacks. Is it because that president is Bush? Or because they feel guilty about somebody being tortured for them to enjoy normal life?

Paul Campos writes in Rocky Mountain News a confusing piece, touting his support and activism for the Obama campaign, yet admitting:

Still, the whole business has left me rather depressed, because, in the end, I don't really believe in Barack Obama. For one thing, I don't believe in "change" - an empty concept if there ever was one.

Talk about a man of no principle, treating a ballot as if it were just a piece of scrap paper.

Then Campos makes a prediction on which route President Obama would take with regards to Bush's authorization to use torture:

So the Obama administration is faced with a difficult moral choice: It can enforce the law, or it can do the politically expedient thing and ignore the nation's constitutionally binding treaty obligations when those obligations require something as disturbing as prosecuting American war criminals.

Every indication is that Obama will choose the latter course.

He's probably right because ever since the beginning of Obama's political life, he has chosen the path of political expediency. He's in the White House because he's a great politician.

But let's go back to the subject of torture. I've always thought a good test would be to put yourself in such a situation:

Your wife (or loved one) is abducted, and her location and well-being is unknown. Authorities have captured a man who could have information leading to save your wife. The criminal is being a hard-ass and not talking. You could pull his fingernails and waterboard him for a chance to attain information, or you can have your lawyer talk to his lawyer for days and weeks. Time is running out.

Mr. Campos, what would you do?

Al Qaeda faces Black Death?

Apparently the plague has struck some al Qaeda terrorists in Algeria, North Africa. Let's hope it'll spread among the caves these terrorists hide and train in. Left-wing nuts are probably going to start some conspiracy theory about Bush authorizing CIA in the use of biological warfare against al Qaeda.

Isreal enters Gaza as savior, not invader

The international public opinion is once again condemning Israel's ground invasion into Gaza to root out Hamas and its rocket-lobbing terrorists. President Bush has recognized Hamas' provocation and supports Israel's right to self defense. Europe is divided, with France taking the lead in criticizing Israel.

Hamas' disregard for lives of innocent civilians, on both sides of the border, is again exposed. These terrorists fire rockets into Israeli townships, not military targets. Hamas members store weapons in mosques and people's homes and require people to stay there as human shields. The group encourages mothers to send their sons (and daughters) to be trained as suicide bombers. Its charter calls for the elimination of Israel.

Israel, on the other hand, tries its best in this bloody conflict to comply with humane and international laws. Its air force warns residents of air strikes. If a jet knows Hamas employs human shields, it will abort the missile firing. The IDF sends text messages to Gaza residents warning of imminent ground offensive, at the cost of the element of surprise and thus sacrificing more of its own soldiers.

I cannot help but wonder how many Palestinians actually wish for Israel to overpower Hamas and destroy it. Life in Gaza has been made miserable by this terrorist gang. How does anyone get away with using women and children as human shields? Unfortunately, they cannot voice their opposition to this nonsensical violence or risk death.

We all want peace. But history has taught us that peace often arrives after overwhelming power to destroy the enemy.

Mideast peace process is elusive

All eyes are on Israel as its air force continues to selectively strike within Gaza to kill Hamas leaders. Yes, there are civilian casualties, but compared to how Hamas indiscriminately aims its missiles specifically at civilian targets, the IDF is doing its best in preventing collateral damage. Even more worrisome is the fact that Hamas' weaponry has seen significant upgrades recently, including Iranian-made Fajr-3 missiles with greater range. That new firepower threatens Israel's nuclear power plant in Dimona, also a site said to contain the country's nuclear warheads.

There are those like Rosa Brooks of L.A. Times who criticizes Israel for trying to "bomb its way to peace." Never mind that Hamas terrorists started the whole provocation by launching rockets into Israeli towns. Although Brooks acknowledges Israel's right to self-defense and its superior military force, she thinks it's the Israeli politicians playing their game at the expense of rousing more Arab anti-Western sentiments:

Israel has no viable political endgame here: There's just no clear route from bombardment to a sustainable peace. But the damage caused by this new conflagration won't be limited to the Israelis and Palestinians. Israel's military offensive already has sparked outrage and protests throughout the Arab world. The current crisis also may destabilize some of the more moderate Arab governments in the region -- in Egypt, for instance -- where leaders now face popular backlash if they don't repudiate Israel.

And if you think that none of this really matters for us here in the U.S., you're kidding yourself. Arab and Islamic anger over Palestine continues to fuel anti-Western and anti-U.S. terrorism around the globe.

Unfortunately, there is no reasoning with Hamas. Its goal is to annihilate the state of Israel. How can Israel sit at a negotiation table when the other party wishes nothing but its death? Brooks is right in that Israel is in a lose-lose situation, but that doesn't mean it is doing something wrong. Peace in Mideast has been attempted many times but never came to fruition, not because of Israel's unwillingness, but rather because of the Palestinians' undying hostility and self-victimization.

Israel may not be able to bomb its way to peace, but those bombs are a sign that peace can still be achieved, even if through deadly deterrence.

Hamas, death incarnate

Hamas terrorists are killing their own and bombing Israelis in hopes to win the global propaganda war and annihilate the state of Israel, an important American ally. Here's how the Hamas operates:

In direct contravention of international law, Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as human shields, utilizing homes, schools and community centers as launching pads, content in the knowledge that if innocent Palestinian civilians are caught in the cross-fire, it will be Israel that is criticized. This amounts to a sort of Daily Double of human rights violations: the use of innocent Palestinians as human shields for the infliction of violence upon innocent Israelis.

It is Hamas that perfected the use of the suicide bomb, by which young Palestinians were induced to kill themselves so that Israelis could also be killed. It is somehow apt that Hamas should be forever associated with the suicide bomb, for in a larger sense Hamas has proved to be an instrument of the demise of Palestinians in Gaza.

In fact, Hamas has such a bad reputation these days that even oil-rich, wealthy Arab nations won't even help the Palestinians.

Clinton Foundation received nearly $500M, largely from foreigners

Obama required Bill Clinton to release the list of donor names to his library and foundation in order for Hillary to get the Secretary of State job. And now we know why he didn't release this information when his wife was running for president: conflicts of interest galore!

Lots of money flowed in from Arab governments in the Middle East, especially from Saudi Arabia, world's largest oil producer and home to many Islamic terrorists. If Hillary becomes the Secretary, how can she be impartial to mediations and negotiations in that region, knowing that the Arab governments donated millions and millions of dollars to her husband's organization?

Then there's also the curious case of $250,000 from Denise Rich, ex-wife of pardoned white-collar criminal Marc Rich. President Clinton pardoned Rich in the last hours of his office. Would the donation have something to do with it?

The legacy of President Bush...

This is how I'd remember President Bush. Thanks to Peggy Noonan for sharing it.

Pray for India

Indian commandos finally ended the terrorist siege in Mumbai. The grim reality now is counting the dead and assessing the damages. According to the sole captured terrorist, the plan was to kill 5,000. So far the death toll is around 300. This is truly India's 9/11...

The terrorists targeted whites, especially those who were Americans or Britons, but the goal was to cause as much bloodshed as possible. Again, these Islamic extremists have shown the world what they are capable of and stained the religion of peace.

Mark Steyn of the O.C. Register reminds us: Mumbai could happy just about anywhere. And he's absolutely right. These terrorists focused on "soft targets" such as hotels and train stations. Although they wanted to kill Americans and Britons, they didn't really care who else got hurt. In an open, democratic society, it's nearly impossible to safeguard public places. Think 9/11. Think Spain and Britain. And now India.

Please pray for India and those who're affected by this tragedy. 

Al-Qaeda insults Obama

Ayman al-Zawahri, Al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader, has released a message calling President-elect Obama and other black officials "abeed al-beit," literally translated as "house slaves." The terrorist leader warns Muslims and Arabs that Obama's victory doesn't mean a change in American foreign policy of supporting Israel.

This is a clear message that al-Qaeda continues to be the greatest terrorist threat against the country, no matter who enters the White House.

Obama wants to probe Bush, where's the change we can believe in?

Change we can believe in? Obama had just gotten a tour of his future White House home, and he's already talking to Congressional Democrats about investigating Bush and his administration of torturing terrorists. In anticipation of such actions by Democrats, Bush is readying a "blanket pardon" to all who were involved in the administration's interrogation policies. Such a pardon would be rare but completely legal under the Constitution.

I can understand if Obama wanted to pursue this when he's a senator. Now that he's president-elect and got elected on a "change" narrative, why can't he just let it go? It's just classless for an incoming president to plan such investigations of the outgoing president. What would it prove? It's just more of the same Washington partisanship and to an extent, political persecution.

Leftists will argue till their faces turn blue that there's nothing more sacred than human rights. Yes, it is true. But when a person's sole purpose in life is to blow up innocent people and destroy others' right to live, then that person is a criminal. And in our society, we want to stop criminals from harming others.

Can torture be allowed? Just imagine this scenario: A person in custody is known to have information pertaining to an attack which will kill your family and others. He remains tough and silent, unwilling to divulge that important piece of information. Wouldn't you do anything to try to extract that information from him in order to save your loved ones and many others?

To President Bush, his fellow countrymen are his family. Somehow I feel that President-elect Obama and his Democrats think their families share no ties with the rest of us...

Ayers friend defends Obama

In the WSJ today, Thomas Frank says he is friends with Bill Ayers and that Obama shouldn't be attacked for the same association. In typical elitist fashion, he complicates the relationship with historical references to the Civil War and the culture wars.

I don't care if Mr. Frank is a friend of Ayers or even Usama bin Laden -- he's not running for president. But Obama is, and his past associations, especially with an unrepentant terrorist, should be examined and questioned.

What Mr. Frank fails to understand is that pundits aren't that angry about Ayers' past. What really bugs us is that he feels no remorse for his past crimes and has gone on the record about it. If Ayers had issued a public statement about being sorry for his past mistakes, then more folks would be understanding because, well, we all make mistakes.