There Really Are No Controls On Some Campaign Donations

Today’s Daily Caller posted a story today that illustrates the problems with controlling the amount of money that flows into some political campaigns and the sources of these donations.

The article reports:

A Jerusalem journalist writing for a conservative website reported Monday night that he was able to make two small financial contributions to President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign in the name of the late terror mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Aaron Klein, writing for WorldNetDaily, said he successfully made campaign donations of $15 and $5 through a “proxy” service that masked his location and provided the Obama campaign website with a Pakistani Internet Protocol (IP) address instead.

The Obama campaign, Klein wrote, accepted and acknowledged both contributions, made with a disposable credit card, and followed up with additional fundraising emails to a Gmail account set up in the dead terrorist’s name.

This is not good. On October 8, Breitbart.com reported:

Even though the Obama campaign is touted for its technological sophistication and sites run by top Obama technology advisers use the “CVV” feature, the Obama campaign itself does not use the “CVV” feature on its donation pages — even though it does use the feature on the merchandise pages where it sells campaign merchandise. 

This means someone who donates $2,500 to the campaign online has to go through less security than someone who goes online to buy an Obama campaign mug.

There are simple ways to prevent foreign donations being made online. The problem here is that some candidates are not willing to employ these measures. The answer is not more regulation–the answer is honest people running for office.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Surprise ! Obama Movie To Be Released Weekend Before Election

CNN News is reporting that “SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden,” will be shown on television the weekend before the November election.

The article reports:

The film is being distributed by the Weinstein Company, owned by a Harvey Weinstein, a major backer of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.

Is anyone surprised?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Under The Radar This Weekend

Breitbart.com reported yesterday that Guantanamo terrorist Omar Khadr has been transferred from Guantanamo to Canada.

The article reports:

Khadr was transferred from Guantanamo under a long standing agreement between Canada and the United States that allows prisoners to serve out part of their sentence in their home country. Given Canada’s lax justice system, liberal judges and light sentences, it is likely Khadr could be released soon despite his conviction for Speer‘s murder and his admission to supporting terrorism. In fact the left wing Toronto Star has already published an editorial calling for the young terrorist’s swift release from prison.

The article further reports:

The jury at Khadr’s trial recommended that he be sentenced to 40 years but before deliberations had even begun the prosecution had struck its deal to see the sentence top out at 8 years with the possibility of transfer to Canada after 1 year. The jury was never told about the plea bargain.

Omar Khadr was born in Canada. He is the son of Egyptian Ahmed Khadr, a financier for Al-Qaida who moved his whole family into the Osama bin Laden compound in Afghanistan in the years before 9-11.

I am assuming this move is legal, but it is certainly not wise. If Canada frees him quickly, we will have been part of letting another terrorist lose in the world.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Politics Is More Important Than National Security

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted a story about the problem with security leaks in the Obama Administration. After the killing of Osama Bin Laden, there were a number of details about the operation leaked that put members of our armed forces in danger. Then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke out about the dangers of these leaks at Camp Lejeune in May 2011.

Some of Secretary Gates’ statement is posted on YouTube:

Speaking to Marines at Camp Lejeune on Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed concern over the safety of the Navy SEALs who killed Al Qaeda chief, Osama Bin Laden. The threat of retaliation against the elite and classified SEAL squadron – SEAL team 6 – has increased after operational details were leaked to the press by the Obama administration.

A helicopter crashed in Afghanistan in August 2011, killing 30 Americans, most of them belonging to SEAL team 6. We have no way of knowing whether the helicopter was attacked because the enemy knew who was on board.

The article at the Daily Caller reports:

Unfortunately, the Bin Laden leaks have not turned out to be isolated incidents. In early May, after the disruption of a terrorist plot in Yemen, reports surfaced concerning the reported role of British intelligence in the operation. This leak was especially serious in that it risked the trust caveat that underpins America’s most important (but increasingly sensitive) intelligence relationship.
 
There have been two more sensitive leaks recently. The first is the leaking of the President’s strategy for dealing with terrorists. Why in the world would you release your strategy for winning a war to the enemy while the war is still going on? The second story had to do with the role America played in the recent cyber attacks on Iran. The Obama Administration needs to learn how to be quiet. This will only invite major retaliation from the people impacted by the attack.
 
The Daily Caller concludes:
 
Faced with these leaks, we should demand two things from the government. First, classified material must be restricted to those officials who need it. The president should make clear to his political appointees that the unauthorized disclosure of this material is absolutely unacceptable. There must not be a divided approach where government workers are punished for leaks, while appointees feel free to disclose restricted information as they please. Second, where leaks do take place, the Justice Department must conduct investigations to identify those responsible and pursue punishment against them. These two steps would bring some rational purpose back to the way in which intelligence material is handled in Washington.

In the space of just over a week, Obama administration officials have leaked significant elements of two critical national security endeavors. In disclosing this information, the officials responsible have asserted Obama’s re-election in precedence to the demands of national security. This is a disgrace that must not be allowed to continue.

I understand that this is an election year, but that is no excuse for risking American national security in the campaign.

 
 

 

 

 
Enhanced by Zemanta

The History Of An Unfortunate Situation

On Wednesday I reported on the fate of Dr Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani doctor who helped the United States in the raid on Osama Bin Laden, who has been sentenced to 33 years in prison for conspiring against the state (rightwinggranny.com).

There is some further information on this story. The January 28, 2012, New York Times reported that:

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has confirmed publicly for the first time that an imprisoned doctor in Pakistan was working with the C.I.A. to gain access to Osama bin Laden’s compound in the months before American troops killed Bin Laden last May.  

What was Secretary Panetta thinking? In the past, the United States would have had the decency to get Dr. Afridi out of Pakistan before his cover was blown. The doctor was not allowed to be present in the court that sentenced him or allowed to defend himself.

An article in the American Spectator posted today points out:

A resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council after 9/11 required member states to assist in bringing Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network to justice.

Does either the United States or the United Nations have the character to intervene in this situation?

This is the administration that gave Hollywood unprecedented access to Defense Department information to make a movie about the killing of Osama Bin Laden (which coincidentally will be released shortly before the Presidential election). Someone needs to provide the entire administration with a detailed lecture on the proper handling of classified information.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Things That Make You Wonder (Although Some Of Us Stopped Wondering A Long Time Ago)

Fox News is reporting today that Dr Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani doctor who helped the United States in the raid on Osama Bin Laden has been sentenced to 33 years in prison on Wednesday for conspiring against the state.

The article reports:

Shakil Afridi ran a vaccination program for the CIA to collect DNA and verify bin Laden’s presence at the compound in the town of Abbottabad where U.S. commandos killed the Al Qaeda chief last May in a unilateral raid. The operation outraged Pakistani officials, who portrayed it as an act of treachery by a supposed ally.

Wait a minute. Hasn’t the President been claiming all along that we were never sure that Osama Bin Laden was actually in the compound?

The article at Fox News reminds us:

On Tuesday, a Senate panel approved a foreign aid budget for next year that slashes U.S. assistance to Pakistan by more than half and threatens further reductions if it fails to open the NATO supply routes.

American lawmakers are also frustrated by suspicions that Pakistan is aiding militants who use its territory to attack U.S. troops in Afghanistan — allegations Islamabad has rejected. There is also lingering resentment over the fact that bin Laden was found hiding deep inside Pakistan.

But the U.S. cannot afford to turn its back on Pakistan entirely.

Pakistan is seen as vital to negotiating a peace deal with the Afghan Taliban and their allies given the country’s historical ties with the militants.

The Pakistani government is also keen to repair relations with the U.S., partly to receive over a billion dollars in American aid it needs to fill out its budget as it looks ahead to national elections scheduled for 2013. But patching up ties is politically sensitive in a country where anti-American sentiment is rampant.

Aside from the obvious questions surrounding the arrest of Dr. Afridi, why in the world are giving major amounts of money to a country that obviously does not support us? Also, why in the world are we negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban rather than defeating them?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/23/pakistani-doctor-who-helped-us-in-bin-laden-raid-sentenced-to-prison/#ixzz1vhmujw1A

Enhanced by Zemanta

It’s All A Matter Of Perspective

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner posted a short article about the reaction of the military to the amount of information that has been released about the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

The article reports:

When they published their revealing book last August about the nation’s fight against terrorism, the authors, two New York Times national security reporters, immediately felt heat from the Pentagon for dishing too much operational info about the killing of Osama bin Laden.

“I was stopped by a very senior officer in the special operations community who basically wanted to rip my lungs out,” said Thom Shanker, who co-authored “Counterstrike: The Untold Story of America’s Secret Campaign Against Al Qaeda,” with Eric Schmitt.

I totally understand the senior officer’s feelings. Details of a military operation or campaign should not come out until the campaign or operation is over. Last time I checked, we were still fighting the war on terror. Unfortunately, the information in the book was released by the White House–it wasn’t even leaked–it was simply released.

The article further states:

 

Shanker, an acclaimed Pentagon reporter and author, said he had a little advice for the unidentified officer: If you make general, “this is part of your new world.”

Somewhere along the line we have misplaced our priorities. I can’t imagine the above statement being made during World War II. Mr. Schmitt, co-author of the book, points out that the New York Times has a ‘pretty good’ record of holding stories when asked to. I’m sorry; I totally disagree with that statement. The New York Times broke the story on how we were tracking terrorist money and took that weapon away from those who are fighting the war on terror. They have broken other stories which had impeded our efforts to find and deal with terrorists. Sometimes, the press gets a little over-impressed with what itself and does not consider the consequences of its actions.

 

 


 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes I Just Have An Attitude Problem

Yesterday’s New York Times reported on the antics of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other detainees being tried at Guantanamo as the planners of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America. Needless to say, the trial is a something of a circus because of the behavior of these five men. Al Qaeda and its related groups have very little respect for the American justice system (military or civilian), and play our courts and our media very well. I don’t have any other comments on the article, but I mention it because it leads to what I want to say.

Today’s New York Post posted a story by Gary Buiso explaining some of the details of how we eventually collected information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Just as America waterboards many of its military to prepare them for what will happen to them if they are taken prisoner by an enemy of America, Al Qaeda and related groups prepare their terrorists for what will happen to them if the Americans capture them (we used to capture them and send them somewhere for questioning–now we simply kill them with drones and cut off our source of information). The source of the story in The New York Post is a book titled “Hard Measures” by ex-CIA official José Rodriguez, Jr.

The article at the New York Post mentions Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s response to waterboarding. He had been coached on how it worked and how long it would last, and he simply counted on his fingers until it was over. Waterboarding alone would not have resulted in America getting the information we needed to understand the organization of Al Qaeda and eventually find Osama Bin Laden.

So what made Khalid Sheikh Mohammed talk–the experiencial equivalent of having a newborn baby in the house!

Ex-CIA official José Rodriguez Jr., told The Post:

The first day he was in custody, Mohammed — who attended college in Greensboro, NC — initially pretended to only speak Urdu, fooling no one. Officers forced him to stand, and after hours of questioning, his weakness for shut-eye began to show.

“Here’s the deal,” an interrogator said. “I know you speak English. I want you to politely ask me to let you go to sleep.”

The idea was to demonstrate to Mohammed “that he was no longer in control,” Rodriguez says. Officers would later keep him awake for 180 hours straight — 7 1/2 days. Loud noises and stress positions — where a detainee is shackled and forced to stand, putting intense pressure on the leg muscles — were used.

Other than the stress positions, that really does sound a lot like different stages of parenting. One of my daughters had a child who finally slept through the night after about a year. By the time that year was over, I think she and her husband would have given about anything for a good night sleep. As for loud noises, what do you say to parents who are raising a child who is a gifted drummer?

My point here is that there is a legal definition of torture–it does not include simply making someone uncomfortable.

The article reminds us:

One of Mohammed’s frequently stated goals was to be put on trial in civilian court in New York — which nearly happened until Congress last year blocked the Justice Department from transferring any Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States.

“It seemed to us that he was looking for a platform from which he could spout his hatred for all things American, and a trial would certainly present that opportunity,” Rodriguez writes. “It strikes me as more than a little ironic that several years later, Attorney General Eric Holder almost granted KSM his wish.”

A civilian trial in New York would have been made into a circus with the antics of these five prisoners. Thank God it never happened.

There is one other comment in the New York Post article I would like to mention:

“More than one detainee expressed surprise when slapped, and told the interrogator, ‘Hey, you aren’t supposed to do that!’ The al Qaeda training manual told them that Americans would treat them with kid gloves!” Rodriguez writes.

We can’t win the war on terror wearing kid gloves. Even if we are not planning to use torture, it might be a good idea to let our enemies think we are. We are not dealing with nice people–we are dealing with people who cut off the heads of innocent people with dull knives and think it is fun. We need to remember that.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Slogan Only Works If You Ignore The Facts

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today reminding us of some inconvenient truths about the government bailout of the automobile industry. Since one of the campaign slogans of President Obama’s campaign this year will be, “Osama Bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive,” it might be wise to take a look at some of the facts surrounding the auto bailout.

The article reports:

The administration has already written off $7 billion in taxpayer losses in the American takeover of Chrysler and General Motors; those losses are expected to climb as high as $23 billion—27 percent of the $85 billion spent on the bailout.

While the bailout is widely credited with saving the two companies, increasing taxpayer losses have made it nearly as unpopular in 2012 as it was when Obama was elected. More than half of Americans still disapprove of the auto bailout compared with 61 percent in 2008.

Aside from the taxpayer losses involved, there is the violation of bankruptcy laws. We have laws for a reason–if they are wrong they need to be changed (these particular laws are not wrong), but until they are changed, they have to be followed.

As was pointed out at rightwinggranny in June of 2009, in bailing out Chryster, laws were broken:

The issue here is the secured debt.  The government is trying to pressure those who hold secured bonds to accept less than the value of the bonds so that other creditors can be paid.  We need to remember that one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law is that secured creditors (who loaned money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they’d get specific property back)  get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything.  To do anything else is a violation of the US Constitution and its rules on private property rights.

Laws were broken in the auto bailouts in order to hand the companies over to the unions. Some Americans remember that. General Motors is alive, but aside from the taxpayer losses, the government and the unions have much more power in running the company than is appropriate.

The article at the Free Beacon further reports:

“They came in and forced these companies into pre-packaged bankruptcy where unions were made whole and creditors were squeezed out,” the expert said. “In normal bankruptcy they don’t rearrange stakeholders rights willy-nilly…there’s no way those union contracts would have been untouched.”

Labor is not the only constituency to which Obama has tried to appeal by championing the bailout.  “After three decades of inaction, we’re gradually putting in place the toughest fuel economy standards in history for our cars and pickups,” Obama said in the same February speech. “That means the cars you build will average nearly 55 miles per gallon by the middle of the next decade—almost double what they get today.”

Obama tied the bailouts to strict environmental standards that have led to increasingly efficient cars, an achievement he has used to woo green advocates. The move has affected more than just the environment, establishing “dangerous” legal precedents, according to some legal experts.

General Motors may be alive, but it is a whole lot less free than it was before President Obama said, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.”

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes You Just Can’t Tell The Players Without A Scorecard

CBS News is reporting today that Ayman al-Zawahri, who took over as head of Al Qaeda after Osama Bin Laden was killed, has released a videotaped statement asking Muslims in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey to join the uprising against Assad’s “pernicious, cancerous regime.”

The article reports that a senior Iraqi security official told the Associated Press that Al Qaeda fighters have been flowing from Iraq into Syria.

It is interesting to me that Al Qaeda is supporting the overthrow of the regime. Assad has been a brutal dictator, but I do not think Al Qaeda would be supporting him unless they felt they could install the Muslim Brotherhood in his place (as they have done in Egypt). The danger here is to the non-Muslims who live in the country. For whatever reason, Assad was content to let Christians practice their faith in Syria. I seriously doubt that will continue if the Muslim Brotherhood takes over.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda have the same goal–a worldwide caliphate. They just have different ideas on how to get there. In American the Muslim Brotherhood is working within the government and the legal system to win control (see Dallas News). The Muslim Brotherhood believes that violence is not useful until the government of the country it is taking over is ready to fall. Al Qaeda sees violence as the means to bring down a government. The end game is the same, but the method is different.

If the government of Syria falls, which I believe it will, the only safe place for Christians in the Middle East will be Israel. Isn’t that ironic?

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Received This In My E-Mail Tonight–Draw Your Own Conclusions

The operation was so clinical that only 12 bullets were fired…

Seals tell of killing ‘Bert’ Laden

Upset by the official account, US Navy Seals commandos reveal the truth of the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, nicknames and all

Published: 6 November 2011

Osama Bin Laden was killed within 90 seconds of the US Navy Seals landing in his compound and not after a protracted gun battle, according to the first account by the men who carried out the raid. The operation was so clinical that only 12 bullets were fired.

The Seals have spoken out because they were angered at the version given by politicians, which they see as portraying them as cold-blooded murderers on a “kill mission”. They were also shocked that President Barack Obama announced Bin Laden’s death on television the same evening, rendering useless much of the intelligence they had seized.

Chuck Pfarrer, a former commander of Seal Team 6, which conducted the operation, has interviewed many of those who took part for a book, Seal Target Geronimo, to be published in the US this week.

The Seals’ own accounts differ from the White House version, which gave the impression that Bin Laden was killed at the end of the operation rather than in its opening seconds. Pfarrer insists Bin Laden would have been captured had he surrendered.

“There isn’t a politician in the world who could resist trying to take credit for getting Bin Laden but it devalued the ‘intel’ and gave time for every other Al-Qaeda leader to scurry to another bolt-hole,” said Pfarrer. “The men who did this and their valorous act deserve better. It’s a pretty shabby way to treat these guys.”

The first hint of the mission came in January last year when the team’s commanding officer was called to a meeting at the headquarters of joint special operations command. The meeting was held in a soundproof bunker three storeys below ground with his boss, Admiral William McRaven, and a CIA officer.

They told him a walled compound in Pakistan had been under surveillance for a couple of weeks. They were certain a high-value individual was inside and needed a plan to present to the president.

It had to be someone important. “So is this Bert or Ernie?” he asked. The Seals’ nicknames for Bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri are a reference to two Muppets in Sesame Street, one tall and thin and the other short and fat. “We have a voice print,” said the CIA officer, “and we’re 60% or 70% certain it’s our guy.” McRaven added that a reconnaissance satellite had measured the target’s shadow. “Over 6ft tall.”

When McRaven added they would use Ghost Hawk helicopters, the team leader had no doubt. “These are the most classified, sophisticated stealth helicopters ever developed,” said Pfarrer. “They are kept in locked hangars and fly so quiet we call it ‘whisper mode’.”

Over the next couple of months a plan was hatched. A mock-up of the compound was built at Tall Pines, an army facility in a national forest somewhere in the eastern US.

Four reconnaissance satellites were placed in orbit over the compound, sending back video and communications intercepts. A tall figure seen walking up and down was named “the Pacer”.

Obama gave the go-ahead and Seal Team 6, known as the Jedi, was deployed to Afghanistan. The White House canceled plans to provide air cover using jet fighters, fearing this might endanger relations with Pakistan.

Sending in the Ghost Hawks without air cover was considered too risky so the Seals had to use older Stealth Hawks. A Prowler electronic warfare aircraft from the carrier USS Carl Vinson was used to jam Pakistan’s radar and create decoy targets.

Operation Neptune’s Spear was initially planned for April 30 but bad weather delayed it until May 1, a moonless night. The commandos flew on two Stealth Hawks, code named Razor 1 and 2, followed by two Chinooks five minutes behind, known as “Command Bird” and the “gun platform”. On board, each Seal was clad in body armour and night-vision goggles and equipped with laser targets, radios and sawn-off M4 rifles. They were expecting up to 30 people in the main house, including Bin Laden and three of his wives, two sons, Khalid and Hamza, his courier, Abu Ahmed al- Kuwaiti, four bodyguards and a number of children. At 56 minutes past midnight the compound came into sight and the code “;Palm Beach” signaled three minutes to landing.

Razor 1 hovered above the main house, a three-storey building where Bin Laden lived on the top floor. Twelve Seals rappeled the 5ft-6ft down onto the roof and then jumped to a third-floor patio, where they kicked in the windows and entered.

The first person the Seals encountered was a terrified woman, Bin Laden’s third wife, Khaira, who ran into the hall. Blinded by a searing white strobe light they shone at her, she stumbled back. A Seal grabbed her by the arm and threw her to the floor.

Bin Laden’s bedroom was along a short hall. The door opened; he popped out and then slammed the door shut. “Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo,” radioed one Seal, meaning “eyes on target”.

At the same time lights came on from the floor below and Bin Laden’s son Khalid came running up the stairs towards the Seals. He was shot dead.

Two Seals kicked in Bin Laden’s door. The room, they later recalled, “smelt like old clothing, like a guest bedroom in a grandmother’s house”. Inside was the Al-Qaeda leader and his youngest wife, Amal, who was screaming as he pushed her in front of him.

“No, no, don’t do this!” she shouted as her husband reached across the king-size bed for his AK-47 assault rifle. The Seals reacted instantly, firing in the same second. One round thudded into the mattress. The other, aimed at Bin Laden’s head, grazed Amal in the calf. As his hand reached for the gun, they each fired again: one shot hit his breastbone, the other his skull, killing him instantly and blowing out the back of his head.

Meanwhile Razor 2 was heading for the guesthouse, a low, shoebox-like building, where Bin Laden’s courier, Kuwaiti, and his brother lived.

As the helicopter neared, a door opened and two figures appeared, one waving an AK-47. This was Kuwaiti. In the moonless night he could see nothing and lifted his rifle, spraying bullets wildly.

He did not see the Stealth Hawk. On board someone shouted, “Bust him!”, and a sniper fired two shots. Kuwaiti was killed, as was the person behind him, who turned out to be his wife. Also on board were a CIA agent, a Pakistani- American who would act as interpreter, and a sniffer dog called Karo, wearing dog body armor and goggles.

Within two minutes the Seals from Razor 2 had cleared the guesthouse and removed the women and children.

They then ran to the main house and entered from the ground floor, checking the rooms. One of Bin Laden’s bodyguards was waiting with his AK-47. The Seals shot him twice and he toppled over.

Five minutes into the operation the command Chinook landed outside the compound, disgorging the commanding officer and more men. They blasted through the compound wall and rushed in.

The commander made his way to the third floor, where Bin Laden’s body lay on the floor face up. Photographs were taken, and the commander called on his satellite phone to headquarters with the words: “Geronimo Echo KIA” — Bin Laden enemy killed in action.

“This was the first time the White House knew he was dead and it was probably 20 minutes into the raid,” said Pfarrer.

A sample of Bin Laden’s DNA was taken and the body was bagged. They kept his rifle. It is now mounted on the wall of their team room at their headquarters in Virginia Beach, Virginia, alongside photographs of a dozen colleagues killed in action in the past 20 years.

At this point things started to go wrong. Razor 1 took off but the top secret “green unit” that controls the electronics failed. The aircraft went into a spin and crashed tail-first into the compound.

The Seals were alarmed, thinking it had been shot down, and several rushed to the wreckage. The crew climbed out, shaken but unharmed.

The commanding officer ordered them to destroy Razor 2, to remove the green unit, and to smash the avionics. They then laid explosive charges.

They loaded Bin Laden’s body onto the Chinook along with the cache of intelligence in plastic bin bags and headed toward the USS Carl Vinson. As they flew off they blew up Razor 2. The whole operation had taken 38 minutes.

The following morning White House officials announced that the helicopter had crashed as it arrived, forcing the Seals to abandon plans to enter from the roof. A photograph of the situation room showed a shocked Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, with her hand to her mouth.

Why did they get it so wrong? What they were watching was live video but it was shot from 20,000ft by a drone circling overhead and relayed in real time to the White House and Leon Panetta, the CIA director, in Langley. The Seals were not wearing helmet cameras, and those watching in Washington had no idea what was happening inside the buildings.

“They don’t understand our terminology, so when someone said the ‘insertion helicopter’ has crashed, they assumed it meant on entry,” said Pfarrer.

What infuriated the Seals, according to Pfarrer, was the description of the raid as a kill mission. “I’ve been a Seal for 30 years and I never heard the words ‘kill mission’,” he said. “It’s a Beltway [Washington insider’s] ]fantasy word. If it was a kill mission you don’t need Seal Team 6; you need a box of hand grenades.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

Upside Down Priorities

Yesterday the Washington Examiner pointed out the lack of logic in two of President Obama’s recent decisions. Last week, President Obama announced drastic cuts to the military budget–cutting the number of troops and cutting the spending on new weapons and weapon systems.

The article reminds us:

First, Obama claimed that “even as our troops continue to fight in Afghanistan, the tide of war is receding.” What logically should have followed such an assertion was something about the surrender of an enemy and assurance that his defeat was so total and comprehensive that decades, if not centuries, will pass before he might again threaten the safety and security of the American people.

Obama could say nothing like that because no such surrender has been tendered, and it is clear to anybody with open eyes that the aggressors in the War on Terror are — Osama bin Laden’s death notwithstanding — planning lethal new attacks on Americans here at home and American interests around the world. It is as though FDR had said in April 1943 that the tide of World War II was receding and therefore it was time to slash American defense spending because American pilots had shot down a plane carrying Japanese Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, chief planner behind the attack on Pearl Harbor. No matter that Japanese troops still occupied half of the Pacific and would continue to wage war against the U.S.

The world is as dangerous (or more dangerous) as it was the day President Obama took office. Cutting our defense as Iran spreads its influence into Latin America and works to develop nuclear weapons is simply not smart.

At the same time he was cutting the jobs for thousands of our military, President Obama promised pay raises for federal employees. The raise is only a half-percent, but it is still a raise.

The article reminds us of a series of reports in USA Today by Dennis Cauchon in 2010. The article at the Washington Examiner states:

“The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade,” Cauchon found. “Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009, while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.” If anything, Obama should freeze federal pay indefinitely so private-sector employees can catch up with the bureaucrats.
 
It’s an election year, this is only the beginning.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Getting The Facts Out When The Story Has Not Been Told Correctly

SDV 2 Patch

Image via Wikipedia

Normally our military SEAL teams are a rather quiet group. They don’t say much about who they are or what they do. However, when the story of one of their missions is inaccurately told, occasionally they speak out. Well, one did.

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted a story about the account of the killing of Osama Bin Laden as told by one of the SEALs involved.

The article reports:

“It became obvious in the weeks evolving after the mission that the story that was getting put out there was not only untrue, but it was a really ugly farce of what did happen,” said Chuck Pfarrer, author of Seal Target Geronimo: The Inside Story of the Mission to Kill Osama Bin Laden.

Two major discrepancies cited in the article:

1. The helicopter did not crash land. It went down later on–after the killing of Bin Laden.

2. Bin Laden was not unarmed–he was reaching for the AKSU rifle he kept by the headboard.

These are important details. It makes you wonder how much of the accounts of various events the White House relates is accurate.

Enhanced by Zemanta