Closing Guantanamo Without a Plan

As he promised during the campaign, President Obama has signed an Executive Order requiring the closure of the Guantanamo detainment facility. Aside from being an idealistic and stupid idea, it was exacerbated by Obama's's lack of any plan for dealing with the terrorists housed there. Keep in mind that the Bush administration and the military have released hundreds of detainees from Guantanamo, presumably those deemed least dangerous. About 10 percent of those released have gone back to try and kill our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. What percentage of the hardcore terrorists are likely to go back to attacking our soldiers - or worse, attack American citizens on American soil? This is not just hypothetical. A Guantanamo detainee released in 2007 has just emerged as a deputy leader of the Al Qaeda branch in Yemen. I guess you can take the man out of the terrorist group, but you can't take the terrorist out of the man. Maybe if we all hold hands, think utopian thoughts and sing songs from the 1960's, they will be moved and decide to embrace a completely different world-view. Then again, maybe they'll just opt for the 72 virgins, press the detonator for their suicide belt and try to kill and maim as many of us as they can.

Propaganda By the Numbers

Once again, Hamas has played fast and loose with the facts -- more specifically, the number of civilian deaths in the recent clash between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. A Gazan doctor, who didn't give his name because he wanted to live for at least another 24 hours, told an Italian newspaper:

"The number of deceased stands at no more than 500 to 600. Most of them are youths between the ages of 17 to 23 who were recruited to the ranks of Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter,"

A resident of Tal al-Hawa, who also preferred to not paint a target on his own back, had this to say to the newspaper:

"Armed Hamas men sought out a good position for provoking the Israelis. There were mostly teenagers, aged 16 or 17, and armed. They couldn't do a thing against a tank or a jet. They knew they are much weaker, but they fired at our houses so that they could blame Israel for war crimes."

Read more on this story at Ynetnews.com.

Meryl Yourish has also posted on this story. However, her post also contains links to video evidence of previous fallacious claims by Hamas. I recommend you check them out. You will discover how the UN is used by Hamas and that the "dead" can come back to life!

Hamas' Crucifixion Revival

Hamas must be concerned that all the portrayals of them as victims in the recent Middle East unpleasantness is harming their image as terrorists and ruthless thugs.  On Christmas Day 2008 (no subtlety intended, I'm sure), Hamas legislators legalized the crucifixion of "enemies of Islam", according to Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick.

Apparently, building a Colosseum and rounding up some hungry lions was too much trouble.

Postmodernism & the Middle-East

In his latest article, "The Gaza Rules", Victor Davis Hanson provides an excellent summary of how the usual rules have been turned upside-down when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here is a sample:

Watching both this week's war and the world's predictable reaction to it, we can recall the Gaza rules. Most are reflections of our postmodern age, and completely at odds with the past protocols of war.

First is the now-familiar Middle East doctrine of proportionality. Legitimate military action is strangely defined by the relative strength of the combatants. World opinion more vehemently condemns Israel's countermeasures, apparently because its rockets are far more accurate and deadly than previous Hamas barrages that are poorly targeted and thus not so lethal.

If America had accepted such rules in, say, World War II, then by late 1944 we, not the Axis, would have been the culpable party, since by then once-aggressive German, Italian and Japanese forces were increasingly on the defensive and far less lethal than the Allies.

Now go read the other four points that VDH makes in his very timely article.

Silencing Sarah

Sarah Palin was invited to speak at a rally protesting Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance at the UN. The very pro-Israel speech she would have given really puts the wood to ol' Mahmoud. When fellow invitee Hillary Clinton found out Sarah had been invited, she threw a fit and refused to participate. The reason given was that inviting Sarah was a "partisan move".  (Isn't it interesting that she considers inviting representatives from both political parties to be partisan.) The organizers of the rally/protest withdrew their invitation to Sarah as a result of Hillary's tantrum. 

However, a major news source has published the transcript of the speech Sarah Palin had prepared for the rally. No, it wasn't Fox, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard or any other traditional "Conservative" outlets.  The very Left-wing Israeli paper Haaretz (think New York Times, LA Times or Minneapolis Star Tribune) has made a point to publish the speech. It seems that when you have a soon-to-be-nuclear power, led by an unabashed anti-Semite with delusions of finishing what Hitler started, within missile range or your home, you get a clearer understanding of who is on your side. You can read Sarah's speech here.

HT: Prager

The Nebulous Definition of "The Bush Doctrine"

Chuck Gibson's interview of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin was nothing more than a continuation of the attacks on her by the Left-Wing Media elite. The question that best confirms this assessment was, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"  Sarah's response, which was to ask "In what respect, Charlie?", was the proper response because there is no single definition for the term Bush Doctrine. All one needs to do is to read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry for The Bush Doctrine. The following is the relevant section (emphasis added):

It may be viewed as a set of several related foreign policy principles, including stress on ending terrorism, spreading democracy, increased unilateralism in foreign policy and an expanded view of American national security interests. Foreign policy experts argue over the meaning of the term "Bush Doctrine," and some scholars have suggested that there is no one unified theory underlying Bush's foreign policy. Jacob Weisberg identifies six successive "Bush Doctrines" in his book The Bush Tragedy, while former Bush staffer Peter D. Feaver has counted seven.

Now, put yourself in her place. You are asked if you agree with a term that has several possible meanings. No matter which one you pick, the inquisitor can decide that the definition he meant was one of those you didn't pick. It's a bit like someone holding their hands behind their back and asking how many fingers they are holding up. No matter what number you give, they can arrogantly display their recently altered finger count and proclaim you an idiot for not getting it right.

Well, Chuck did his best, but all he succeeded in doing was to give the Kos-DU-HuffPo crowd something to cackle about. For the rest of us out here in middle America, we saw a confident, composed, strong woman who stood toe-to-toe with an aggressively biased Left-wing Media snob. Could she have done better? Yes, I think there were questions she could have handled better. More importantly, there were no Biden-like gaffes -- or if you prefer, Obama-like gaffes.

And what about Chuck's idea of what the Bush Doctrine means? To his credit, he narrowed the timeframe to, ". . . the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war." Then he defined it (emphasis added):

The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.

If that is the Bush Doctrine, then virtually every leader of every civilization in history agreed with it. If FDR had received information on December 6th that the Japanese fleet was going to attack Pearl Harbor the following day, is there any doubt that he would have ordered a preemptive strike? Of course he would have. However, Chuck got it wrong according to the previously referenced Wikipedia entry. Again, I will quote the relevant section (again, emphasis added):

Other foreign policy experts have taken the term to mean Bush's doctrine of preventive war, first articulated in 2002, which holds that the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States, even if such threats are not immediate and no attack is imminent. This policy was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

I am certain, given Chuck's obvious bias, that this was the policy he intended to trap her with. Unfortunately, he couldn't get it right and he failed miserably in trying to make her look bad. In fact, his ineptitude gave her the perfect opportunity to highlight what almost all Americans know in this election:  If we want to be safe from enemies, foreign and domestic, the only choice is McCain-Palin.

Never Forget

September 11, 2001

Full Betancourt Interview

Former FARC hostage, Ingrid Betancourt, is interviewed by NBC's Ann Curry. I found the interview quite interesting. In the full interview, Betancourt discusses how her faith sustained her and how God answered her prayer. Needless to say, not much of that part of the interview made it "on air".

Habeas Ruling and Election '08

Hugh Hewitt's column at Townhall.com, The United States Supreme Court Versus America: Awarding "The Privilege of Habeas Corpus To Terrorists", addresses the outrageous, irresponsible and narrow 5-4 SCOTUS ruling handed down today. The following is a portion of Justice Scalia's sobering dissent from Hugh's column:

America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen. See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 60–61, 70, 190 (2004). On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, D. C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. See id., at 552, n. 9. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.

The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.

Like Hugh, I pray that Scalia is wrong, but I have no doubt that he absolutely correct.

Hugh puts much of the blame for this ruling at the feet of Justice Kennedy, and rightly so. Of the five justices in the majority, he was the only one who might have decided differently. The next President will likely have at least 2-3 vacancies to fill on the Supreme Court. Barak Obama has stated that his appointments will be in the mold of Justice Ginsberg. John McCain has repeatedly stated that he will appoint justices like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Ginsberg has just decided that foreign terrorists who want to destroy us, our country and our way of life deserve the same Constitutional protections that we, as citizens, have. Roberts and Alito, along with Thomas and Scalia, dissented from that view.

I have never been a McCain fan. Not even close. However, there are two issues that will affect this country for decades to come: the GWOT and the Supreme Court. McCain is absolutely right on both issues. Obama is absolutely wrong on both issues. When it comes to my choice for President this year, I have only one option. And it is not Barak Obama.

For Those With Ears to Hear

John Hinderaker's Powerline post, Are We Safer?, provides the empirical evidence which answers that question for any reasonable person. It is astonishing that, not only have there been no successful attacks inside the United States since 9/11/01, there have also been no successful attacks on U.S. interests overseas for over 4 years. One could attempt to attribute this to the long periods of time that traditionally elapse between al Qaeda attacks. However, that doesn't explain all of the attacks cited by Hinderaker for each year from 1995 through 2001. Also, the longest stretch without an attack was from 1988 to 1991 -- three years. Most of the attacks were within 1-2 years of the last attack. With respect to the lack of attacks abroad, they are significantly more vulnerable than mainland targets. Yet, no successful attacks.

Success in the past does not guaranty success in the future. However, it does indicate that President Bush has been doing something right in preventing further terrorist attacks. There are many reasons to be unhappy with the President, but this is not one of them.

Google: Free Speech for Terrorists

UPI has reported that Google has refused to remove all terrorist videos from YouTube. In defending their decision, Google issued as statement that, in part, says:

". . . YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view."

Apparently, this policy doesn't apply in Communist totalitarian regimes which have a population of more than 1 billion people and are located in Asia. Fortunately, we live in the good ol' USA where we are free to have the propaganda of our worst enemies -- people who would love to rip your child's face off with piano wire while you watch in horror -- treated the same as some teenager's anti-Archuleta rant.

At least we know that Google won't let any sense of morality cloud their judgment. That task is reserved for "the bottom line".

Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself

As usual, the Left-stream Media has failed to bring this story to our attention. This past Sunday morning, airport security at Tampa International Airport found a box cutter hidden in a hollowed out book in the backpack of a 21 year old man from Clearwater, Florida.

After Baines was read his rights, he said his cousin had cut away the pages to make the hollow section in the book. Later, reports state, he said he had hollowed it out himself to hide money and marijuana from his roommates.

Baines told officers he was moving to Las Vegas and forgot the cutter was in the book. Officers found books in the backpack titled "Muhammad in the Bible," "The Prophet's Prayer" and "The Noble Qur'an." He also had a copy of the Quran and the Bible.

Oh, yes. There is one more thing. The title of the hollowed out book was Fear Itself.

Thanks to Hugh Hewitt (and James Lileks who gave Hugh the "heads up" on this story) for bringing this story into the light.

Translated Video Reveals Jihadist Plot

Canada's National Post reports on a potentially new weapon of Islamofascist Jihadists: Snowballs.

HT: Jihad Watch

The Morphing of AQI

In his post, The Morphing War Against Al Qaeda in Iraq, Douglas Farah suggests that the recent reports of the beating Al Qaeda in Iraq is taking at the hands of American and Iraqi forces, should not be overstated. AQI is in trouble, but they are not yet defeated. Farah believes that AQI may be changing their strategy:

One of the fundamental truths of dealing with networks, terrorist or otherwise, is that they will morph quickly to survive and adapt as the environment around them changes...

...The strategy [of AQI] may now be to move outside Iraq and wage a different type of war from surrounding countries.

Farah recalls the South American drug wars of the 1980s and 1990s as an example of the difficulty in defeating a network that is intent on survival.

HT: Counterterrorism Blog