Something to ponder… If the claims listed in the video below are really true, then it is getting scary and the world should be aware of a growing problem.
Tag: Terrorist
The Taliban’s Atomic Threat
It looks like the Taliban is a hair’s breath away from taking over Pakistan and gaining access to their nuclear arsenal. Does anyone else get the feeling like things are spiraling out of control quickly?
Think about it… we could very well see nukes in the hands of the Taliban, Iran, and North Korea by this time next year or maybe sooner. It’s no wonder America’s enemies were rejoicing at the election of Obama.
Oh how I wish Patriots were running our country!
At his press conference Wednesday evening, President Barack Obama endorsed Pakistan’s official position that it has secure control over its nuclear-weapons arsenal. Mr. Obama said he was “gravely concerned” about the situation there, but “confident that the nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands.”
His words are not reassuring in light of the Taliban’s military and political gains throughout Pakistan. Our security, and that of friends and allies world-wide, depends critically on preventing more adversaries, especially ones with otherworldly ideologies, from acquiring nuclear weapons. Unless there is swift, decisive action against the Islamic radicals there, Pakistan faces two very worrisome scenarios.
One scenario is that instability continues to grow, and that the radicals disrupt both Pakistan’s weak democratic institutions and the military.
Often known as Pakistan’s “steel skeleton” for holding the country together after successive corrupt or incompetent civilian governments, the military itself is now gravely threatened from within by rising pro-Taliban sentiment. In these circumstances — especially if, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified recently, the nuclear arsenal has been dispersed around the country — there is a tangible risk that several weapons could slip out of military control. Such weapons could then find their way to al Qaeda or other terrorists, with obvious global implications.
The second scenario is even more dangerous. Instability could cause the constitutional government to collapse entirely and the military to fragment. This could allow a well-organized, tightly disciplined group to seize control of the entire Pakistani government. While Taliban-like radicals might not have even a remote chance to prevail in free and fair elections, they could well take advantage of chaos to seize power. If that happened, a radical Islamicist regime in Pakistan would control a substantial nuclear weapons capacity.
Not only could this second scenario give international terrorists even greater access to Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities, the risk of nuclear confrontation with India would also increase dramatically. Moreover, Iran would certainly further accelerate its own weapons program, followed inexorably by others in the region (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey) obtaining nuclear weapons, perhaps through direct purchase from Islamabad’s new regime.
To prevent either scenario, Pakistan must move to the top of our strategic agenda, albeit closely related to Afghanistan. (Pashtuns on both sides of the border are the major source of Taliban manpower, although certainly not the only locus of radical support.) Contrary to Western “international nannies,” the primary conflict motivators in both countries are ethnic and tribal loyalties, religious fanaticism and simple opportunism. It is not a case of the “have nots” rising against the “haves,” but of True Believers on a divine mission. Accordingly, neither greater economic assistance, nor more civilian advisers upcountry, nor stronger democratic institutions will eliminate the strategic threat nearly soon enough.
We didn’t get here overnight. We are reaping the consequences of failed nonproliferation policies that in the past penalized Pakistan for its nuclear program by cutting off military assistance and scaling back the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program that brought hundreds of Pakistani officers to the U.S. Globally, this extraordinarily successful program has bound generations of foreign military leaders to their U.S. counterparts. Past cut-offs with Pakistan have harmed our bilateral relationship. Perhaps inevitably, the Pakistani officers who haven’t participated in IMET are increasingly subject to radical influences.
Moreover, the Bush administration, by pushing former President Pervez Musharraf into unwise elections and effectively removing him from power, simply exacerbated the instability within Pakistan’s already frail system. Mr. Musharraf’s performance against the terrorists left much to be desired, and he was no democrat. But removing him was unpleasantly reminiscent of the 1963 coup against South Vietnam’s Diem regime, which ushered in a succession of ever-weaker, revolving-door governments, thus significantly facilitating the ultimate Communist takeover. Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, while obviously unforeseen, was a direct consequence of our excessive electoral zeal.
To prevent catastrophe will require considerable American effort and unquestionably provoke resistance from many Pakistanis, often for widely differing reasons. We must strengthen pro-American elements in Pakistan’s military so they can purge dangerous Islamicists from their ranks; roll back Taliban advances; and, together with our increased efforts in Afghanistan, decisively defeat the militants on either side of the border. This may mean stifling some of our democratic squeamishness and acquiescing in a Pakistani military takeover, if the civilian government melts before radical pressures. So be it.
Moreover, we must strive to keep Indo-Pakistani relations stable, if not friendly, and pressure Islamabad to put nuclear-weapons proliferator and father of Pakistan’s nuclear program A.Q. Khan back under house arrest. At the same time, we should contemplate whether and how to extract as many nuclear weapons as possible from Pakistan, thus somewhat mitigating the consequences of regime collapse.
President Obama’s talks next week in Washington with the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan provide a clear opportunity to take the hard steps necessary to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and defeat the Taliban. Failure to act decisively could well lead to strategic defeat in Pakistan.
The Obama Doctrine
No truer words were ever spoken!
AFTER a mere 100 days, the “Obama Doctrine” for our foreign and security poli cies has emerged. And it’s terrifying.
The combination of dizzying naivete, dislike of our allies, disdain for our military, distrust of our intelligence services and distaste for our own country promises the worst foreign policy of our lifetimes.
That includes President Jimmy Carter’s abysmal record of failure.
The core tenets of the Obama Doctrine to date would make a charter member of the Weather Underground cheer:
We’re to blame. If there are problems anywhere, they’re America’s fault. This central conviction of leftist ideology appears to have soaked so thoroughly into our president’s consciousness during his lengthy friendships with extremists that it’s now second nature to him.
Problems can be negotiated away. From Somali pirates to Moscow’s belligerency, Obama and his Cabinet see a good chat as the best response to a challenge. Our president got to the Oval Office by talking, not doing, and his faith in his powers of persuasion is unlimited.
An acquaintance who may have our government’s best grasp of the Russians shakes his head at the tone in Washington. The current mantra: “We have to get over our Cold War thinking.” Great — except that it’s the Russians who’ve revived Cold War hostility.
The Taliban devours Pakistan, and we want to talk. President Hugo Chavez destroys Venezuela’s democracy, and we want to talk. Iran pursues nuclear weapons with refreshed enthusiasm . . . and we want to talk.
Problems that can’t be talked out can be bought off. Pakistan, a nuke-armed state of 170 million Muslims seething with anti-Americanism stirred up by our “friends,” faces a crack-up as its once-monolithic military splinters. Obama’s answer? Send billions of dollars that will disappear and weapons that may soon be used against our troops.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thinks the solution to piracy is a generous program to rebuild Somalia. (Been there, done that.) She’d also like to hand Hamas a billion bucks.
The “Las Vegas law” applies: You can buy sex but not enduring love. We can’t defeat terror with welfare checks.
Islamist terrorism doesn’t exist. The term’s even been banned from government departments. As Muslim extremists slaughter innocent victims by the thousands, we’re assured Islam’s a “religion of peace” that contributed profoundly to our country’s development. (Huh?)
It’s as if 9/11 never happened. The “nonterrorists” drenching the greater Middle East in blood and threatening us as loudly as they can are just victims of our aggression. It’s all our fault.
Terrorists do exist, though — among our returning veterans and amid those Americans who don’t subscribe to MoveOn.org’s revulsion at our country.
Israel’s the obstacle to Middle East peace. Palestinians are all victims. Hamas consists of struggling community activists. The terrorists are in the Israeli military.
Our nukes threaten world peace and we need to get rid of them. Other states only maintain or seek nuclear arsenals because we worry them. If we can get down to zero nukes, peace will reign on earth.
Forget that only our nuclear weapons prevented World War III and that they still deter potential enemies. Just get rid of them, OK?
Our military is dangerous. Beyond Obama’s cynically choreographed appearances with our troops, he and his coterie clearly disdain military advice and uniformed service. The administration views our troops as primitive creatures who must be collared and leashed, not as part of any solutions.
Our intelligence services are even more dangerous than our military. The administration’s already begun to gut our intelligence capabilities. Carter at least pretended to study the problem. Obama’s plunging straight in with the demoralization of our shadow warriors.
It’s only torture if we do it.
Blame President George W. Bush. Should the Obama Doctrine lead to new terror attacks (sorry, Janet: I meant “man-caused disasters”) or to foreign-policy humiliations, it won’t be Obama’s fault, but Bush’s.
We’re becoming a third-world country, succumbing to a sickening (in both senses of the word) culture of blame. And that culture is fostered by breathtaking ignorance.
We now have a president who doesn’t know that Pakistan was founded as a democracy, a secretary of state who thinks we created the Taliban, a head of the Department of Homeland Security who doesn’t believe Islamist terrorists exist and a vice president who claims FDR gave televised speeches during the Depression.
If Bush had made such gaffes, the media would’ve mocked him. But Obama and his entourage excite orgasmic forgiveness among journalists. Which brings us to the Obama Doctrine’s final tenet:
Our media sluts will portray defeat as victory.
FAA Memo: Feds Knew NYC Flyover Would Cause Panic
The Feds knew the flyover would cause a panic? Is this “Bizarro World”? Are we to believe that Obama didn’t know about this appallingly stupid flyover? Those aircraft don’t move one inch without his knowledge. Why would Obama want to terrorize the citizens of New York? Maybe… just maybe he is a Trojan horse and he was getting his jollies!
“Isn’t it fabulous how Obama has reconciled with our enemies and put fear into the hearts of Americans? Does any image illustrate so neatly the wrongheadedness of the Obama administration than Americans scrambling in terror from Air Force One?” ~ Ace of Spades HQ
CBS 2 HD has discovered the feds will have plenty to question.
Federal officials knew that sending two fighter jets and Air Force One to buzz ground zero and Lady Liberty might set off nightmarish fears of a 9/11 replay, but they still ordered the photo-op kept secret from the public.
In a memo obtained by CBS 2 HD the Federal Aviation Administration’s James Johnston said the agency was aware of “the possibility of public concern regarding DOD (Department of Defense) aircraft flying at low altitudes” in an around New York City. But they demanded total secrecy from the NYPD, the Secret Service, the FBI and even the mayor’s office and threatened federal sanctions if the secret got out.
Michael Scheuer – Osama, Obama and Torture
This piece by Michael Scheuer is very powerful because it reflects the truth, especially the last paragraph.
Say It’s Osama. What If He Won’t Talk?
In surprisingly good English, the captive quietly answers: ‘Yes, all thanks to God, I do know when the mujaheddin will, with God’s permission, detonate a nuclear weapon in the United States, and I also know how many and in which cities.” Startled, the CIA interrogators quickly demand more detail. Smiling his trademark shy smile, the captive says nothing. Reporting the interrogation’s results to the White House, the CIA director can only shrug when the president asks: “What can we do to make Osama bin Laden talk?”
Americans should keep this worst-case scenario in mind as they watch the tragicomic spectacle taking place in the wake of the publication of the Justice Department’s interrogation memos. It will help them recognize this episode of political theater as another major step in the bipartisan dismantling of America’s defenses based on the requirements of presidential ideology. George W. Bush’s democracy-spreading philosophy yielded the invasion of Iraq and set the United States at war with much of the Muslim world. Bush’s worldview thereby produced an enemy that quickly outpaced the limited but proven threat-containing capacities of the major U.S. counterterrorism programs — rendition, interrogation and unmanned aerial vehicle attacks.
Now, in a single week, President Obama has eliminated two-thirds of that successful-but-not-sufficient national defense troika because his personal ideology — a fair gist of which is “If the world likes us more we are more secure” — cannot tolerate harsh interrogation techniques, torture or coercive interviews, call them what you will. Surprisingly, Obama now stands alongside Bush as a genuine American Jacobin, both of them seeing the world as they want it to be, not as it is. Whereas Bush saw a world of Muslims yearning to betray their God for Western secularism, Obama gazes upon a globe that he regards as largely carnivore-free and believes that remaining threats can be defused by semantic warfare; just stop saying “War on Terror” and give talks in Turkey and on al-Arabiyah television, for example.
Americans should be clear on what Obama has done. In a breathtaking display of self-righteousness and intellectual arrogance, the president told Americans that his personal beliefs are more important than protecting their country, their homes and their families. The interrogation techniques in question, the president asserted, are a sign that Americans have lost their “moral compass,” a compliment similar to Attorney General Eric Holder’s identifying them as “moral cowards.” Mulling Obama’s claim, one can wonder what could be more moral for a president than doing all that is needed to defend America and its citizens? Or, asked another way, is it moral for the president of the United States to abandon intelligence tools that have saved the lives and property of Americans and their allies in favor of his own ideological beliefs?
Before enthroning Obama’s personal morality as U.S. defense policy, of course, some dirty work had to be done. Last Sunday, Obama’s hit man and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel led the charge by telling the American people that the interrogation techniques are a major recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and its Islamist partners. Well, no, Mr. Emanuel, that is not at all the case. The techniques surely are not popular with our foes and their supporters — should that be a concern in any event? — but they do not even make the Islamists’ hit parade of anti-U.S. recruiting tools. That list is headed by Washington’s support for Arab tyrannies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, its presence on the Arabian Peninsula and its unqualified support for Israel. Still, Emanuel’s statement surely sounded plausible to Americans who have received no education about our Islamist enemy’s true motivation from Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton or George H.W. Bush.
Next, the president used his personal popularity and the stature of his office to implicitly identify as liars those former senior U.S. officials who know — not “argue” or “contend” or “assert” but know — that the interrogation techniques have yielded intelligence essential to the nation’s defense. The integrity, intellect and reputations of Judge Michael Mukasey, Gen. Michael V. Hayden and others have now been besmirched by Obama because their realistic worldview and firsthand experience do not mesh with the president’s desire to install his personal “moral compass” as the core of U.S. foreign and defense policy. And after visiting CIA headquarters last week, the president made it clear that he rejected statements surely made by CIA officers who risked their careers to tell him how many successful covert operations against al-Qaeda have flowed from interrogation information. As with all Jacobins, Obama cannot allow a hard and often brutal reality — call it an inconvenient truth — to impinge on his view of how the world should and must be made to work.
And so as the Justice Department memos farce plays out over the coming weeks, Americans can be confident that both parties will play politics to the hilt while letting the nation’s safety take the hindmost. Obama and his team will “reluctantly” agree to a congressional investigation of former Bush officials and serving CIA officers, politically targeted indictments from Holder’s minions and perhaps even a truth commission to prove that even the United States can aspire to be a half-baked Third World country.
Republicans will welcome the Democrats’ actions as a chance to reclaim their mantle as the most reliable protectors of U.S. national security. They will seek to prove that Obama and his party are eager to persecute the men and women who defend America and will denounce Democratic actions as a “witch hunt.” Those words were used last week by Sen. John McCain, a man who seems to have forgotten that as a presidential candidate he, more than anyone, persuaded Americans that the interrogation techniques amounted to torture and gloried in calling the CIA and its officers a “rogue institution.”
Americans and their country’s security will be the losers. The Republicans do not have the votes to stop Obama, and the world will not be safer for America because the president abandons interrogations to please his party’s left wing and the European pacifists it so admires. Both are incorrigibly anti-American, oppose the use of force in America’s defense and — like Obama — naively believe that the West’s Islamist foes can be sweet-talked into a future alive with the sound of kumbaya.
So if the above worst-case scenario ever comes to pass, Americans will have at least two things from which to take solace, even after the loss of major cities and tens of thousands of countrymen. First, they will know that their president believes that those losses are a small price to pay for stopping interrogations and making foreign peoples like us more. And second, they will see Osama bin Laden’s shy smile turn into a calm and beautiful God-is-Great grin.
Load More