Terrorism

Somebody missed the signs on this nutcase!  Some armed citizens might have help end it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23059784/

This article, from the on-line New York Times, best describes the challenges facing the next president.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?pagewanted=8&_r=1&th&emc=th

I always remain surprised that candidtaes are not asked who they would consider ideal members of their cabinet if they were elected.    This would be a significant insight into a candidate's thinking and policies.      

Dammit.

Last night,  The Commonwealth Club program on Will-AM played an October presentaion by retired general and former presidential candidate Wesley Clark.

He spoke of the mismanaged and lack of a coherent foreign policy when he was in the military (and how this is a problem of both major political parties), the invasion mentality of the most influential advisors of the current president, and the directions the U.S. needs to take to maintain its position as a global leader.

Some of his experiences concerning national foreign policy are very unnerving, and worth listening to

To hear his remarks, go to the following link and scroll down to the Oct 3rd program

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/

Wesley Clark would seem a better president than any of the current candidates, either Republican or Democrat.

You can add that to the list of things that you thought you'd never see me write.

A summary:

Clinton's 50-minute speech, which started about an hour behind schedule, was derailed briefly by several hecklers in the audience who shouted that the 2001 terrorist attacks were a fraud. Rather than ignoring them, Clinton seemed to relish a direct confrontation.

"A fraud? No, it wasn't a fraud," Clinton said, as the crowd cheered him on. "I'll be glad to talk to you if you shut up and let me talk."

When another heckler shouted that the attacks were an "inside job," Clinton took even greater umbrage.

"An inside job? How dare you. How dare you. It was not an inside job," Clinton said. "You guys have got to be careful, you're going to give Minnesota a bad reputation."

Saw this come down the VA Watchdog.org wire from a Military.com article:

Why DoD Likely Will Lose Authority to Rate Disabilities

Congressional action to end the services’ authority to assign disability ratings and put the Department of Veterans Affairs in charge can’t come too soon for retired Army Lt. Col. Michael A. Parker.

Parker, 45, has complained for a couple of years to lawmakers and to the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission about lax DoD oversight of the disability rating process and unfair disability decisions across the services.

...

The VDBC uncovered a March 1985 legal opinion from the DoD general counsel that allowed the services, without notifying Congress, to begin to hold down disability ratings. The services were to stop setting disability ratings based on all ailments and injuries found during medical evaluations and to start basing them only conditions that make a member unfit for duty.

The intent, it appears, was to save on retirement and medical costs. If a service discharges a member as unfit with a rating of 20 percent or less, he or she gets only disability severance. A 30 percent or higher rating brings “retiree” status, a lifetime annuity and lifetime military healthcare.

This appears to be a serious problem for thousands of GWOT veterans these days and implementing a working solution for them and future veterans is long overdue.

One thing I noticed was blatantly absent in this article was the massive VA claims backlog already giving headaches and heartache to veterans waiting for benefits. How would this affect the backlog? One can only assume that it will only increase the number of claims in backlog and increase the wait times as well. But to what degree? Given that many of these situations would have resulted in a VA claim anyways, would it be a significant jump? People are already demanding more resources be used to fix the current backlog. One hopes that these recommendations will be followed through with the appropriate resources to deal with the increase and current backlogs as well.

Long Version: here.

According to recent polling:

33 percent of all Americans, including 40 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats, say Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

What the hell?

Where are these people?

And where are the people who are supposed to be slapping them?

Honestly!

This article http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/post-11.html#more  discusses how Alberto Gonzales has undermined federal prosecutions and undermined the effectiveness of the Justice Department.   

I just noted an article in the BBC yesterday http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6763119.stm that tells of the trouble anticipated with the knighthood of Salman Rushdie. Militant fundamentalists of any stripe are as offensive to me as they are frightening. The effect of religious fundamentalists in national and international politics is astounding. That was most recently brought to mind when  I heard that several presidential candidates admitted that they did not believe in evolution. I was floored. Is this the twenty-first century? Even the Pope acknowledges evolution, for cripes sake.

How many of those who condemn Sir Salman have even read any of his work, much less The Satanic Verses? That book was from 1988; what issues have that much staying power? Rushdie is an incredibly intelligent and eloquent voice of reason in the world today. I was just wondering what you think?

Here's the perfect plan to end the war in Iraq:

Announce a timeline thus:

After 3 days of no violence, that means: no IED explosions, no car bombings, no kidnappings, no sniper fire, no executions or any other act that injures or kills attributed to an insurgent group.  Then the US announces that the clock for the end of the war has begun.  Initial plans for troop removal begin.

After 3 weeks of no violence, US troops pull back to bases, troop patrols are only made during evening hours.  US contractors begin reconstruction of basic utilities in or near major cities where needed.

After 3 months of no violence, US announces that troop withdrawals will begin.  Execution of plans for troop withdrawal begin.  Reconstruction of basic utilities is accelerated and expanded to areas outside major cities.

After 6 months of no violence, a full withdrawal of US troops begins.  A major push in reconstruction efforts begins.  Iraqi citizens are trained in various trades to a standard of excellence necessary to ensure that reconstruction efforts are of a quality that will last.

After 1 year of no violence, the withdrawal of all troops is complete.  Only military advisors, state department, and US Embassy personnel are present in Iraq.

After 2 years of no violence, normal economic relations with the US are reinstated.

Only one iron clad rule, if a violent act occurs at any step along the way, the troops come back, and the clock starts again. 

This is the only kind of timeline that gives the law abiding citizens of Iraq a chance to get their feet underneath them and create the economic climate that keeps people from joining the insurgency.  The religious leaders can sign on to this, because they are mostly for the US troops leaving and this is the easiest way to ensure that happens.  The US gets its win and goes home.

Any takers?

I just listened to some of her looney rants from the View, as cut by OReilly.  From what I gather, she believes that the Brits were in Iranian waters, on purpose, doing American dirty work, and trying to give the US an excuse to invade Iran.  And that the poor Iranians get no respect in the American press - they are being dehumanized so they will be easier to kill.  "Gulf of Tonkin - google it".

So, anyone agree with her?

Victor Davis Hanson has a great piece today about the connection between petrodollars and terrorism around the world.  He also notes how the need for oil in industrial nations distorts interstate relations.

Could a coalition be built in Washington today to ”Ëœstarve the beast' by moving America and the world off of Middle East oil dependence?  Conservatives could ask for greater exploration and drilling in America, more nuclear plants and maybe even large cash prizes for the accomplishment of some technological breakthrough in alternative energy.  Liberals could request greater conservation mandates and more funding, tax credits or mandates for alternative energy.  Even a higher gas tax, or gas mileage luxury tax on vehicles would be open for discussion.  When any of the above expenditures are compared to the amount of money spent fighting in Iraq, they sound like a pretty good deal.

Move away from an oil-based economy and give Americans a chance to ”Ëœshare some sacrifice' in the War on Terror ”“ could the time be right for such a compromise?

Personally, conservation mandates offend my sensibilities, but in the name of draining the Iranian bank accounts I could probably be convinced.

Did you see President Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace? Even the moderate-to-liberal commentators wondered about his hyperventilation to a simple question about his administration's handling of Osama bin Laden. Hit a nerve Bill? His attack on the reporter, with the all-too-familiar squint (for maximum effect) and pointing finger (reminiscent of "I did not have..." fame) was beneath a former president.

Looks like having ABC's (you know, that vast right wing conservative network) “The Path to 9/11” actually spread the blame around to all administrations must really have gotten under his skin.

Sister Leonella, 65, muttered the words 'I forgive, I forgive' in Italian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Muslim extremists burning the Pope in effigy and calling for his murder. When will the Muslim community, locally, nationally and world-wide soundly decry this perversion of the Islam faith?

From Victor Davis Hanson today, at NRO.  A couple good quotes:

So, yes, there is the utopian logic of allowing 15,000 Saudis as goodwill ambassadors into America. But don't expect millions of us to like it ”” and don't expect us to worry whether our anger and concern seem illiberal.

And

We are not usually talking about the transition from a cosmopolitan Beirut to a somewhat comparable Salt Lake City, but from the most repressive conditions in the Arab world to the most liberal in the West ”” from the eighth-century code of behavior of Saudi Arabia to the 22nd or 23rd century postmodern world at a Berkeley or a Madison.

Read the whole thing.

I find it very amusing that Madison is compared to Berkeley as one of the most liberal places in the West.

In the end, I agree with VDH - this plans shows US as weak and greedy - are we fighting a war or not?

Both CNN and FoxNews are replaying their coverage from five years ago online.  Surreal.

UPDATE:  Man, it's tough watching the clip with the second plane flying into the Towers.

Our lives were forever changed by the events of September 11. We debate whether we are safer now than before the attack but we are certainly more personally aware of the dangers in the world because terrorism invaded our shores.

My job that horrific day was to explain the unexplainable to young 4th grade students. They had so many questions and I had no answers.

That night, as I viewed the destruction, I remember valuing my friends even more and my family most of all.

Share your 9/11 stories.

I watched the ABC docudrama "Path to 9/11". It attempts to delve into the minds and motives of the terrorists themselves, which hasn't been done before. As for the accuracy and Blame Game, well, I'll leave that for this open thread.

UPDATE: I watched the end of Part 2 and it was quite compelling and heartbreaking. Any last comments?

Maybe Rush Limbaugh is on to something.

First, we hear the news that former prez Jimmy Carter stood up for the terrorist group Hezbollah in an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel.

Then, we find out an effective means of monitoring terrorism, the foreign wiretapping program, was ruled unconstitutional by a liberal activist, nutjob judge.

Third, this ACLU mouthpiece judge was appointed by none other than...oh yeah, you guessed it...Jimmy Carter.

While I think Jimmy Carter can go and say whatever he wants to say, I have real problems with the suit the ACLU won. If a terrorist or potential terrorist plotter is calling ANYBODY in this country, I want the CIA to know about it. I would rather the CIA listen to my phone call to Baghdad on Friday and stop my plane from being blown up on Monday compared to the alternative. Right?

This should be fun.