Guatanamo Bay Closing in 1 year

President Obama issued an executive order to shutdown the terrorist detention at Guantanamo Bay by the end of the year. The Obama Administration does not have a plan to do with detainees currently being held there, but expects to have one before the end of the year.

You have got to be kidding me. The man has been campaigning on this issue for nearly three years and he doesn’t have a plan? Good Lord, even if winning the election was surprise to Obama he has had since November to come up with a good idea to present to the American people. It's almost like he is winging it!

Iraqis: Life is getting better

This report from the Sunday Times Web Page

Marie Colvin

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said the findings pointed to progress. “There is no widespread violence in the four southern provinces and the fact that the picture is more complex than the stereotype usually portrayed is reflected in today’s poll,” she said.

Clinton's Conspiracy

Bill Clinton has been making a lot of headlines lately, from my perspective they have not been the most flattering. First Clinton threatens ABC in a vain attempt to stop the airing of their 9/11 drama and now he goes ballistic when Chris Wallace ask the former President if he done enough to capture Bin Laden. President Clinton, always a master protector of his image, has completely lost it with his finger-pointing response to Wallace:

“But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including the right-wingers attacking me now, they had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed.”

When Clinton pulls out the vast right wing conspiracy excuse it rings hollow because we remember the last time it was used and realize that Clinton lied when he said “I did not have sex with that woman.” Clinton uses the same tactics now as he did then. You have to ask what would make us think that he isn't lying now? So already there is a credibility problem with Clinton’s tirade.

The same can be said about Albright's and Clinton's protest of the Path to 9/11. The main beef wasn’t so much that what was portrayed by the controversial scenes didn’t reflect the Clinton’s foreign policy, but that the actual meeting never took place. So what we have is a parsing of words again. Ok, maybe conversations took place over the course of several meetings but not at one meeting like the movie made it out to be. Therefore the entire movie should be discounted. Sounds like “depends what you mean ‘is’ is” all over again.

We know that after the ’93 WTC bombing nothing was done to get Bin Laden. We know that when our troops were killed in Somalia, we did nothing. We know when our embassy in Kenya was bombed we did nothing. We know that when the USS Cole was bombed we did nothing. We know that Bin Laden was responsible for all of these attacks, we did nothing. We know when the Sudan offered to turn Bin Laden over us, we did nothing. We know that when the CIA had Bin Laden targeted we did nothing but inform Pakistan that the Tomahawk missiles were on the way, thus giving Bin Laden the warning needed to defy death. We know that Clinton was President when we did nothing.

Let’s make this clear, there was one man responsible for 9/11 and that man was Osama Bin Laden. Not Bill Clinton or George Bush. As Americans we need to keep that in mind. However, it does not serve anyone to make claims of a right wing conspiracy as a means to ignore the mistakes of history. You would think that someone of Clinton’s stature would know when to keep his mouth shut. By making comments on the ABC movie and screaming at Chris Wallace, Clinton has started a new debate of his role in 9-11, forcing people to do a retrospection of his 8 year presidency and proving what a partisan hack he has always been. It would have been nice to hear Clinton just say that I tried to get Bin Laden but failed, but this would have required a bit of humility, a virtue that Clinton has always lacked.

The Return of Vichy France

President Jacques Chirac has broken ranks with the US and Britain by calling for the suspension of UN Security Council action against Iran during negotiations over its nuclear programme.

In a radio interview yesterday before flying to New York for the UN General Assembly, the French President provoked a diplomatic storm by backing Iran's demand that the Security Council should halt its involvement in the nuclear dossier.

The demand is spelt out in Iran's confidential 20-page response to a Western offer of technological and economic co-operation in return for a freeze on nuclear activities which could lead to production of a nuclear weapon. The Independent has obtained a copy of the document.

M. Chirac suggested that the group of six nations involved in talks with Iran - Britain, the US, France, Germany, Russia and China - should "set an agenda, then start negotiations".

"We must, on the one hand, together, Iran and the six countries, meet and set an agenda, then start negotiations. Then, during these negotiations, I suggest that the six renounce referring [Iran to] the UN Security Council and that Iran renounce uranium enrichment during negotiations," M. Chirac said.

An American Hero

This week on HBO's Inside the NFL the subject of Pat Tillman's death was featured. For those unfamiliar, Pat Tillman decided to walk away from the NFL during the prime of his career to join the Marines and defend his country in the aftermath of 9/11. Literally Pat Tillman gave up millions for the opportunity to bring Osama Bin Laden home. Tragically on April 22, 2004 in Afghanistan, Pat Tillman was killed in action. The Pentagon stated that Tillman was killed in a heroic charge protecting his fellow Marines during an ambush from enemy combatants. These initial reports proved to be untrue as it became clear that Tillman was taken down as a result of friendly fire. Unfortunately friendly fire is something that happens during the course of any war, but even though the military knew that the initial reports to the media were untrue they did nothing to correct the misinformation. A month after Tillman’s funeral the Pentagon changed its story stating that Tillman’s death was due to friendly fire aggravated by the intensity of the firefight. It was later learned that no hostile forces were involved and that two allied groups fired on in confusion over an exploded mine. It becomes obvious that the Pentagon, whether to avoid embarrassment or to exploit Tillman’s death, was less than forthright to the Tillman Family.

As a result the Tillman family is unable to bring closure in dealing with their son's death. It is unfortunate in every aspect. To Pat Tillman’s family and friends it is important that they know the truth, and I hope they can get that when the Pentagon's investigation concludes at the end of the month. To the general public it's more important to focus on how Pat Tillman led his life, not his death. Regardless of the circumstances, Pat Tillman’s story is one of a man who demonstrated self sacrifice and courage. I, for one, will always keep that in perspective. Pat Tillman remains my hero.

The Path to 9/11

Over the weekend there were a firestorm of stories of how high ranking members of the Democratic Party demanded that ABC pull the broadcast of The Path to 9-11. Immediately there were comparisons to the CBS mini-series about Ronald Reagan, only that time conservatives were the ones screaming that the mini-series was factually inaccurate. The producers called both mini-series "docu-dramas", this is just deceptive term that is only meant to confused viewers into believing that that what they are seeing is actually the truth but sprinkled with enough lies to keep the drama moving forward. I hate this "docu-drama" term, lets stop pretending that this is a "fair and balance" news report. There is no way that the people in charge of the creative process of creating any "work" can remove their personal emotions from their representation of the truth. It's naturally going to be slanted. I personally don't believe that there is anything wrong with that. It's not that hard to understand, imagine the difference if the Passion of the Christ was directed by Rob Reiner rather than Mel Gibson.

I think I am one of the few people in this country that saw both the Reagan and the 9-11 mini-series. One difference I noticed during the entire controversy was the way liberals went about lobbying ABC vs. the way conservatives went after CBS. The Pull the Reagan mini-series was a grass root movement of people who were ready to boycott any advertiser sponsoring the program. The Yank 9-11 Campaign consisted of a few high ranking Democrats and Clinton advisors who threatened ABC's license to broadcast. Not that any of this matter because the real difference between the two shows was that the Reagan mini-series was downright horrible (which is the real reason why CBS pulled it) and The Path to 9-11 was exceptional, probably the best mini-series aired on any broadcast network in decades (which is why ABC aired the program).

You're mad? Tell Me Something I Don't Know

A few months ago Muslims ran rampant in the streets of Paris, now it's world wide protests over editorial cartoons that appeared in a Danish newspaper. Story after story the press reports on how angry the Muslims are. All I can say is that I don't care anymore. It seems that the Muslims have been mad about someone or something my entire life. After 40 plus years of seeing these people ticked off I think it's about time someone tell these people that if you are constantly angry it looses it impact. I am no longer surprised to see flag burnings. In fact, I'm kind of tickled to see the Danish flag in flames along with the American and Israeli flags.

Now I know there those that are going to tell me that it's not fair to stereotype all Muslims, not all Muslims riot and burn cars. Fair enough and probably true, but that's real the problem. Where are the moderate Muslims that will show me a balance view of what it means to be a Muslim? Don't they see their religion being hijacked, or are they just scared to have a target put on their head by thugs posing as spiritual leaders? The day that I will be shocked is the day I hear the voices of Muslims angered at Muslims for allowing what the radicals did to their religion. Until then I'm not listening any more.

Well, This Isn't a Good Start!

Hamas Suggests Using Militants in Army

By SARAH EL DEEB and RAVI NESSMAN

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - The leader of Hamas suggested Saturday that the Islamic group could create a Palestinian army that would include its militant wing - responsible for scores of deadly attacks on Israelis - in the aftermath of its crushing victory in parliamentary elections.

Israeli officials condemned the plan, demanding that Hamas renounce violence. Palestinian security officers, including loyalists from the defeated Fatah Party, said they would never submit to Hamas control.

"Hamas has no power to meddle with the security forces," said Jibril Rajoub, a Palestinian strongman.

The Hamas chief, Khaled Mashaal, reiterated that Hamas would not recognize Israel and indicated attacks on Israeli civilians would continue as long as Israel continued to target Palestinian civilians. "As long as we are under occupation then resistance is our right," he said.

Angry police stormed the parliament building in Gaza and armed militants marched into Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' compound in Ramallah to demonstrate their rejection of Hamas' authority. Their defiance raised fears of a spike in violence between Palestinian factions.

The Elections in Palestine

"...I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And I know you can't be a partner in peace if you have a -- if your party has got an armed wing. The elections just took place. We will watch very carefully about the formation of the government. But I will continue to remind people about what I just said, that if your platform is the destruction of Israel, it means you're not a partner in peace. ....."

-President Bush - January 26,2006

The results of the Palestinian elections, where the Hamas Party scored a landslide victory, assures that the Middle East Peace Process will be forever altered. One has to wonder if the effect on the peace process means a turn for the worst or for the better? It's hard to sing praises for Hamas, and I am not going to do it here. Hamas is a violent terrorist group, plain and simple. Until they publicly change their platform calling for the destruction of Israel we should have nothing to do with them. I think we need to keep in mind that for all the efforts of endless peace conferences, negotiations and economic persausion, nothing might be more effective in changing Hamas' behavior than to have to carry the mantel of responsibility to bring a better life to the Palestinian people.

Are we to believe that 75% of the Palestinian electorate believes that the destruction of Israel is the most pressing issue in their lives? I think not. In 30 years the Palestine refugee issue has not gotten much better, they remain a very poor people. President Bush made this point when he stated, "When you give people the vote, you give people a chance to express themselves at the polls -- and if they're unhappy with the status quo, they'll let you know."

Even cities like Jenin and al-Birch, urban areas where some economic development has occurred, gave victories to Hamas representatives. Khalid Amayreh explained in the Palestine Times,”The people here have been fed up with rampant chaos and lawlessness, as well as the PA’s failure to fight numerous aspects of corruption like graft, nepotism, favoritism, cronyism and above all the manifestly serious abuse of governance."

For decades the Palestinians have been victimized, not by Israel, but by the self appointed body of the PLO, lead by Yassar Arafat and his cronies. The PLO leadership talked of wanting peace, talked of wanting a Palestine homeland and was rewarded with billions of dollars in economic aid. Arafat realized the more he talked the richer he and his friends could be. There was no incentive for Arafat to actual solved the problems facing his people, these problems were making him and his friends rich. While I am not happy with Hamas taking over the Palestine Authority, I am glad that a change occurred.

I can't begin to predict how Hamas is going to react with this new found power, but I didn't have any faith in the old guard to act on behalf of the Palestinians either. If you believe that the majority of Palestinian people want a better life and not war with Israel, you can only hope that Hamas realizes that the only true way to retain power in the next election is to change the status quo.

NSA Spy Program

I just wanted to weigh in on the NSA spy program that President Bush authorized. I’ll be honest, I don’t know what the heck to think about this, the reporting in the mainstream media has been just terrible.

It seems clear that Article II in the Constitution has empowered the President to take such action to keep the citizens of this country safe in the time of war in his role as Commander-in-Chief. In addition, Congress, by overwhelmingly approving Joint Resolution 23, states:

“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines, planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Even though JR 23 never called for Congressional oversight (the Joint Resolution authorizing military action in Iraq did) the Bush Administration met with the Congressional Leadership more than a dozen times. That’s more than once every other month. It appears to me (based on just reading the documents – I am not a Constitution Scholar), that in the legal sense the White House didn’t do anything wrong, but ethics of authorization of eavesdropping on suspected terrorists without obtaining a warrant might be another issue. Here is where the mainstream media has let this country down. When the New York Times first reported the story on December 16, conveniently the day of Iraqi Elections, it’s clear to me that they were more interested in creating a new headline with the sole intention of embarrassing the President.

In the late 70’s Congress created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) so that the FBI, NSA or CIA can request warrants to guard against foreign agents. The New York Times reported that in 2004 over 1700 warrants were approved. Though the Times did report that in some cases, warrants for emergency wiretaps can be obtained in a matter of hours, they never did offer any average for how long the FISA warrant process can take or would emergency warrants were able to be obtained for intercepting email and other wireless communications. Outside of the fact that the White House didn’t feel that they were legally obligated to obtain warrants for foreign communications, the timeliness of the process is the major reason why the President authorized such actions.

When the White House issues a statement such as “....We need agility and speed. We need to be able to move quickly to detect and prevent attacks….” As they do at every press briefing since December 20 (and there have been 13 since December 16), it doesn’t take a genius to ask the most obvious followup question…..”Well, exactly how long does it take to get the average warrant from FISA?” Duh! To this day I don’t have that answer and why I can’t judge the ethics of this issue.

Now this maybe cynical to say about the mainstream media, but since they are not pursuing the issue I can only assume that it's not as easy as one would think, otherwise they would be hammering Bush on that every day.