Just prior to the start of the Air Force-BYU football game, Sept. 22, 2009, this video was broadcast in the BYU stadium in Provo, Utah. Later, the USAF Academy Superintendent, LtGen Gould, showed this clip to the faculty and staff. He told everyone that BYU ran it minutes before the kickoff at the game. He was clearly moved by it, as were those who watched it. Take the 1:27 minutes to watch this. These will not be "lost minutes" in your day.
[Asharq al-Aswat] Forty years ago, it was said that the Imam of Yemen proposed entering a war with the United States as a solution to the financial problems from which his country was suffering. The Imam explained that because Yemen would certainly be defeated by America, America would then be obliged to rebuild Yemen.
The Mouse That Roared ...
This was said after America undertook the Marshall Plan to rebuild what was destroyed in Europe and Japan during World War II. That joke has now become a reality manifested in the London Conference on Yemen for donor [countries] in which superpowers met to discuss [providing] aid in terms of finance and development. In the conference the Yemeni Prime Minister repeated the term [Marshall Plan] and said: "We need a Marshall Plan [costing] 40 billion dollars to rebuild Yemen." They agreed in London to give Yemen aid and it was granted the largest [amount] in its history and this international gesture came about as a result of the emergence of Al Qaeda in Yemen.
Does the idea of getting involved in the fight against Al Qaeda, despite its dangers, bring with it the key to Ali Baba's cave and the treasures within? Why did the idea come about to show generosity and support to states that threaten regional and international security just as the case is with Pakistan and Afghanistan?
Why didn't anyone embark upon helping Yemen when it was stable and in desperate need of this kind of support? Jordan, which is an example of a country in need of this support, succeeded at containing Al Qaeda and fighting terrorism, and is committed to the rules of development and political reform, yet it receives less than a fifth of what was promised to Yemen recently. Does Bin Laden first need to set up a branch in Amman so that the Jordanians can call for a meeting of donor countries and provide for half of its population made up of refugees? The same goes for Tunisia and every country that is in dire need of aid but did not neglect its development or security [issues], which was the case in Yemen.
Perhaps political support of devastated countries is a necessity to contain the international threat. However at the same time, it is a worrying concept for two reasons: support only comes after complete destruction when it is too late, such as in Afghanistan and Somalia, and secondly because it is a reward for countries that did not cooperate in the past and it neglects poor countries that carried out their duties in fighting terrorism and adopted a better and more accountable political system.
With regards to Sanaa, it deserved support many decades before the birth of Al Qaeda and what Bin Laden's group and Iran and other countries spread throughout the country and their exploitation of local Yemeni forces simply because the state is incapable of exerting full control over the country. The concerned parties in Yemen justify their hesitation by saying that they tried to support Yemen and its development in the past and they failed for two reasons: corruption and security lapses. One of them said: how can a plan be adopted when the mechanisms are subjected to theft and the workers to kidnapping? How can the country be built and how can there be development when a third of the male population chew Qat without any attempts by the government to fight the condition of group narcoticism? How can one trust the regime when the brother of the governor of Sadah is smuggling arms to the rebels surrounding his brother's home?
Yemen is a big country that overlooks two seas and it is rich in petroleum resources and arable land. It does not need aid inasmuch as it needs support to stand on its own two feet. If it weren't for Al Qaeda and the Houthis, no one in the world would care about Yemen's issues. Today its problems are being addressed by rewarding it with generous amounts of international aid and threatening it with interference in running its affairs.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/31/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Arabia
#1
If these Yemeni geniuses are referring to the Marshall Plan precedent, they should not forget that both Germany and Japan were the targets of total war. They were defeated utterly, crushed and humiliated.
The enemy peoples weren't allowed to save face, they had to acknowledge their defeat. Liberation consisted of disbanding the old regimes and holding the people accountable for tolerating, if not supporting it. This was done irrespective of the will of the enemy peoples.
There was indeed magnanimity, but it was magnanimity in victory not before victory (or in defeat).
The Yemenis would be better advised to refer to the 21st century precedent of Afghanistan. They would not like a repeat of WWII with themselves as the defeated.
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
01/31/2010 9:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I agree that aid to Yemen in more stable times might have been useful. Fortunately they have a wealthy neighboring kingdom fully capable of funding such things, should they choose.
#5
Another disturbing consequence of this report is that elegant, non-violent solutions of tactical problems that involve rewarding bad guys will instantaneously shape the political and strategic battlefield in regions far away from the initial problem.
Looking at the Afghan reconstruction, maybe even the surge, elements in other Islamic countries are coming to the dangerous conclusion that an attack on the west will be amply rewarded.
In the internet age conciliatory and submissive messages towards Afghanistan have a global audience. I'm not confident that Western military and civilian leadership to aware enough of that effect.
They're somewhat like the proverbial Hollywood leftist who badmouths the US in interviews with the European press, causing a backlash in the US because the message spread.
His father is from Yemen (but made a fortune in the Saudi kingdom), he still has substantial family in Yemen and al Qaeda organizing happened there. Whether he himself is there at the moment is another question.
#7
when George Kennan concieved of the "Marshall" plan it was in response to the "then new" threat of Stalin and the Soviets in europe, Germany in particular. The germans were part of our cultural heritage and represented the finest in industrial capability, so We (the USA) helped them out. It payed off! The Yemenis and Pakistanis and Afganis are NOT part of our cultural heritage, in fact they are the antithesis of out cultural heritage. When the EU and the UN commit to these rebuilds of nations its easy for them to be smug about it as they themselves were once recipients of the same largess they now Assume to wield. Their presumption is, however, a bit nauseating when viewd from the American perspective where we actually "DO" things and dont simply recieve from others. but..... I'm ranting......
#10
Are they saying Bin Laden's now in Yemen?His father is from Yemen (but made a fortune in the Saudi kingdom), he still has substantial family in Yemen and al Qaeda organizing happened there. Whether he himself is there at the moment is another question.
This imam's logic is in line with Bin Laden, who has stated he wants to destroy our economy and bleed us dry by dragging us intom conflict. Worth a look. AQ ideaology is certainly there and spread through marriage/progeny; everywhere he has been previously is chaotic. Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and if Kola Boof, concubine is to be believed, Morocco and other African nations. Snuffing out the bonfires would be considerably less expensive than rebuilding after everything has been gutted.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
01/31/2010 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Fertilizer, Abu. Hopefully mixing with a lot of home grown organic matter.
Posted by: ed ||
01/31/2010 17:20 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I think we need to look to Haiti as an example. I don't want to spend billions rebuilding anywhere, especially a totally failed state on our own doorstep. NOT helping them may cost us even more, however. If we can help them recover from this tragedy, build an economy that will provide jobs for them locally, and give them a reason to STAY in Haiti, we may not have them showing up on our doorsteps, costing us billions in welfare. Also, if we CAN get them to not only rebuild, but change a bit of their thinking, we may not have to respond so intensely during the next tragedy, because they won't be so devastated.
I look at the imagery of Haiti every day. There are homes whose rooms are filled with vegetation, still standing vacant two, three, ten years after their roofs were removed during one of the frequent hurricanes that hit Haiti. The only way we can change the current "culture of begging" is to change the way Haitians feel about their country. Right now, there isn't much to be proud of.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
01/31/2010 20:14 Comments ||
Top||
Every time I hear a politician say he's going to end tax breaks for companies that export jobs overseas, I just laugh. It's transparent pandering to the UAW and other labor unions and a great talking point, but the Democrats have just never gotten around to enacting it. President Obama trotted out that old horse again in Wednesday's State of the Union speech:
We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it's time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America.
But as a Michigander, it's even more humorous knowing that the federal government has bailed out a Michigan-based company, General Motors, that has increasingly been "shipping jobs overseas." According to a May 2009 Washington Post article, GM has been doing that with a vengeance.
The U.S. government is pouring billions into General Motors in hopes of reviving the domestic economy, but when the automaker completes its restructuring plan, many of the company's new jobs will be filled by workers overseas.
According to an outline the company has been sharing privately with Washington legislators, the number of cars that GM sells in the United States and builds in Mexico, China and South Korea will roughly double.
The proportion of GM cars sold domestically and manufactured in those low-wage countries will rise from 15 percent to 23 percent over the next five years, according to the figures contained in a 12-page presentation offered to lawmakers in response to their questions about overseas production.
Believe it or not, former labor secretary Robert Reich, who has never been accused of being conservative, may be on to something:
"GM is a global company -- so for that matter is AIG and the biggest Wall Street banks. That means that bailing them out doesn't necessarily redound to the benefit of the U.S. or American workers.
"More significantly, it raises fundamental questions about the purpose of bailing out these big companies. If GM is going to do more of its production overseas, then why exactly are we saving GM?"
But silly me. Why am I complaining? After all, a bail out is totally different than a tax break. Isn't it?
So like parsing President Obama's other pledges of not hiring lobbyists for his administration, or opposing spending freezes before proposing sham ones, maybe I'm just making too much out of the fact that the government is heavily invested in an auto company that by all appearances is increasing its production in foreign counties.
But President Obama, just gut their tax breaks and everything will be cool.
#2
I agree with that. It's a good sound-bite, and when the press comes at you, you can then explain how the GM and Chrysler bailouts have enriched the unions and fat-cats, and how the jobs are going overseas. That'll make the Dhimmicrats swirm.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/31/2010 12:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Good thought NS. "I will sell off Fannie & Freddie," might play as well.
#6
Corporations do NOT pay taxes. Consumers pay taxes. Whatever Uncle Sam "taxes" business, is passed right along to you and me. I've never been able to figure out why this simple fact escapes some folks.
What if? What if a new Republican interpretation of American history succeeded in breaking apart the false conflation of Democratic efforts to consolidate power with political virtue?
First, Republicans might lose their shame about actually governing. The Republicans' badge of honor--their reluctance to govern, their hesitance to press an affirmative agenda of their own--might be overcome. Republicans might actually learn to use the levers of power, if only to reverse our national course.
Second, Republicans would discover what they have lacked so long: a cornucopia of policy ideas that could shape a legislative and regulatory agenda for decades to come. It is not that Republicans haven't put forward good initiatives from time to time; what they've lacked is a long-term vision that produces a wide and coherent menu of policies. Though correct in principle, the mantra of "lower taxes and less regulation" is too narrow to amount to such a vision. An affirmative vision of ever-expanding citizen empowerment is one that can generate initiatives and policies that build upon each other, unlike today's almost random occasional departures from the unrelenting growth of the left-Hegelian administrative state.
Such a policy agenda would address at least four broad areas:
(1) Entitlements. Direct payments to Americans are bankrupting the country. Worse, they are creating massive and unhealthy dependence and ever-expanding state power.
(2) Free speech. Freedom of speech is vital to a free people, but is everywhere under assault by the left. It belongs at the center of a new agenda.
(3) (Shrink the cost of) The federal government. The federal government, with its 2.8 million civilian employees, has become a self-perpetuating machine, insulated from the problems of ordinary Americans by ever-greater disparities in job security, pay, and benefits. The average government salary is north of $70,000, and a fifth of all federal employees make more than $100,000, in a country where the per capita income is just over $40,000.
(4) American exceptionalism. Let's aim to be respected abroad, not loved.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/31/2010 10:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
....if, in 2012, he relegates the social prophet in him to the psychological cellar, he may once again use a modest and conciliatory demeanor to convince voters that he is not, at heart, a wild man and a social utopist.
#3
When he turned the drafting of the stimulus (porkulus) package over to Pelosi and Ried instead of having his advisors draft it, I knew that OBunny was essentially an empty suit for the leftist in Congress.
You would think that after that fiasco, he would have put together a study group or something vaguely intelligent to put together a health care bill...nope...so you look at the billions of dollars of pork in the healthcare bill and then you see no effort at Tort reform (memo to OBambi, tort issues are the single driving reason behind the rising healthcare costs, way out stripping technology) then you know the healthcare bill is a sham.
Cap and trade is designed to make billionaires out of Obunny's enviro supporters but thanks to some hacked emails and some real clear info on global warming plus a bit of Mea culpa from scientists that is dead on arrival.
The dems have to realize that electing Obunny and having the "Queen Nancy" running the house in all of her arrogance, is a sure perscription for a blood bath.
I am amazed that Obunny didn't have the political chops to orchestrate a congressional leadership that would follow his lead...Nancy has essentially told him to "pound sand".
The dems are due for a huge blood bath in the fall.
I wouldn't even be surprised to see Boxer and Pelosi take it for the team too.
Posted by: James Carville ||
01/31/2010 11:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"if, in 2012, he relegates the social prophet in him to the psychological cellarlies again, he may once again use a modest and conciliatory demeanor to convince voters that he is not, at heart, a wild man and a social utopistfool enough idiots to vote for him"
Fixed again.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/31/2010 11:56 Comments ||
Top||
As a political barometer, the Davos World Economic Forum usually offers up some revealing indicators of the global mood, and this year is no exception. I heard of a phrase being bandied about here by non-Americans about the United States that I can honestly say I've never heard before: political instability.'
Political instability' was a phrase normally reserved for countries like Russia or Iran or Honduras. But now, an American businessman here remarked to me, people ask me about political instability' in the U.S. We've become unpredictable to the world.'
Mind you, people at international conferences love to criticize America, poke fun at America and complain about America. It is the only global sport more popular than soccer. But in the past, it was always done knowing that America was this global bedrock that could always be counted upon to lead. But this year is different. This year, Asians and Europeans, in particular, pull you aside and ask you some version of: Tell me, what's going on in your country?'
We're making people nervous.
Banks, multinationals and hedge funds often hire foreign policy experts to do political risk analysis' before they invest in places like, say, Kazakhstan or Argentina. They may soon have to add the United States to their watch lists.
You can understand why foreigners are uneasy. They look at America and see a president elected by a solid majority, coming into office riding a wave of optimism, controlling both the House and the Senate. Yet, a year later, he can't win passage of his top legislative priority: health care.
Our two-party political system is broken just when everything needs major repair, not minor repair,' said K.R. Sridhar, the founder of Bloom Energy, a fuel cell company in Silicon Valley, who is attending the forum. I am talking about health care, infrastructure, education, energy. We are the ones who need a Marshall Plan now.'
Indeed, speaking of phrases I've never heard here before, another goes like this: Is the Beijing Consensus' replacing the Washington Consensus?' ' Washington Consensus is a term coined after the cold war for the free-market, pro-trade and globalization policies promoted by America. As Katrin Bennhold reported in The International Herald Tribune this week, developing countries everywhere are looking for a recipe for faster growth and greater stability than that offered by the now tattered Washington Consensus' of open markets, floating currencies and free elections.' And as they do, there is growing talk about a Beijing Consensus.' '
The Beijing Consensus, says Bennhold, is a Confucian-Communist-Capitalist' hybrid under the umbrella of a one-party state, with a lot of government guidance, strictly controlled capital markets and an authoritarian decision-making process that is capable of making tough choices and long-term investments, without having to heed daily public polls.
Personally, I wouldn't give up on the Washington Consensus so fast. The reason it is ailing is not because of its principles promoting economic openness and trade, many of which China is practicing better than we are lately. It is failing more because of, well, Washington.
It was hard to read President Obama's eloquent State of the Union address and not feel torn between his vision for the coming years and the awareness that the forces of inertia and special interests blocking him not to mention the whole Republican Party make the chances of his implementing that vision highly unlikely. That is the definition of stuck.' And right now we are stuck.
The sad and frustrating thing is, we are so close to being unstuck. If there were just six or eight Republican senators a few more Judd Greggs and Lindsey Grahams ready to meet Obama somewhere in the middle on deficit reduction, energy, health care and banking reform, I believe that in the wake of the Massachusetts wake-up call the president would indeed meet them in that middle ground to forge not just incremental compromises, but substantial ones on these key issues. But so far, the Republicans are having a good year politically by just being the Party of No.
It is a shame because here we are as a country scrounging around for a few billion more dollars of stimulus to help our unemployed and small businesses when the biggest stimulus of all is hiding in plain sight. And that is ending our political paralysis and the pall of uncertainty it is casting over everything from the cost of my health care to the cost of my energy to the way our biggest banks can do business.
If the two parties could get together and remove the clouds of uncertainty over those issues, remove the growing sense that our country is politically paralyzed, you would not need another dime of stimulus money. Investment and lending would take off on their own. If, however, the two parties continue with their duel-to-the-death paralysis, no amount of stimulus will give us the sustained growth and employment we need.
#6
And that is ending our political paralysis and the pall of uncertainty it is casting over everything from the cost of my health care to the cost of my energy to the way our biggest banks can do business.
Wow. Could the writer be more clueless? Does he really think that legislative success by Obozo would improve his health care or energy costs? Does he really think that the opinions of Davos seat warmers matters? Does he really think at all?
Posted by: regular joe ||
01/31/2010 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#7
As soon as I hit the definition of "Beijing Consensus" I knew who this was. Friedman has revealed himself for a while now as the type of elitist that believes HIS oligarchy should have dictatorial charge over the little people.
#8
yep. Alan. He's been pushing that "if only our government could impose change like those forward-thinking Chinese in the Politburo, we wouldn't have to deal with what the American people want - they'd get what their betters know is best for them. He's an A-grade arrogant asshole
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/31/2010 11:55 Comments ||
Top||
#10
If there were just six or eight Republican senators -- a few more Judd Greggs and Lindsey Grahams -- ready to meet Obama somewhere in the middle on deficit reduction, energy, health care and banking reform
Frigging Friedman. Wants the Repubs to offer suggestions on how to run the socialist state.
JUST SAY NO. We don't want a socialist nanny state, and we don't want to tacitly agree by helping to 'improve' the one we've got.
Get government out of the way, while returning to a proven regulatory regime. For example, Glass-Steagall, proper underwriting of debt (i.e. can the borrower repay?), re-establishment of traditional bank reserve requirements, limitation on financial leverage, proper oversight of debt rating agencies.
#11
This guy is an idiot. The "elites" always worry when the people rumble. As they should. Friedman should be tossed, as well as his Manhattan cocktail party and Beltway society friends who believe themselves to be our "ruling class".
Defenestration from their hi-rise apartments in Mahattan and UN offices in NYC should suffice if done in large enough numbers.
#12
$10 trillion swindle orchestrated by the banking, political and media elites: CHANGE! and HOPE!
Push back from the taxpaying unwashed masses: Political instability.
Screw the socialist clique at Davos who manipulate entire governments for their personal aggrandizement and profit. Any American that sets foot in that sordid town without a protest sign should be publicly shamed on prime time TV.
Posted by: ed ||
01/31/2010 16:49 Comments ||
Top||
#13
and not feel torn between his vision for the coming years and the awareness that the forces of inertia and special interests blocking him not to mention the whole Republican Party make the chances of his implementing that vision highly unlikely. That is the definition of stuck.
Damn those corrupt special interests and Republicans! The world, as defined by that portion which shows up at Davos and chats with Mr. Friedman, is waiting with bated breath for President Obama to recreate America as a Western European country, and the world is starting to turn blue from it. How dare those corrupt special interests and Republicans discommode their betters!
#14
As soon as I hit the definition of "Beijing Consensus" I knew who this was. Friedman has revealed himself for a while now as the type of elitist that believes HIS oligarchy should have dictatorial charge over the little people.
If there's a silver lining to all the BS that's happened the past few years, it may be that the average Joe and Jane may finally wake up to the fact that within way too many liberals beats the heart of a totalitarian who really, really wants to drag anyone who dissents from leftist orthodoxy to the basement of the Lukyanka for a little neurosurgery by Dr. Makarov.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
01/31/2010 18:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
One of the things in this article high-lights a particular pet peeve of mine.
You always hear the pundits and pols, particularly the left, scream that it is "unregulated" capitalism and "we need more regulations" are the problems. When the problem is that the crony part of crony capitalism has insured that the sensible regulations WERE NEVER ENFORCED!
Can they honestly say that Govt Sachs, Citi Inc., Fannie & Freddie were following the rules?
Government should be the watchdog that has a few Very Large, Sharp teeth. Instead we have a mass of chichuahuas that have little tiny teeth that have been all filed down.
Let's pick the top 5 issues that need watching and watch them. Regulations should be there to enforce openness & honesty. Capitalism thrives on a free flow of true information. We get a stagnant swamp of lies, distortions and half truths instead. That isn't capitalism.
#3
Democrats blame the presidents troubles solely on unemploymentget more people working, they say, and his agenda would pass.
In other words:
Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
#4
Regulations should be there to enforce openness & honesty. Capitalism thrives on a free flow of true information. We get a stagnant swamp of lies, distortions and half truths instead. That isn't capitalism.
Dittos re what Alan said. The Republicans need to purge themselves of the idea that real capitalism requires a zero-regulations environment. There's a fine and often shifting balance: too much regulation, and only the big players can afford to meet the regulatory burden and remain profitable. Too little, and the biggies run amok, forming cartels and crushing smaller competitors. Uncle Sam shouldn't be the economy's quarterback, but it's absolutely necessary to have him as a referee.
Posted by: RIcky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
01/31/2010 15:22 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Thank you Ricky.
The problem with our regulatory environment is that there is a nexus between each pair of regulations, 2 regs one nexus, 4 regs 6, and so on. Each nexus is a potential loophole or special interest pressure point. When you have a virtual infinity of regulations you have an infinity of opportunities for corruption and incompetence.
#6
The Republicans need to purge themselves of the idea that real capitalism requires a zero-regulations environment.
Methinks that occured, in spades, a century or so ago. Seriously, is there such a thing as a no-regulation Republican? I've encountered none & heard of none of any consequence. Laws ar epassed by the hundred, regulations by the thousands and the federal register grows by many tens of thousands of pages each and every year no matter which party is in power. The mistaken notion that Republicans favor "no regulation" is a lefty canard & straw-man that's too oft-repeated across the entire political spectrum; there is not the slightest grain of reality there.
That said, zero regulation would very likely lead, at least for a while, to a far healthier economy than we have today.
#7
I may not be a Republican, but I have a hard time thinking of any regulation or regulatory agency I would retain. Regulators are inevitably captured by the industries they are intended to regulate and become mechanisms to erect barriers to entry and reduce competition to the detriment of everyone and the benefit of the few "regulated" enterprises and the regulators and legislators they reward with lucrative post-government employment and campaign contributions.
#9
Seriously, is there such a thing as a no-regulation Republican? I've encountered none & heard of none of any consequence.
AzCat's certainly right in that there are few Republican legislators who believe that a true zero-regs environment is practically possible. But it's not a lefty canard to state that there are some on our side of the aisle who believe in zero-regs as at least a philosophical ideal:
"When I say 'capitalism,' I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalismwith a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church." - Ayn Rand
Posted by: RIcky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
01/31/2010 17:25 Comments ||
Top||
#10
So AH9418 is part of the solution. I can tell because he has nothing to say. Perhaps the Won is visiting the 'burg.
#11
Ricky the bit you cite from Rand does not support the alarmism in which you're engaging. That quote includes the concept of a "state" which implies regulation as what the heck else is the function of the state? I'm not a student of Rand's philosophy but I don't recall her calling for the abolition of all laws & government and I do very much recall her stating that she did NOT set forth her philosophy in Atlas Shrugged as a model to be implemented. It is, as you noted merely a philosophical ideal. That some Republicans would hold that ideal as one from which they might draw ideas is not at all alarming to me; particularly given that even our very imperfect implementation of the laissez-faire capitalism Rand so passionately defends once made us the freest and wealthiest nation our world has ever known.
There exist infinitely more alarming philosophies from which those governing us draw their ideals. Consider, for example, Frank Marshall Davis a self-described "friend" and "mentor" of our current President who while such was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA. That our President may have been heavily influenced by Marxist philosophy is far more alarming to me given that such has brought misery, poverty, genocide, repression & collapse wherever it has greatly influenced events.
#12
Cat, I don't think I'm being alarmist in pointing out aspects of right-of-center politics that I find problematic. The rest of my original comment stated that proper economic regulation was "a fine and often shifting balance." If that balance was easy to find and execute, we wouldn't have much need for this discussion.
That said, I think we have more beliefs in common than you might suspect - your comments on the evil and destructive philosophical influences driving Obama and his administration are spot on.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
01/31/2010 19:14 Comments ||
Top||
In the war on terrorism, this country faces an enemy whose theory of warfare ends the hard-won distinction in modern thought between combatant and noncombatant. In doing that for which we have created government -- ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- how can we be adequately aggressive to ensure the first value, without unduly threatening the other two? This is hard. And people don't have to be lazy or stupid to get it wrong.
We got it wrong in Detroit on Christmas Day. We allowed an enemy combatant the protections of our Constitution before we had adequately interrogated him. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is not "an isolated extremist." He is the tip of the spear of a complex al-Qaeda plot to kill Americans in our homeland.
In the 50 minutes the FBI had to question him, agents reportedly got actionable intelligence. Good. But were there any experts on al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in the room (other than Abdulmutallab)? Was there anyone intimately familiar with any National Security Agency raw traffic to, from or about the captured terrorist? Did they have a list or photos of suspected recruits?
When questioning its detainees, the CIA routinely turns the information provided over to its experts for verification and recommendations for follow-up. The responses of these experts -- "Press him more on this, he knows the details" or "First time we've heard that" -- helps set up more detailed questioning.
None of that happened in Detroit. In fact, we ensured that it wouldn't. After the first session, the FBI Mirandized Abdulmutallab and -- to preserve a potential prosecution -- sent in a "clean team" of agents who could have no knowledge of what Abdulmutallab had provided before he was given his constitutional warnings. As has been widely reported, Abdulmutallab then exercised his right to remain silent.
In retrospect, the inadvisability of this approach seems self-evident. Perhaps it didn't appear that way on Dec. 25 because we have, over the past year, become acclimated to certain patterns of thought.
Two days after his inauguration, President Obama issued an executive order that limited all interrogations by the U.S. government to the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual. The CIA had not seen the final draft of the order, let alone been allowed to comment, before it was issued. I thought that odd since the order was less a legal document -- there was no claim that the manual exhausted the universe of lawful techniques -- than a policy one: These particular lawful techniques would be all that the country would need, at least for now.
A similar drama unfolded in April over the release of Justice Department memos that had authorized the CIA interrogation program. CIA Director Leon Panetta and several of his predecessors opposed public release of the memos in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit on the only legitimate grounds for such a stand: that the documents were legitimately still classified and their release would gravely harm national security. On this policy -- not legal -- question, the president sided with his attorney general rather than his CIA chief.
In August, seemingly again in contradiction to the president's policy of not looking backward and over the objections of the CIA, Justice pushed to release the CIA inspector general's report on the interrogation program. Then Justice decided to reopen investigations of CIA officers that had been concluded by career prosecutors years ago, even though Panetta and seven of his predecessors said that doing so would be unfair, unwarranted and harmful to the agency's current mission.
In November, Justice announced that it intended to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several others in civilian courts for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The White House made clear that this was a Justice Department decision, which is odd because the decision was not legally compelled (other detainees are to be tried by military commissions) and the reasons given for making it (military trials could serve as a recruitment tool for al-Qaeda, harm relations with allies, etc.) were not legal but political.
Even tough government organizations, such as those in the intelligence community, figure out pretty quickly what their political masters think is not acceptable behavior. The executive order that confined interrogations to the Army Field Manual also launched a task force to investigate whether those techniques were sufficient for national needs. Few observers believed that the group would recommend changes, and to date, no techniques have been added to the manual.
Intelligence officers need to know that someone has their back. After the Justice memos were released in April, CIA officers began to ask whether the people doing things that were currently authorized would be dragged through this kind of public knothole in five years. No one could guarantee that they would not.
Some may celebrate that the current Justice Department's perspective on the war on terrorism has become markedly more dominant in the past year. We should probably understand the implications of that before we break out the champagne. That apparently no one recommended on Christmas Day that Abdulmutallab be handled, at least for a time, as an enemy combatant should be concerning. That our director of national intelligence, Denny Blair, bravely said as much during congressional testimony this month is cause for hope.
Actually, Blair suggested that the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), announced by the administration in August, should have been called in. A government spokesman later pointed out that the group does not yet exist.
There's a final oddity. In August, the government unveiled the HIG for questioning al-Qaeda and announced that the FBI would begin questioning CIA officers about the alleged abuses in the 2004 inspector general's report. They are apparently still getting organized for the al-Qaeda interrogations. But the interrogations of CIA personnel are well underway.
The writer was director of the CIA from 2006 to 2009. If Mike Hayden says it, you can take it to the bank!
#1
Yes, in that 50 minutes, did the FBI play audio of other potential operatives for Abdulmutallab to identify? I think not. Everyone knows that the first hour is used to size up the completion (both sides). I've interviewed exceedingly less serious players that took many hours.
Glenn Harlan "Instapundit" Reynolds, Washington Examiner
A year ago, the Tea Party movement didn't exist. Today, it is arguably the most popular political entity in America. The movement is already more popular than the Republican or Democratic parties, according to a recent NBC/WSJ poll. Even in blue-state California, three in 10 voters identify with the Tea Party movement.
And, of course, Scott Brown's come-from-behind blowout in Massachusetts occurred in no small part because of money and volunteers from the Tea Party movement around the nation.
This is heady stuff -- and, for people in the political establishment, both Republicans and Democrats, it's worrying stuff. If political movements can bubble up from below, and self-organize via the Internet, what will happen to the political class?
It's one thing when record stores or video rental places get dis-intermediated. It's a whole different ball game when people who rely on politics not only for their livelihood, but for maintaining their considerable sense of self-importance discover that they may not be quite as necessary as it once seemed.
But that hard lesson is becoming apparent. In fact, the Tea Party movement seems to be showing better political judgment than either of the two major political parties....
Posted by: Mike ||
01/31/2010 09:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...they may not be quite as necessary as it once seemed.
I'm sure they thought the gravy train would go on forever - at least those who never bothered to listen, but only preach. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/31/2010 15:58 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
