Where Do You Go
When There's No High Road
Left To Take?

click.jpg

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Tribute to A Different Denmark

Or: Cut off their legs and feed them heroin. They are embarrassing us!

Back in December 2008, I published an entry Some highly non-PC musings on sport at my style blog, from which I take an excerpt that seems now to be eerily clairvoyant regarding the current political climate.

I stated back then that I am more than just a bit sceptical about exclusive competitions for the disabled. I thought and I think they are abortive attempts at egalitarianism and a politically correct impertinence imposed on the sport-watching public. I want to know how fast the fastest of able-bodied men can run and I think it's a thrill to watch. I don't want to know how fast a man with one leg can run and I don't want to watch him at such an excrutiating exploit either. Besides, it creates virtual ghettoes and denies that handicapped people can, in certain sports, compete successfully against able-bodied competitors.



The medallists of the individual dressage: Lis HARTEL from Denmark on Jubilee, Silver, Henri SAINT CYR from Sweden on July, Gold, and Liselott LINSENHOFF from Germany on Adular, Bronze.
Credit: IOC Olympic Museum Collections


On June 16, 1956 at Stockholm, Sweden, a woman from Denmark won the silver medal in Olympic dressage at the second Olympic Games where women were allowed to compete in this sport ever. Lis Hartel was paralysed by polio below the knees. Even though she could only walk with the aid of a stick and had to be helped on and off her horse, she won the silver medal and repeated her performance four years later at the Rome Olympics. Nowadays, she'd be confined to compete at freak shows for the sake of political correctness. Justice must prevail and we have gone a long way towards downlevelling.

My entry ended there. However, it is obvious, that there is still an even longer way to go ahead of us and we are all following it without demur.

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

Correction: Lis Hartel had won Silver 1952 in Helsinki already, so THIS was her repeat performance. My apologies for this mistake.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by The_Editrix at permanent link# 2 Comments

Heroin for Everybody!

The sickeningly PC rag Expatica is drooling enthusiastically over the latest madness:
School pupils in Copenhagen may soon be able to study Arabic as a second language under a new proposal that seeks to give a boost to children from immigrant families, city officials said Monday.

"It is very important that we give students a choice of languages that includes Arabic, as there is a need to give a helping hand to young people from the Arab-speaking countries to reinforce their education and integration into Danish society," Bo Asmus Kjeldgaard, the city's vice-mayor in charge of youth policy, told AFP.

It would be offered alongside other foreign languages already taught in Denmark such as English, French and German.

All four languages would be offered as options for the entrance exams that pupils have to sit at 15 to get into high school.

By offering Arabic on the curriculum, the idea is to give children from immigrant families a better chance at succeeding in those tests.

Copenhagen has asked Denmark's education ministry, which must agree to the proposals, to start teaching Arabic when students return to school in August from their summer holidays.

Some 10 percent of Copenhagen's 31,000 secondary school pupils speak the language as their mother tongue, city authorities said.

Despite counting just six percent non-citizens among its 5.5 million inhabitants, Denmark has long struggled to integrate its immigrant population amid widespread skepticism of foreigners, especially those who are Muslim.

Kjeldgaard said it would also be a huge advantage in the future for Danish companies doing business with Arab countries.
Yeah, right! All the so far un-integrable rabble will now magically turn into top-managers and further the the future of Danish companies doing business with Arab countries. Without speaking Danish, of course.

And now lets cut off the legs of all able-bodied Danish athletes so that they can compete with the physically handicapped on the same level at those freak shows called "paralympics" and distribute free heroin to everybody so that those poor addicts won't feel rejected, ostracized and marginalized anymore.

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by The_Editrix at permanent link# 0 Comments

Memorial Day

Arlington - Changing of the Guard - Tomb of the Unknown Soldier




United States Marines Silent Drill Team in France

Bookmark and Share
posted by Grant Jones at permanent link# 0 Comments

Torture & 4 NYC Terrorists


Reference: USA TODAY - THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2009 - 3A

Lately all the talk has been Torture or Not Torture. I think the mistake people who support the water boarding of terrorists are making is denying that it IS torture. Rather than playing the nuanced game of what is and what isn't, why not just agree that it is. Instead, we can start talking about what really matters: Does torture work? Should torture be used in certain cases?

Anti-torture advocates are using the game of playing language and then deflecting the issue. It all depends on what IS is. Right? Pres. Clinton's perjury became a question of morality, deflecting the issue and saving his presidency. Holier than thou Republicans fell into the trap and dismantled their own weapon.

While all this is going on 4 Muslim men are arrested in NYC last Wednesday as they planned to bomb a synagogue and shoot military planes.

"While the bombs these terrorists attempted to plant tonight were - unbeknownst to them - fake, this latest attempt to attack our freedoms shows that the homeland security threats against New York City are sadly all too real," New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement.

According to the USA Today article, the FBI had been acting undercover, and were told by one of the terrorists, Cromitie, that his parents had lived in Afghanistan and that he was upset by the amount of Muslims killed there.


Really, Cromitie? This reminds me of Black on Black crime, ignored by Black Americans. Instead the focus is always on the everyone-else-on Black crime. What about the period of Taliban rule? How well did the people of Afghanistan fare? Muslim on Muslim crime?

I assume, Cromitie expects us all to understand his logic that the USA only came into Afghanistan to cause murder and destruction post-9-11.

Cromitie said if he died a martyr, he would go to paradise and that he wanted to do "something to America," the complaint said.

Unfortunately, this very important development was buried towards the back end of the USA Today issue. How is that not front page news? Especially considering our current Terrorist / Torture topic?

Rep. Pete King, the senior Republican on the House of Representatives' Homeland Security Committee, said the four men were born in the United States and were all Muslim, one born to a Muslim family of Afghan descent and three who converted in prison.

Homegrown American-Muslim terrorists and the possibility of prison being a new breeding ground for conversion to Radical-Islam are all important and dark facts which we need to wake up to.

And yet Pres Obama and company expect us to accept Gitmo Terrorists into our Prison system.

Let's now turn to the next buried page 8A of the same USA Today issue.

According to an unreleased Pentagon report, "...one in seven of the 534 prisoners transferred abroad from the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have returned to terrorism or militant activity..."

And more incredibly:

Two adminstration officials who spoke to the Times on condition of anonymity said the report was being held up by Pentagon employees fearful of upsetting the White House.
Imagine that. Our White House is upset people are learning about the dangers of bringing the terrorists into our backyard, instead of being upset that the terrorists are even allowed to return to killing us. Is something a big backward here? Anyone? Yay or Nay?
The President is making molotov cocktails.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by sir_publius_platypus at permanent link# 0 Comments

Bloggers And The Potential For Getting Sued

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 2 Comments

I Love This Woman!



Hat Tip: Infidels are Cool



Watch Liz Cheney destroy Lawrence O'Donnell here.

Hat Tip: Texas for Sarah Palin


Once again, the powerful and forthright Liz Cheney annihilates all liberal, goose stepping devotees of Obama Nation!

Sarah Palin-Liz Cheney 2012...that's the ticket, YOU BETCHA!!!

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Carlos Echevarria at permanent link# 0 Comments

Child Camel Jockeys In The UAE

From Bare Naked Islam:



Yes, some compensation is now being distributed. How fairly, we will never know.

But the fact remains that the UAE, supposedly a civilized and modern Islamic country, enslaved these children for quite a period of time and basically ran a slave trade. We should note that the UAE didn't enslave Arab children in that manner.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 0 Comments

Graf Zeppelin, Memorial Day 1928

The Picture is from Shorpy's. The Idea from Ace.

Just a really cool picture. Imagine what it must have been like to see that thing floating over your city.

Clickie for really biggie (& when you do, count the number of stars on that flag)

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

Hunger is a Human Condition, too

Like KD Lang, he was once part of the "new country" movement as well

We got some beans and some good corn bread. . .


Lyle Lovett and His Large Band
CHURCH

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

Please Remember That This Is a Human Condition ...

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

Could All Particles Be Mini Black Holes?

I love this. This tickles my brain, and soul, in a way I can't explain.


The idea that all particles are mini black holes has major implications for both particle physics and astrophysics, say scientists.
Thursday, May 14, 2009

Could it really be possible that all particles are mini-black holes? That's the tantalising suggestion from Donald Coyne from UC Santa Cruz (now deceased) and D C Cheng from the Almaden Research Center near San Jose.

Black holes are regions of space in which gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape.

The trouble with gravity is that on anything other than an astrophysical scale, it is so weak that it can safely be ignored. However, many physicists have assumed that on the tiniest scale, the Planck scale, gravity regains its strength. 

In recent years some evidence to support this contention has emerged from string theory where gravity plays a stronger role in higher dimensional space. It's only in our four dimensional space that gravity appears so weak. 

Since these dimensions become important only on the Planck scale, it's at that level that gravity re-asserts itself. And if that's the case, then mini-black holes become a possibility.

Coyne and Cheng ask what properties black holes might have on that scale and it turns out that they may be far more varied than anyone imagined. The quantisation of space on this level means that mini-black holes could turn up at all kinds of energy levels. They predict the existence of huge numbers of black hole particles at different energy level. So common are these black holes that the authors suggest that: 

"All particles may be varying forms of stabilized black holes"

That's an ambitious claim that'll need plenty of experimental backing. The authors say this may come from the LHC, which could begin to probe the energies at which these kinds of black holes will be produced. 

The authors end with the caution that it would be wrong to think of the LHC as a "black hole factory"; not because it won't produce black holes (it almost certainly will), but because, if they are right, every other particle accelerator in history would have been producing black holes as well.

In fact, if this thinking is correct, there's a very real sense in which we are made from black holes. Curious! 

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0905.1667: A Scenario for Strong Gravity in Particle Physics: An Alternative Mechanism for Black Holes to Appear at Accelerator Experiments




I’m not that sharp on Physics, but here’s a question;

Could the idea that all particles are a type of mini black hole, perhaps, explain “Dark Matter”?

For one thing, the idea that “all particles” are black holes is clearly speculative, and probably just a “hip” scientist way of saying, hey, some of these particles could be mini black holes.

Hence,

“Coyne and Cheng ask what properties black holes might have on that scale and it turns out that they may be far more varied than anyone imagined. The quantisation of space on this level means that mini-black holes could turn up at all kinds of energy levels. They predict the existence of huge numbers of black hole particles at different energy level.”

To me, it sounds like they are either saying 

1) that any given particle could be a turn into a black hole, 

Or 

2) that, some particles, based upon their makeup, could turn into black holes.

In that case, we may have found the origin of Dark Matter.

What do you think?

Am I full of it?

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 12 Comments

Infidel Babes Of The Week

It's a menage a trois of babes this week.


May 7, 1924. "Three models from Washington's spring fashion show snapped at Arlington Beach." National Photo Company glass negative. View full size.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

The Truth Explodes

If you didn't get a chance to listen live to WC & Always on Watch at The Gathering Storm Radio Show (those dang pesky paying gigs we have) you might want to pop over as soon as you can and give a listen. A full hour of IBA Bloggers! (the free world may never be the same)

First half hour was with Culturist John explaining how of Politically Correct Politicians and multi-Culturist attitudes just may be the death of us yet. And how Cutlurism is perceived as racism, especially in Europe. As Pastorius said to me, John always seems to be able to see around a corner nobody else even knows is there.

Then John is joined by myself and Pastorius for a lively discussion on the fates of Europe, multi-culturism, Geert Wilders, Red House, Islamberg, Falls Church, Sedition and why it's not be prosecuted in this country, and what that could mean for us. A lively discussion that somehow, and we don't know how she did it, Always on Watch actually managed to get a sentence in.

What will it take to wake up America? Sadly, something catastrophic. We're too dumbed down by American Idol and it's ilk. The information is out there but nobody WANTS to look for it because nobody KNOWS to look for it.

That I blame on the media. Squarely. Who'll, of course, breathlessly cover every agonizing second of the next attack, wondering how in the world this could have happened? Why would they do this? Why weren't we prepared.

It's up to people like IBA to keep shouting at the top of their lungs to get the message out. To warn people and open their eyes. Hopefully before it's too late.

A great discussion over at The Gathering Storm.


Page & Plant
Yallah
(The Truth Explodes)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 25 Comments

Friday, May 22, 2009

An Infidel's Saying "Hello" Offends Moslem

Via this posting at Jihad Watch:
When the landlady of my Toronto apartment building said an outraged neighbour had filed a complaint about me over an apparently inappropriate hallway interaction with his wife, my mind raced through the countless conversations I've had with fellow tenants, none of which seemed a possible source of offence.

It turns out, it wasn't a salacious transaction that had caused the complaint, but rather a neighbourly and -- to me -- entirely forgettable greeting, little more than a brief "good morning" as I passed my neighbours on the way to work.
An infidel's wishing a good day to a Moslem apparently isn't a courtesy. Rather, it is an insult.

The article in the National Post (via Jihad Watch) continues:
Still, it was enough of an affront for the man -- once a doctor somewhere in the Middle East, my landlady clarified -- to feel I had broken a cultural taboo. The incident started an awkward feud which has involved warnings not to repeat my indiscretion and one face-to-face shouting match, which included allusions to my impending death.

I expect the battle will wage on, as we appear to be stuck at an impasse.

His Muslim upbringing has ingrained in him a sense of entitlement to demand I not speak directly to his wife; and my prairie upbringing has ingrained in me a duty to strive for polite cohesion with my neighbours....
Here in Northern Virginias, we have a lot of Moslem bank tellers, many wearing hijabs. You may note the same in your locale. If so, infidel gentlemen, watch your step!

Robert Spencer also notes the following:
The funny thing about this is that if this man did start ignoring his neighbors, never holding the elevator for them, never greeting them, etc., onlookers would think him "xenophobic" and say that his coldness was the kind of thing that made Muslim immigrants feel alienated and lash out in terrorist acts.
To greet or not to greet? That is the question.

(Crossposted to Always On Watch)

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 5 Comments

Attack Of The Hopey-Changers

Steamrolling through the American Theater - Summer 2009

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 3 Comments

Ugh. McCain Speaks Out Against Waterboarding "Torture" (Video) Update: He Voted Against Waterboarding Ban Last Year

From Gateway Pundit:

John McCain was on Greta tonight and declared "waterboarding is torture."
He just erased all of the that Dick Cheney had built up this week against the dangerous Obama Administration national security positions in about 2 minutes.
Once again, just when you think Republicans have something going... In comes John McCain.

He just couldn't wait a day or two. He had to come out and damage the former Republican administration today.





That ought to get him a few invites on the cable shows this weekend.
...Maybe even an invite to the White House.
Thanks John.

UPDATE: Funny, just one year ago McCain reportedly supported the use of harsh interrogation tactics by voting against a bill that banned the CIA from waterboarding and using other torture tactics in their interrogations. McCain later defended his vote. He has often spoken out against waterboarding.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 6 Comments

Eliminator!

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

Miliband urges coalition of West and Muslim world

from Her Royal Whyness. Parenthetical, smart ass remarks are mine.
Miliband urges coalition of West and Muslim world
LONDON (AFP) – Terrorism and past conflicts have "distorted" relations between western and Muslim nations but both sides must work together against global challenges, the foreign secretary said Thursday.
David Miliband admitted that London's interventions from the Crusades and colonialism to the invasion of Iraq had created distrust in many countries, with the latter war causing "a sense of bitterness, distrust and resentment". (hey -- 9/11 cuased a sense of bitterness, distrust and resentment. trust me.)
But he said the challenges of climate change (a hoax lining alot of already too fat cats pockets), terrorism (that's what this whole damn thing is about, isn't it?) and financial crisis required a united effort born of better understanding on both sides, as well as a resolution of conflicts such as in the Middle East. (the only thing the Jihadis understand is violence and gunfire and sudden death).
In a speech to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, Miliband said a history of relations between Europe and the Islamic world "have been characterised by conquest, conflict and colonialism". (Right, and the Crusades were a pushback AGAINST Islamic conquest, conflict and colonialism)
"More recently, the invasion of Iraq, and its aftermath, aroused a sense of bitterness, distrust and resentment," he said. (again, 9/11 aroused one helluva sense of bitterness, distrust and resentment. We wouldn't be doing this if it hadn't).
Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, the focus of the relationship between western and Muslim states had narrowed (well no fucking kidding you fucking moron. What did you expect?), he said.
"Terrorism has distorted our views of each other and skewed our engagement with each other."
But Miliband said global security can no longer be guaranteed by the world's only superpower, or even grouping of great powers.
"The threats from climate change, terrorism, pandemics (he's afraid he'll get swine flu) and financial crisis are too large and too diffuse... we need the broadest possible coalition of states and political movements", he said.
While western powers "need to hold fast to our own values", any coalition would at times have to include "groups whose aims we do not share, whose values we find deplorable, whose methods we think dubious", Miliband said. (so, he wants us to form a coalition we those we find deplorable and dubious. Make sense?)
But he stressed forging coalitions required "greater respect" from western nations, in particular, adding: "That means rejecting the lazy stereotypes and moving beyond the binary division between moderates and extremists."
Distrust over conflicts such as Iraq has also overshadowed efforts to use diplomacy and aid for humanitarian reasons, Miliband said: "We need to recover the original idea (of liberal interventionism) which was and is a noble idea." (ok -- that liberal interventionism is not mine)
Active diplomacy was most needed in the Middle East, he said, an issue on which "we need -- all of us, in our own ways -- to act soon, very soon, to prevent a fatal and final blow to the scope for compromise".
Hey Miliband! I Got Yer Diplomacy Right Here!


Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 5 Comments

The Barack Delusion made Iconic ..FAILURE to understand the ENEMY

"We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to -- not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe,""When America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops."



"
United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."

"Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation."

"the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula. All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims"

Our enemies hate us in the final analysis SPECIFICALLY because we choose to rule ourselves and have in their eyes, usurped god's rightful authority



In the end we are the enemies of god.
The Constitution is not our shield, it is their indictment of how we live our lives

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 7 Comments

Obama to Trace Family History in Germany

Spiegel's take on the Dresden visit Pastorius posts about a bit below. This article is from May 6 so things may have changed. Or it's possible Spiegel is spinning. Or the American Thinker/Free Republic piece hyperventilating. But according to this piece, this is a private visit, not a state one. No speeches it seems. So who knows? But how the Hell are we supposed to make intelligent, informed decisions when we don't know who even on the right is telling the story truthfully?

If I were going to Normandy for June 6, or any other day for that matter, I'd want to visit Germany, too. Where my grandfather fought and killed Nazis. So to me this is not that unusual in that regard. Obama's just a little more important than I. Well, he thinks he is.

But if he really is going there to apologize for Dresden, or any other deed by Allies in World War II, then he deserves the scorn and derision of every American. It will be a political mistake of serious consequence.

Let alone a moral one.

from Spiegel Online:

Obama to Trace Family History in Germany

US President Barack Obama is coming to Germany again in June, but he won't be visiting Berlin. Instead, he is planning a more personal trip to Dresden and the concentration camp Buchenwald in search of his family history. There will be no photo op with Merkel in the Chancellery -- a deliberate move on Obama's part.

Barack Obama's planned trip to Germany in June is not going to be an official state visit. German diplomatic sources told SPIEGEL ONLINE that the US president is planning a private trip in which he will go on a personal search to places of importance for his family history.

On Tuesday, the news became public that a White House advance team is currently in the eastern German city of Dresden, where they are looking for possible accommodations for the president. In addition to a short visit to the city on the Elbe River, the president is also intending to visit the memorial at the former Nazi concentration camp Buchenwald.

Obama's great-uncle, Charlie Payne, served in the 89th Infantry Division during World War II and participated in the liberation of Ohrdruf, a forced labor camp that was a satellite camp of Buchenwald. It's possible Obama could visit on June 5, one day before his planned participation in the celebrations of the 65th anniversary of the landing of the American troops in Normandy.

A diplomat said Dresden would offer the president a good opportunity to get some first-hand historical impressions of Germany. But other sites are also being discussed for his visit. The German federal government is also helping the White House advance team with its work. The White House recently informed the German government of Obama's desire to visit the country.

German government spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm said on Tuesday that Berlin and Washington were already conducting preliminary discussions regarding the possible visit in June. German Chancellor Angela Merkel would be delighted if the US president were to visit again, Wilhelm said. During the NATO summit in Strasbourg and Kehl at the beginning of April, Obama had already made a side trip to the German town of Baden-Baden. As presidential candidate, he held a speech in July 2008 in front of around 200,000 people at Berlin's Victory Column which generated massive media attention.

German diplomats are now quickly saying that the new proposed visit, despite its more personal nature, fits wonderfully into this series. But that could just be an attempt to put a positive spin on things. An official visit by Obama to Berlin seems highly unlikely during the German election campaign -- even though Chancellor Merkel for one would prefer the popular US president to make an official appearance at the Chancellery instead of touring around the states of Saxony and Thuringia.

Diplomats point out that other major nations such as France have so far tried in vain to secure a normal state visit from Obama. However it's perfectly plausible that the White House could be sending a message with the unusual travel plans. Relations between Chancellor Merkel and the new US president have not been particularly close so far.

Merkel rejected Obama's wish to be allowed to speak at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin as a presidential candidate. So far, she has made no official visit to Washington since Obama was inaugurated, even though a date had already been found before the G-20 summit in April. But according to reports, the chancellor had little desire to cross the Atlantic just for a few hours of talks. In return, Obama may now have little desire to grant Germany an official state visit like the one America's closest ally, the United Kingdom, already received in the context of the G-20-meeting.

Have the two politicians become distanced from one another? Merkel and Obama got on marvelously at previous meetings such as the G-20 and NATO summits, top German officials claim, saying that their personalities are very similar. The German-American relationship is currently characterized by "strategic patience on both sides," say officials diplomatically.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 3 Comments

Why Do Jihadists Love Attacking Jews?


From Jihad Watch:

The Bronx and Morocco this week, and elsewhere, all over, on an ongoing basis -- and why is it that fanatical Muslims so relish attacking Jews? Is it really all about Israel?

Anti-Semitism in the Islamic world has often been attributed to the baneful influence of Christianity. Many analysts assert that the Islamic designation of Jews (as well as Christians) as “People of the Book” indicates a higher level of respect for them than was manifested by Christians who derided Jews as bestial “Christ-killers.” Journalist Lawrence Wright writes in this vein in The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11:

Until the end of World War II … Jews lived safely—although submissively—under Muslim rule for 1,200 years, enjoying full religious freedom; but in the 1930s, Nazi propaganda on Arabic-language shortwave radio, coupled with slanders by Christian missionaries in the region, infected the area with this ancient Western prejudice [anti-Semitism]. After the war, Cairo became a sanctuary for Nazis, who advised the military and the government. The rise of the Islamist movement coincided with the decline of fascism, but they overlapped in Egypt, and the germ passed into a new carrier.

This is a common view, but in reality there is a strong native strain of anti-Semitism in Islam, which is rooted in the Qur’an. The Muslim holy book contains a great deal of material that forms the foundation for a hatred of Jews that exists independently of the Christian variety. It is also, in many ways, more virulent and harder to eradicate. The Qur’an portrays the Jews as the craftiest, most persistent, and most implacable enemies of the Muslims—and there is no Muslim equivalent of the Second Vatican Council to mitigate against destructive interpretations. The Qur’anic material on the Jews remains the prism through which far too many Muslims see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—and Jews in general—to this day.

A vivid illustration of this came in 2004 from Islam Online, a website founded by, among others, the internationally influential Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi in 1997. Although al-Qaradawi has won praise from Islamic scholar John Esposito for engaging in a “reformist interpretation of Islam and its relationship to democracy, pluralism, and human rights,” that “reformist” impulse doesn’t seem to carry over to his view of Jews (he has justified suicide bombings against Israeli civilians), or the view of them he has allowed to be published on Islam Online.

In 2004 the site posted an article titled “Jews as Depicted in the Qur’an,” in which Sheikh ‘Atiyyah Saqr, the former head of the Fatwa Committee at the most respected institution in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, depicts Jews in a chillingly negative light, illustrated with abundant quotations from the Qur’an. Among other charges he levels at the Jews, Saqr says that they “used to fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah”; they “love to listen to lies”; they disobey Allah and ignore his commands; they wish “evil for people” and try to “mislead them”; and they “feel pain to see others in happiness and are gleeful when others are afflicted with a calamity.” He adds that “it is easy for them to slay people and kill innocents,” for “they are merciless and heartless.” And each charge he follows with Qur’anic citations (including, among others, 3:75; 5:64; 3:181; 5:41; 5:13; 2:109; 3:120; 2:61; 2:74; 2:100; 59:13-14; 2:96; and 2:79).

Though he offers many examples of the alleged evil traits of the Jews supported by the Qur’an, Saqr doesn’t mention the notorious Qur’anic passages that depict an angry Allah transforming Jews into apes and pigs: 2:63–66; 5:59–60; and 7:166. The first of those passages depicts Allah telling the Jews who “profaned the Sabbath”: “Be as apes despicable!” It goes on to say that these accursed ones serve “as a warning example for their time and for all times to come.” The second has Allah directing Muhammad to remind the “People of the Book” about “those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil.” The third essentially repeats this, saying of the Sabbath-breaking Jews that when “in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions,” Allah said to them, “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”



Go read the whole thing.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

RNC Ad: Daisy



Hat Tip: Politico

This bears all the hallmarks of Steele's new strategy to attack, attack and attack the recreant mis-administration of Barack Hussein Obama!

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Carlos Echevarria at permanent link# 2 Comments

Top Two Stories Today: Iran To Share Rule In Jerusalem??? - Obama To Apologize To Germany For WWII???

WTF???

What kind of President/man would apologize to Germany for actions we took to beat the Nazis?

What kind of President/man would divide rule over the Jewish Holy City with a country which has made it clear they want to wipe the Jewish nation off the map?

Let's see here, apologizing for beating Nazis, and inviting veritable Nazis to share rule over the land they have promised to destroy - hmm, what kind of President/man would do this? 

Nazis, on one side, Nazis on the other ... Nazis, Nazis ... 

What kind of President/man would do this?

Two stories, both from Atlas Shrugs:

Israel may find Iran as one of the administrators of the Temple Mount, according to a new Palestinian Authority plan reported Thursday by the Hebrew-language newspaper Haaretz.

PA sources said giving up claims to the Temple Mount and handing over control to the 57-member Saudi-based Islamic Conference Organization is conditional on Israel’s agreeing to a final status agreement.

Iran, which is classified as Persian and not an Arab country, is part of the Islamic group.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has opposed agreeing to a new PA state without knowing ahead of time what it would entail.

The PA recently has escalated its propaganda campaign that disassociates the holy site from any connection with Judaism and claims it is solely a Muslim site.

A group of Arabs demonstrated at Shechem Gate in the Old City Thursday morning, shouting anti-Israeli slogans as Jews began celebrating Jerusalem Reunification Day.

Sovereignty over the Temple Mount, based in Jerusalem, has been one of the foundations for a new Arab country that the PA wants following the proposed expulsion of more than half a million Jews from Judea and Samaria, as well as from Jerusalem neighborhoods that were established after the 1967 Six-Day War.

The PA's official website as far back as 2005 rejected the Jewish connection with the Western Wall (Kotel), the remains of the wall that surrounded the Holy Temple area. Muslim legend claims that Mohammed tied his horse to the wall before ascending to heaven, even though the city of Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the Koran.

Writer Daniel Pipes several years offered one million dollars to anyone who can find the name "Jerusalem" explicitly written in the Koran.

The Israeli government initially ignored the PA propaganda campaign, but Rabbi Chaim Richman, director of the International Department of the of the Temple Institute in Jerusalem, warned in 2005 that the PA claims have “far reaching implications” for Israel.



The latest inconceivable Obamaction is yet another unbecoming apology in Europe, this time in Germany for WWII. John Rosenthal suggests, "As bizarre as it may seem, President Obama’s impending trip to Dresden suggests that German revisionists have a friend in the White House".

And American Thinker adds, "the message Obama intends to send by visiting both sites is clear; while the Germans did bad things during World War II, they were also victims of Allied atrocities."
(Over at Free Republic)

The latest German reports suggest Obama’s principal German destination will  be Dresden. According to an article in the local paper Die Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten, representatives of the German and American governments met in Dresden last Wednesday to discuss preparations for the visit. An American security detail is reported to have already scoped out sites in the city: presumably for a public speech.

The symbolic significance of a visit to Dresden by the American president — especially one undertaken in connection with a D-Day commemoration in France — may be missed by some Americans, but it is absolutely unmistakable for the German public. For Germans, Dresden is the symbol bar none of German suffering at the hands of the Allies. The city was heavily bombed by British and American air forces in February 1945, toward the end of the war. According to the most recent estimates of professional historians, anywhere from 18,000 to at most 25,000 persons died in the attacks. These numbers come from a historical commission established by the city of Dresden itself. But far higher numbers — ranging into the hundreds of thousands — have long circulated in Germany and beyond. The bombing of Dresden is commonly described as a “war crime” in German discussions.

Alleged crimes committed by the Allies against Germans and Germany have indeed become a sort of German literary obsession in recent years, with numerous books being devoted to the subject. The taste of the German public for the theme was made particularly clear by the enormous success of author Jörg Friedrich’s 2002 volume The Fire [Der Brand], which is about the Allied bombardment of Germany. The book’s success was so great that Friedrich and his publisher quickly followed up with picture book on the same topic titled Scenes of the Fire: How the Bombing Looked.

Obama should spend the day tending to the graves of our brave and glorious dead, who sacrificed their lives so that Europe could live on to descend into a pathetic, amoral collectivism. Europe owes us an apology for squandering our blood and treasure on a morally bankrupt transnational gobbledy goop EU wallowing in pathetic collectivism.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 2 Comments

The Donkey has been pinned

RNC's Passes "Socialist" Resolution

Washington Post

Michael Steele sought to turn the page on five months of infighting and bad press for the GOP, the organization passed a resolution condemning the Democratic party's "march toward socialism".


"Resolved, that we the members of the Republican National Committee recognize that the Democratic Party is dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals,"reads the resolution.

The vote, which has no practical impact, was cast as a victory by allies of Steele who insisted that catastrophe had been averted when an agreement was reached not to bring forward a resolution that would have re-nicknamed the Democratic party as the "Democrat Socialist Party." Steele had voiced his opposition to the resolution -- telling "Meet the Press" moderator David Gregory last Sunday that he didn't "think that that is an appropriate way to, to express our views on the issues of the day."

Of today's vote, Steele pronounced himself "pleased that the committee adopted a resolution that focuses on the Democrats' policies and their destructive effects on America's economic engine, rather than attempting to rename our opponents."

The longer-term problem for Steele -- and for establishment Republicans across the country -- presented by the "Democrat Socialist Party" debate is that the 168 committee members represent the most conservative element of the party and have almost no concern for how passing a resolution like that would play (and be played by Democrats) to the average independent or moderate voter.

Put simply: these committeemen and committeewomen identify far more with the Dick Cheney/Rush Limbaugh wing of the party than they do with the Charlie Crist/Colin Powell side.

Steele was able to sidestep a public relations nightmare today. But, given the reality of the ideological makeup of the RNC committee members, it almost certainly will not be the last fire will have to put out.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Christine at permanent link# 0 Comments

Two Trillion Bucks

Her Royal Whyness sent this to me earlier today. Couldn't see it while at the paying gig and didn't think to look at it until now.


Dick Ford (Tennessee Ernie's Son)
Two Trillion Bucks

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 2 Comments

Hell Yeah

Been the kind of day that needs some rough edges smoothed. In the analog world that requires beer and bourbon and some really loud tunes.

Here in Infidelphia that means you get a double shot.


Montgomery Gentry
Hell Yeah!

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

My Kinda Gal

Drinks beer and whiskey. Not afraid to get dirty. Can handle a gun, clean a fish, gut a deer, milk a cow, butcher beef and pluck a chicken. And cute to boot.

Much like my wife.

In fact, when this song first came out, I said "Honey! Someone wrote a song about you!"

Only took 3 months for me to heal up. . .


Gretchen Wilson
Redneck Woman




Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Purdue University Hostile to Free Speech

This may be old news, but I just came across this disturbing video posted below. While Nonie Darwish was trying to address an audience at Purdue University, some thug said, "she has no right to be speaking." The Assistant Dean of Students was in the back of the room and did nothing to prevent a speaker from being harassed by nihilistic haters of common decency. Clearly, this waste-of-space administrator is in agreement with the thug. For all who disagree with the leftist party line, "no right to be speaking" is the norm on many American college campuses. This is just another fact supporting the thesis of Jamie Glazov's book, United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. Their common hate object is, of course, Western Civilization and all the values it requires to sustain itself; most important of which is open and free debate on every topic. Darwish stated this by saying that all belief systems are subject to scrutiny. The standard left/Jihad reply was/is hooliganism.

Below is the video documenting this total disgrace:



The Unholy Alliance is alive and well.

Crossposted at The Dougout
Bookmark and Share
posted by Grant Jones at permanent link# 2 Comments

The Day That Changed Germany

The iconic photo by photographer Jürgen Henschel. Student Friederike Dollinger, a stranger to Ohnesorg, is holding him crying: "What did you do, you've killed him, he is dead and now look at that!"

On June 2, 1967, Benno Ohnesorg, a German student of Romance and German literature, was shot dead by a plain clothes police officer during a rally against the visit of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. As a pacifist, Ohnesorg was a member of a Christian Protestant community. He was a poet and aspired to become a grammar school teacher, married, his wife being pregnant with their first child. This had been the first rally he had ever attended. He was 26.

Karl-Heinz Kurras, the fatal shooter, was found not guilty of negligent homicide on November 21, 1967.

Benno Ohnesorgs death led to the militant radicalisation of the extreme left and became the central argument for the self-justification of those who later killed almost hundred people. The Movement 2 June was named after the day of his death. The rest is history.

Now two historians, Cornelia Jabs und Helmut Müller-Enbergs, have made an interesting, potentially explosive, discovery. In an article in the respected historic specialist magazine, "Deutschlandarchiv", they published an article "Der 2. Juni 1967 und die Staatssicherheit". While doing research in the Stasi archives, they found documents such as the signed formal obligation of Karl-Heinz Kurras, his SED-membership book and several personnel reviews by his case officers. Kurras had belonged, so it seems, to "Linie IV" within the Stasi, known to have been responsible for "less than pretty dealings", so Müller-Enbergs und Jabs.

Kurras, so the historians, got a radio message from the DDR-Ministerium für Staatssicherheit following Ohnesorge's death, saying: "Destroy material at once. Stop work for now. Consider event as deplorable mishap...".

Anyway, Kurras was, following June 2, 1967, not expelled from the SED and as a member of a special task force of the West Berlin police, a unit that was set up to detect traitors within their own ranks, he was working at an extremely sensitive spot indeed.

So far, the historians can not tell for sure, whether Kurras had killed Ohnesorg at East Berlin's instigation or not. Facts are, that he was a crack shot who was unlikely to have hit Ohnesorg by chance, that he hadn't been "attacked" by anybody and certainly not by Ohnesorg, that he had hopelessly entangled himself in contradictions in the aftermath of the fatal event, and that investigation authorities had done everything to clear the name of "one of them".

Asked 40 years later whether he had, then, made a mistake, Kurras, then 79, replied: "Mistake? I ought to have blasted them to send the scraps flying and not just once; I ought to have shot five, six times. Everybody who attacks me will be destroyed and that's that", letting, incidentally, slip that his defence about the warning shot he had allegedly fired had been a lie.

Elsewhere, Gesine Schwan, professor of political sciences, Greens-backed nominee of the Social Democratic Party for the upcoming federal presidential elections and possessor of a face she duly deserves, informed us, that she refuses to use the epithet "Unrechtsstaat" (lawless state) for the former GDR because not everything had been bad there.

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by The_Editrix at permanent link# 1 Comments

Peter King is Right & Clairvoyant



Don't you sleep well at night knowing that Janet Napolitano, or Janet Reno Redux as I like to characterize her, is in charge of the Department of Homeland Security???



Hat Tip: Bare Naked Islam

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Carlos Echevarria at permanent link# 0 Comments

Cheney Schools Craven & Cowardly Obama



Photo Hat Tip: The Weekly Standard

Gateway Pundit had this select excerpt today:

Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised.

And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.
Zip from Weasel Zipper posted this gem:

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States.

The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page.After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.
The Other McCain believes Cheney pounded Pelosi here:

In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.

Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.
By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public's right to know. We're informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release.

For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.
Fox News transcripts of entire remarks of the former Vice President:

Thank you all very much, and Arthur, thank you for that introduction. It's good to be back at AEI, where we have many friends. Lynne is one of your longtime scholars, and I'm looking forward to spending more time here myself as a returning trustee. What happened was, they were looking for a new member of the board of trustees, and they asked me to head up the search committee.

I first came to AEI after serving at the Pentagon, and departed only after a very interesting job offer came along. I had no expectation of returning to public life, but my career worked out a little differently. Those eight years as vice president were quite a journey, and during a time of big events and great decisions, I don't think I missed much.

Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I'm an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen - a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.

The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I'm not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. We understand the complexities of national security decisions. We understand the pressures that confront a president and his advisers. Above all, we know what is at stake. And though administrations and policies have changed, the stakes for America have not changed.

Right now there is considerable debate in this city about the measures our administration took to defend the American people. Today I want to set forth the strategic thinking behind our policies. I do so as one who was there every day of the Bush Administration -who supported the policies when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President's understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, hoping to bring down the towers with a blast from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.

Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact - crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.

That's how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least - but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat - what the Congress called "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.

We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We'd just been hit by a foreign enemy - leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn't know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.

These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass - a 9/11 with nuclear weapons.

For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.

There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day - word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I've heard occasional speculation that I'm a different man after 9/11. I wouldn't say that. But I'll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.

To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.

We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations … the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program. It's required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan - and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive - and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

So we're left to draw one of two conclusions - and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event - coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.

The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn't invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force" to protect the American people.

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn't serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.

In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations.

In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.

Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.

By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public's right to know. We're informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called "Truth Commission." Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It's hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.

Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.

One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see - including the enemy - let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.

It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You've heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed - the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.

We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn't know about al-Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn't think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

Maybe you've heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.

In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about "values." Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe - it's no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term "war" where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we're advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, "Overseas contingency operations." In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, "man-made disaster" - never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, "enemy combatants," as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn't change what they are - or what they would do if we let them loose.

On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Now the President says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system. Others, he says, will be shipped to third countries. But so far, the United States has had little luck getting other countries to take hardened terrorists. So what happens then? Attorney General Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept a number of the terrorists here, in the homeland, and it has even been suggested US taxpayer dollars will be used to support them. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President's own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.

The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we've captured as, quote, "abducted." Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

It's one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we're no longer engaged in a war. These are just words, and in the end it's the policies that matter most. You don't want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you want - just don't bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war? Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a "recruitment tool" for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It's another version of that same old refrain from the Left, "We brought it on ourselves."

It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America's moral standards, one way or the other.

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world - these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.

The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world - for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences - and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for - our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.

This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It's almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.

As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won't let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I've formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It's worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.

I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations - and I am not alone. President Obama's own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country." End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration - the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn't change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us." End of quote.

If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it'll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs - on the continuing threat of terrorist violence, and on stopping the men who are planning it.

For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history - not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them. And when I think about all that was to come during our administration and afterward - the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of "hubris" - my mind always goes back to that moment.

To put things in perspective, suppose that on the evening of 9/11, President Bush and I had promised that for as long as we held office - which was to be another 2,689 days - there would never be another terrorist attack inside this country. Talk about hubris - it would have seemed a rash and irresponsible thing to say. People would have doubted that we even understood the enormity of what had just happened. Everyone had a very bad feeling about all of this, and felt certain that the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville were only the beginning of the violence.

Of course, we made no such promise. Instead, we promised an all-out effort to protect this country. We said we would marshal all elements of our nation's power to fight this war and to win it. We said we would never forget what had happened on 9/11, even if the day came when many others did forget. We spoke of a war that would "include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success." We followed through on all of this, and we stayed true to our word.

To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.

Along the way there were some hard calls. No decision of national security was ever made lightly, and certainly never made in haste. As in all warfare, there have been costs - none higher than the sacrifices of those killed and wounded in our country's service. And even the most decisive victories can never take away the sorrow of losing so many of our own - all those innocent victims of 9/11, and the heroic souls who died trying to save them.

For all that we've lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted.

Thank you very much.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Carlos Echevarria at permanent link# 5 Comments


Older Posts Newer Posts