Home Front: Politix |
Flashback - Carter's Acceptance of Defeat in 1980 |
2020-11-19 |
[Townhall] In 1980, Democratic President Jimmy Carter lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan, 489-49 in the Electoral College. So naturally, Democrats concluded that Reagan had committed treason in order to steal the election, to wit: His campaign had conspired with Iranian ayatollahs to prevent 52 American hostages from being released until after the election. Sound familiar? ![]() With all that going for them - plus that old Mondale magic -Democrats were dumbstruck that they lost the 1980 election. What other than a dirty trick could explain it? I guess I should warn some of you - this is Ann Coulter. So I'll keep it short. In other words, liberals believed the Islamo-fascist cutthroats who had been toying with Carter like a cat with a ball of yarn wanted Carter replaced by someone stronger, like Reagan. How else to explain the fact that, minutes after Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released? A more plausible theory was given in a Jeff MacNelly cartoon showing Khomeini reading a telegram aloud: "It's from Ronald Reagan. It must be about one of the Americans in the Den of Spies, but I don't recognize the name. It says 'Remember Hiroshima.'" At the conclusion of the House's investigation, Rep. Lee Hamilton, the House Democrat who had chaired the October Surprise Task Force, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times, saying: "The task force report concluded there was virtually no credible evidence to support the accusations." On the same day, the Times published a rebuttal op-ed by Gary Sick. And that, kids, is how you concede a presidential election with grace and dignity. |
Link |
Iraq |
US Special Ops Sources: ISIS an 'Incredible' Fighting Force, |
2014-08-26 |
![]() Here's something I am wondering about. Where did these guys get their organization? This didn't happen overnight. They've got the support and pre-planning, training, guidance, etc. from some mature government. Saudi Arabia? They seemed to handle taking over that oil facility quite handily. They even know how to operate it, I understand. Where are they getting the expertise to operate the Abrams tanks they are capturing? They also seem to have captured an airbase in Syria. Do they have the expertise to take advantage of these resourses? They're a larger group. They're attracting like-minded souls who happen to have expertise. Iraqi mil/ex-mil guys are joining up with them -- we trained those guys. And so on... With the Obama White House left reeling from the "savage" slaughter of an American journalist held hostage by ISIS terrorists, military options are being considered against an adversary who officials say is growing in strength and is much more capable than the one faced when the group was called "al Qaeda-Iraq" during the U.S. war from 2003-2011. ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, has been making a "tactical withdrawal" in recent days in the face of withering U.S. airstrikes from areas around Erbil in northern Iraq and from the major dam just north of Mosul it controlled for two nail-biting weeks, according to military officials monitoring their movements. "These guys aren't just bugging out, they're tactically withdrawing. Very professional, well trained, motivated and equipped. They operate like a state with a military," said one official who tracks ISIS closely. "These aren't the same guys we fought in OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) who would just scatter when you dropped a bomb near them." ISIS appeared to have a sophisticated and well thought-out plan for establishing its "Islamic Caliphate" from northern Syria across the western and northern deserts of Iraq, many experts and officials have said, and support from hostage-taking, robbery and sympathetic donations to fund it. They use drones to gather overhead intel on targets and effectively commandeer captured military vehicles �-- including American Humvees -- and munitions. "They tried to push out as far as they thought they could and were fully prepared to pull back a little bit when we beat them back with airstrikes around Erbil. And they were fine with that, and ready to hold all of the ground they have now," a second official told ABC News. ISIS didn't necessarily count on holding Mosul Dam, officials said, but scored a major propaganda victory on social media when they hoisted the black flag of the group over the facility that provides electricity and water to a large swath of Iraq, or could drown millions if breached. U.S. special operations forces under the Joint Special Operations Command and U.S. Special Operations Command keep close tabs on the military evolution of ISIS and both its combat and terrorism -- called "asymmetric" -- capabilities, officials told ABC News. A primary reason is in anticipation of possibly fighting them, which a full squadron of special mission unit operators did in the Independence Day raid on an ISIS camp in Raqqah, Syria. "They're incredible fighters. ISIS teams in many places use special operations TTPs," said the second official, who has considerable combat experience, using the military term for "tactics, techniques and procedures." In sobering press conference Friday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said ISIS has shown that it is "as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen." "They're beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded," he said. "This is beyond anything that we've seen." Prior ISIS's recent public successes, the former chairman of the 9/11 Commission, which just released a tenth anniversary report on the threat of terrorism currently facing the homeland, said he was shocked at how little seems to be known inside the U.S. intelligence community about the Islamist army brutalizing Iraq as it has Syria. "I was appalled at the ignorance," former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean, who led the 9/11 Commission, told ABC News last week. Kean, a Republican, who with vice chairman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, recently met with about 20 top intelligence officials in preparation of the commission's latest threat report, said many officials seemed both blind-sided and alarmed by the group's rise, growth and competency. "One official told me 'I am more scared than at any time since 9/11,'"Kean recounted in a recent interview. A spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence defended the intelligence community's tracking of ISIS, saying officials had "expressed concern" about the threat as far back as last year. "The will to fight is inherently difficult to assess. Analysts must make assessments based on perceptions of command and control, leadership abilities, quality of experience, and discipline under fire -- none of which can be understood with certainty until the first shots are fired," ODNI spokesperson Brian Hale said. Where did ISIS learn such sophisticated military methods, shown clearly after the first shots were fired? "Probably the Chechens," the one of the U.S. officials said. A Chechen commander named Abu Omar al-Shishani -- who officials say may have been killed in fighting near Mosul -- is well known for commanding an international brigade within ISIS. Other Chechens have appeared within propaganda videos including one commander who was killed on video by an artillery burst near his SUV in Syria. Earlier this year, ABC News reported on the secret history of U.S. special operations forces' experiences battling highly capable Chechen fighters along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border since 2001. In addition, for decades Chechen separatists have waged asymmetric warfare against Russian forces for control of the Northern Caucasus. In the battle against ISIS, many within American "SOF," a term that comprises operators from all branches of the military and intelligence, are frustrated at being relegated by the President only to enabling U.S. airstrikes in Iraq. They are eager to fight ISIS more directly in combat operations -- even if untethered, meaning unofficially and with little if any U.S. government support, according to some with close ties to the community. "ISIS and their kind must be destroyed," said a senior counterterrorism official after journalist James Foley was beheaded on high-definition ISIS video, echoing strong-worded statements of high-level U.S. officials including Secretary of State John Kerry. But asked when the Obama administration would attempt to confront ISIS, the official declined to answer. Ben Rhodes, the President's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, told reporters Friday that Obama is currently focused on protecting American lives, "containing" ISIS where they are and supporting advances by Iraqi and Kurdish forces. "Our military objectives in Iraq right now are limited to protecting our personnel and facilities and address the humanitarian crisis," Rhodes said. The "ultimate goal," Rhodes said however, was to "defeat" ISIS. "We have to be clear that this is a deeply-rooted organization... It is going to take time, a long time, to fully evict them from the communities where they operate," he said. "In the long term, we'll be working with our partners to defeat this organization." |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
The Wilson Center Honors a Turkey |
2010-06-17 |
The U.S. taxpayer-funded Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, led by former Congressman Lee Hamilton, is giving out its annual award for public service Thursday, and the winner is ... Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu! Davutaoglu "personifies the attributes we seek to honor at the Woodrow Wilson Center," Hamilton said in announcing the event, adding that his "contributions have been numerous and significant." The Turkish foreign minister has been in the news a lot lately, such as when he said the Israeli incident aboard the Gaza flotilla "is like 9/11 for Turkey." He was also a key figure in the Brazilian-Turkish drive to head off new U.N. sanctions on Iran by striking an 11th-hour fuel-swap deal, an agreement the Obama administration has dismissed as inadequate and unhelpful. House Foreign Affairs Middle East subcommittee chairman Gary Ackerman, D-NY, wrote to Hamilton Wednesday to express his "deep concern and dismay" over the award to Davutoglu. "Turkey's foreign policy under Foreign Minister Davutoglu's leadership is rife with illegality, irresponsibility and hypocrisy," he wrote, citing Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide, its occupation of northern Cyprus, Turkey's vote against new Iran sanctions, and what Ackerman described as the ongoing "demonizing" of Israel as exhibited during the flotilla crisis. "A foreign leader who represents and defends this kind of foreign policy, one who has championed Turkey's most odious efforts to deny to others the human dignity that Turkey rightly expects for its own people, is not a worthy recipient of the WWC Public Service Award," Ackerman wrote. The center was created in 1968 by an act of Congress as a private/public partnership, and U.S. taxpayers contribute about a third of the center's annual revenue |
Link |
Home Front: WoT | |
Obama administration says Emirates Airlines Dropped the Ball; 9/11 | |
2010-05-05 | |
"It takes a few hours for the airlines system to catch up," a senior administration official tells ABC news. Another senior administration official adds that Emirates refreshes their system to update with US intelligence information periodically -- but not frequently. In any case, the first official says that airlines were "within minutes" of Shahzad being put on the no-fly list told to "look at a web-board" and manually check its passenger manifest against the news on the web board. "That appears to not have happened" the official says. "For whatever reason there was a breakdown at the Emirates level." Emirates Airlines provided its locked-in passenger manifest to the Customs and Border Protection agency. The plane at that point can leave. But a CBP official caught Shahzad's name on the manifest and the plane never left the gate. "That redundancy is built in," the official says. "It's not luck it's design. It was good work by CBP." Former 9/11 Commission vice chair and Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton seems less impressed. Hamilton reminds ABC News that "the 9/11 commission recommended that you had to have biometric evidence, documentarian evidence of people coming in and exiting" the country. "We've done a pretty good job on the first part of it people entering the country. But with regard to those exiting the country we simply have not been able to set up a system to deal with that and it showed in this case." Hamilton says "we need to have in this country a system of checking people leaving the country so that we can protect against the very sort of thing that happened here -- or at least almost happened here." | |
Link |
Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
Think tank urges US to adopt more pragmatic approach toward Hamas |
2009-03-31 |
A new report from a New York-based think tank and delivered to US President Barack Obama by a signatory who is also an adviser recommends that Washington forcefully reinsert itself into the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, calling for "a more pragmatic approach to Hamas." Even by its title, the report from the US/Middle East Project (USMEP) alludes to the urgency of US involvement: "A Last Chance for a Two-State Israel-Palestine Agreement." "[T]he next six to 12 months may well represent the last chance for a fair, viable and lasting solution," said the paper. "[I]t is essential that the incoming administration make Arab-Israeli peace a high national-security priority from the beginning." Taking on the frank realism of several of the group's signatories, the statement lays out specific policy recommendations, debunks arguments against robust engagement, and offers calculations of the benefits of action - including allowing for the engagement of Hamas by international actors in the peace process. Hamas currently rules the Gaza Strip despite the beating the group took during a three-week war launched by Israel during the winter. In his March 26 Op-Ed for the website of the New York Times, columnist Roger Cohen calls the report's signatories a group of "former senior officials whose counsel [Obama] respects," and says he believes their views to be largely in line with the thinking of National Security Adviser General Jim Jones and the administration's Middle East envoy, former Senator George Mitchell. Former Council on Foreign Relations fellow, former longtime president of the American Jewish Congress, and University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies professor Henry Siegman convened the group under the auspices of USMEP, where he is president. Other signatories, experts and statespersons of US foreign policy include USMEP chairman General Brent Scowcroft; former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski; former members of Congress Chuck Hagel, Lee Hamilton, and Nancy Kassebaum-Baker; Ambassador Thomas Pickering; and, notably, former Federal Reserve chairman and current Obama administration Economic Advisory Group chair Paul Volcker. The authors acknowledge what has become obvious to many in the US, Israeli, and Palestinian pro-peace crowd: that Hamas may be the last, best hope for saving the two-state solution. The paper, while not calling for direct US engagement with Hamas, which is considered a terrorist organization by the State Department, says that "Hamas is simply too powerful and too important to be ignored." "A legitimate, unified and empowered Palestinian side to negotiate with Israel is of importance if any agreement is to be reached and implemented," says the report. "Direct US engagement with Hamas may not now be practical, but shutting out the movement and isolating Gaza has only made it stronger and Fatah weaker." Fatah rules the West Bank and has control of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Many international actors consider PA President Mahmoud Abbas to be a palatable negotiator for Palestinians, but his Fatah faction is widely considered corrupt and ineffectual by Palestinians. After winning elections in 2006, Hamas was briefly in a national unity government with Fatah, which much of the international community opposed with vigor - especially the US, which boycotted the government, withdrew aid, and reportedly aided Fatah in preparations for a coup d'etat. |
Link |
Israel-Palestine-Jordan | ||||
Obama links Israel peace plan to 1967 borders deal | ||||
2008-11-16 | ||||
The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem. On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be crazy for Israel to refuse a deal that could give them peace with the Muslim world, according to a senior Obama adviser. The Arab peace plan received a boost last week when President Shimon Peres, a Nobel peace laureate and leading Israeli dove, commended the initiative at a Saudi-sponsored United Nations conference in New York. Peres was loudly applauded for telling King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who was behind the original initiative: I wish that your voice will become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people. A bipartisan group of senior foreign policy advisers urged Obama to give the Arab plan top priority immediately after his election victory. They included Lee Hamilton, the former co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democrat former national security adviser. Brzezinski will give an address tomorrow at Chatham House, the international relations think tank, in London. Brent Scowcroft, a Republican former national security adviser, joined in the appeal. He said last week that the Middle East was the most troublesome area in the world and that an early start to the Palestinian peace process was a way to psychologically change the mood of the region. Advisers believe the diplomatic climate favours a deal as Arab League countries are under pressure from radical Islamic movements and a potentially nuclear Iran. Polls show that Palestinians and Israelis are in a mood to compromise.
Obama is also looking to break a diplomatic deadlock over Irans pursuit of nuclear weapons technology. A possible way forward, suggested last spring by Dennis Ross, a senior Obama adviser and former Middle East envoy, would be to persuade Russia to join in tough economic sanctions against Iran by offering to modify the US plan for a missile shield in eastern Europe.
Ross and Daniel Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel, accompanied Obama on a visit to Israel last July. They also travelled to Ramallah, where Obama questioned Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, about the prospects for the Arab plan. According to a Washington source Obama told Abbas: The Israelis would be crazy not to accept this initiative. It would give them peace with the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco. Kurtzer submitted a paper to Obama on the question before this months presidential elections. He argued that trying to reach bilateral peace agreements between Israel and individual countries in the Middle East, was a recipe for failure as the record of Bill Clinton and George W Bush showed. In contrast, the broader Arab plan had a lot of appeal. A leading Democratic expert on the Middle East said: Theres not a lot of meat on the bones yet, but it offers recognition of Israel across the Arab world. Livni, the leader of Kadima, which favours the plan, is the front-runner in Israeli elections due in February. Her rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Likud, is adamantly against withdrawing to borders that predate the Six Day war in 1967. Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, last week expressed his support for Israels withdrawal from the West Bank Golan and east Jerusalem. | ||||
Link |
Home Front: Politix | ||||
Panel calls for new war powers legislation | ||||
2008-07-08 | ||||
The next time the president goes to war, Congress should be consulted and vote on whether it agrees, according to a bipartisan study group chaired by former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher. In a report released Tuesday, the panel says the current law governing the nation's war powers has failed to promote cooperation between the executive and legislative branches. It says the 1973 resolution should be repealed and replaced with new legislation that would require the president to inform Congress of any plans to engage in 'significant armed conflict,' or non-covert operations lasting longer than a week. In turn, Congress would act within 30 days, either approving or disapproving the action.
And I'm sure it will work as well as history indicates.
The panel has briefed the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain, as well as congressional leadership. Spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama commends the panel 'for advocating that the president consult Congress more closely on issues of critical national importance like the use of military force.' McCain did not provide comment. But I'll bet he rolled his eyes. Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force President Bush to end the war. While Congress had authorized combat in Iraq, Democrats said the resolution approved only the invasion and not a five-year counterinsurgency. After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. While they lacked a veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, the White House argued that such legislation would have violated the Constitution by infringing upon the president's right as commander in chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was ample precedence. The one surefire way for Congress to have ended the war was to cut off money for combat operations -- a step most Democrats weren't willing to take because they feared doing so would have hurt troops in harms' way, or at least be perceived by voters that way. Yeah, I guess 'at least be perceived' is technically accurate.
So much for being able to carry a big stick if this stoopid idea sticks, which I don't think it will. The founding fathers set things up the way they did for a reason. Sometimes it takes a king to get things done. | ||||
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Former U.S. Officials Want to Change Process for Going to War |
2008-07-08 |
Oh dear.... Congress should pass legislation to require the president to consult lawmakers before going to war, according to a bipartisan study group chaired by former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher. In a report released Tuesday, the panel says the current law governing the nation's war powers has failed to promote cooperation between the executive and legislative branch. It says the 1973 resolution should be repealed and replaced with new legislation that would require the president to inform Congress of any plans to engage in "significant armed conflict," such as operations lasting longer than a week. In turn, Congress would act within 30 days, either approving or disapproving the action. Baker, who served as in the first Bush administration and co-chaired the 2006 Iraq Study Group, said the proposal isn't intended to resolve constitutional disputes between the White House and Congress on who should decide whether the nation fights. "What we aim to do with this statute is to create a process that will encourage the two branches to cooperate and consult in a way that is both practical and true to the spirit of the Constitution," he said in a statement. A new joint House and Senate committee would be established to review the president's justification for war. To do so, the committee would be granted access to highly classified information. Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force President Bush to end the war. While Congress had authorized combat in Iraq, Democrats said the resolution approved only the invasion and not a five-year counterinsurgency. After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. While they lacked a veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, the White House argued that such legislation would have violated the Constitution by infringing upon the president's right as commander in chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was ample precedence. The one surefire way for Congress to have ended the war was to cut off money for combat operations -- a step most Democrats weren't willing to make because they feared doing so would have hurt troops in harms' way, or at least be perceived by voters that way. The plan identified by Baker and Christopher, who served as secretary of State under President Clinton, would not necessarily resolve such issues in the future. But it would create a consultative process between the White House and Congress that currently does not exist. Also, calling on Congress to respond would exert significant political pressure on a president if he ignored lawmakers' wishes. The panel studied the issue for more than a year and consulted more than three dozen experts. Other members of the panel include former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who in 2006 led the Iraq Study Group with Baker; former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of State. The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia sponsored the study. |
Link |
Home Front: WoT |
Liars' Round-Up: on Security, Facts Matter |
2008-06-29 |
by Ralph Peters THE facts about your security are being torn to shreds by activist liars. And they think that you're too stupid to know the difference. Let's lay out the worst current examples of media make-believe and election-year truth-trashing: Whopper No. 1: America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Oh, really? Where's the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City attacked and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe. Nothing was done to protect us. And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11. A record to be proud of. Countless aspects of the Bush-Cheney administration deserve merciless criticism. But fair is fair: Since 9/11, we haven't suffered a single successful terrorist attack on our homeland. Not one. Explain to me, please, how this shows we're less safe. What factual measurement applies, other than the absence of attacks? God knows, the terrorists desperately wanted to strike our homeland. And they couldn't. Are we supposed to believe that was an accident? Whopper No. 2: Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Al Qaeda just suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq that may prove decisive. It can't launch attacks beyond its regional lairs. The cowardly Osama bin Laden can't show his face (remember his Clinton-era pep rallies?). Yes, terrorists can still murder innocents on their home court. I personally prefer that to them killing Americans in Manhattan and Washington. Even in Iraq, al Qaeda's been beaten down to violent-fugitive status. By what objective measurement is al Qaeda stronger today than it was when it had an entire country for its base and its tentacles reached all the way to Florida and the Midwest? Whopper No. 3: Success in Iraq is an illusion - the surge failed. Folks, this is something only a New York Times columnist could believe. Every single significant indicator, from Iraqi government progress through the performance of Iraqi security forces to the plummeting level of violence, has changed for the better - remarkably so. If current trend-lines continue, it may not be long before Baghdad is safer for Iraqi citizens than the Washington-Baltimore metroplex is for US citizens. Iraq's government is working, its economy is booming - and its military has driven the concentrations of terrorists and militia from every one of Iraq's major cities. And our troops are coming home. Where's the failure? Whopper No. 4: Iran is stronger than ever. Tell that to the Iraqis, who've rejected Iranian meddling in their affairs, who've smashed the Iran-backed Shia militias and who didn't take long to figure out that Tehran's foreign policy was imperialist and anti-Arab. The people of Iraq don't intend to trade Saddam for Ahmadinejad. Iran has lost in Iraq. At this point, all the Iranians can do is to kill a handful of innocent Iraqis now and then. Think that wins them friends and influence? Whopper No. 5: The US-European relationship is a disaster. In fact, Washington and the major European capitals have built new, sturdier bridges to replace old ones that badly needed burning. The Europeans grudgingly figured out that they need us - as we need them. The big break in 2003 cleared a lot of bad air (there was no break with Europe's young democracies). Relations today are sounder than they were in the fiddle-while-Rome-burns Clinton era. Oh, and NATO has become a serious military alliance - fighting in Afghanistan, patrolling the high seas and conducting special operations against terrorists. The Germans announced this week that they're sending another thousand troops to Afghanistan. France is re-engaging with NATO's military side. Where's the disaster, mon ami? Whopper No. 6: As president, Barack Obama would bring positive change to our foreign policy - and John McCain's too old to get it. Hmm: Take a gander at Obama's senior foreign-policy advisers: Madeleine Albright (71), Warren Christopher (82), Anthony Lake (69), Lee Hamilton (77), Richard Clarke (57) ... if you added up their ages and fed the number into a time-machine, you'd land in Europe in the middle of the Black Death. More important: These are the people whose watch saw the first attack on the World Trade Center, Mogadishu, Rwanda, the Srebrenica massacre, a pass for the Russians on Chechnya, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa, the near-sinking of the USS Cole - oh, and the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Their legacy climaxed on 9/11. You couldn't assemble a team in Washington with more strategic failures to its credit. Whopper No. 7: Our troops are all coming home as psychos victimized by their participation in military atrocities. Tell it to the Marines. |
Link |
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
Obamas National Security Whos Who of Incompetance |
2008-06-18 |
"Depressingly, there is not a single innovative, controversial, outside-the-box thinker on this list. Where is the intellectual challenge and vitality?"from a commenter somewhere. Obamas National Security Whos Who of Incompetence Jun 18 at 1:01pm by Macranger Youve got to love this. Heres is Obamas National Security Working Group: * Secretary of State Madeleine Albright * Senator David Boren, former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence * Secretary of State Warren Christopher * Greg Craig, former director of the State Department Office of Policy Planning * Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig * Representative Lee Hamilton, former Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee * Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder * Dr. Tony Lake, former National Security Advisor * Senator Sam Nunn, former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. * Secretary of Defense William Perry * Dr. Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State * Representative Tim Roemer, 9/11 Commissioner * Jim Steinberg, former Deputy National Security Advisor |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Dean committed to seating Florida's delegates |
2008-04-03 |
Link |
India-Pakistan |
Poll: plummeting support for Taliban, bin Laden, Al Qaeda |
2008-02-11 |
Hat tip Instapundit.(AP) - The survey was conducted last month for the U.S.-based Terror Free Tomorrow organization. According to the poll results only 24 percent of Pakistanis approved of bin Laden when the survey was conducted last month, compared with 46 percent during a similar survey in August. To put that in some perspective, that means OBL has gone from being less popular than George Bush, to being less popular than the Democratic-led Congress. (Correction, my mistake: OBL had higher numbers than Bush, but spent the last few months in freefall, now at Congressional depths AQ overall has dropped from sub-Bush to sub-Congress.* In any case, Paks clearly are not happy with OBL and AQs conduct of the Global Jihad on Infidelism). |
Link |