TEN YEARS, ZERO JUSTICE

Today is the tenth anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole.  Seventeen brave sailors died that day, and thirty-nine more were wounded.  Less than a year later, September 11th would overshadow all previous attacks, making them seem insignificant by comparison.  Many people see that as the beginning of the war on terror - a carefully planned act of war on innocent civilians.  Many people became aware for the first time that there were factions who hated us and wanted to kill as many of us as possible. 

In reality, the 1990's were full of terrorist attacks, many of which were shrugged off by the Clinton administration.  Because they occurred in foreign lands, and the primary victims were military personnel, the American people shrugged them off, too.  But it was a planned campaign, an incessant poking of the bear that would escalate with each lack of response.

Which brings us to the USS Cole bombing.  It's hard to forget the images of the crippled ship coming home; the  huge 60' by 40' hole torn into her side was a disturbing reminder that even we, the strongest country in the world, could be brought low.   The response to this deadly attack on our brave men and women in uniform?  Nothing so far. Ten years, and nothing has been done to bring the mastermind of the bombing, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, to justice. 

Clinton vowed retribution:

“You will not find a safe harbor,” he proclaimed. “We will find you and justice will prevail.”

Eh, not so much. But what else was he supposed to say less than a month out from a major election cycle?  The words and actions of politicians seldome sync. Nashiri is the only person we are holding for the Cole bombing (some planners eventually gave their sick and twisted all for Allah on 9/11), but the attack was credited to Osama Bin Laden (who actually read poetry about the bombing) and al Qaeda a mere two weeks after the event.

The Cole bombing was central to the intel about potential future strikes by al Qaeda - intel that was shrugged off by the incoming Bush administration.  Less than a year later, that intel would prove true and everyone's attention would be focused on al Qaeda as they tried to come to grips with the events of 9/11.  At least the Bush administration managed to capture Nashiri and place him in Gitmo in 2006, but nothing has been done since.

In early February of 2009, President Obama actually withdrew charges against Nashiri.  The reason for the withdrawal was so the DoJ could reveiw handling of high value prosecutions of Guantanamo detainees.  The DoJ recently filed a motion saying there were no immediate plans to file new charges - a motion that was met with dismay and disbelief by the victims and families.

And so another year has passed without justice for the Cole victims and survivors.  That makes three presidents now who have dropped the ball. 

This unwillingness to prosecute war criminals made the enemy think we were weak.  Each incident was an escalation.  When even the Cole didn't register, the plans for 9/11, which was already deep in the planning and preparation stages, went into high gear.  They thought they could attack with impunity and expect little response - and why would they not?

Would retaliation for the Cole attack have averted 9/11?  Who knows?  On the one hand, al Qaeda might have been disrupted and funding siezed, which could have stopped the attacks.  On the other, strikes on al Qaeda might have been a catalyst in and of itself, triggering the attacks anyway.  Either way, the perpetrators of the attack on the USS Cole remain unpunished, and wondering what might have been takes time away from dealing with what really has occurred.  Which leaves unanswered the burning question of the day -

When will there be justice for the Cole?

A LITTLE SALVE FOR THE SOUL

I highly recommend an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal for your consumption.  Dorothy Rabinowitz has written an insightful piece on the victimization of muslims in this country.   The journey begins with Tom Hanks, and ends with a New York cabbie: 

It can't have come as a surprise that one of the now entrenched myths about America—namely, its ongoing victimization of Muslims—should have been voiced again by a leading citizen of our myth-producing capital, Hollywood. The citizen was Tom Hanks, and the occasion his March interview in Time Magazine in which he declared that our battle with Japan in World War II was one of "racism and terror." And that, he noted, should remind us of our current wars.

I have tried to remain mum on Hanks because I really like his work, but good gravy, what an asinine, deep-in-the-bubble, Hollywood lefty remark is that!?  It truly makes me wish he'd never said it, because it's just so ridiculously out-of-touch that I'm afraid I won't be able to see one of his movies without thinking of it.  What is really frightening is that he is becoming considered the "historian-in-chief" of the nation.  Considering many of these historical events are no longer taught  (or taught incorrectly) in our schools, that means the man who thinks race was the main driver for WWII is the most influential "expert" many sectors of our society, not to mention the rest of the world, will have contact with.  Frightening thought.

Mr. Hanks is representative of a narrative that is taking hold in this country, and Ms. Rabinowitz dissects the psychology of it beautifully.  She discusses the three page spread (6 on the internet) the Washington Post did on a muslim soldier who, according to the article, "battles on friendly ground".   Whomever is intimidating Spec. Zachari Klawonn is obviously in need of intervention, but considering the base this happened on, there is a degree of understanding as to why counselling might have been required anyway:

The latest reflection of this trend, grown steadily since the attacks of Sept. 11, came with a three-page spread in the Washington Post on March 24 about the tribulations of a Muslim soldier who reported being subjected to slurs, various other insults, and also a threatening note. His commander suggested he might do well to move to housing off base. The base in question was Fort Hood, where, last November, army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan murdered 13 fellow American soldiers.

The question Ms. Rabinowitz poses is, just how common is this anti-muslim narrative, and how pervasive has it become?   She makes a compelling argument:

The pain of these confrontations was undoubtedly great, as such treatment always is. Ask the members of religious and racial minorities who served, say, in World War II, when it wasn't unusual to hear slurs like "kike" and such hurled at them. Ask black Americans who had the incomparably worse experience of serving in a racially segregated military, where they were relegated to the worst duties. Not to mention being made witness—in parts of the country—to the sight of German POWs held in the U.S. eating in restaurants barred to black Americans in uniform, and otherwise being accorded respect that those Americans could not hope to receive.
Still, there were no instances of those enduring this treatment undertaking mass murder of other American servicemen. There was rage, and there were some riots, but no cases of U.S. soldiers enlisting in the service of the enemy as Maj. Hasan had. (Hasan, it was explained after he had cut down those unarmed servicemen and women packed into that room in Ft. Hood, had suffered prejudice-related pressures as a Muslim in the armed services.)

She mentions the usual suspects that perpetuate the myth by only highlighting the rare instances of bad behavior, and the press, naturally, figures centrally.  This dovetails beautifully into a recent article from Lane Wallace of The Atlantic.   In her piece titled "The Bias of Veteran Reporters" she discussed the tendencies of veteran reporters to make assumptions and only ask questions angled to prove that assumption.  She also mentions their 33% accuracy rating.   Rabinowitz's article is like an expanded example that proves Ms. Wallace's hypothesis. 
 
But Rabinowitz doesn't just prove the point, she uplifts it.  Just when the ire starts to boil at the broad-brush accusations, she quenches it will a much needed reassurance.  It is a reminder that those stories, although unacceptable and upsetting, are the exception, not the norm.  Yes, there are those out there who push things too far, but Ms Rabinowitz reminds us of our national character; what it truly means to be an American and why so many seek our shores.
 
That is where we meet a nameless, faceless New York cabbie.   His simple words of empathy and gratitude are touching.  In speaking of 9/11 and the aftermath, the former resident of Pakistan recounts a meeting with his judeo-christian neighbors after the attacks that brought home to him just what kind of country he has chosen to raise his children in:
 

"...Do you know," he said, in a voice suddenly sharp, "what would have happened if Americans had done this kind of attack in my country? Every American—every Christian, every non-Muslim—would have been slaughtered, blood would have run in the streets. I know the kind of country this is. Thanks be to God I can give this to my children."

 
Amen.
 
I urge you to read the whole article.  I left out a pertinent fact about the cabbie's story - something that would never make a three-page spread in the mainstream media.  It just doesn't follow their narrative.  Check it out.  In these rancorous times, it's nice to hear, for a change, that we are not necessarily as evil as we are portrayed.
 
 

TRAINING DAY

Did you ever get a job where you had to watch one of those stupid training films?  You know the ones - the 'new hire' makes a series of obvious mistakes that are pointed out and corrected.  They are sort of a 'don't do this' method of training.

Is it just me, or does this whole Christmas Day EunichBomber episode seem like a really bad TSA/DHS/airline training film?

Think about it - almost every single red flag that could be hoisted was, and yet he was still able to get on that plane and attempt to blow it up.  Each step of the way, if this had been a training film, there would have been a big, flashing red X superimposed on Abdulmutallab, accompanied by a loud buzzing noise.

Let's see...The NSA got intelligence from al Qaeda's Yemeni affiliate that they were going to use a Nigerian in an unspecified terror attack.  Then Abdulmutallab's own father warned the US Embassy in Nigeria of his son's radicalism.  For some reason, these two things were never connected.  Apparently the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) was never notified of either piece of intelligence - if they had, one would hope they would have connected those giant, flashing neon dots and Abdulmutallab wouldn't have been allowed on the flight.  X!  X!  X!  BUZZ!

There were also conversations between Abdulmutallab and at least one al Qaeda member (reportedly radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi - the man who allegedly counselled Ft. Hood shooter Malik Nidal Hasan) that were intercepted by US officials.  Unfortunately, a radical Yemeni talking to a radicalized Nigerian apparently wasn't enough to warrant further investigation, even with the NSA intelligence mentioned above.  BUZZ!

On top of that, he was in our terrorist database because of his father's attempts to warn us, but not on a terror watch list, no-fly list or a special screening list.  This is because they felt there just wasn't enough information to warrant his being put on the watch list, let alone the no-fly or special screening lists.  In Britain, if you are on a watch list, you don't come into the country.  Period.  But in the US, we have a tiered system - a database of about 550,000, on which Abdulmutallab was listed.  Then there is the 400,000 person terror watch list.  Then there is the 14,000 person special screening list, and, finally, the no-fly list, which has about 4,000 names.  One would assume this tiered system is to make sure we don't step on any innocent toes.  Wouldn't want to profile or make wild assumptions, now would we - it might hurt someone's feelings (even though the main database is for people with suspected or known terror associations).  I suppose a father turning in his own son just isn't credible enough to get him on the no-fly list.  Apparently we have to wait until he sets his crotch on fire before we can safely assume he doesn't have our best interests at heart.   BUZZ! 

There is a lot of talk about insufficient technology at the airports - not enough puffers and full body scans and the like.  First of all, poorer countries like Nigeria have more important things to spend their money on than body scanners.  Besides, what do they really care about the safety of US citizens, after all?  We certainly cannot afford to pay to have all international airports upgraded - we can barely afford to upgrade our own.  Forget about all of the high-tech stuff - if he had just been frisked, they would have found the bag of PETN explosive strapped to his torso.  Someone in a terror database should at least be frisked, for heaven's sake!  BUZZ!

For that matter, why aren't the terror watch lists/databases international?  Apparently, Abdulmutallab was in a US database and a UK no-fly list, but not an international one.  Why?  Many terrorists are from overseas, so why aren't our international allies notified?  Aren't we all supposed to be working in concert on this?  Why are there different lists?  So much for a 'global community'....BUZZ!

No one has yet been able to explain satisfactorily how he managed to get through security with a syringe filled with an unidentified substance, either.  BUZZ!

The UK revoked his visa back in May, but apparently didn't notify the US - perhaps if the Obama administration hadn't waged that bizzarre campaign to insult and alienate our greatest ally, they may have shared that little tidbit with us.  My question is, why did a man on a terror database get granted a visa in the first place?   And if the visa was granted before his inclusion on the database, why didn't a red flag that he was already a visa holder go up when he was entered into the database?  One would assume the State Department would automatically check the database before issuing a visa - but that would require common sense - something it is becoming more and more apparent that is sorely lacking in our government.  BUZZ!

Well, at least his visa has finally been revoked -tweleve days after the event.  BUZZ!!

Let's not forget the airlines in all of this.  They are our last line of defense, and they performed miserably.

He is a single young man who bought a one-way ticket.  BUZZ!

He then paid for said ticket with cash.  BUZZ!

The cherry on top, though, was the fact that he had not one single piece of baggage for a transAtlantic flight.  X!  X!  X!  BUZZ!  BUZZ!  BUZZ!!!!!

If this wasn't so dangerous, it would be comical.  But the fact is, Abdulmutallab nearly succeeded in his plan.  The only thing that stood between him and a horrific tragedy was a malfunctioning detonation.

This is really the best we can do, 8 years and three months after 9/11?

Perhaps it's time to think about privatizing our security agencies.  It is becoming more and more apparent that the bureaucracies in place now are as ineffective and bogged down in red tape as every other government bureaucracy.  Let's face it, government agencies just simply are not known for their practicality, innovation and quick action - things that are desperately needed right now.

At the very least, it's time to get all of our various security agencies into a room and make them watch a 'training video' like I just described over and over again until they get it.  Maybe a few team-building workshops between the agencies wouldn't be a bad idea either.  They expect us to trust them with our lives, but they can't even trust each other with information.

WITNESS TO A MUGGING

Adding a newly dramatic meaning to the phrase "Don't get your panties in a twist", a (thankfully) inept Nigerian man unsuccessfully tried to ignite his Al Qaeda issued underwear bomb on Northwest Flight 253. 

Heroic passenger Jasper Schuringa subdued the flaming jihadi and removed the burning device, saving over 200 of his fellow passenger's lives.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano came out quickly with a statement that the 'system worked'.  The uproar over this statement, after all of the missed opportunities to stop this terrorist - from visa issues to passport problems to airport security to his own father warning US officials of his son's radical jihadism - caused Napolitano to come out on the Today show this morning and claim all of those crazy right-wingers were taking her remarks "out of context".  She claimed that her 'system worked' comment was in regards to after the fact response, NOT security measures to stop the incident in the first place. 

I'm sure the passengers of Flight 253, as well as every person boarding a flight since the incident, will rest easy knowing that if they had been blown out of the sky, the FAA would have been prompt in notifying other flights and government agencies that a terror attack had taken place.  After all, the response is FAR more important than thwarting the incident in the first place, right? 

Once again, Napolitano (and, by extension, the Obama Administration) made an ass of herself with her half-cocked response before all of the information is in.  She also insisted this was a 'lone wolf', isolated incident.  Too bad Al Qaeda didn't get the memo.  Neither, apparently, have these people.

At what point is the administration going to finally realize that there really is a war on terror, and we are fixed squarely in the sights of radical islamic jihadis who will continue to attack us in any way possible?  Was this the mugging by reality that they so desperately needed to wake them up?  It certainly has illustrated, among other things, that the people appointed by President Obama are woefully inexperienced and poorly chosen for their positions.

Mutallab may not have succeeded in blowing that plane out of the sky (thank God), but he did succeed in scaring the crap out of all of us.  And that's the whole point of 'terrorism', isn't it?

Prolonged periods of fear and stress often lead to things like Stockholm Syndrome and appeasement to make the pressure ease.  Seems like our liberal brethren in high office have already succumbed....

We were not attacked in 2001 because of the most heinous Bush-monster, and the attacks didn't stop because al Qaeda lost interest after 9/11.  They attacked us before Bush took office and after he left office.  They have been unsuccessful so far because of diligence on behalf of law enforcement and private citizens.  This incident is proof positive that the ball has been dropped.  There is no one person to blame, it is a systemic failure, but the constant down playing of the terrorist threat by Ms. Napolitano and the administration in general has to have played a significant part in the relaxation of security across the board.  Why be vigilant when you are constantly being assured that there is no such thing as a war on terror or radical islamists or terror attacks?

The administration is in denial about the Ft. Hood killer being a jihadi, but this shot across the bow is so blatant that even they can't ignore it or spin it away.

Yes, Janet, there really are terrorists.  It's okay to believe; don't let the other kids tell you differently.

Being mugged by reality really sucks, I know, but it's time to take the lesson you've been handed and actually learn from it before lives are lost.

THE VOICE OF REASON FROM...LINDSEY GRAHAM?

Let me be frank - I'm not a huge fan of Lindsey Graham. I think he is one of those wishy-washy RINO types that have helped the liberals with their progressive agenda.

But every now and then, he surprises me.

Eric Holder looked like a deer in headlights, could not defend his decision to try KSM 6 blocks from the scene of his act of war, and did nothing to convince Americans that criminal trials are the way to go.

It is becoming more and more apparent that this whole exercise is a back-door route to trying the Bush administration and the CIA for war crimes. This isn't about proving KSM's guilt. That was done when he confessed. Because of that confession, there shouldn't even be a trial. And yet, there is.

Holder and Obama are quite convinced he will be found guilty. I'm no lawyer, but isn't that predetermining the outcome, much like a kangaroo court? And why, exactly, do you need to find him guilty? He already admitted he is! Yes, Mr. Holder, the evidence against KSM is overwhelming - he entered a guilty plea. But, then again, this is the guy who allowed a guilty verdict against New Black Panther Party voter intimidators to be thrown out with no explaination whatsoever, so nothing his department has done so far has made much sense.

Criminal courts have way too many loopholes to let off the criminal - such as officials assuring the public of not just a guilty verdict, but a death penalty guilty verdict before the trial even begins. Apparently Obama and Holder have forgotten that whole 'presumption of innocence' thing - or maybe they think it is actually 'presumption of guilt'. Is that part of the 'change' we were sold during the election last year?

Sen. Graham is absolutely right - this is BAD history that Holder and Obama are making. In their asinine quest to 'showcase' the American court system, they are showing the world that America is okay with kangaroo show trials. That is NOT the American way. This scenario smacks more of Chavez's socialist Venezuela than the United States.

They are also making NYC a target again, and costing the city, which is already deep in the red, an estimated $75 million in added security costs. The trauma the people of New York suffered will be revisited for as long as this trial lasts - which may be years, if some analysts are right. That trauma will be amplified by the anxiety of a potential al-Quaeda strike.

Even if al-Quaeda doesn't strike, our criminal trial process will put information at KSM's (and, by extension al-Quaeda) fingertips that a terrorist of his caliber simply shouldn't have.

Put simply, Obama is allowing Holder to compromise our security to go on a Bush administration/CIA witch hunt.

This is an absolute travesty and must be stopped. Kudos to Sen. Graham for recognizing that and calling it what it is.

LET LOOSE THE FLOODGATES

A few weeks ago, our esteemed president promised that no illegals would be covered under ObamaCare, and was called out by Rep. Wilson as a liar. It now turns out that, in the strictest sense, Obama wasn't lying, because it seems that his next step in 'transforming' our country involves amnesty (although I'm sure it won't be called that), so that all those poor illegals will no longer be illegal and thus will be eligible for health care and a major crisis will be averted.

Apparently, coming here legally and getting a real (legal, taxpaying) job is too much to ask.

Those who come to this country legally and overstay their welcome should be assisted in obtaining citizenship, but those who came here illegally, be it via desert, raft or tunnel, should be returned to where they came from and apply for legal status through the proper channels. Those who overstayed their welcome are at least documented as being in the country, and, in these terror-filled times, that is important.

The problem is, amnesty and free health care for 12 million isn't the end of it.

Now our esteemed leader is starting a campaign of decreasing our presence at the borders. Via CNS News:

"(CNSNews.com) - Even though the Border Patrol now reports that almost 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control, and the Department of Justice says that vast stretches of the border are “easily breached,” and the Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year, the administration is nonetheless now planning to decrease the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Border Patrol Director of Media Relations Lloyd Easterling confirmed this week--as I first reported in my column yesterday--that his agency is planning for a net decrease of 384 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2010, which begins on October 1. "

Apparently, the democrats have been paying attention to the polls.

It seems they have decided that their best course of action is to open up the borders and offer amnesty and free health care in order to buy votes, since it seems they have managed to alienate just about every other voting block in the country.

This proposal, just like the mess they are calling health care 'reform' and Cap and Tax, must not be allowed to pass. Luckily, they only need to be held off for a few more months. Once the election season starts in January, they will be too busy campaigning to actually get any work done.

Thank God.

You know, I remember a time when Americans would complain that nothing was getting done in Washington.

Be careful what you wish for, huh?