The man who should have been listened to in the days after 9/11

While doing some research for this post, I came across a document that appeared to have been written less than one month after 9/11; it was written in the form of a journal but did not have an author's name (I have since learned it and reveal it at the end of this post ). It consisted of a first hand account of someone who lived near to and worked in Washington, D.C.; it was someone who worked near the Capitol Building; it was someone who knew Congressmen and Senators personally; and it was someone who was a strong Christian.

As I read what this person obviously knew in the hours after 9/11, it became blatantly obvious to me that the individuals at the highest levels of the George W. Bush administration knew it too. If the author of this account had been listened to then, the rise of Islam across the Middle East, Europe, and here in America since, may have been significantly reduced, if not outright prevented. These observations are so spot-on from someone who had much less information than Bush's inner circle did that I'm convinced this is not an issue of Monday morning quarterbacking; the Bush strategy after 9/11 was fatally flawed and his administration chose the path of least resistance. In short, the administration lied to us and to itself.

Read the entire account here if you'd like. I've excerpted portions that particularly struck me for their prescience at the time. This is some of the author's account of what he experienced on September 12, 2001:

By mid afternoon on Wednesday I was convinced that not only was the United States a victim of Islamic Jihad, but that the attack had been perpetrated by an organization controlled by a Saudi citizen and that most of those involved were Saudi, and that furthermore the attack was financed for the most part by Saudi businessmen and members of the Saudi royal family.

At the end of the day I made the following statement to my wife:

"These attacks were planned, financed and carried out by Saudi nationals and as a result the real culprits will never come to justice. We will bomb some third world nation like Afghanistan and our government will say our "moderate" Islamic friends with all the oil were not involved. Worse, we will put a handful of people in jail like we did the last time the World Trade Center was bombed. The Islamic fanatics will think a trade off of four or five in jail getting three meals a day, versus thousands of Americans dead, is a great deal.

So far, he accurately identified what the Bush administration would do with respect to Afghanistan. We also know that based on the fact that al-Qaeda financier - Abdullah Omar Naseef - was not held to account for his role in funding al-Qeada, there were some "moderate" Islamic friends who escaped American wrath over 9/11. Naseef was once the Secretary General of the Muslim World League (MWL), which is funded by the Saudi Royal family. He also founded the Rabita Trust, an entity that was identified by the U.S. Treasury Department as financing al-Qaeda; it was listed as a terrorist organization and its assets frozen one month after 9/11.

Here is an excerpt from the author's account about his experiences on September 13, 2001:

As I talked to congressmen and Senators my worst fears were realized. I carried documents with me showing clearly that most funding for Osama Bin Laden’s terror network came from moderate states like Saudi Arabia. While the Saudi government itself claims that it has no ties to these terror organizations, each year the government gives $10 billion to fundamentalist Islamic organizations, many of them located in the United States.

When I confronted one well known Senator about the millions of dollars going to Bin Laden’s terror network from Saudi businessmen, he said to me, "Yes, but they are coerced into giving it to him."

I responded to this by saying, "Maybe those millionaire Saudi businessmen should be more fearful of us than they are of Bin Laden."

Later that day almost the identical conversation took place between myself and a member of the House leadership and then again with someone within the Bush Administration. It was made clear to me that none of the wealthy Saudi Arabians who finance Islamic terror would meet the wrath of the United States for fear of angering the "friendly" state of Saudi Arabia. This was made clear to me by members of the House and Senate, both Democrat and Republican as well as by some in the Administration. I was appalled.

The author was quite correct about those "moderate" Islamic friends facing no consequences. Perhaps the most chilling excerpt from the author was found in his account of what he witnessed on September 14, 2001:

My stomach churned as I watched Muzammil Siddiqi, the Imam for the Islamic Society of North America, stand on stage with President George W. Bush in the National Cathedral. Imam Siddiqi is a radical extremist who has participated in anti-American demonstrations in front of the White House as recently as October of 2000. He has in the past called for a Jihad or holy war against this nation. While the Christian and Jewish leaders at the event prayed for our nation and for the dead and dying from the attack, Imam Siddiqi did not do so. At no time did he condemn the acts of the terrorists nor did he pray for America or for the families of those who lost their lives in the Jihad attack against the United States...

As the service closed I felt the chill of the presence of the awesome power of God. I was clearly reminded of the very first of the Ten Commandments, THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME (Exodus 20:3). The National Cathedral had been defiled... Our Christian President had bowed his head to prayers offered to other gods, prayers that may have been for those who would destroy our nation and enslave our children to an alien religion. At that moment the hand of protection of the true God was removed from our nation. 

Since the Jihad attack on the United States on September 11th the President has surrounded himself with and sought advice from radical Islamic leaders who have openly called for the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. In addition, the President has invited six of the seven Islamic nations known to sponsor terror into his "coalition against terror". 

By late Friday it became apparent to me that our nation was in fact not going to fight a war on terrorism, but rather follow the same old track of "punishing those who actually committed the crime." This was not a "crime;" it was an act of war.

Siddiqi eventually stepped down as president of the Muslim Brotherhood group but he has not really left the ISNA; he now serves as the Religious Director for the Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC), which recently welcomed Congresswomen Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Loretta Sanchez (D-CA).

Here's a portion of the author's entry about the week of September 17, 2001:

A sharp line began to form in Washington between those of us willing to tell the truth about what had happened on September 11th and those who wish to continue to live in the fantasy world of pluralism. The ACLU began a campaign to stop "oppression" of Muslims in the United States. They began the campaign by signing up organizations to protect the "civil rights" of Muslims.

Meanwhile the "moderate" Islamic organizations had a word of their own for Muslims in America: DO NOT HELP THE FBI. Internet sites warned Muslims that: "The FBI has a history of harassing and harming minority and immigrant communities. Some people are spending a long time in jail because they or their friends talked to the FBI."

As for the author's assertion that George W. Bush wrongly stood with radical Islamic leaders... Once again, here is video of Bush on September 17, 2001 inside the Islamic Center of Washington mosque. The Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) - Nihad Awad - stood behind Bush as the president espoused the religion of our attackers:



He spoke at the same mosque more than one year later on December 5, 2002:



Those who argue that the Bush strategy was based on a tried and true adage that says, keep your friends close and your enemies closer, run into a big problem.

It's a strategy an excuse that has failed us miserably since 9/11.

Islam is on the rise all across the globe. The Muslim Brotherhood front groups Bush attempted to appease have smiles from ear to rear. In fact, Bush himself, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, actually seemed to urge people to embrace the Brotherhood's rise in the Middle East:

These are extraordinary times in the history of freedom. In the Arab Spring, we have seen the broadest challenge to authoritarian rule since the collapse of Soviet communism. The idea that Arab peoples are somehow content with oppression has been discredited forever.

Yet we have also seen instability, uncertainty and the revenge of brutal rulers. The collapse of an old order can unleash resentments and power struggles that a new order is not yet prepared to handle.

Some in both parties in Washington look at the risks inherent in democratic change—particularly in the Middle East and North Africa—and find the dangers too great. America, they argue, should be content with supporting the flawed leaders they know in the name of stability.

But in the long run, this foreign policy approach is not realistic. It is not within the power of America to indefinitely preserve the old order, which is inherently unstable. Oppressive governments distrust the diffusion of choice and power, choking off the best source of national prosperity and success.

Today, Naseef, at least one of the men who should have been the object of as much American ire as bin Laden was, watches safely from afar as a woman who served with him on the Board of an organization he founded - the Islamic Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) - now serves alongside Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as Clinton's closest advisor.

In the days and weeks after 9/11, George W. Bush's approval rating shot to 90%. When he left office, he was at 34%. 9/11 was his moment of truth and his approval rating steadily fell after the invasion of Afghanistan; they jumped after the initial success in Iraq, and they steadily declined thereafter. Bush had the American people behind him after 9/11 and he ultimately squandered much of our support by not leveling with us and by not identifying everyone who was responsible for hitting us.

In hindsight, the anger at Bush, Cheney, Rove, et. al. was not all that unwarranted, though the vitriol and expressed reasons for that anger often were. The decision to go into Iraq was a devastatingly wrong one. That should be obvious now. Iraq was a threat to Saudi Arabia more than it was to us. Saddam Hussein threatened the Saudis in a way not all that dissimilar from how he threatened Kuwait in the early 90's. In essence, the United States aligned with a nation that was actually culpable for 9/11, against their enemy.

It's time for us on the right to acknowledge that many of those who screamed the loudest about invading Iraq being the wrong thing to do, were correct. George W. Bush should do the same.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED AFTER 9/11
Based on the insights of the author of that prescient 9/11 account - William Murray of the Religious Freedom Coalition - the argument that Murray knew the truth while Bush and his advisors did not is poppycock. That's why this is not about Monday morning quarterbacking; it's about what should have been done.

POSSIBLE SCENARIO: In the days after 9/11, George W. Bush repudiates all groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. The president goes to Congress and seeks to have the Brotherhood labeled as a terrorist entity / enemy. CAIR, ISNA, MSA and any other front groups for the Brotherhood in the U.S. are put on notice and identified as what they are - entities that seek the destruction of the United States from within. The accounts of all such groups are frozen and leaders are either arrested or sent out of the country.

Any and all individuals with verifiable ties / loyalties to the aforementioned groups and who either hold jobs or any political influence inside the U.S. Government are prohibited from serving in those capacities.

Bush gathers all of his advisors and top Cabinet officials together to determine how best to become energy independent as quickly as possible. He orders is Energy Secretary to loosen as many regulations as humanly possible; this will encourage increased drilling and refining. With a 90% approval rating, the political capital at the president's disposal is virtually unlimited. The goal is energy independence within two years. Aggressive? Yes. Impossible? Americans have a history of exceeding goals in times of crisis and war. In this case, not letting a crisis go to waste would have been a good thing.

Bush decides to invade Afghanistan upon getting Congressional approval, which leads Saudi Arabia to believe it's successfully staving off American ire. Going into Afghanistan is the first in a hypothetical chain of events:

1. Target Osama bin Laden and destroy the Taliban, which was responsible for both running the terrorist training camps and harboring bin Laden.
2. Stay focused in Afghanistan while buying time to allow for energy independence in America. The world is made to believe that we are attacking those who we perceive attacked us. Singling out Saudi Arabia as being complicit in 9/11 at this point likely would result in a loss of oil and a debilitating energy crisis in the U.S.
3. Once the U.S. is confident it can survive the Saudi Arabian oil spigot being turned off, top tier al-Qaeda financiers - sources of Osama bin Laden's funding - are identified publicly by the President and targeted as enemies of the United States. Abdullah Omar Naseef, for example, is tightly connected to the Saudi Royal family but he has also been identified as a financier of al-Qaeda. Groups that Naseef has either led, founded or both, are proven to have been financed by the Royal family, which seeks to protect Naseef.
4. The decision is made by the Bush administration that while it will not target the Saudi family specifically, it will not respect the family's wishes with regard to which al-Qaeda financiers are off-limits. Bush then informs the Royal family that if the oil spigots are shut off, that policy is subject to change and the Royal family risks the same fate as those 'untouchable' al-Qaeda financiers.

Those who scoff and call such ideas ridiculous lose the argument when we see how reality has unfolded since September 11, 2001.

In either case, it's safe to say that Murray was right and the Bush administration was wrong.

Video: Obama in Afghanistan; asks for troops to applaud him

Well, at least Barack Obama is putting his transparent side on full display. First, he spikes the football on the one year anniversary of Osama Bin Laden's death; the Navy Seals - both retired and active - vehemently object. Despite objections from Arianna Huffington and other left wing bloggers over the politicizing of bin Laden's death in an election year, Obama doubles down by actually flying to Kabul on what amounts to being a campaign stop so he can pile on by doing an Ochocinco-esque end zone dance.

As if that weren't enough, while speaking to the troops, he asks them to cheer his arrival.

No, I'm not kidding.

Has there ever been a more emotionally immature president in the history of the United States?

Via Hapblog:

U.S. Troops wearing "Infidel" Apparel

Whether it's Rules of Engagement, how not to treat a Qur'an, or a myriad of other things, the U.S. troops are the unfortunate - and undeserving - beneficiaries of political cowardice masquerading as political correctness (which sounds better but essentially means the same thing). As difficult as it may be for them to find ways to identify the enemy, several of them have discovered an ingenious way to have the same effect by identifying themselves as how the enemy sees them.

Via Business Insider:

With tensions at an all time high in Afghanistan following the Koran burnings, the urination video, and the killing of 16 civilians, attention is now falling on a long line of "Infidel" apparel and gear.

Exhausted from how they feel they're being perceived, troops have taken to wearing patches and carrying items that label themselves infidels, and offer translation in local dialect.

In the Muslim world an infidel means literally "one without faith" who rejects the central teachings of Islam. 

Military.com tracked down Clayton Montgomery at Mil-Spec Monkey, a large online seller of infidel gear, who says his most popular item by far is the "Pork Eating Crusader Patch."

The patch includes an image of a knight in a Crusade's tunic, eating what appears to be a large ham hock, and lest there be any confusion — a translation in Arabic.

You watch, these items will be banned if the Muslims yell loud enough about it. At that point, though, they will actually be getting mad because an infidel should not be permitted to identify himself as such. Oh, the insanity.

h/t The Blaze 

Ron Paul, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton in agreement over Apology for Qur'an Burning

Ron Paul is really courting that Muslim vote. I no sooner posted the link to the Big Peace article in which his campaign volunteers posted a flyer in Arabic that touted him as the candidate who would cut-off aid to Israel, when I noticed this.

He is in agreement with the apology Obama issued to Hamid Karzai over the Qur'an burnings. He expressed this sentiment while questioning Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.

Via the National Journal:

Bringing up the scandal provoked by a viral video depicting American Marines urinating on Taliban corpses, Paul voiced his overall opposition to the war that created thousands of refugees in the country.

"Does it ever get to the point where apologizing about the Koran is rather minor, considering some of the other problems we have created in [Afghanistan]?" Paul asked.

Clinton said she appreciated Paul's measured comments about Obama and other presidents offering apologies "when we are deeply sorry for unfortunate incidents that occur, that were not intentional, and which we know have emotional resonance with people."

The premise a vast majority of the Pauliens operate from is one that says the U.S. Government (not Islamic terrorists) is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. As such, the inclination is to believe that the former is a greater threat than the latter. By their own admission, the Pauliens will tell you that the Islamic threat is overrated.

Again, the only way these comments by Paul are not viewed as out of bounds is if you believe the government is worse than the terrorists.

The 9/11 Truth crowd has found that the springboard for its conspiratorial beliefs is placing them in the camp of America's true enemies.

Apparently, as an added bonus, the more Paul talks like this, the more he garners Muslim / anti-Semitic votes.

h/t Weasel Zippers 

Video: Newt Cow Tail vs. Piers Morgan Fly

Newt Gingrich's comments about the Qur'an burnings at Bagram by the U.S. Military got quite a bit of play yesterday primarily because it resonated so well with those of us who are fed up with A.) Rules of engagement and B.) the egregious double standard of who apologizes and who does not.

Here is Newt on CNN with Piers Morgan further enunciating his view. If Newt can continue talking like this, he is far more likely to get the support he saw in South Carolina. Each attempt by Morgan to trap Newt failed miserably.

Also, take note of Newt's reference to Col. Allen West. In the context of this exchange, West would make a very logical choice as a running mate for Gingrich.

Via MediaIte:

Video: Newt goes after Obama on Apologizing for Qur'an Burnings

Newt is absolutely right here. Obama used up his allotment of apologies to the Muslim world during his 2009 speech in Cairo. As you watch this clip of Gingrich, ask yourself if you can see Ron Paul saying this.

Via CNN:

Video: U.S. General Apologizes for Burning Qur'ans

Where on earth were these apologies when the U.S. Military burned Bibles at the same Bagram military base in 2009? The best part? General John R. Allen referred to the offended party as being the "noble people of Afghanistan." Are these the same "noble people" that proceeded to act like undignified savages after it was learned that the Qur'ans had been burned?

Via NPR:

In a video that underscores how seriously the U.S. military and NATO are taking something that profoundly offends Muslims, the commander of international forces in Afghanistan today apologizes four times for what he says was the improper disposal — burning, apparently — of Qurans and other Islamic religious materials at Bagram Air Field north of Kabul.

Word of what U.S. Gen. John Allen says was the unintentional actions of some International Security Assistance Force troops on the base led to a protest today by more than 2,000 angry Afghans outside the air field, The Associated Press reports. The wire service says that some protesters shouted "die, die foreigners!" and fired shots into the air.

During his 90-second video message, which the BBC says has been played repeatedly on Afghan TV today, Allen says:

— An investigation has begun.

— Such actions have been stopped.

— He has ordered "this does not ever happen again."

— "I assure you ... I promise you ... this was not intentional in any way."

And he apologizes to the president of Afghanistan, the government of Afghanistan and "most importantly ... to the noble people of Afghanistan."

Here's General John R. Allen. I don't know who's responsible for this position of the military but it has become quite embarrassing and it's long past being tiresome.

Can you imagine General Patton or MacArthur doing this? If so, please let me know how you're able to do it because I'm having trouble.



CNS News has more.

h/t GWP

Video: US Troops Urinating on Dead Taliban (and Selective Media Outrage)

The left wing media is already calling this Abu Ghraib II. A video that allegedly shows American troops urinating on dead Taliban insurgents is getting all kinds of attention and once again, the media has a far bigger problem with this than it does with, say, a murderous, cruel, and barbaric terrorist being given the red carpet treatment by the White House just last month.

Before getting to the video of US troops showing ill-advised treatment of barbarians who would have tortured those soldiers endlessly if they had the chance, let's have a look at Hadi al-Ameri; he was invited to the Oval Office last month as a member of an Iraqi delegation; al-Ameri is Iraq's Minister of Transportation.

Al-Ameri, according to a Jordanian source known as Al-Malaf Net, identified al-Ameri as a brutal terrorist who has been the head of an Iranian force known as Badr. He is also a member of al Quds, Iranian's elite military wing.

Fox News reported on the outrage of the victims of the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996. They were livid at the invitation of al-Ameri to the White House. Unlike the endless coverage we're likely to see about what US troops dead to Taliban corpses, the al-Ameri story was rather short-lived.

Translated documents reveal that al-Ameri seemed to climb up through the ranks of the Iranian power structure by making American troops at Abu Ghraib look like pikers:

While being in Iran, Al Ameri played a role in torturing the Iraqi prisoners, who were captured by Iran during the Iraqi-Iranian war. Prisoners who returned from there accuse him of being the cruelest against them. This role helped him to reach the status that he occupies in the eyes of the Iranians.

A tortuous, terrorist agent of Iran - who likely has the blood of Americans on his hands - is welcomed into the White House without any real media coverage to speak of while American troops urinating on dead Taliban insurgents is going to get wall to wall coverage.

Compare what al-Ameri has done with this.

Video via Washington Post:



Here is video of al-Ameri bowing and kissing the Ayatollah. If we were dealing with a responsible media, this would get FAR MORE attention than the video above:

Obama Using Muslim Brotherhood Leader as Intermediary with Taliban

First of all, virtually every single solitary foreign policy decision made by the Obama administration relative to the Muslim Brotherhood has been in the Brotherhood's favor. In fact, Obama's policies have virtually handed all of Northern Africa to the Ikhwan.

Interestingly, the pullout of US troops from Iraq, coupled with Obama's failure to help the green revolution in Iran in 2009 has equally helped the Ayatollah and his Mullahs in that country as well.

Now, it looks like Obama is using Hitler-loving sheikh and Muslim Brotherhood leader, Yusuf al-Qaradawi as a 'key mediator' between the U.S. and the Taliban.

Via IPT News:

Radical Islamist cleric and longtime Muslim Brotherhood spiritual guide Yusuf al-Qaradawi serves as a "key mediator in secret talks between the U.S. and the Taliban," according to unnamed government sources referenced in a report published late Wednesday in The Hindu.

In early December, the report said, "Qaradawi helped draw a road map for a deal between the Taliban and the United States, aimed at giving the superpower a face-saving political settlement ahead of its planned withdrawal from Afghanistan." The United States is expected to begin pulling out of Afghanistan in 2014.

The Qaradawi-brokered deal calls for significant American commitments, including "the release of prisoners still held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, the lifting of United Nations sanctions on its leadership and its recognition as a legitimate political group." In return, the Hindu's sources say, the Taliban would be "expected to sever its links to transnational organisations like al-Qaeda, end violence and eventually share power with the Afghan government."

Yeah, because we can trust the Taliban.

In 2009, Qaradawi praised Hitler according to al-Jazeera, via DTN:

"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers."

Ask yourselves, why would Obama elevate a Muslim Brotherhood leader to this level? Al-Qaeda was spawned by the Brotherhood. Each has the same goal - a global Islamic caliphate - but uses different means.

To put this in a western context, consider asking the head of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) to negotiate with Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground during the latter's terrorist days. Both WU and SDS shared the same goal but SDS wanted to be more incremental by working slowly over time to gain political power.

Then again, Obama and Ayers are quite familiar with one another. Why bother engaging SDS? I'm sure they've got Billy on speed dial.

More here.

Ouch: Former Ron Paul Staffer says Congressman 'Anti-Israel'

Former Senior Ron Paul Aide, Campaign Coordinator, National Organizer, and Travel Aide Eric Dondero has made some scathing charges against his former boss. It will be interesting to see if Team Paul decides to ignore him or attempt to discredit him. While Dondero insists Paul is neither racist or anti-Semitic, he forthrightly makes the charge that Paul is anti-Israel:

Via Right Wing News:

Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.

He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

This definitely squares with Paul's foreign policy stance relative to leaving the region - including Israel - to fend for itself. It also seems to go in line with Paul's endorsement of Cynthia McKinney, a Palestinian supporter and activist, in 2008.

Dondero continues...

There was another incident when Ron finally agreed to a meeting with Houston Jewish Young Republicans at the Freeport office. He berated them, and even shouted at one point, over their un-flinching support for Israel. So, much so, that the 6 of them walked out of the office. I was left chasing them down the hallway apologizing for my boss.

There are other aspects of Paul's views on homosexuality and race that Dondero attempts to clarify but besides Paul's anti-Zionist sentiment, his position on going into Afghanistan after 9/11 is sure to raise some eyebrows.

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11. 

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration. 

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

So, if Dondero is to be believed, Ron Paul is Truther and an anti-Zionist who is not necessarily anti-Semitic. Uh, yeah, that's about what I suspected.

h/t Daily Caller

Video: Jay Carney Attempts to Explain why Taliban not our Enemy

This is the kind of thing that happens when an enemy isn't defined. The enemy is not identified as an enemy. During an interview with Newsweek, Vice President Joe Biden said the following:

"Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy."

During a White House press briefing, ABC's Jake Tapper called Jay Carney on that particular Biden quote and gave Carney the opportunity to walk it back. He did not. The response was absurd and is proof positive that our enemy should have been identified long ago as the Muslim Brotherhood and any group that aids or abets. That would include the Taliban.



h/t Freedom's Lighthouse

Afghanistan: Ten Years later, Zero Christian Churches

Remember when our troops were ordered to burn Christian Bibles in Afghanistan? Chalk this one up to proof that should have been a red flag. The US went into Afghanistan in direct response to 9/11 but when we got there, it became even more apparent how repressive the Taliban regime had been when it came to their implementation of Islam. The battle for hearts and minds included liberating people from the grip of the Taliban. With that liberation came the implied option that people would want an alternative to Islam - an alternative like Christianity. So, how does one explain this?

Via CNS News:

There is not a single, public Christian church left in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. State Department.

This reflects the state of religious freedom in that country ten years after the United States first invaded it and overthrew its Islamist Taliban regime.

In the intervening decade, U.S. taxpayers have spent $440 billion to support Afghanistan's new government and more than 1,700 U.S. military personnel have died serving in that country.

The last public Christian church in Afghanistan was razed in March 2010, according to the State Department's latest International Religious Freedom Report. The report, which was released last month and covers the period of July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, also states that “there were no Christian schools in the country.”

A post-Saddam Hussein Iraq has also seen an increase in the persecution and mass exodus of Christians since the US invasion. Perhaps it has something to do with how we allowed the Constitutions in those countries to take shape. A Congressional Research Service report looked at the reasons why Afghanistan is devoid of Christianity. One particular reason sticks out:

The report acknowledged that Afghanistan’s post-Taliban constitution, which was ratified with the help of U.S. mediation in 2004, can be contradictory when it comes to the free exercise of religion.

While the new constitution states that Islam is the “religion of the state” and that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam,” it also proclaims that “followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of the law.”

However, “the right to change one’s religion was not respected either in law or in practice,” according to the State Department.

“Muslims who converted away from Islam risked losing their marriages, rejection from their families and villages, and loss of jobs,” according to the report. “Legal aid for imprisoned converts away from Islam remains difficult due to the personal objection of Afghan lawyers to defend apostates.”

There it is. Sharia Law. It doesn't matter what is in the Iraqi / Afghanistan constitutions. If Islam is the supreme law of the land, all other religions must be rejected. It's a non-negotiable the policy makers in the US conceded.

Want proof? Remember when US troops were ordered to burn Christian Bibles in Afghanistan because our leaders were afraid they would be used to convert people to Christianity?

Pathetic.

More at CNS News

Report: Pakistan Refusing to go after Haqqani Network

This can be considered validation of what Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen said in front of a Senate Armed Services Committee last week. After Mullen called out Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) for working with the Haqqani terror network, which has committed multiple attacks against US interests, including the embassy in Kabul and a truck bomb on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, Pakistan's reaction would speak volumes either way. It appears that they have chose INaction when it comes to proving Mullen wrong.

Via Hindustan Times:

Pakistan's military will not take action against a militant group Washington blames for an attack against its embassy in Kabul, despite mounting American pressure to do so, a Pakistani newspaper reported on Monday.

Pakistan's army chief General Ashfaq Kayani met with his top commanders on Sunday in a "special" meeting to discuss the security situation, the military said, as the war of words with the United States escalated.

That emergency meeting came against the backdrop of sharp US allegations that the Pakistani army's powerful spy agency supported the Haqqani militant group Washington blames for the recent attack on its embassy and other targets in Kabul.

The commanders agreed to resist US demands for a Pakistani army offensive in North Waziristan, where the United States believes the Haqqani network is based, the Express Tribune reported, quoting an unnamed military official.

It would appear that Pakistan's bluff has been sufficiently called. If this report is accurate, they're not even willing to go through the motions of fighting Haqqani.

h/t Free Republic

Pakistan Responds to Admiral Mullen's Charges that Pakistani Intelligence Aiding Haqqani Network

On September 22nd, outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen threw down a gauntlet with Pakistan when he testified that the Haqqani terrorist network is, in essence, working with Pakistani Intelligence (ISI). In particular, he pointed to the US Embassy bombing in Afghanistan and an attack on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11, in which 80 Americans were wounded. Pakistan has apparently responded to Mullen's testimony by issuing a threat and demanding evidence of Mullen's claims. Uh, how about Osama bin Laden living one mile away from a Pakistani military academy for five years? They still haven't explained that one. How about letting the Chinese get a look at our helicopter that was downed during the raid?

First up, the relevant portion of Mullen's testimony:



As for Pakistan's response, via WSJ:

Pakistani officials snapped back at the U.S. for saying its spy agency was aiding a militant group that targets Americans, and warned Washington that such accusations could sink their alliance.

Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani called the charges by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, "very unfortunate and not based on facts."

Earlier Friday, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar told an Indian news channel that "pointing fingers at each other will not help." Ms. Khar was in the U.S. for the United Nations General Assembly.

"We've never ventured into the blame game because we want to be a mature, responsible country," she said.

Adm. Mullen told Congress on Thursday that he believed the Haqqani network, a militant group linked to the Afghan Taliban and blamed by the U.S. for an attack last week on its embassy in Kabul, was a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence military spy agency.

Gen. Kayani, in a statement issued by the Pakistani military on Friday, denied "accusations of proxy war and ISI support to Haqqanis."

Gen. Kayani said "Adm. Mullen knows fully well which…countries are in contact with the Haqqanis. Singling out Pakistan is neither fair nor productive," the statement said.

The good news may be that we're getting closer to identifying the actual enemies of the United States. The bad news is in how long it's taking us to do so.

More from the hearing HERE.

Latest in Liberal Tripe: America to Blame for Anwar al-Awlaki Becoming a Terrorist

It is utterly amazing to watch the depths the leftwing mind will sink to in order to avoid admitting it was wrong. In this case, Salon's Glenn Greenwald actually blames the United States for turning Anwar al-Awlaki into the terrorist mastermind who inspired Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Malik Hasan, Christmas day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad. Of course, in February of 2002, just five months after the September 11th attacks, al-Awlaki was invited to a DoD luncheon to speak as a moderate Muslim so that has to mean he transformed, right? It couldn't possibly mean the left was duped from the very beginning.

Via Salon:

The (Washington) Post says Awlaki is "known for his fiery sermons" (undoubtedly the prime -- and blatantly unconstitutional -- motive for his being targeted for killing). But what is so bizarre about Awlaki's now being cast in this role is that, for years, he was deemed by the very same U.S. Government to be the face of moderate Islam. Indeed, shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon invited Awlaki to a "luncheon meant to ease tensions with Muslim-Americans." But even more striking was something I accidentally found today while searching for something else. In November, 2001, the very same Washington Post hosted one of those benign, non-controversial online chats about religion that it likes to organize; this one was intended to discuss "the meaning of Ramadan". It was hosted by none other than . . . "Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki."

More extraordinary than the fact that the Post hosted The New Osama bin Laden in such a banal role a mere ten years ago was what Imam Awlaki said during the Q-and-A exchange with readers. He repudiated the 9/11 attackers. He denounced the Taliban for putting women in burqas, explaining that the practice has no precedent in Islam and that "education is mandatory on every Muslim male and female." He chatted about the "inter-faith services held in our mosque and around the greater DC area and in all over the country" and proclaimed: "We definitely need more mutual understanding." While explaining his opposition to the war in Afghanistan, he proudly invoked what he thought (mistakenly, as it turns out) was his right of free speech as an American: "Even though this is a dissenting view nowadays[,] as an American I do have the right to have a contrary opinion." And he announced that "the greatest sin in Islam after associating other gods besides Allah is killing an innocent soul."

Does that sound like the New Osama bin Laden to you? One could call him the opposite of bin Laden. And yet, a mere nine years later, there was Awlaki, in an Al Jazeera interview, pronouncing his opinion that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt to blow up a civilian jet over Detroit was justified (while saying "it would have been better if the plane was a military one or if it was a US military target"), and urging "revenge for all Muslims across the globe" against the U.S. What changed over the last decade that caused such a profound transformation in Awlaki?

Instead of admitting to being duped or even acknowledging the premise that says al-Awlaki knew that the only way he COULD speak at the DoD luncheon was to portray himself as moderate (Islamists do that, you know), Greenwald creates his own theory that says al-Awlaki was moderate then but because of America's actions in Afghanistan, he transformed into a bad guy and is justified somehow.

Taqiyya was invented for people like Greenwald.

h/t Jawa

Obama's Growing Military Problem

Last week, General David Petraeus expressed serious concern over Obama's 'aggressive' draw down of troops in Afghanistan in front of a Senate Armed Forces Committee. When Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) tried to get Petraeus to admit that if he had serious reservations about the President's orders he would resign, Petraeus forcefully responded that he is 'not a quitter.' As that was happening, U.S. Admiral Samuel Locklear, who commands the NATO Joing Operation in Naples, Italy launched quite the politically incorrect salvo and all but called Obama a liar.

Via the Foreign Policy Cable:

The top U.S. admiral involved in the Libya war admitted to a U.S. congressman that NATO forces are trying to kill Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. The same admiral also said he anticipated the need for ground troops in Libya after Qaddafi falls, according to the lawmaker.

House Armed Services Committee member Mike Turner (R-OH) told The Cable that U.S. Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of the NATO Joint Operations Command in Naples, Italy, told him last month that NATO forces are actively targeting and trying to kill Qaddafi, despite the fact that the Obama administration continues to insist that "regime change" is not the goal and is not authorized by the U.N. mandate authorizing the war.

"The U.N. authorization had three components: blockade, no fly zone, and civil protection. And Admiral Locklear explained that the scope of civil protection was being interpreted to permit the removal of the chain of command of Qaddafi's military, which includes Qaddafi," Turner said. "He said that currently is the mission as NATO has defined."

"I believed that we were [targeting Qaddafi] but that confirmed it," Turner said. "I believe the scope that NATO is pursuing is beyond what is contemplated in civil protection, so they're exceeding the mission."

That wasn't all. Look at how simple it is to read between the lines...

Later in the same briefing, Turner said, Locklear maintained that the NATO mission does not include regime change. "Well, certainly if you remove Qaddafi it will affect regime change," Turner said that he replied. "[Locklear] did not have an answer to that."

Locklear also said that, upon Qaddafi's removal, ground troops would be needed during the immediate period of instability, Turner said. In fact, Locklear said publicly that a "small force" might be necessary following the collapse of the Qaddafi regime in a May 30 conference in Varna, Bulgaria.

Ground troops in Libya? While we have Gen. Petraeus all but telling Congress that Obama is making a huge mistake by pulling so many troops out of Afghanistan, we have a Navy Admiral admitting to a congressman that Gadhafi is being targeted and that we will need boots on the ground there to clean up the mess.

Click HERE for video of Petraeus with Levin.

Here is a bonus from Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) on Meet the Press. He seems to be making it clear that he doesn't approve of how Obama is handling the situation in Libya.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Pakistan Likely Protected Osama Bin Laden Since 9/11

Wikileaks strikes yet again. If these files from the document dump are accurate, the relations between the United States and Pakistan - already seriously damaged when Osama was found a mere short walk from Pakistan's military academy - could reach a low quicker than anyone could have imagined. In addition to Osama's location, Wikileaks files reportedly show that Pakistani Intelligence has been protecting him since 2001. If true, it's likely they tipped him off to U.S. troop movement, possibly at Tora Bora in December, 2001. There are other reasons to be concerned with this latest find as well.

Via the Telegraph:

American diplomats were told that one of the key reasons why they had failed to find bin Laden was that Pakistan’s security services tipped him off whenever US troops approached.

Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISID) also allegedly smuggled al-Qaeda terrorists through airport security to help them avoid capture and sent a unit into Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban.

The claims, made in leaked US government files obtained by Wikileaks, will add to questions over Pakistan’s capacity to fight al-Qaeda.

The files go on to explain how one Gitmo detainee bragged about his relationship with ISID.

Bin Laden's proximity to the military academy and his being protected by Pakistani officials for nearly ten years coupled with the 'treasure trove' of intelligence in his compound in the form of computer hard drives could necessitate breaking off all diplomatic relations with Pakistan, at bare minimum.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Obama's Muslim Envoy Worse than Pastor Jones?

Forget for a moment that Barack Obama's envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) should have been fired last year when he was caught in a lie - more on that later. Rashad Hussain has just returned from a trip to Afghanistan in which he told locals that the promotion of Islam is the antidote to Islamic violence. While speaking in Kabul, Afghanistan Hussain said the answer to these problems is 'Islam itself.'

Via Investors Business Daily:

Islamic law calls for vengeance against anybody who insults Islam, its prophet or its holy book. Islamic law is enshrined in the post-Taliban Afghan constitution. Yet Rashad, a devout Muslim, says the Muslim faith is "key" to the administration's strategy to turn Muslims away from violence.

"We see that as one of the key elements of a strategy to address this type of violence," he said. By "we," he means the Obama administration. So it's now official policy to try to douse the Islamic fire of jihad by pouring more fuel on it. This is breathtaking.

It's also at odds with what the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission — including Democrat lion Lee Hamilton — recently recommended in their follow-up report on homegrown terror, "Assessing the Terrorist Threat: A Report of the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Security Preparedness Group."

It found that Islam was catalyzing terrorists abroad and inside America's Muslim community. And it scolded U.S. leaders for pretending otherwise. Still, Hussain insists: "When it comes to the problem of violent extremism, Islam is not the problem."

How about this from WND:

A month before swarms of violent Afghans beheaded United Nations workers in the name of Islam, President Obama's top envoy to the Muslim world promoted Islam in a visit to Afghanistan, arguing it was one of the "strongest tools" against such violence.

In February, Rashad Hussain, U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, gave a talk in the Afghan capital of Kabul in which he called on locals to recommit themselves to their religion:

"I am of the opinion that one of the strongest tools that you can use to counter radicalization and violent extremism is Islam itself, because Islam rejects violent extremism," Hussain told the gathering of Afghans, according to a transcript obtained by WND from the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.

Last year, after Rashad Hussain was named as Obama's Islamic envoy, it was learned that he spoke at a 2004 Muslim Students Association (MSA - Muslim Brotherhood group) event at which he defended convicted terrorist fundraiser, Sami al-Arian. The revelations came courtesy of an account of the event in a newspaper report. Hussain denied he said such things and blamed the reporter. When POLITICO obtained a recording of his words and presented it to the White House. Hussain had to admit to lying but was never fired.

If Hussain is sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood - of which the MSA is part - it is indeed interesting to consider that the Obama administration's policies in the Middle East seem to favor the Brotherhood in almost every instance, including Libya.

More on what happened last year HERE and HERE.

Video Outrage: MSNBC Airs Rationalization of Muslim Outrage

If you ever wonder how TIME Magazine can be as far left as it is, consider that its Deputy International Editor is a guy named Bobby Ghosh who offers a pathetic rationalization for why Muslims get violent when the Qur'an is burned. Not only that but he insults the Christian Bible in the process by saying it's not divinely inspired. Unlike the Bible, according to Ghosh, the Qur'an is the direct word of God. Watch as MSNBC's Chuck Todd laps it up as fact. The irony here is that by insulting the Bible, Ghosh almost does the equivalent of what Jones did.

Via Fox News:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Video: Shameless RINO Lindsey Graham Wants to Rescind First Amendment during War with Unidentified Enemy

While on CBS's Face the Nation, Senator Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC) said he wished there was a way to hold people (like Pastor Terry Jones in Florida) 'accountable' for burning the Qur'an. He then said that 'Free speech is a great idea but we're at war.' As justification for shutting it down, he harkened back to WWII and said Americans were prevented from saying things that could 'inspire the enemy.' Senator Graham, perhaps if you political leaders accurately identified an enemy, people like Terry Jones wouldn't be 'inspired' to do what he did. Just who did Terry Jones 'inspire' with his Qur'an burning?

When the subject turns to Libya, Graham insists that Gadhafi should be removed from power without any apparent understanding of what would fill the void.

Exchange starts at the 2:00 mark.



Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday called Terry Jones a 'Total Jackass.' Amazingly, the words he had for the murderers who reacted to Jones were not as strong. Once again, Kristol exposes himself as completely hypocritical. In 2006, he proudly explained why the Weekly Standard decided to publish incendiary Muhammad cartoons.



Diana West over at BIG PEACE explains perfectly the position of those who disagree with RINOs like Graham. If the liberal media and political leaders aren't careful, they're going to end up making Terry Jones a hero.

h/t Hot Air