Good News! The War on Terror is declared over...

But it makes me wonder, is it now an "Overseas Contingency Operation part 2"? I wish that I could just rename things to make them "complete". Seems a bit hasty to me... Anyways, read the original here.

'The War on Terror Is Over'
9:29 PM, APR 23, 2012
BY DANIEL HALPER

The Weekly Standard

In the wake of the Arab Spring, the Obama administration is grappling with how to handle Islamists, radical adherents to Islam. Particularly, the issue has come to the fore in regards to Egypt, which, as Reuel Marc Gerecht notes, "is now certain" to elect "an Islamist" as its leaders the next time the Egyptian people go to the polls.

But some in the Obama administration are now seeing things differently.

"The war on terror is over," a senior official in the State Department official tells the National Journal. "Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism."

This new outlook has, in the words of the National Journal, come from a belief among administration officials that "It is no longer the case, in other words, that every Islamist is seen as a potential accessory to terrorists."

The National Journal explains:

The new approach is made possible by the double impact of the Arab Spring, which supplies a new means of empowerment to young Arabs other than violent jihad, and Obama's savagely successful military drone campaign against the worst of the violent jihadists, al Qaida.

For the president himself, this new thinking comes from a "realiz[ation that] he has no choice but to cultivate the Muslim Brotherhood and other relatively 'moderate' Islamist groups emerging as lead political players out of the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere."

This new outlook is radically different than what was expressed under President George W. Bush immediately after September 11, 2001. "Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," Bush said on November 6, 2001. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

For President Barack Obama, it would seem, one can be both with us and against us--or not with us, but not quite against us.

A Life Rule lesson

Seriously, what is going on. I railed against it when he announced, and I'll say it again. If you give bad guys a date that the good guys are leaving no matter what, the bad guys will usually just take a vacation and wait until you've left the premises. I genuinely question the logic of setting such a hard timetable for Iraq's exit, and vociferously question the logic and integrity of whomever decided it was worth announcing to the world. I don't understand how anyone will think it's a surprise when the violence goes up. If POTUS claims he ended the Iraq war, I disagree. I think this is a perfect example of why he has never made the transition from popular kid voted class president to being an actual class president. Read the original here.

Dozens die as 14 bombs explode across Baghdad - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq
MSNBC:

BAGHDAD — A wave of bombings ripped across Baghdad on Thursday morning, killing at least 60 people and injuring more than 150 in the worst violence Iraq has seen for months. The bloodbath comes just days after American forces left the country.




The blasts also came on the heels of a political crisis between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite factions that erupted this weekend.

The political spat has raised fears that Iraq's sectarian wounds will be reopened during a fragile time when Iraq is finally navigating its own political future without U.S. military support.

While the string of explosions was likely not a direct response to the political Sunni-Shiite confrontation, it will ratchet up tensions at a time when many Iraqis are already worried about security. If continued, it could lead to the same type of tit-for-tat attacks that characterized the insurgency years ago.

Iraqi officials said at least 14 blasts went off early Thursday morning in 11 neighborhoods around the city.

Figures gathered from Iraqi health and police officials across the city put the death toll at 60, with 160 injured. The spokesman for the Iraqi health ministry put the death toll at 57 and said at least 176 people were injured. Conflicting casualty figures are common in the aftermath of such attacks.

The explosions ranged from blasts from sticky bombs attached to cars to roadside bombs and vehicles packed with explosives. There was at least one suicide bombing among the attacks.

'A huge explosion'
At least 18 people were killed when a suicide bomber driving an ambulance detonated the vehicle near a government office in the Karrada district, sending up a dust cloud and scattering car parts into a kindergarten, police and health officials said.

"We heard the sound of a car driving, then car brakes, then a huge explosion, all our windows and doors are blown out, black smoke filled our apartment," said Maysoun Kamal, who lives in a Karrada compound.

Raghad Khalid, a teacher at a kindergarten near the Karrada blast, said "some parts of the car bomb are inside our building."

"I saw all the windows were blown out and glass scattered everywhere. The children were scared and crying," Khalid added.

Two roadside bombs struck the southwestern Amil district, killing at least seven people and wounding 21 others, while a car bomb blew up in a Shiite neighborhood in Doura in the south, killing three people and wounding six, police said.

"My baby was sleeping in her bed. Shards of glass have fallen on our heads. Her father hugged her and carried her. She is now scared in the next room," said one woman in western Baghdad who identified herself as Um Hanin. "All countries are stable. Why don't we have security and stability?"

More bombs ripped into the central Alawi area, Shaab and Shula in the north, all mainly Shiite areas, and a roadside bomb killed one and wounded five near the Sunni neighborhood of Adhamiya, police said.

Violence in Iraq has ebbed since the height of sectarian violence in 2006-2007, when suicide bombers and hit squads targeted Sunni and Shiite communities in attacks that killed thousands of people.

Stubborn insurgency
Iraq is still fighting a stubborn, lower-grade insurgency with Sunni Islamists tied to al-Qaida and Shiite militias, who U.S. officials say are backed by Iran, still staging daily attacks.

The last few thousand American troops pulled out of Iraq over the weekend, nearly nine years after the invasion that toppled Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein. Many Iraqis had said they feared a return to sectarian violence without a U.S. military buffer.

Just days after the withdrawal, Iraq's fragile power-sharing government is grappling with its worst turmoil since its formation a year ago. Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish blocs share out government posts in a unwieldy system that has been impaired by political infighting since it began.


The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is a Shiite, has accused the Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi of running a hit squad that targeted government officials.

Al-Maliki is also pushing for a vote of no-confidence against another Sunni politician, the deputy prime minister Saleh al-Mutlaq. Al-Maliki was likened to Saddam by al-Mutlaq.

Many Sunnis fear that this is part of a wider campaign to go after Sunni political figures in general and shore up Shiite control across the country.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the morning's violence. But the coordinated nature of the assault and the fact that the attacks took place in numerous neighborhoods suggested a planning capability only available to al-Qaida in Iraq.

Many of the neighborhoods were also Shiite areas which are a favorite target of al-Qaida. The Sunni extremist group often targets Shiites who they believe are not true Muslims.

U.S. military officials have said they're worried about a resurgence of al-Qaida after the American military leaves the country. If that happens, it could lead Shiite militants to fight back and attack Sunni targets, thus sending Iraq back to the sectarian violence it experienced just a few years ago.

Israel, Liberalism, and Moral Cowardice (repost)

From American Thinker. As Israel recovers from another coordinated terror attack, read the original here.

August 17, 2011
Israel, Liberalism, and Moral Cowardice
By James Lewis

There are touchstones of morality in life. In 1938, resisting Hitler was a big one in Europe; in 1990, support for freedom in the Soviet Empire was another one.

Today we have a new test of character.

Americans have never had much of a problem telling the good guys from the bad guys.It isn't that hard. If they are head-chopping murderers who go around burning girls' schools in Afghanistan, committing random rapes in Norway, and truck-bombing civilians in open-air markets in Iraq, chances are that they are bad guys.

See? That wasn't so hard. So why don't the liberals get what's obvious to a child of six?After wrestling with it for years, I think it all comes down to moral cowardice.

Today we are surrounded by moral cowards; people who have chosen to evade choices between good and evil. Every day when they hear the news they shrivel up again like snails drawing into their shells, because moral cowardice is not a one-time thing. It a lifetime practice of shifty evasions. Courage is a muscle that can be trained, and so is cowardice.

Israel isn't the only question liberals keep dodging. Shifty evasion is how they run their lives. Ask an honest question and you'll get a shifty answer. Just watch their eyes.

Israel isn't their only failure of the moral sense. Every time Hollywood pulls another Caligula stunt they know they'll get away with it because of the passive collusion of millions of liberals, who keep paying for their wares, no matter how corrupting. Hollywood's moral monsters keep pushing the limits, and liberals keep paying them. Liberals around the world are paying for the corruption of your children.

No, Israel isn't their only failure.

Israel is our moral touchstone today because that country is on the front line fighting the risorgiamento of Islamist fascismo. If you don't think that's true, take another hard look. You can google tons of indisputable facts.

The Declaration of Independence took a stand on foreign tyranny; the Civil War abolished the intolerable shame of slavery and still preserved the Union; World War I pushed back Prussian imperialism; World War II knocked out Hitler and Imperial Japan; the Cold War brought down the Soviet Empire.

Five historic choices, and all expressed our basic values.

America made the right choices -- and not easy ones -- at five crucial turning points in world history. You may think that's patriotic humbug, but it's true. Lincoln called constitutional government the "last, best hope of mankind," and he was not given to empty rhetoric. Lincoln had to make the toughest choices in American history, and he always came back to basics. In the end, after all was said and done, we knew it in our bones.

The newest upsurge of barbarism in the world is impossible to ignore -- unless you're a liberal and blind. (But I repeat myself.) If you see the same international danger that everybody else does, you can either fight 'em or join 'em. The hard Left, like Bill Ayers and Code Pink, has chosen to join the fascists because they hate and despise free people. They are despicable lowlifes. We know where decent people stand, because morality hasn't changed. It is what it is. You know it and I know it.

Americans didn't go around apologizing for our basic decency until the rise of El Jefe El Magnifico, Barry the Bombastic. Europe had a Prince William the Silent, but we've got 'em beat hands down, 'cause we have Barry Who Won't Ever Shut Up. Every time his numbers drop he makes another whiny complaint to over national TV, and his numbers drop even lower. It's a kind of tic he can't control.

A fresh team of leaders is emerging. Some of them are Republican presidential contenders. Some are freedom fighters in Europe, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders. Millions of modernist Muslims quietly despise their wife-beating and child-abusing ideologues.

If the West would stand up for its own values the rest of the world would heave a big sigh and get back to sanity. Ordinary decency isn't that different in Cairo and Kansas. Turn off the hate propaganda and the Muslim world will find a path back to modernity. They don't really want to live in misery and despair.

Which brings me back to Israel.

In the last couple of weeks Israel has seen its own Cottage Cheese rebellion, a democratic eruption about as alarming as the American Tea Party. While next door in Syria the dictatorship has sent 200 battle tanks to kill as many Sunni rebels as possible, the Cottage Cheesers have carried out a model of peaceful protest. Hundreds of thousands of young people turned out to protest the high price of food and housing. They pitched neat little tents along the center strips of thoroughfares in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. There they have slept overnight and chanted slogans, waved signs, and got the thumbs up sign from thousands of drivers passing by.

I tell you, it's as scary as Tea.

The Netanyahu government reacted quickly. Not a single man, woman or child was attacked by tanks. Nobody got hurt. The cops were out in force, but I haven't seen pictures of rioters throwing Molotov cocktails the way they did in London, Paris and Athens. Nobody even tossed a cottage cheese pie. But hundreds of thousands of ordinary people made their case in perfect freedom, and the Cabinet in Jerusalem took urgent action. Elected officials ran around trying to fix things, the way they're supposed to.

Six months into Obama's "Arab Spring" not a single democracy has emerged in the Arab world, in spite of Obama forcing Hosni Mubarak to resign -- an 82-year old ally who kept the peace for thirty years. The Egypt-Israeli peace treaty is now in tatters thanks to Obama and the phony-baloney "Arab Spring."

The only stable country in the Middle East is little Israel, which hasn't even bothered to call an election to fix the Cottage Cheese crisis. It wasn't needed.

Meanwhile, Obama the Big Bad Wolf has huffed and puffed and blown the house down, except that all the bad old dictatorships are just getting fresh new dictators. So much for the Enlightened One and his Hope and Change for the Muslim world.

Islamic fascism has received a fresh boost from Obama's community disorganizing. The Moo Bro candidate in Egypt has sworn to renew the war with Israel. Iran's fascists have taken over the formerly free country of Lebanon, and Iran has sent its torture battalions to help Syria beat up its eighty percent Sunni Muslim population. Tehran is still purging its Green Movement protesters without a peep of protest from Washington. Ahmadinejad is getting ever closer to ICBMs with nuclear warheads. In three years they may have the range to hit us right here at home.

Today no Arab country can trust the United States. We used to support moderate regimes, but we've shafted our biggest Arab ally right in front of God and everybody. Don't think that lesson's been lost in Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. Or in Beijing and Moscow.

Our Hero has opened Pandora's Box all right, but it was Jimmy Carter who started it by falling for the seductive charms of Ayatollah Khomeini. Thanks to Jimmy Carter the most talented people in the Middle East have been exposed to three decades of abuse, tyranny and war. Jimmy has never bothered to say "sorry." You see, he really meantwell.

But it all starts with the moral cowardice of the liberal West. Millions of liberals voted for Bombastic Barack because the media threatened to call them racists if they didn't. So the liberals collapsed, the way they always do, and they forgot to think. They got suckered good and proper by the Chicago Machine and the Demagogues, and they will never admit it.

So -- if you want to see the true enablers of the radical Left-Islamofascist alliance, look no further than your gutless friends and neighbors.

It's not good news, I know, but I thought you oughtta know.

Should there be a policy in place?

Read the original here.

Obama Has No Idea What To Do With Captured Terrorists « Hot Air

Say, anyone have any idea how to handle a captured terrorist? Apparently not anyone in the White House, even after more than two years of running the war on terror, according to Vice Admiral William McRaven’s confidence-builder[1] in yesterday’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee. While Leon Panetta told Congress a few months ago that the Obama administration had a process figured out, they seem to have kept it from the people doing the capturing:

The top military official involved in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden [2]said Tuesday that the Obama administration has no clear plan for handling terrorist leaders if they are caught alive outside a war zone.

Vice Adm. William H. McRaven[3] told a Senate panel that contingency plans for detaining terrorism suspects are developed on an ad hoc basis and approved by the White House, but that there are no set rules. “That is always a difficult issue for us,” he testified. “No two cases seem to be alike.”

Panetta said earlier this year that if the US captured Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri, the terrorist masterminds would likely be taken to Guantanamo Bay[4]. That’s news to McRaven, who told Senator Kelly Ayotte that Gitmo is still “off the table.” Rendition is off the table, too, at least not to the countries most likely to have originated the terrorists — Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan — because of “political resistance.”

So what do we end up doing? Oh, you’ll love this plan, emphases mine:

In response to senators’ questions, McRaven said that “in many cases” prisoners captured in secret operations by Navy SEALs or the Army’s Delta Force are taken to a U.S. Navy ship until they can be tried in a U.S. court or transferred to the custody of an allied country. But if neither option turns out to be feasible, the prisoner is ultimately let go, he said.

“If we can’t do either one of those, then we will release that individual,” McRaven said in response to a question from Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). “I mean, that becomes the unenviable option,but it is an option.”

And so we get to the back-door plan to close Gitmo and end military commissions for captured terrorists. If the Obama administration can’t try a terrorist in criminal court, it just lets the terrorist go rather than use the military commission system created and authorized by Congress to deal with them. Who cares if the terrorist goes on to kill Americans? Hey, at least we didn’t use that awful Gitmo — the one we’re still using, and that Panetta thought was good enough for bin Laden and Zawahiri just four months ago.

Perhaps the Senate can get more information on the Terrorist Catch and Release Plan. How many times have we had to use the “unenviable option” already? Has any of the released terrorists conducted any attacks afterward? Did we lose any Americans in capturing released terrorists? When exactly did the war on terror transform into a sport-fishing expedition?

References
^ confidence-builder (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ the raid that killed Osama bin Laden (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ Vice Adm. William H. McRaven (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ the terrorist masterminds would likely be taken to Guantanamo Bay(hotair.com)
^ confidence-builder (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ the raid that killed Osama bin Laden (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ Vice Adm. William H. McRaven (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ the terrorist masterminds would likely be taken to Guantanamo Bay(hotair.com)

Who is evil?

The left had no problem deeming former President George Bush as evil. The boolean search for "George Bush is evil" yields 32,000+ hits. However, ABC can't find 1 person who can definitively say they think that Osama Bin Laden was evil. This is just ridiculous, PC, moral relativism run amok. I agree with Dennis Miller, "There is good in the world, there is evil in the world, and when good has a chance to hinder evil in any way, they must take it."

Read the original here.

ABC News Religion Correspondent: I Can't Judge Whether Bin Laden Was 'Evil'

According to the man ABC News[1] relies on for religious analysis, it's impossible to say whether Osama bin Laden was "evil." Father Edward Beck[2], the network's religion correspondent, appeared with Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday and offered moral equivalence on the subject of the terrorist's death.

When the O'Reilly Factor anchor pressed Beck on whether bin Laden truly represented malevolence, Beck replied, "That's not for me to judge. His actions were certainly were evil."

O'Reilly pressed Beck on this point, prompting the ABC News analyst to assert, "No, I think that's up to God to ultimately decide who's evil."

After asserting that the United States shouldn't celebrate bin Laden's death "like a Super Bowl," Beck compared American happiness over the terrorist's death to Middle East examples, such as celebrating on 9/11: "Yes, but when you watch these people celebrating, how does it make us any better than those in the Mid East who celebrate when America falls?"

(This prompted Bernie Goldberg, who appeared in an unrelated O'Reilly Factor segment, to interject about Beck. He derided, "The idea that... the Palestinians celebrated when they attacked the World Trade Center, we're just as bad if we celebrate when Osama bin Laden takes a bullet to the head. That's pathetic. That's pathetic. I mean, and that isn't Catholicism, that's liberalism.")

Beck, in his role as the religion correspondent, has appeared on Good Morning America and other ABC News programs. He has co-hosted Faith Matters Now, a web-only program for the network's religion section. This is the man ABC looks to on spiritual issues? Someone who won't even go so far as to declare bin Laden to be an evil man?

On June 02, 2008[3], Beck appeared on Good morning America to explain away some of the radical statements heard at Barack Obama's now former church.

A transcript of the May 03 O'Reilly Factor segment can be found below:

BILL O'REILLY: "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight. Military action always controversial in some circles and after Osama bin Laden was killed by the Navy SEALs, a few people had a problem with it, citing moral grounds. One of them is Father Edward Beck, religion contributor for ABC News. He joins us know. Now, you told our guys -- and I'm just going to quote you here -- "I'm uncomfortable with killing of Osama bin Laden being celebrated like a Super Bowl win," and you're referring to the people in front of the White House and other places, Times Square, very jubilant about bin Laden dying. Why are you uncomfortable with that?

FATHER EDWARD BECK: Rudolph Giuliani said he went to a church, which I think is a more appropriate action. It cannot be celebrated like a Super Bowl because it's a tragedy that this happened. Just because Osama killed all of these people, understandable a tragedy, killing him does not justify that action.

O'REILLY: OK. You see I disagree with you 180 degrees here. And you remember after World War II, V-Day, VJ-Day and everybody was celebrating the end of the war because we had defeated our enemies who had tried to kill us and slaughtered countless millions of civilians. That celebration, entirely appropriate. Wasn't it? It was an appropriate celebration, was it not?

BECK: Bill, when you watch-

O'REILLY: For victory over the evil forces, wasn't it?

BECK: Yes, but when you watch these people celebrating, how does it make us any better than those in the Mideast who celebrate when America falls?

O'REILLY: Well, here's why I think you're wrong on this.

BECK: This is not a Christian perspective.

O'REILLY: I think I'm a good Christian and I was very happy to see bin Laden killed because he was killing people and he was capable of doing more killing.

BECK: But how does his death then justify what happened to 3,000 people? You'd have to kill 3,000 people for you to talk about justice.

O'REILLY: No, no. If you -- if there is a criminal enterprise underway which al Qaeda certainly is, you would see that point, right?

BECK: Yes.

O'REILLY: OK. And the criminal enterprise cannot be stopped with any other method other than killing, then you have to kill. And when-

BECK: But you don't celebrate it.

O'REILLY: -the criminal enterprise is stopped- why not? That is a good thing.

BECK: Because it's maybe a necessary evil. But, what about love of enemies? What about Jesus from the cross saying these are my killers. These are terrorists. But I forgive them. They know not what to do.

O'REILLY: Personal forgiveness something the 9/11 families are entitled to. I'm not going to be -- entreat (ph) that because I didn't lose anybody in my family. But I'll tell you what, Jesus had rendered a Caesar and that meant that if you have to defend your country you are OK with defending your country. That's not an anti-Christian thing to do.

BECK: That was about money. He said love of enemies. Pray for those persecute you.

O'REILLY: But render to Caesar was a general thing- a general thing, all right, where the government takes care of the government, I take care of spiritual matters. You can't tell me that Jesus Christ doesn't want to see al Qaeda defeated. You can't sit there and tell me that.

BECK: I would say God is not going to take sides like we take sides. God has a different kind of justice.

O'REILLY: I mean, there's got to be a good and an evil in the world. You telling me that God doesn't take sides against evil? Is that what you're telling me?

BECK: I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that we don't judge what the evil is and how it's acted upon.

O'REILLY: Who is we? I judge evil. Who's we?

BECK: By what standards?

O'REILLY: By the standards of hurting innocent people. That's how I judge it.

BECK: Christianity says you can't kill somebody. All life is sacred.

O'REILLY: Christianity says I have a right to defend myself and so does my country.

BECK: Yes, as in a last resort. If that means killing somebody-

O'REILLY: And that's what it was.

BECK: Don't celebrate it. It's a necessary evil. Don't cheer about it like we're in a bar.

O'REILLY: You're celebrating a victory of your country. You're celebrating a victory of your country.

BECK: That's not what they're celebrating. They wanted Osama bin Laden dead. Now that he's dead, let's raise the flag. Well, you know what? It may be good that he's dead.

O'REILLY: I think you misinterpreted that, Father, with all due respect. I think that they were celebrating a victory over evil. And I don't think you understand, with all due respect again, the evil that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden had brought to the world. I'll give you the last word.

BECK: Bill, my father was a New York City firefighter. After 9/11 I was in the triage center at Chelsea Piers. I was counseling people. I've talked to people who've lost sons at 9/11.

O'REILLY: Let me ask you this.

BECK: I know what that's like.

O'REILLY: Was bin Laden evil?

BECK: That's not for me to judge. His actions were certainly were evil --

O'REILLY: Not for you to judge?

BECK: His actions certainly were evil and they caused a lot of harm and disruption.

O'REILLY: So you can't as a human being make a determination on good and evil? You cannot do that?

BECK: No, I think that's up God to ultimately decide who's evil.

O'REILLY: See? I can and I'm -- I'll probably be punished for it by the deity but --

BECK: I see a man's actions. I don't know a man's heart ever, totally.

O'REILLY: Well, I think I know bin Laden's heart.

BECK: I can say the actions were wrong and despicable and needed to be punished.

O'REILLY: All right. You're a standup guy for coming in. I appreciate it.

References
^ ABC News (abcnews.go.com)
^ Father Edward Beck (fatheredwardbeck.blogspot.com)
^ June 02, 2008 (newsbusters.org)

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/05/04/abc-news-religion-correspondent-i-cant-judge-whether-bin-laden-was-e#ixzz1LUK9xmPf

When to release photos?

If the President is so concerned about inflaming the Muslim world (I'm curious to know who isn't inflamed by a bullet to the face, but would be about the picture of it), then why wasn't he concerned about the release of photos in April 2009?

via UK Telegraph

Barack Obama To Release Up To 2,000 Photographs Of Prisoner Abuse

* Female soldiers posing with hooded, shackled prisoners who were stripped naked
* Hooded prisoners on transport planes with Playboy magazines opened to pictures of nude women on their laps

The administration initially planned to release only the 21 photos sought by the ACLU, but General David Petraeus ordered that all 2,000 photographs be released to keep from "dragging this issue out forever".

The Pentagon fears a backlash in the Middle East similar to the one provoked by pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, near Baghdad, in 2004 which became emblematic of American mistakes in Iraq.

Amrit Singh, an ACLU lawyer, said that "these photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by US personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib".

The Bush administration had resisted releasing the images to the public, contending that the disclosure would fuel anti-American feeling and violate US obligations towards prisoners under the Geneva Conventions. Several people have already been tried at courts martial for using guns to threaten detainees in cases connected to the photographs.

Mr Obama's decision could undercut his struggle to persuade Congress not to institute a "truth commission" to investigate alleged prisoner abuse and force former Bush administration officials to testify and account for their actions and advice.

Momentum for a major public inquiry was dramatically increased when Mr Obama released four memos last week written by three officials from Mr Bush's Justice Department.

Running to 126 pages, they contained the legal rationale for the CIA's methods of extracting information from al-Qaeda suspects used between 2002 and 2005.

The methods, eventually prohibited by the Bush administration, included sleep deprivation for up to 11 days, forced nudity and stress positions as well as "waterboarding", a form of simulated drowning in which "water is continuously applied from a height of 12 to 24 inches" for "20 to 40 seconds".

In the memos, it was revealed that the waterboarding technique had been used 266 times on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, two senior al-Qaeda prisoners.

Other possible disclosures as a result of the ACLU legal action include transcripts of prisoner interrogations, a secret CIA inspector general's report and materials from a Justice Department investigation into detainee abuse.

The Obama administration, under fierce pressure from the Left and some congressional Democrats, faces a tough decision about whether to release the information in full, redact parts of it or continue the Bush administration's court battle to keep it secret.

Mr Obama's decision to release the four memos came after the most divisive argument yet in his young administration, which passes the landmark of 100 days next Wednesday.

He was opposed by Leon Panetta, his CIA chief, who argued for redactions of key passages, and John Brennan, a former senior CIA official who is now the top counter-terrorism adviser at the White House.

The most enthusiastic support for the release came from Eric Holder, Mr Obama's attorney general and the man who will decide whether former Bush administration officials should face prosecution, and his legal counsel Gregory Craig.

Robert Gates, the Pentagon chief, and Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, are said to have supported Mr Obama with some reservations. It subsequently emerged that Adml Blair had briefed his staff that some important information was extracted from prisoners during harsh interrogations.

This probably isn't so good...

Read the original here.

'London Taliban' Is Targeting Women And Gays In Bid To Impose Sharia Law

By Daily Mail Reporter[1]
Last updated at 12:17 PM on 18th April 2011

Women who do not wear headscarves are being threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists intent on imposing sharia law on parts of Britain, it was claimed today.

Other targets of the 'Talibanesque thugs', being investigated by police in the Tower Hamlets area of London, include homosexuals.

Stickers have been plastered on public walls stating: 'Gay free zone. Verily Allah is severe in punishment'.

Posters for H&M which feature women in bikinis and a racy poster for a Bollywood film have been defaced.

It is believed Muslim extremists are behind a spate of attacks being investigated by police, according to the Sunday Times.

An Asian woman who works in a pharmacy in east London was told to dress more modestly and wear a veil or the shop would be boycotted.

When she went to the media to talk about the abuse she suffered, a man later entered the pharmacy and told her: 'If you keep doing these things, we are going to kill you'.

The 31-year-old, who is not a practising Muslim, said she has since been told to take holiday by the pharmacy owners and now fears she may lose her job.

She said: 'Why should I wear a hijab (headscarf) or burqa? I haven't done anything wrong.'

Other incidents reported include the placing of stickers across the white-minority borough which state it is a 'gay-free zone' and the daubing of paint on posters for clothing shop H&M featuring women in bikinis.

Ghaffar Hussain, of the anti-extremism think-tank the Quilliam Foundation, told The Sunday Times that the intimidation was the work of 'Talibanesque thugs'.

He added: 'This minority think they have the right to impose their fringe interpretation of Islam on others.'

Three men have been charged with religiously-aggravated criminal damage in connection with some of the incidents, which have mirrored crude attempts at censorship in Birmingham.

Borough Commander of Tower Hamlets, Paul Rickett, said: 'I am saddened that there are a small minority of people who do not wish to respect the lifestyle choices of others.

'I would like to reassure the people of Tower Hamlets that we are investigating these incidents.


'At this stage there is no information to suggest any of the incidents are linked. Anyone found committing such criminal acts will face criminal proceedings.

'We work closely with faith leaders in the community, the Tower Hamlets interfaith forum, our partner agencies and the local community to ensure that people feel safe in the borough.'

Khalid Mahmood, MP for Birmingham Perry Bar, said he had seen posters vandalised in Birmingham but was not aware of threats being made.

He said: 'I have seen posters defaced in Birmingham and it's just complete nonsense.

'If people choose to follow the religion they should be free to do so and we don't want to go down the route that the French have done, but these people have to accept other people.

'If it's about the freedom to do what you want, others should have the freedom to do what they want to do.

'It's the actions of a very small minority, and in Birmingham we have not seen people threaten women who are not wearing the burqa - if someone were to do that the police should be informed.'

Firebrand Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary said that he was aware of individuals who would speak up if they saw a Muslim woman without a headscarf, but insisted they were only giving advice about their views of Islam.

He said no threats would be made and described the allegations of threats of death as 'completely ridiculous'.

He said: 'There are groups who propagate Islam, and if they see a Muslim woman without a hijab they may say "sister, it's obligatory that you cover your hair".

'It's an individual intervention to propagate Islam. For non-Muslims, they may point out to them that women are being exploited in the West.

'It's about telling people about the preference of covering up, but nobody's going to say "you are going to be killed".'

Tower Hamlets has a reputation for being a centre of Islamic extremism in London.

Recently it was revealed that Rich Dart, a middle-class former BBC worker, had converted to Islam and was living in Bow, east London in a £300,000 flat paid for by benefits.

Despite being unemployed, Mr Dart regularly attends Muslim rallies in which he was recently heard to say: 'When the Taliban defeat the allies we will establish sharia law and take the fight to the enemy.'

Before Christmas posters appeared in the borough claiming the religious festival was 'evil'.

The campaign's organiser was 27-year-old Abu Rumaysah, who once called for sharia law in Britain at a press conference held by hate preacher leader Anjem Choudary, the leader of banned militant group Islam4UK.

Mr Rumaysah said: 'Christmas is a lie and as Muslims it is our duty to attack it.

'But our main attack is on the fruits of Christmas, things like alcohol abuse and promiscuity that increase during Christmas and all the other evils these lead to such as abortion, domestic violence and crime.

'We hope that out campaign will make people realise that Islam is the only way to avoid this and convert.'

References
^ Daily Mail Reporter (www.dailymail.co.uk)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377780/London-Taliban-targeting-women-gays-bid-impose-sharia-law.html#ixzz1Jt92N4Xi

Quote of the Day

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/07/muslim_congressman_ellison_hearing_on_radical_islam_is_scary.html

"Well, it's a disturbing use of a Congressional hearing. I mean, there's awesome power associated with being Chairman of the Committee, being able to investigate and do oversight and to use it to essentially go after a religious minority group, I think it is a scary proposition. I would submit to all Americans that look, could be Muslims today, could be others tomorrow. This is a very bad precedent, and I have actually gone to Congressman King and asked him to broaden the scope of the hearings. He has so far declined,"

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) tells MSNBC.

Posted on March 7, 2011

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, Rep. King is holding Congressional hearings on Radical Islam.  Not Islam.  Radical Islam.  Hasn't the point always been that terrorism is not committed by Muslims, but instead by Radical Muslims?  How can anyone make progress toward the problem of Radical Terrorism, if you're not allowed to talk about it?

The APs problems with photographers

A terrorist posing as a photographer and infiltrating the AP is set to be charged with terrorism in an Iraqi court, according to AFP reports. He was captured at his home with bomb-making materials, insurgent propaganda, and surveillance photographs of military installations.

The problem with the situation is the AFP's view of the situation as a matter of criminal behavior, they say he "has been held for more than 19 months without charges in US military custody." The U.S. government has allowed the ridiculous mindset that individuals captured on the field of battle somehow are criminal defendants. They are not. They are militarty combatants. The best resolution is for the U.S. government to reclassify these individuals as prisoners of war, even though they are correctly classified as unlawful combatants. By granting them POW status in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, we can avoid the messy complication of the media expecting that these people will be dealth with as criminals instead of under the Geneva Conventions as combatants.

We need to make this very clear distinction: terrorism is an illegal act of war. It is not a criminal offense. We must treat these people as POWs first and war criminals second and must avoid using the criminal system. We tried for years to treat terrorism as a police and criminal matters, with horrible consequences.

US military accuses AP photographer of being "terrorist media operative"
AFP

The US military has filed a formal complaint with an Iraqi criminal court accusing a detained, award-winning Associated Press photographer of being a "terrorist media operative," the Pentagon said Monday.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said the military made the complaint about Bilal Hussein, who has been held for more than 19 months without charges in US military custody, to Iraq's Central Criminal Court.

"We believe Bilal Hussein was a terrorist media operative who infiltrated the AP," he said. "MNF-I possesses convincing and irrefutable evidence that Bilal Hussein is a threat to security and stability as a link to insurgent activity."

Morrell said an investigative hearing into the case by the court is scheduled to begin on or after November 28.

If this doesn't prove the point...

If this story doesn't prove that our immigration system is broken, nothing does. An illegal immigrant whose family members are under indictment for funding the terrorist group Hezbollah was able to obtain sensitive jobs at the CIA and FBI. She was then able to use those positions to look into the government's investigation of her family's alleged illegal acts.

If this doesn't show that we have a very serious problem with immigration and identity, then I don't know what will. Why we have any objection at all to biometric identifications in light of this is completely beyond me.

Fake U.S. citizen got FBI secrets from files
Hiring missed La Shish, terror links
Detroit Free Press

In an embarrassing breach of national security, a former metro Detroit woman whose family is suspected of having links to a Lebanese terrorist group got sensitive jobs at the FBI and CIA despite being an illegal immigrant, authorities said Tuesday.

Worse, they said, Nada Nadim Prouty, 37, of Vienna, Va., used her position at the FBI to access a classified computer system to find out whether she or her family members -- including fugitive La Shish restaurant chain owner Tatal Chahine -- were being investigated for terrorist activities. She also took home classified FBI information.

Prouty accessed the system a second time to find out about a Detroit-based investigation involving Hizballah.

Prouty, who resigned from the CIA last week, pleaded guilty to the charges Tuesday in Detroit.

Grant POW status to detainees

The last paragraph here really gets to me:

"About 340 detainees remain in Guantanamo on suspicion of links to terrorism, al-Qaida, or the Taliban. Most have been held for years without being charged."

We have this perception somehow that these are criminals suspects. Look at how the AP author is writing this. They're held "on suspicion of links to terrorism, al-Qaida, or the Taliban" and have been "held for years without being charged."

We need to change this perspective. One of the largest failings of the Administration in the War on Terror is the refusal to declare the individuals held at Guantanamo as POWs. By now calling them POWs, the Administration is fostering the perspective that it is a criminal matter. If they can just say, "Any honest reader of the Geneva Conventions would conclude that these terrorists are not Prisoners of War as defined by that document. However, the U.S. feels that it would be best to treat them in accord with the treatment of POWs as defined in the treaty. Thus we have decided to grant them the status of POWs even though the treaty would not give them those rights."

This would end the whole "held without charged" arguments because POWs aren't charged. They're held for the duration of the conflict in a preventative way, not in a punitive one.

Report: Saudi Gitmo Detainees Get Gift
Brietbart.com

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - The Saudi Arabian government will temporarily release 55 prisoners recently transferred from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and will give each of them about $2,600 to celebrate the upcoming Muslim holiday of Eid-al-Fitr, a newspaper reported Saturday.

Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz granted the temporary releases from detention centers in Saudi Arabia so the prisoners could spend time with their families during the holiday in mid-October, the Okaz newspaper reported.

They will return to police custody after the holiday and will be referred to Saudi courts at the end of this month for upcoming trials, the paper said.

U.S. authorities transferred 16 Saudis from Guantanamo Bay back to Saudi Arabia in September, the latest transfer of prisoners from the U.S. detention facility. Fewer than 40 Saudi detainees remain in detention.

Must Read: The Death of Relativism

There is nothing else I can add to this brilliantly written piece by Judea Pearl, father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl.

The Death of Relativism
The film A Mighty Heart goes too far in likening my son's murders to the Guantanamo regime
The Guardian

I used to believe that the world essentially divided into two types of people: those who were broadly tolerant, and those who felt threatened by differences. If only the former ruled the earth, I reasoned, the world might know some measure of peace. But there was a problem with my theory, and it was never clearer than in a conversation I had with a Pakistani friend who told me that he loathed people like George Bush who insisted on dividing the world into "us" and "them". My friend did not realize that he was in fact falling straight into the camp of people he loathed.

This is a political version of a famous paradox formulated by Bertrand Russell. The stronger you insist on the necessity of tolerance, the more intolerant you become toward those who disagree. The moral lesson is that there is no such thing as unqualified tolerance; ultimately, one must be able to expound intolerance of certain ideologies without surrendering the moral high ground normally liked to tolerance.

Which brings me to my son, Daniel Pearl. Thanks to the release of A Mighty Heart, the Angelina Jolie movie which premiers in the UK this week, Danny's legacy is once again receiving attention. Of course, no movie could ever capture exactly that magical combination of humor and integrity, gentleness and resilience, that made Danny so admired by so many. Still, traces of these qualities are certainly evident in A Mighty Heart, and viewers will leave the cinema inspired by them.

At the same time, I am worried that the film falls into a trap Russell would have recognised: the paradox of moral equivalence, of seeking to extend the logic of tolerance a step too far. You can see traces of this logic in the film's comparison of Danny's abduction with Guantanamo (it opens with pictures from the prison) and of al-Qaida militants with CIA agents. You can also see it in the comments of the movie's director, Michael Winterbottom, who wrote in the Washington Post that A Mighty Heart and his previous film, The Road to Guantanamo, were very similar: "There are extremists on both sides who want to ratchet up the levels of violence and hundreds of thousands of people have died because of this."

Give them fair warning?

The government is supposed to tell suspected terrorists that they're searching their property and papers? Doesn't this judge think that might be a bit out of line of what the Constitution intended? The Fourth Amendment prohibited "unwarranted searches and seizures". There's nothing in there that requires that the person searched be notified prior to the search, just that it be legitimate and warranted. I can understand that if we're looking at American citizens we need a court of some sort (FISA or whatever) to review the search warrant. I'm completely on board with that. However, if we're informing terrorists that we're investigating them, that could definitely inhibit the investigation. I don't see any need to notify them of the search until the investigation is complete.

Federal judge rules 2 Patriot Act provisions unconstitutional
CNN

A federal court on Wednesday struck down two provisions of the Patriot Act dealing with searches and intelligence gathering, saying they violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures with regard to criminal prosecutions.

"It is critical that we, as a democratic nation, pay close attention to traditional Fourth Amendment principles," wrote Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in her 44-page decision. "The Fourth Amendment has served this nation well for 220 years, through many other perils."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, set up to review wiretap applications in intelligence cases under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, "holds that the Constitution need not control the conduct of criminal surveillance in the United States," Aiken wrote.

"In place of the Fourth Amendment, the people are expected to defer to the executive branch and its representation that it will authorize such surveillance only when appropriate."

Apparent European view: Terrorists learn bombmaking from Wikipedia

I love the "liberal" view that if you keep the law-abiding citizenry from getting to something, it'll somehow magically keep the criminals or terrorists from doing the same. In just the same way that the Liberal Elite feels that denying law-abiding, responsible citizens the abilities to keep weapons for self-defense would mystically cause all criminals to give theirs up, their European allies-in-spirit think that preventing web searches for bomb recipes would keep terrorists from leaning how to make them. Right, because the terrorist training camps rely on Wikipedia or Google to determine exactly how to build bombs.

Web search for bomb recipes should be blocked: EU
Reuters

BRUSSELS - Internet searches for bomb-making instructions should be blocked across the European Union, the bloc's top security official said on Monday.

Internet providers should also prevent access to any site giving instructions on how to make a bomb, EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini said in an interview.

"I do intend to carry out a clear exploring exercise with the private sector...on how it is possible to use technology to prevent people from using or searching dangerous words like bomb, kill, genocide or terrorism," Frattini told Reuters.

The EU executive is to make this proposal to member states early in November as part of a raft of anti-terrorism proposals.

What part of "suicide bombing" don't you understand?

"They told me to take [the truck] to an address in Baghdad. As soon as I got there the truck exploded...I think God took me out of death to show others what can happen," he told CNN. "If you join al Qaeda, they will use you, and maybe you will die." -- Ahmad al Shayea, former member of al Qaeda in a CNN interview.

Failed suicide bomber turns on al Qaeda
CNN

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- Ahmad at Shayea is the rarest of truck bombers -- he survived his suicide mission in Iraq even though the blast from his bomb was strong enough to kill 12 bystanders.

Al Shayea, who was disfigured during the attack, claims al Qaeda tricked him into becoming a bomber by asking him to deliver a tanker truck, which they had rigged with a bomb.

"They told me to take it to an address in Baghdad. As soon as I got there the truck exploded," said the native of Saudi Arabia. He survived by jumping out of the truck.

Al Shayea renounced terrorism and returned to Saudi Arabia, where he works to convince would-be insurgents and terrorists to give up their deadly ways.

This is heartbreaking...

If it's true that U.S. soldiers were so close to Osama bin Laden that his closest soldiers were planning to kill him and themselves, this is incredibly heartbreaking. To have been that close and missed is tragic.

Report: U.S. Troops So Close to Bin Laden His Bodyguards Considered Killing Him, Themselves
Fox News

NEW YORK - A patrol of u.S. soldiers was so close to stumbling on Usama bin Laden's mountain hideout along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border during the winter of 2004-2005 that his bodyguards considered killing the terror architect and then themselves, according to a report published in the Sept. 3 issue of Newsweek.

A sentry spotted the patrol and radioed an alert to bin Laden's 40-man shield who were prepared to move "the Sheik" - as bin Laden is known to his followers - to another location, Sheik Said, a senior Egyptian al Qaeda operative, told the magazine.

But the patrol was so close to the hideout that bodyguards were close to using the code word to kill bin Laden and then commit suicide, Newsweek reported.

According to Said, bin Laden had decreed that he would never be captured.

Could it be because it's true...?

Why is it that Democrats seem focused on the political effects of a terrorist attack and the Republicans seem focused on stopping them?

Hill: Terror Would Be GOP Boost
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year's election, warning that it could boost the GOP's efforts to hold onto the White House.

Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault white campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equiped to deal with it.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if'? 'What if'?" But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

That's going to improve our standing

Barack Obama’s presenting a new, apparently tougher, foreign policy plan. So, Sen. Obama would unilaterally pull troops from Iraq – despite the desires of allies in the region, U.N. resolutions supporting the mission, the support of the Iraqi government, and regardless of his acknowledgement that doing so would result in ethnic cleansing and genocide – and would then invade an ally unilaterally without U.N. approval, without any direct threat from them, despite the fact that they have been cooperating closely with the U.S. and have nuclear weapons.

Nice.

Obama to Deliver Bold Speech About War on Terror
ABC News

In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan — with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama will say, according to speech excerpts provided to ABC News by his campaign, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama's mention of an "al Qaeda leadership meeting" refers to a classified military operation planned in early 2005 to kill al Qaeda leaders including Osama bin Laden's top deputy Ayman al-Zawahri in Pakistan's tribal regions. First reported in The New York Times earlier this month, the mission was "aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials."

In many ways, the speech is counterintuitive; Obama, one of the more liberal candidates in the race, is proposing a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than that of President Bush. It comes at a time in Obama's campaign when the freshman senator is drawing more financial support from more voters than any other candidate, though he has yet to vault from his second-place position in the polls. One of the reasons for that is that the Democratic front-runner, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, is seen as more experienced and in some ways stronger, a perspective Obama wishes to change.

The speech, to be delivered at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., seems an attempt by Obama to ramp up his campaign to the next phase, where he hopes to seem not only a youthful idealist, but a president who would pursue a muscular foreign policy and protect the United States from terrorist attack.

Why the blind rush?

Lately, there's been such a hurry to try to drum up legislative support for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the civilian causalities that would result, in advance of both the July and September progress reports on Iraq that one starts to wonder why. Why, for instance, is Hillary Clinton joining with the only Klansman in Congress to write an editorial saying that it is time to turn our backs and condemn the Iraqi people to what she describes as a "civil war," a stark difference to how the vast majority of Iraqis view the struggle. Michigan Senator Carl Levin - the same one who buckled so meekly in the face of his Democratic colleagues when they steamrolled through an amendment increasing CAFE standards - expects today to propose an amendment to bring the troops home.

What makes all of this so strange is that it is coming in advance of tomorrow's Pentagon report on how the surge is going. Why are they so excited to push ahead with their rhetoric before getting all of the information?

Hillary notes that the Pentagon says that the "overall level of violence in Iraq hasn't lessened." Well, that's obvious. The United States just sent in 30,000 more soldiers and began a major offensive. Of course the overall level of violence in Iraq hasn't lessened. The U.S. is out actively hunting down terrorists, actively securing civilian areas, and actively clearing sections of the most violent cities (Baghdad and Ramadi) in an effort to provide long-term stability. Al-Qaeda has reacted by trying to increase the level of violence aimed at American troops, hoping to scare the country into surrender. What is startling, however, is that despite 30,000 more troops and despite a major offensive by the Americans and by Al-Qaeda, there hasn't been an increase in the overall level of violence, as any reasonable assessment of the situation would expect. Why not? Because as the U.S. and Iraqi Iraqi forces clear areas, they become more peaceful. The increase in troop levels and in intensity is being matched by a decrease in violence in many areas, particularly Ramadi.

From The New York Times on Sunday:

Until only a few months ago, the Central Street bazaar was enemy territory, watched over by American machine-gunners in sandbagged bunkers on the roof of the governor's building across the road. Ramadi was Iraq's most dangerous city, and the area around the building the most deadly place in Ramadi. Now, a pact between local tribal sheiks and American commanders has sent thousands of young Iraqis from Anbar Province into the fight against extremists linked to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The deal has all but ended the fighting in Ramadi and recast the city as a symbol of hope that the tide of the war may yet be reversed to favor the Americans and their Iraqi allies.

---

The key to turning that around was the shift in allegiance by tribal sheiks. But the sheiks turned only after a prolonged offensive by American and Iraqi forces, starting in November, that put Al Qaeda groups on the run, in Ramadi and elsewhere across western Anbar.

Not for the first time, the Americans learned the basic lesson of warfare here: that Iraqis, bludgeoned for 24 years by Saddam Hussein's terror, are wary of rising against any force, however, brutal, until it is in retreat. In Anbar, Sunni extremists were the dominant force, with near-total popular support or acquiescence, until the offensive broke their power.

Tomorrow's Pentagon report is going to show three things:

1) The Iraqi government has failed to meet even one of the
benchmarks we want.

2) Sections of Baghdad are featuring intense fighting, while other
previously dangerous areas are safer.

3) Anbar province is an unquestioned, rousing victory and violence
there has been greatly diminished.

What will this mean? The troop surge has worked in Anbar and has shown some results in Baghdad, even while other areas of the capital are featuring more frequent and intense fighting. Is the surge an unmitigated success? No. Is it an unmitigated failure? Absolutely not We've seen some success, which is something that should be grasped onto dearly as we attempt to replicate it in Baghdad.

The only way to know for sure, however, is to wait for the report tomorrow and not blindly rush into attempts at swaying public perception or push through legislation before even the small amount of information available tomorrow comes out, let alone when the final report is complete in September. Why the blind, mad rush to pull the troops out now, before the report on the surge is complete? Could it be that they are afraid that the good news in the report will weaken their goal to deliver a political defeat to the President?

Pussyfoot - v. To act timidly to avoid committing oneself...

According to The Daily Express, Gordon Brown is going to ban the terms "Muslim terrorist" and "war on terror". Is it too much to point out that the terrorists are Muslims and that their perverted view of the Muslim faith is what is spurring them to engage in terrorism?

While Patrick Mercer absolutely is correct when he says that, “the vast majority of Muslims are not involved in terrorism” that does not make this “quite a smart idea.” The vast majority of terrorists are radical Muslims. I don’t seem to recall the Brits being concerned at referring to the IRA terrorists as Catholic or, for that matter, Irish. Sure, there are different terrorists in the world and some are not motivated by perverted misconceptions of the Muslim faith but by de-emphasizing the religious nature of these terrorists we are losing something important from the discussion.

If the good and decent Muslims in the world, who do indeed make up the vast majority of Muslims, are concerned with the connections between their faith and terrorists, they should be upset with the terrorists who are stridently making those connections and not the Kafir who are pointing out that groups called the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Islamic Jihad, or the Party of God (Hezbollah) are the ones who are connecting Islam to terrorism.

By ignoring the fact that the driving principal of these groups is to violently promote their depraved hijacking of a noble religion, we are making it more difficult to win this war. We do need, as Gordon Brown implies, better relations with Muslims throughout the world. The way to do that is not by ignoring the religious nature of the terrorists but by pointing out that we understand that these repugnant distortions of Islam are as much a threat to true Islam as they are to the Western world.