IDF rescues 2 hostages in Gaza's Rafah neighborhood

The IDF has thankfully and successfully rescued 2 men who were held hostage by Hamas in Gaza:

Two Israeli hostages Louis Har, 70, Fernando Simon Marman, 60, were rescued at around 2 a.m. on Monday from the second floor of a building in the center of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip by the Israel police’s Yamam anti-terror unit, Israel Defense Forces and the Shin Bet internal security agency. The men were flown by helicopter to the Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, where they are in good condition. One soldier was slightly injured during the rescue.

Har’s son-in-law Idan Bejerano, said that he and his wife met with his father-in-law briefly before he was taken for medical examinations.

“We were called at 3:30 a.m. and jumped out of our beds in joy. We were told, ‘We have them in our hands,’ and instructed to get to the hospital. It took us nearly an hour to get there, and I am not sure my wife was breathing at all during that time. This is a great relief,” he said.

Asked about their condition, Bejerano replied, “They are both in bed in the hospital. Whether they are healthy in spirit, in body, is still hard to know, but they look whole. It seems they had the strength of spirit of these 128 days to remain strong and come back to us.”

The men were kidnapped from Kibbutz Nir Yitzhak on Oct. 7, when terrorists from Gaza murdered 1,200 people, wounded thousands and took 253 hostage in a murderous rampage near the Gaza border. Marman and Har were taken captive along with Marman’s sisters Clara, 62, and Gabriela Leimberg, 59; and Gabriela’s daughter, Miam Leimberg, 17. They were visiting Har at the kibbutz for the Simchat Torah holiday weekend. The five were hiding in their sealed room during the attack before they were taken hostage. The women were freed as part of an earlier hostage release.

This is very fortunate, but only a small part so far in rescuing any more hostages who're hopefully still alive. For now, we must thank God these 2 men were saved from the awful situation they were in, and now reunited with their families. Let's hope they'll be able to recuperate as best as possible along with their families.

Afghanistan: Support for Taliban Hits 25%

Public support for the Taliban hit an “all time high” in Kandahar province last spring.

Polling data compiled by the Canadian Military shows 25 per cent of respondents said they had a favourable view of the Taliban, including six per cent with a “very favourable” opinion.

The Canadian Press reports the data says “International economic assistance is heavily preferred over military assistance.”

The survey was part of the 2009 military spring campaign assessment.

The survey also finds one-third of respondents said they had an unfavourable impression of foreign soldiers.

via 580 CFRA News Talk Radio.

Can this be the reason why recently Karzai threatened to join the Taliban? Or was that reaction caused by another causes?

25% of support means than one out of four have a favourable view of the Taliban while one out of three have the opposite opinion of foreign troops, that is NATO. It's an important part of the population, specially because there is a growing trend of support for the Taliban:

"The Taliban (is) not winning public consent," said the study. "Afghans still strongly prefer the (government of Afghanistan), but confidence is waning due to lack of security, justice, basic services."

The report's analysis focused on the tide of rising violence that followed the spectacular attack on Sarpoza prison in June 2008, a seminal event that ground commanders hoped would only dent public confidence.

As it turned out, the perception of insecurity it created was long-standing and the numbers did not "bounce back" as expected, the survey noted.

"Fewer Kandaharis report feeling safe than in previous polls; more believe that security is worsening than improving," said the study, carried out in February 2009.

So, this means that actually the Taliban are not winning the people's favour, but rather that the foreign troops are losing it.

Ajmal Samadi, director of the Human Rights group Afghanistan Rights Monitor, defends that foreigners have not understood Afghan politics and that there are people in the country who considered that, even if they were harsh, they made them feel strong and protected.

Meanwhile Kandahar's governor considers that people in villages are "hostages" of the Taliban and that they can't do anything but supporting them.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Martin: Harper joins chorus condemning Afghan leader's defection threat (calgaryherald.com)
• Karzai's threat to join Taliban misunderstood: envoy (ctv.ca)
• Karzai seeks tribal support for military operation (cnn.com)

Cross-posted from T&P.

UnderpantsGate Re-Affirms Obama's Feeble Nature

UK Telegraph:

In his weekly radio address yesterday, President Barack Obama patted himself on the back for having "refocused the fight - bringing to a responsible end the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks".

He then told people to remember that "our adversaries are those who would attack our country, not our fellow Americans", before decrying "fear and cynicism" and "partisanship and division" - the code phrases for horrid Republicans used during his 2008 election campaign.

Complacency, faux moralising and partisan shots at Republicans. It was a neat summary of where Obama is going wrong after the Christmas Day debacle when the Nigerian knicker bomber managed to waltz onto a Detroit-bound flight.

For a man who campaigned denouncing the politicisation of national security under President George W Bush, it is worth noting how intensely political Obama's treatment of what might henceforth be known as Underpantsgate has been.

His White House recognised its political vulnerability more readily than it comprehended the level of danger faced by Americans.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father had courageously contacted the American Embassy in Abuja in November and met the CIA station chief to tell him that his son was involved with fundamentalist elements in Yemen. American intelligence had also intercepted discussions in Yemen about a possible attack by "the Nigerian".

The Obama administration knew most, if not all, of this by last Sunday, 48 hours after the attack was thwarted. But the priority in Obamaland was to play things down and take pot shots at the Bush administration. (emphasis added)

Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security chief – who prefers the term "man-caused disasters" to "terrorism" - blithely stated that there was "no indication that it is part of anything larger". She then insisted that the "system is working".

Although Napolitano has taken a lot of flak for these comic utterances, she was not "misspeaking" but trotting out the agreed talking points of the day.

Robert Gibbs, Obama's chief mouthpiece, also stated that "in many ways this system has worked" and would say nothing about a possible wider plot.

In Hawaii, where Obama was holidaying, Gibbs's deputy Bill Burton told the press that "we are winding down a war in Iraq that took our eye off of the terrorists that attacked us" and that Obama was reviewing "procedures that have been in place the last several years" (i.e. Bush instituted them). He added, without apparent irony, that "the President refuses to play politics with these issues".

Meanwhile, the White House was working overtime to build a case against Bush. A source in the White House counsel's office told The American Spectator of memos frantically seeking information that would "show that the Bush Administration had had far worse missteps than we ever could".

Republicans smell blood. There is a pattern in the Obama administration of dismissing Islamist terrorist attacks as regrettable random acts. In his radio address after Major Nidal Hassan's slaughtered 13 at Fort Hood, Texas, Obama made no mention of terrorism or militant Islam, instead blandly promising that the "ongoing investigation into this terrible tragedy" would "look at the motives of the alleged gunman".

Hassan was a committed Islamist who had corresponded with the fanatical Yemeni imam Anwar al-Awlaki. In June, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Muslim convert being watched by the FBI and who had previously travelled to Yemen, murdered a US Army recruit in Arkansas. That rated only a tepid statement by Obama about a "senseless act of violence".

But the violence wasn't senseless, it had a calculated objective - just as Abdulmutallab was not, as Obama described him, an "isolated extremist". No wonder many Americans want to grab Obama by the lapels and scream: "It's the Jihad, stupid." Dick Cheney, the former vice-president, clearly struck a nerve when he charged last week that Obama was "trying to pretend we are not at war".

The White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer eagerly descended into the political fray, responding to Cheney with the obligatory jibe about Iraq and also a litany of examples of Obama's "public statements that explicitly state we are at war".

It's a sure sign that you're losing the argument when you have to research quotes from your boss's speeches to prove that he gets it that America is at war. The problem for Obama is that people are now judging him by his actions as well as his words.

The incompetence of the US intelligence bureaucracy is not the only thing that makes Underpantsgate so damaging for Obama. More serious is his failure to understand or acknowledge the nature of the enemy - and to view war as mere politics.

Yes, it's Bush fault rhetoric, persists into 2010! And of course instituting regulations that would basically counter act the brave actions of fellow travelers on the plane make all the sense in the world in the gum drop land of Comrade Zero, Goose Stepper Napolitano and Al Qaeda's In House Counsel, Eric Holder.

Do You Remember October 23, 1983?

From this posting at Creeping Sharia:



Much more at Creeping Sharia.

Keep America Safe

Liz Cheney's new outfit, counteracting the brazenly pusillanimous foreign policy of the Obama regime in Washington.

Terrorists kidnap, torture boy to bully Iraqi policeman

from CNN h/t Jawa:

Terrorists kidnap, torture boy to bully Iraqi policeman

FALLUJA, Iraq (CNN) -- Like many young boys, Khidir loves playing with toy cars and wants to be a policeman like his father when he grows up. But it was his father's very job that caused the tiny child to suffer the unimaginable.

Khidir, now 8, was kidnapped and held hostage for two years by operatives with al Qaeda in Iraq.

Khidir was just 6 years old when he was savagely ripped away from his family, kidnapped by al Qaeda operatives in Iraq.

"They beat me with a shovel, they pulled my teeth out with pliers, they would go like this and pull it," said Khidir, now 8, demonstrating with his hands. "And they would make me work on the farm gathering carrots."

What followed was even more horrific, an ordeal that would last for two years in captivity. Khidir and his father spoke to CNN recently, more than half a year after his rescue by Iraqi police.

"This is where they hammered a nail into my leg and then they pulled it out," he says, lifting up his pant leg to show a tiny wound.

He says his captors also pulled out each of his tiny fingernails, broke both his arms, and beat him repeatedly on the side of the head with a shovel. He still suffers chronic headaches. He remembers them laughing as they inflicted the pain.

"I would think about my mommy and daddy," he replies, when asked how he managed to get through the agony.

His father, Abdul Qader, struggles for words. "When he tells me about how they would torture him, I can't tolerate it. I start crying," he says. "What hurts me the most is when they hammered a nail into his leg."

The father, a police officer, was sleeping at the police station in Falluja when his son was kidnapped. It was too dangerous to go home regularly. Although Falluja was no longer controlled by insurgents, assassinations against police were common.

"I woke up to the sound of a huge explosion ... and then I heard my name on the radio. I ran outside and they came to me saying your house was blown up," he says.

"When the police patrol came back, they all started kissing and comforting me," he continues. "I was asking, 'What's going on? Where is my family?' They told me that they took my son. This was a disaster. I went mad that day, I wasn't normal, I was hysterical."

Khidir's grandmother was at home with the family at the time.

"The kidnappers climbed the fence and kicked in the door," she says."They were screaming for Abdul Qader. I told them he's not here. They called me a liar and said we want his son. His son was hiding behind me, clutching my clothes. I said this is not his son. They hit me on the back with a rifle and ripped him out of my arms."

The last thing she remembers were his screams of "Granny, Granny!"

The attackers rigged the house with explosives and demolished it before taking off with the 6-year-old. The boy's grandmother and seven other family members rushed out of the home before it exploded.

"The kidnappers called me on the phone and demanded that some prisoners that we had be released or they would slit his throat," Khidir's father says. "But I said no to the release. I would not put killers back out on the street that would hurt other Muslims. So I thought to myself, 'Let my son be a martyr.' "

He even held a secret funeral for his little boy. He didn't want to tell the rest of the family that he had refused the kidnappers' ultimatum, allowing them to hope that he was still alive.

Last December, nearly two years later, police in Taji, about 45 (70 kilometers) away, received a tip that terrorists were holding kidnapped children.

"We thought that it was just a tip to ambush us, but we considered the mission as a sacrifice," said Iraqi police Capt. Khalib Ali. "Either we find the children and free them or face the danger and take the risk.

The tip led the Iraqi police to a rundown farm and a series of mud huts. Khidir's tiny body was twisted abnormally. And in another hut, they found another child. Two children are still believed to be with the kidnappers.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has historically kidnapped children for money, to pressure officials, and even to use in terrorist attacks.

For Khidir's father, it was as if his son had come back from the dead.

"He didn't recognize his mother or his grandmother," Abdul Qader says. "But then he saw me in uniform and ran to me. I went flying toward him to hug him. People said be careful; both his arms are broken. So I held him from his waist, and he hugged me, kissed me, smelled me, and then broke into a smile."

The father flips through old family photos -- all they were able to salvage from their destroyed home -- and notes some of the kidnappers are still at large. He still fears for his son's safety, but says he won't quit the police force.

"Never, never," he says. "If I leave the police force, if others leave the force, who will protect us from the terrorists? We are the only ones.

They ARE **PRECISELY** who we were afraid they were - White House: 'War on terrorism' is over

It's official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." Neither is it fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war."

President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

These people actually believe if they LOOK AT SOMETHING IN A DIFFERENT WAY, REALITY IS DIFFERENT.

Mr. Brennan's speech was aimed at outlining ways in which the Obama administration intends to undermine the "upstream" factors that create an environment in which terrorists are bred.

You mean like Quranic injunctions (i.e, the immutable word of God) against unbelievers and especially a certain group comprising ~0.18% of the world's population?

Perhaps we should eliminate the root cause of ..`upstream factors that create an environment in which terrorists are bred.` .. unbelievers. Then we can all say, the war on terror is truly over.

Barack Obama will be the worst president since James Buchanan.

Mr. Brennan lamented "inflammatory rhetoric, hyperbole, and intellectual narrowness" surrounding the national security debate and said Mr. Obama has views that are "nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological."

THIS MAN WILL GET US ALL KILLED

(go ahead, report that to the White House as well)

from Her Royal Whyness:

"White House: 'War on terrorism' is over...

'Jihadists' and 'global war' no longer acceptable terms..."

Um, yeah, sure. Someone ought to inform these guys from North Carolina:

Daniel Patrick Boyd is escorted by U.S. Marshals to the federal courthouse in Raleigh, N.C. on Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2009. Federal prosecutors say a North Carolina terrorism case may involve classified material that will raise national security issues. Authorities have charged seven North Carolina men with plotting terrorism abroad. An indictment pegs the ringleader as 39-year-old Daniel Patrick Boyd, who was arrested last week along with two sons. (AP Photo/The News & Observer, Chuck Liddy) TV OUT; NO SALES; MANDATORY CREDIT

FILE --These undated file photos provided by the City County Bureau of Identification in Wake County, N.C., show from left: Daniel Patrick Boyd, Hysen Sherifi, Mohammad Omar Aly Hassan and Ziyad Yaghi. Authorities claim the group, including 3others and an eighth suspect believed to be in Pakistan, were gearing up for a "violent jihad," though prosecutors haven't detailed any specific targets or timeframe. If convicted, the men could face life in prison. (AP Photo/City County Bureau of Identification/file)

Washington Times:

White House: 'War on terrorism' is over
'Jihadists' and 'global war' no longer acceptable terms
By Jon Ward and Eli Lake WASHINGTON TIMES
Originally published 12:34 p.m., August 6, 2009

It's official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." Neither is it fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war."

President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda." (hoo boy are we fucked)

"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in March that the administration was not using the term "war on terror" but no specific directive had come from the White House itself. Mr. Obama himself used the term "war on terror" on Jan. 23, his fourth day as president, but has not used it since.

Mr. Brennan's speech was aimed at outlining ways in which the Obama administration intends to undermine the "upstream" factors that create an environment in which terrorists are bred.

The president's adviser talked about increasing aid to foreign governments for building up their militaries and social and democratic institutions, but provided few details about how the White House will do that.

He was specific about ways in which Mr. Obama believes words influence the way America prosecutes the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting "jihadists" is wrongheaded (am I REALLY reading this???) because it is using "a legitimate term, 'jihad,' meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal" which "risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve."

"Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself," (BECAUSE WE ARE GODDAMMIT!!!) Mr. Brennan said.

As for the "war on terrorism," Mr. Brennan said the administration is not going to say that "because 'terrorism' is but a tactic — a means to an end, which in al Qaedas case is global domination by an Islamic caliphate."

"You can never fully defeat a tactic like terrorism any more than you can defeat the tactic of war itself," Mr. Brennan said.

He also said that to call the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups — which he said remains "a dynamic and evolving threat" — should not be called "a global war."

While Mr. Brennan acknowledged that al Qaeda and its affiliates are active in countries throughout the Middle East and Africa, he also said that "portraying this as a 'global' war risks reinforcing the very image that al Qaeda seeks to project of itself — that it is a highly organized, global entity capable of replacing sovereign nations with a global caliphate."

The president's adviser said that in discussing counter terror operations, Mr. Obama "has encouraged us to be even more aggressive, even more proactive, and even more innovative" than they have been proposing.

But Mr. Brennan lamented "inflammatory rhetoric, hyperbole, and intellectual narrowness" surrounding the national security debate and said Mr. Obama has views that are "nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological."

Go Liz Go!!!

Via the Washington Times:

EXCLUSIVE:

The daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that running for political office is on her horizon.

"It's something I very well may do," said Elizabeth "Liz" Cheney, a lawyer and State Department appointee who has worked on two Republican presidential campaigns.

Ms. Cheney, 44, has emerged as one of the strongest defenders of the effectiveness and legality of Bush-Cheney policies on enhanced interrogation methods. More recently, she and her father have become two of the most outspoken critics of President Obama's position on terrorism and other national security issues, which has led Republicans to consider her a strong candidate for national political office. (Read entire article and hear audio clip)

WASHINGTON - JUNE 1: Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, listens as her father speaks at the Gerald R. Ford Foundation's annual Journalism Awards on June 1, 2009 in Washington, DC. Vice President Cheney strongly defended the Bush administration's record on national security. (Daylife-Getty Images)

Cheney, unlike the pusillanimous Democrats, would conduct the War on Terror in the proper fashion:

LIZ CHENEY: "Well, in my view, you know, I think they don't understand that it's a war. And you know, they sort of, some of them have started to adopt the language of acknowledging it's a war because they understand the American people know it's a war.

But fundamentally, deep down, I think they really are uncomfortable with the notion that we have to capture and kill al-Qaeda, that we have to get information, that we can't win the war without intelligence, that if you just ask terrorists nicely and read them the Miranda rights they're not going to give you intelligence.

They're uncomfortable with those notions, they'd rather treat this as law enforcement, they'd rather run these guys through the American court system and so I think this is in part an effort to discredit all of those programs that were very effective precisely because they did recognize that we were at war. But I think, you know, we've been down this path before and the American people have an awful lot of common sense about this: they know it's a war.

And I do think the Democrats are entering very dangerous territory here of reminding everybody once again why the Republicans do a better job of defending the nation."

THE WAR ON....?

War on Terror: "We Surrendered"

Is This for Real???

Via The Weekly Standard:

DOJ Confirms FBI is Reading Miranda Rights to Detainees in Afghanistan

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd confirms Steve Hayes's report that the FBI is reading Miranda rights to terrorist suspects in Afghanistan:

“There has been no policy change and nor blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas. While there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have Mirandized suspects overseas, at both Bagram and in other situations, in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees.”

We have become the laughing stock of the world in a mere five months...how low can Barack Hussein Obama go???

War as it should be: Winston Churchill

As a followup to my post, War as it should be.

American's should be proud of our belief in humane treatment. Our morals have matured. But, when it comes to war, I truly believe that they have been allowed to go too far in the other direction.

War is a necessary evil. And sometimes, brutality and destruction, deceit and psychological intimidation are a necessary part of war. It comes down to this; it's them or us. The enemy, in this case the Jihadists, will do whatever they have to, to survive. And they do not follow rules of fairness.

Are we willing to do the same? Obama and the lefties will need to learn that, not everything in life is fair, war is not a baseball, football or basketball game.

In war, the side who tries to follow "all the rules", be the most "humane", the most "fair", loses. And there are no rematches, no best out of three.

In war, it is the side that allows their animal instincts to come out, fight to survive, that wins.

An article by Geoffrey P. Hunt at American Thinker

Perhaps George W Bush's most significant failure as president was not convincing enough Americans that the war on terror was a real war. From the vantage point of most Americans it had -- and still does have -- the look and feel of a police action, something far less. A bit like the "phony war" for Brits in 1939-1940, right up until the Battle of Britain and for Americans until Pearl Harbor.

Without most Americans convinced that it is a real war, the ruthless tactics necessary to wage a real war will never be fully accepted either morally or even pragmatically. Andrew Roberts in his "History of the English Speaking Peoples Since 1900" describes what it took to be a wartime leader. In May of 1940 it was obvious Neville Chamberlain wasn't it, as the House of Commons drafted Winston Churchill instead.

[snip]

Wars are not won solely on the battlefield. Churchill knew this better than most. Wars are won in minds of the leaders first, who are willing to deploy brutality and destruction, deceit and psychological intimidation even indiscriminately, despite the occasional moral ambiguities. Intelligence gathered about the intent of the enemy is a precursor to battlefield victories. Sometimes timely and prescient intelligence can avoid battles altogether or at least assure victory sooner minimizing the death and collateral dismemberment.

Churchill would scoff at today's liberal Democrat claims that the harsh interrogation techniques, even waterboarding, are considered torture. But it would be no laughing matter for him to think that America would foreclose such techniques while facing an enemy capable and willing to wantonly destroy a 72 story office building in downtown Los Angeles.

Imagine if Khalid Sheik Mohammed hadn't finally disgorged those plans. Or imagine an administration, relying on gestures of sweet tea and unrequited idealism, prohibited the CIA in pursuing the trail any further. How many buildings and thousands of innocent lives would have been sacrificed before the Chamberlain wing of the democrat party would endorse any harsh interrogation? The Sears Tower, the Empire State Building, Disneyworld? How many self righteous pacifists could remain with so much blood on their hands? And when some of the would-be Mahatma Ghandis would finally come to their senses, does anyone think such tardy converts would be as restrained as president Bush?

Here are the questions: Are we as a nation prepared to defend democracy as JFK exhorted in his inaugural "pay any price, bear any burden?" Are we prepared to defend private property, freedom of speech, and a government established by the consent of the governed? Or are the political enemies of George W Bush so deranged they would sacrifice our nationhood and its sovereignty for the temporary gratification in seeing the former president on trial? Who among them would be the first to pee on the ashes?

Recall the storyline about Epaminondas, Thebes general and statesman who crushed Sparta and liberated the Messessian helots, called by Cicero the "first man of Greece". Upon his return home Epaminondas was persecuted by his political enemies. And as soon as WWII was successfully concluded, Britain once more had little use for Winston Churchill. Yet Epaminondas was immediately acquitted and Churchill's place in history as the savior of western democracy is still unshaken.

It's little wonder that President Barack Obama, as soon as he stepped into the White House on inauguration day, promptly returned the bust of Winston Churchill to Number 10 Downing Street. Otherwise Churchill's bust would remind Obama every day that his solemn pledge under oath to "defend and protect the Constitution of the United States" is as hollow as his conviction to deploy the means to do so.

The Conscience of the Democratic Party

"Barack Hussein Obama, I am your father!!!"...Comrade James Earl Carter

"The Architect" Defends Cheney

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., has no shame, no honor, no decency. He is an anti-American charlatan whose mere presence in the Oval Office debases the core values & tenets of our glorious Republic!

I Love This Woman!

Hat Tip: Infidels are Cool

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

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!!!

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!

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.

The High Price of Ignorance

The Sandmonkey has a post up regarding the Moussaoui trial and the GWOT that I totally agree with.

It's not because its a war that can not be won- because it can be- and it's not because it's not fought right, because it is. It's mainly because that Americans do not have the conviction to carry it through. I hate to say this american readers, but your people have gone soft.

It's not your fault, well it kind of is, but not really. You got too pamperd, read too many self-help books and listend to far too many leftists and pop psychologists who filled you with all sorts of moraly relative defeatist crap. There used to be a time when the USA was the deciding factor in ending 2 world wars and facing down a cold war. That Generation, unfortunately, is no more. There is a softer, more compliant and femenized generation who has taken over now. And it's becoming a sad sight.

You want proof? How about the Moussaoui trial?

The man admits being a terrorist, admits wanting to fly a 5th 9/11 plane and with the confessions and the evidence the Jury would not give him the death penalty, opting to give him life in priosn instead. You know why? Cause some felt bad for his childhood .

On the first count of conspiracy to commit international terrorism, nine cited his unstable early childhood including stays in orphanages and a lack of emotional and financial support, and nine also cited physical and emotional abuse by his father.

Cause, of course, unstable childhoods that lack emotional support completly justify or excuse wanting and planning to kill hundreds of people. Yes, that makes sense. It also makes sense to put him in prison for life, where he will live until he dies of old age, while your tax dollars pay for his food, housing and health insurance. That makes sense. After all, if he chose that path, he must be a victim himself.

Boo-fuckin-hooo

What? Not convinced? Want more evidence?

Ok, how about your attitude towards the Iraq war? Let's review that one quickly, shall we?

You have 135000 troops in Iraq, of which 2500 died, after a major war, invasion and a 3 year occupation with an insurangncy that at least conducts 10 terrorist attacks daily and uses mortars, and not bullets, when shooting at your troops. You know what's a 2500 out of 135000 is? Not even 2% fatality rate. I repeat, after a major invasion and a 3 year occupation that the press loves to call a quagmire, the american military has only sufferd less than 2% fatality rate. Now, go to any military person you know, hell, any historian, and ask them if this fatality rate means that the Americans are losing and that the insurgents are winning. Don't get mad when he starts laughing at your face. The Media militray experts were expecting a 5% fatality rate just for the invasion people. And 3 years and countless comaprisons to Vietnam later, you didn't even crack the 2% rate. But sure, you are losing the war and the death rate is too high. Riight.

This is a war you did not want, but one that came to you. This is a war with people who don't mind dying as long as they kill you. This is a war of conviction, and you are found lacking. If you don't get that you have to be twice as resolute and equally as ruthless as your enemy, you will lose this war, sooner or later. I mean, do you even wonder why Moussaoui had the last laugh?

Moussaoui, as he was led from the courtroom after the 15-minute hearing, said: "America, you lost. … I won." He clapped his hands as he was escorted away.

This is the comment that I left:

I totally agree with you SM. We Americans are spoiled. Except for Pearl Harbor, we had not experienced any real violence created by an enemy until 9/11. Far too many people look at the world as a modern entity. Ideological wars are something that you read about in the history books.

Ignorance is never bliss, you either pay now or you pay later with an extremely high interest rate. Until 9/11, I was a Democrat who hated war. After 9/11, I decided to learn as much as I could about what happened. I discovered that we had been hit here before at the WTC, that we had been attacked a few other times in other countries. To me, these all were acts of war and nothing really was done about it.

Now, many people cannot seem to comprehend all of the reasons we went to Iraq. On it’s own, Iraq failed a whole line of requirements that the UN had set out. So, the WMD/no WMD issue is just a leftie talking point that they have chosen to spit out at every opportunity, but it was a very small piece of the reason. In the grant scheme, Iraq is only a small piece of the war and unless more people in our country finally decide to start learning about what we are dealing with, the price we will pay someday will be so big, it will affect the majority of our country and quite possibly a very large part of the world.

A comfortable, safe and ignorant life is grand. But, if you want to keep that life it is always necessary to protect it. And yes, even in this day and age, that can and does require blood.

Ask the military. Afterall, it is their lives that are being taken away. And they do it willingly and with pride. Our part of this war is to become educated about the enemy and stop trying to thwart the effort.

Pay now or pay bigger later. The enemy isn’t going to surrender this time people.