Posts Tagged ‘Naiveté’
They put reporters under surveillance, data mine innocent citizens’ phone records and e-mails, grope little old ladies at the airport, sic the IRS on conservative groups, and call it “security.”
Meanwhile, REAL terrorist threats are coddled, protected, and allowed to slip through the cracks. Some, like the terrorists that “went missing,” are actually given the fake identities they need to get through security by our own government!
Why anyone would want to give incompetent bureaucrats with seriously screwed up priorities even MORE power to “protect” innocent citizens is beyond me!
The federal government gave witness protection to known and suspected terrorists and the U.S. Marshals Service even lost track of two of those people, according to a report Thursday from the Justice Department’s auditor that exposes the previously hidden side of the witness program.
“We found that the department did not definitively know how many known or suspected terrorists were admitted into the [witness protection] program,” the Justice inspector general said.
The auditor said that until it raised concerns, those terrorists were able to board airplanes and were able to “evade one of the government’s primary means of identifying and tracking terrorists’ movements and actions” through the new identities the government provided them.
It also said that of the two known or suspected terrorists that the federal government lost track of, one was later discovered to be living outside of the U.S. and the other is also likely outside of the country.
New CIA Director John Brennan was sworn in this week on a 1787 copy of the constitution from the national archives, instead of the Bible:
“Director Brennan told the president that he made the request to the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA,” Earnest said.
The Constitution itself went into effect in 1789. But troublemaking blogger Marcy Wheeler points outthat what was missing from the Constitution in 1787 is also quite symbolic: The Bill of Rights, which did not officially go into effect until December 1791 after ratification by states. (Caution: Marcy’s post has some strong language.)
That means: No freedom of speech and of the press, no right to bear arms, no Fourth Amendment ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and no right to a jury trial.
How … symbolic?
There are two possible reasons for a new office holder to refuse to lay their hand on the Bible while swearing an oath, as has been the tradition in America for over two centuries.
On the one hand, he may refuse because he intends to break his oath, and therefore wants to avoid swearing on the Bible and the inescapable accountability to God that it would bring.
The other possibility is that he doesn’t respect the Bible as a sacred document and views it as too “religious” (or contrary to his own religion), and therefore seeks to publicly demonstrate that he is not accountable to the God of the Bible.
Either way, it shows what a dangerous radical Obama has chosen to lead the one organization in the U.S. that holds our most closely guarded secrets.
Don’t you feel safe, now?
While Obama is more than happy to spike the football for the successful SEAL mission to neutralize Osama Bin Laden, he is loathe to admit that radical Islam is the motivating factor behind most terrorist attacks, like the one against our soldiers at Ft. Hood. Obama insists on calling the incident “workplace violence” because that way he can dismiss it as the work of a madman instead of a Muslim terrorist infiltrator in our armed forces.
It’s the same reason why the White House insisted on trying to blame the pre-planned, coordinated terrorist Benghazi attack on a stupid YouTube video. They are desperate to deny that radical Islam is a terrorist threat to American security.
If that means that four Americans are left to die in Libya while wounded warriors are hung out to dry here at home, so be it. He doesn’t care.
Three years after the White House arranged a hero’s welcome at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.
“Betrayed is a good word,” former Sgt. Munley told ABC News in a tearful interview to be broadcast tonight on “World News with Diane Sawyer” and “Nightline.”
“Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of,” she said. “In fact they’ve been neglected.”
[...] Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is treating the incident as “workplace violence” instead of “combat related” or terrorism.
[...] Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit against the military alleging the “workplace violence” designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of financial benefits available to those who injuries are classified as “combat related.”
It doesn’t get more “combat related” than a terrorist bringing jihad to our own doorstep. The “combat zone” is now wherever a terrorist seeks to perpetrate an act of war against American citizens, and that is exactly what happened at Ft. Hood. Those soldiers were attacked because Hasan considered them to be enemies of Islam, and himself to be a warrior for jihad (holy war) against the infidels.
Some of the victims “had to find civilian doctors to get proper medical treatment” and the military has not assigned liaison officers to help them coordinate their recovery, said the group’s lawyer, Reed Rubinstein.
“There’s a substantial number of very serious, crippling cases of post-traumatic stress disorder exacerbated, frankly, by what the Army and the Defense Department did in this case,” said Rubinstein. “We have a couple of cases in which the soldiers’ command accused the soldiers of malingering, and would say things to them that Fort Hood really wasn’t so bad, it wasn’t combat.”
[...] Some of the victims in the lawsuit believe the Army Secretary and others are purposely ignoring their cases out of political correctness.
It is an absolute outrage that Obama is willing to wastefully dump trillions of dollars on “green energy” and other liberal pet projects, but wounded warriors are forced to file a lawsuit just to get their medical bills paid by the nation they volunteered to serve. Obama couldn’t give them a bigger slap in the face if he tried.
This is the same guy who in 2010 called jihad a “legitimate tenet of Islam.”
He’s also responsible for the White House leaks of secret information about the Osama Bin Laden raid to Hollywood producers, which put the lives of Navy Seals in jeopardy.
The man is a traitor who belongs in jail, not at the helm of our most important intelligence agency!
Just when you thought that Chuck Hagel was as bad as it was going to get, wait until you meet John Brennan. America, meet your new CIA Director.
Brennan gave a speech to Islamic law students at New York University, where he was introduced by Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America. Mattson, who had been involved with the Obama inaugural prayer service, had come under fire then for her organization’s longstanding terrorist support.
During his NYU speech, Brennan defended the administration’s highly unpopular move to try al-Qaeda operations chief Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court (which the administration eventually backed away from). He claimed that terrorists are the real victims of “political, economic and social forces,” said that Islamic terrorists were not jihadists, referenced “Al-Quds” instead of Jerusalem, and described the 20 percent of former Guantanamo detainees returning to terrorist activities as “not that bad” when compared to ordinary criminal recidivism.
During a talk at the Nixon Center in May 2010, Brennan said that the administration was looking for ways to build up “moderate elements” of the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah.
Two weeks later, at a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Brennan defended the Islamic doctrines of jihad as “a holy struggle” and “a legitimate tenet of Islam.”
And Brennan has had a great track record so far. A truly spectacular track record which makes him unambiguously qualified to replace Petraeus.
[A] known top U.S. Hamas official had been given a guided tour of the top-secret National Counterterrorism Center and FBI Academy at Quantico under Brennan’s watch, several former top intelligence and defense officials again called for his resignation.
Last month, it was revealed that Brennan was implicated in a serious intelligence breach detailing an ongoing counterterrorism operation led by British and Saudi intelligence agencies that had placed an operative deep inside the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) organization. The White House leak forced the termination of the operation and the immediate withdrawal of the double agent, infuriating our foreign intelligence allies.
Just two weeks ago, internal White House documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a FOIA request revealed that Brennan and other White House officials had met twice with Hollywood filmmakers preparing a movie about the killing of Osama bin Laden, providing them unparalleled access including the identity of a SEAL Team 6 operator and commander along with other classified information. Amazingly, these high-level White House meetings between Brennan and the Hollywood filmmakers took place just weeks after the Pentagon and CIA had publicly warned of the dangers posed by leaks surrounding the successful SEAL raid killing bin Laden.
Can you imagine a directive coming down for our soldiers not to criticize the enemy and their atrocities during WWII?
Talk about undercutting morale! If they’re not evil and don’t have evil intentions, why are we even at war against them?? Taliban terrorists and their actions are NOT morally equivalent to our troops, and our soldiers shouldn’t be forced to pretend otherwise!
Here is a strong indicator that the Obama Administration’s crusade to appease Islam has gone too far; a new U.S. military handbook for troops deployed to the Middle East orders soldiers not to make derogatory comments about the Taliban or criticize pedophilia, among other outrageous things.
It gets better; the new manual, which is around 75 pages, suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture— not Taliban infiltration—is responsible for the increase in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.
The soon-to-be-released Army handbook is still being drafted, but a mainstream newspaper got a sneak preview and published an article that should infuriate the American taxpayers funding the never-ending war on terror. The manual is being created because someone with authority bought the theory that cultural insensitivity is driving insider attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
More than three dozen insider attacks have killed 63 members of the U.S.-led coalition this year, according to the article, and some blame “American cultural ignorance.” The bottom line is that troops may experience social-cultural shock and/or discomfort when interacting with Afghan security forces, the new military handbook says. “Better situational awareness/understanding of Afghan culture will help better prepare [troops] to more effectively partner and to avoid cultural conflict that can lead toward green-on-blue violence.”
The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of “taboo conversation topics” that soldiers should avoid, including “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “advocating women’s rights,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” “directing any criticism towards Afghans,” “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam.”
He Said Allahu Akbar-The Attack On Fort Hood
View on YouTube
The shooter was yelling “Allahu akbar!” But the Obama admin. insists on calling the attack “workplace violence,” which denies the victims special benefits for wounded service members.
Victims of the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood in Texas that killed 13 people and wounded dozens more are outraged that the U.S. government refuses to classify it as an act of terrorism.
About 160 victims and their families released a video on Thursday describing the shooting — in which Army Maj. Nidal Hasan allegedly opened fire on a room full of soldiers — and arguing why it should be classified as a terrorist attack.
Hasan, an American-born Muslim, is accused of killing 12 soldiers and a civilian on Nov. 5, 2009, at the post’s processing center. Soldiers were preparing to deploy to Afghanistan and Iraq.
The U.S. Department of Defense has ruled the Nov. 5, 2009, shooting a case of workplace violence.
[...] Classifying the shooting as terrorism will allow the victims to receive combat-related special compensation that provides disability pay for medically retired service members, Stars and Stripes reports. Manning, who was shot six times, was recently denied such benefits.
The victims also would be eligible for Purple Hearts and medals for valor, Stars and Stripes reports.
CBS Correspondent Lara Logan: Obama Is Lying About Defeating Al Qaeda And Taliban, Both Are Stronger Than Ever
She would know, after being brutally attacked and raped by misogynist jihadis while covering their revolution in Egypt.
Lara Logan, a correspondent for CBS’ “60 Minutes,” delivered a provocative speech to about 1,100 influentials from government, politics, media, and the legal and corporate arenas. Such downtown gatherings are a regular on Chicago’s networking circuit. (I am a member of the BGA’s Civic Leadership Committee, and the Chicago Sun-Times was a sponsor).
Her ominous and frightening message was gleaned from years of covering our wars in the Middle East. She arrived in Chicago on the heels of her Sept. 30 report, “The Longest War.” It examined the Afghanistan conflict and exposed the perils that still confront America, 11 years after 9/11.
Eleven years later, “they” still hate us, now more than ever, Logan told the crowd. The Taliban and al-Qaida have not been vanquished, she added. They’re coming back.
“I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a major lie being propagated . . .” Logan declared in her native South African accent.
The lie is that America’s military might has tamed the Taliban.
“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years,” Logan said. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,” who claim “they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban,” she added sarcastically. “It’s such nonsense!”
[...] She made a passionate case that our government is downplaying the strength of our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war. We have been lulled into believing that the perils are in the past: “You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.”
Our enemies are writing the story, she suggests, and there’s no happy ending for us.
This goes directly against Obama’s narrative that victory has been won and the Afghans will be ready to take over in 2014. Every working reporter in the area knows it’s a complete lie but it’s a lie that’s integral to Obama’s campaign.
More dangerously, and we don’t have access to a transcript of Logan’s remarks, she appears to be suggesting that Obama is being influenced by Taliban apologists.
For the moment, Afghanistan has not become a campaign issue. Romney doesn’t really want to touch it and polls show most Americans want to pull out. Nobody is calling Obama on the 1,500 dead in his failed surge. No one wants to talk about what really happened, because that’s too close to admitting defeat.
Lara Logan is trying to open up a conversation that the country needs to have, but that no one in the political establishment wants to have.
Obama is more than welcome to haul his “sensitive” behind to the front lines and see how hospitable of a welcome he’d get from these terrorists.
Our troops deserve better than being insulted and betrayed by this sorry pretender of a “commander-in-chief”!
Afghan security forces, our supposed allies, are slaughtering American troops. Thirty-three soldiers have been killed by “green on blue” attacks this year alone. The situation is so bad that the training of Afghan forces has been temporarily suspended.
How has the Pentagon responded?
By blaming our troops.
Top officials believe culturally offensive behavior is the motivation behind the killings, so it’s stepped up Islamic sensitivity training for our troops.
If you don’t want to be shot in the back by your Afghan training partners, the Pentagon advises, don’t offend their religious sensibilities. Don’t kick your feet up on a table, for instance, and never ask to see a picture of their wives and kids. “There’s a percentage [of attacks] which are cultural affronts,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said in a recent interview.
[...] Military officials who have done tours in Afghanistan are outraged that brass would even suggest US troops are partly to blame for their own murders.
“I would like to see a public affairs officer explain to the press where showing the bottom of your shoe to a Muslim or shaking with your left hand was legitimate grounds for murder,” growled one US Army official.
They say their Muslim partners would still resent them even if they followed their Islamic protocols to the letter.
“The cultural affronts excuse is a bunch of garbage,” a senior US Army intelligence official told me. “The Afghans that know we’re doing all this PC cultural sensitivity crap are laughing their asses off at our stupidity.”
Explained the intelligence official: “They’re killing us because we’re ‘infidels’ occupying Islamic lands. It’s what the Koran and every imam over there is telling them, and no amount of cultural sensitivity is going to stop that or change the fact that we’re ‘infidels.’ ”
What’s next? Blaming rape victims for “provoking” their attackers?
I’d like to say “unbelievable,” but pretty much anything this administration does is believable at this point, no matter how harmful to our interests or security.
The U.S. State Department is actively considering negotiations with the Egyptian government for the transfer of custody of Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as “the Blind Sheikh,” for humanitarian and health reasons, a source close to the the Obama administration told TheBlaze.
The Department of Justice, however, told TheBlaze that Rahman is serving a life sentence and is not considered for possible “release.” Previous calls to the State Department were referred to the Department of Justice and so far, the State Department has neither confirmed nor denied the report.
[...] Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who was the lead prosecutor in the Blind Sheikh case, told TheBlaze that he does not doubt the accuracy of the report, saying “there are very good reasons as to why it could be true.”
McCarthy explained that Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi has been calling for the release of the Blind Sheikh ever since he was elected earlier this year. He said it is a matter of “great importance” to the radical Islamists in Egypt and throughout the Middle East, adding that histransfer to Egypt would undoubtedly lead to the terrorist’s release.
“I think the plan has been to agree to the Blind Sheikh’s release, but not to announce it or have it become public until after the election. That is consistent with Obama’s pattern of trying to mollify Islamists,” he explained. “Obviously, they did not want this information to surface yet… but sometimes a situation can spin out of control.”
McCarthy also said the way the Department of Justice worded its denial may prove to be significant. The DOJ said Rahman’s “release” was not being considered, however, the question was whether or not his “transfer” to Egypt was being discussed.
The Blind Sheikh isn’t the only terrorist Obama is preparing to unleash to fight another day:
President Barack Obama is about to release or transfer 55 Gitmo prisoners, despite reports that the Libyan believed to be behind the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was a former Guantanamo inmate transferred to Libyan custody.
[...] A release or transfer of 55 inmates means Obama is moving out one third of the prisoners at Guantanamo. And while it doesn’t represent a shutdown of the facility, it’s certainly indicative of a move toward that end.
Obama Didn’t Consult Military Commanders On Afghanistan Withdrawal, Scheduled Retreat To Boost Reelection Campaign
To Obama, the American military is serving on his behalf rather than to defend America, and so the lives of America’s brave men and women in uniform can be put at risk and used as pawns for political expediency…and that’s exactly what he’s doing.
I still think the surge was the right thing to do because it arrested the Taliban’s momentum in southern Afghanistan and at least gives breathing room for the development of Afghan National Security Forces. But in retrospect, it is obvious that the president’s critics were more right than wrong. For evidence look no further than this excerpt from New York Times reporter David Sanger’s new book, which, as Jonathan discussed yesterday, appeared on the front page of the Sunday Times. It quotes an unnamed Obama adviser as follows: “The military was ‘all in,’ as they say, and Obama wasn’t.”
Then Sanger writes that “by early 2011, Mr. Obama had seen enough. He told his staff to arrange a speedy, orderly exist from Afghanistan.” The critical decisions about drawing down troops—with 32,000 departing by the end of September 2012—were apparently made by political aides in the White House without consulting General Petraeus in Afghanistan or other generals or, until the very end, Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton.
This is breathtaking. Commanders on the ground and senior officials at the Department of Defense are not always right, and their recommendations do not always have to be followed by a president. But the commander-in-chief at least has an obligation to solicit their views and take them into careful consideration. Apparently Obama didn’t do that because he wanted to avoid the leaks that attended his previous decision-making process on Afghanistan in the fall of 2009. So he decided to end the surge in September 2012, which Sanger erroneously describes as “after the summer fighting season” (the fighting season actually lasts until late October or early November) and accurately describes as “before the election.” Meaning, of course, our presidential election.
This confirms the worst suspicions of Obama’s critics—namely that he was never committed to victory in Afghanistan and was instead committed to bringing troops home early so as to position himself advantageously for his own reelection. These revelations raise serious questions in my mind about the morality of the entire surge—about the morality of risking troops’ lives and limbs for a goal that is not worthy of their sacrifice.
H/T Weasel Zippers
President Obama has spent the last three years trying to figure out how to turn over Afghanistan to the Taliban without taking the political heat for it. In the process, the Obama Administration has committed a betrayal of our troops so stunning that anything done to them in or after Vietnam pales in comparison.
While the Taliban kills our troops and innocent bystanders in Afghanistan, the Obama Administration is fighting to give them the one thing they can’t seem to win on the battle field: control over the whole country.
It is no accident that despite the deployment of 33,000 troops under Obama, the Taliban in Afghanistan has thrived and grown, as documented by a recent Congressional report released earlier this week. This has happened while the Pakistani Taliban and insurgent groups have been assassinated or bombed into relative submission by our drones next door in Pakistan.
Why haven’t we been as successful, or as aggressive, in Afghanistan? Evidence is mounting daily that the Obama Administration has not only held back in Afghanistan, but has deliberately undermined the war effort there.
A stunning Washington Post piece on Sunday documented how we’ve been secretly releasing captured combatants from Afghan jails to placate the Taliban and other insurgent groups and entice them to negotiate with us. Administration officials wouldn’t say if these terrorist thugs went on to murder our troops, probably because they have.
Why are we so interested in kissing up to these thugs? Obama ultimately intends for the Taliban to rule Afghanistan again, a development that could destabilize the whole region.
It is part of an administration policy called “legitimate Islamism,” and conservatives need to wake up and understand what it means. Basically, as explained by an Obama surrogate in the National Journal recently, Obama is seeking to put radical Islamists in power in country after country on the theory that if they have a “legitimate” government to run, they won’t join Al Qaida and attack us.
So far, Obama has succeeded in overthrowing or destabilizing secular forces everywhere his administration has meddled except Afghanistan. From Libya to Egypt to Yemen, the Obama administration has turned its back on or actively removed leaders who — whether we like them or not — have kept radical Islamists in check. In their place, administration officials have nurtured the radical Muslim Brotherhood and other like-minded groups. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are the administration’s radical Islamic overlords of choice.
Apparently there is no bar below which Obama will not stoop.
Today, President Obama essentially declared victory in Afghanistan. Just in time for his re-election campaign, of course.
First, he blamed President Bush for us not winning the Afghanistan war sooner. “Despite initial success, for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated,” said Obama. What were those reasons? “America spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in Iraq.”
Then he claimed credit for President Bush’s goals: “The goal that I set – to defeat al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild – is within reach.” Only that was Bush’s goal, not Obama’s. Obama was late to the party; he was busy accusing American troops of air-raiding villages and killing civilians.
Obama couldn’t avoid playing politics. After all, that’s why he was in Afghanistan in the first place, just in time for the anniversary of Osama Bin Laden’s killing.
And Bin Laden played a crucial part in the speech. “Over the last three years,” Obama said, “the tide has turned.” Except for the massive increase in American deaths and loss of control in Afghanistan, of course. Hamid Karzai has been busily working with the Iranian regime to ensure that he has support once the United States leaves.
Obama’s main point is that if he’s left in charge – if he’s re-elected – he will withdraw all American troops by 2014. Once again, we get his reiterated timeline – a timeline he spelled out last year, and that has not changed. So he’s reiterating what we already knew. In primetime.
Of course, Obama also made empty promises about how we would ensure security after pulling out (similar promises to those in Iraq have not been fulfilled):
The agreement we signed today sends a clear message to the Afghan people: as you stand up, you will not stand alone. It establishes the basis of our cooperation over the next decade, including shared commitments to combat terrorism and strengthen democratic institutions. It supports Afghan efforts to advance development and dignity for their people. And it includes Afghan commitments to transparency and accountability, and to protect the human rights of all Afghans – men and women, boys and girls.
Except that they will stand alone, since the United States will not even stand against the Taliban. As Obama said, “In coordination with the Afghan government, my Administration has been in direct discussions with the Taliban. We have made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws.” Sure. No doubt the Taliban will make such promises. Then, when they regain power, we’ll do nothing. The pattern has already been established in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt.
FACT: Although he has overseen the nearly 11-year Afghanistan War for less than four years, almost 70% of all U.S. military casualties have come during the Obama presidency.
FACT: Nearly 100 American soldiers have died in Afghanistan in the last 122 days alone.
FACT: Barack Obama has not made a substantive statement on the Afghanistan conflict for nearly ONE YEAR.
FACT: Despite all but ignoring Afghanistan for much of his presidency, Barack Obama has devoted far more time to 124 campaign fundraisers, golf games, and vacations.
FACT: During his 11-minute campaign stop in Afghanistan yesterday, Barack Obama declared that America was not “worthy” of the soldiers’ sacrifice – indicating he as president will work to further improve the country for another four years.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma had some choice words regarding Obama’s blatant campaigning in Afghanistan:
“We’ve seen recently that President Obama has visited college campuses in an attempt to win back the support of that age group since he has lost it over the last three years,” Inhofe said in a statement, first reported by CNN.
“Similarly, this trip to Afghanistan is an attempt to shore up his national security credentials, because he has spent the past three years gutting our military.”
Inhofe said the president “has allowed Washington and campaign politics to dictate his strategy in Afghanistan rather than the conditions on the ground.”
Essentially what the administration is saying here is that the Commander-in-Chief doesn’t trust the everyday Americans who have volunteered to put their lives on the line to defend this country. He’s afraid of heroes like that. He wants them disarmed and under his control.
Obama has done so much to degrade, insult and alienate our men and women in uniform…now he’s even disarming them in combat zones where they could easily become unarmed targets for the enemy. What does that do to their morale, to have their own leaders put their lives unnecessarily at risk?
What do you say to a spouse or parent who anxiously awaits the return of their husband or wife, son or daughter, and finds out they were stripped of their weapons and deliberately left defenseless in a combat zone BY THEIR OWN SECRETARY OF DEFENSE?
Who would YOU trust your life or the life of your spouse or child to? The Obama administration, or the Marines? Who has proven more trustworthy?
Hamid Karzai, who only came to power in Afghanistan thanks to American support, has the audacity to demand that American troops who disposed of contraband Korans – that had been defaced with coded messages from terrorist prisoners – be put on trial and punished according to Sharia law.
First, burning a Koran is NOT against Sharia law. Secondly, this was on a US military base, which is sovereign US territory. Local laws do not apply. Third, the only penalty which satisfies “blasphemy” (which, of course, is what they consider this to be) is death. So unless we turn our soldiers over to be executed, they’ll NEVER be satisfied. That, of course, is out of the question!
Obama’s dhimmi groveling earns us nothing but contempt and aggression from the Muslim world.
Three days after President Barack Obama dispatched his ambassador to Afghanistan to hand deliver a personal letter from the president of the United States to Afghan President Hamid Karzai apologizing because U.S. forces at Bagram Air Force Base had mistakenly burnt some Korans, Karzai has responded to the gesture in a statement broadcast live on Afghan television.
Karzai, according to a BBC translation of his remarks made Sunday, told the Afghan people he was speaking to them after discussing the matter with “jihadi leaders,” “prominent scholars,” and Afghan elected officials, and that he spoke for the “pure sentiments” of the “Afghan nation” and the “Islamic world,” when he said: “We call on the US government to bring the perpetrators of the act to justice and put them on trial and punish them.”
Karzai’s doing this because he can. And the reason he can is because all Obama has displayed up to this point is weakness.
Think about it: although U.S. military personnel have come forward to say the materials were only burned was because of the messages and inscriptions detainees had written within them, Obama has apologized twice to Karzai. One apology was what you’d call a regular apology, and the second one was what Obama spokesman Jay Carney called a “severe apology.”
What’s next? Will we offer to behead ourselves so Taliban and Al Qaeda members don’t have to go through all the hassle of catching us and tying us up?
Obama may have missed this, but we are at war in that part of the world. Not a play war, like on Xbox, but a real war where American men and women in uniform are in harm’s way day and night. We’ve already lost two brave military personnel via an Afghan solider who was incited by the alleged burning of these materials, used by detainees to exchange extremist messages. And our troops could face even more loses if Obama doesn’t stand up and fight for change.
If Obama would do that, this situation could be handled quickly.
When Karzai asks for our troops to be put on trial for burning the religious materials that contained the extremist messages, we should simply ask whether he’ll put the extremist who shot and killed two of our soldiers on trial as well.
And when Karzai asks for an apology so he can show the power he has over the American president, we should remind him that he only rules Afghanistan by our good graces and financial support. In no uncertain terms, we should let him know that the next time an Afghan soldier shoots an American, the financial aid disappears for good. Period.
We have to deal from a position of strength because doing anything less is self-imposed weakness.
Right now we’re in trouble, not because we burned religious materials that contained extremist messages, but because we are projecting weakness.
The Korans were burnt because they had been defaced with coded extremist messages from terrorist prisoners to one another, and destroying the contraband this way is NOT against Sharia law.
These soldiers were doing their jobs correctly, and the Taliban are simply exploiting this as a reason to incite anti-American riots so they can get themselves back into power.
Yet Obama apologizes to the terrorists who murdered this young father. This grieving family deserves a president who stands up to defend our heroes and demands an apology from his murderers instead of groveling to them!
Forgiveness is a discipline that transcends cultures and bridges many divides when words fail. Without it, the world would look like the chaotic mess that is Afghanistan these days, where an alleged Quran burning by the U.S. military supposedly inspired deadly riots and the murder of U.S. troops.
The more the Obama administration apologizes for the burning, the more it fuels the sweltering rage within those who would much rather watch the world burn than to live in peace. Ahem. So, why are we apologizing, yet again? Because we have an administration that would rather bow to Saudi kings or to political pressure than stand up for the men and women who stand in harm’s way.
What was the Obama administration thinking when it sent senior Pentagon official Peter Lavoy to apologize to a group of D.C. area Muslims during their prayer services at ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia on February 24, 2012? Reports say Lavoy apologized numerous times during his brief speech at the Adams Center, which, incidentally, is one of the largest mosques in America.
According to a February 25 Fox News report, Lavoy told the group, the books were burned “unknowingly and improperly” and said our military “neglected, out of ignorance, long-established, correct procedures for handling religious materials.”
The Defense Department procedures he was most likely referring to instructs our military to handle the Quran using “clean gloves” that must be “put on in full view of the detainees prior to handling,” using two hands “at all times…in manner signaling respect and reverence,” and handling it “as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art.”
Lavoy reminded listeners that a string of Obama administration apologies to the Muslim world had already been lifted up by way of ISAF Commander General John Allen and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as well as a personal letter written by President Obama and personally delivered to Afghan President Hamid Karzai via U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
Lavoy reiterated “that apologies are never enough and do not erase this incident,” and then really stepped in it when he promised “We will hold people appropriately accountable.”
Sounds good. But, there are two sides to every story. Promising that people will be held “appropriately accountable” without full disclosure as to the circumstances surrounding the incident is disingenuous considering that the people to be held “accountable” may very well be scapegoats. I’ll admit I’m a bit defensive, because I have family members who faithfully serve.
Here’s the skinny:
CBS News reported February 21, 2012 that an anonymous “military official with knowledge of the incident” said it appeared the Qurans and “other Islamic readings were being used to fuel extremism, and that detainees at Parwan Detention Facility were writing on the documents to exchange extremist messages.”
Representative Allen West (R-FL) who was appointed to both the House Armed Services Committee and Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee concurs with the CBS report. In his February 26, 2012 newsletter, West said the Parwan detainees “used the Koran [Quran] to write jihadist messages.”
Based on this information, the detainees, and not the military, are to blame for the incident because they defiled their own sacred books, hence violating both Islamic cultural practices and the Parwan Detention facility contraband rules.
According to the same CBS report, Islamic teaching mandates that defiled Qurans be “burned or buried” meaning there is much ado about nothing because the military followed Islamic teaching as well as their own procedures for disposal of contraband.
I just put my boots on because it’s getting quite deep around here; shoveling manure is dirty business. As I see it, the only apology needed is to the U.S. military, which once again did their duty and are being blamed for it.