The Picture Rolling Stone Should've Had On Its Cover

...is right here.

h/t Instapundit

Wednesday Bits of bin Laden

The euphoria from Sunday's news of the death of the World's Most Wanted Man has yet to dissipate fully, teh funny is still there. Consider this a pre-Friday prep post.

Ever able to come down squarely on both sides of an issue for reasons of political expediency, Nancy Pelosi exhibits some shocking (to some, maybe, but not us) hypocrisy when it comes to the issue of bin Laden's.

Behold, Her Highness in 2006:

Even if he [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done . . . is done. And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer.

Of course, that was with George Bush at the helm. Today, or rather, this week, she's singing a different tune:

The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. . . . I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. . . . [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic. . . .

Hey, California, can't you do better than this? Does she really reflect your values and opinions? If so, which ones? She can't seem to make up her botoxed mind.

George Bush isn't stupid.

U.N. Human Rights Chief Asks U.S. to Explain Bin Laden Killing — Okay, Fine.
Osama would not return kids' soccer balls kicked over the fence. They got paid instead.

Jack Bauer tweets this: "Just got back from "vacationing" in Abottabad."

From the Moron commenters over at Ace's place comes this new real estate listing: "Palatial compound conveniently located in the heart of Abottabad just minutes from the military school. Idyllic location built in 2006. Must sell quickly, owner underwater."

Ever mindful of religious sensibilities, Osama was shot in accordance with muslim tradition.

We also extended the courtesy to his burial at sea, a picture of which is here.

What really went on in the White House Situation Room.

And finally comes this from the bowels of the sandcrawler over at The Jawa Report - bin Laden's final video.

Enjoy, y'all.

Can We Finally Get Serious About Terrorism Now?

Osama bin Laden has received his final reward in this life. I gain no small comfort in knowing the last thing that went through his mind was American lead.

Good riddance.

As the details surrounding the operation emerge, it’s becoming clear that the policies and practices put in place by George W. Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks worked. Rendition, secret prisons, Gitmo and “enhanced interrogation techniques” were what led to the success of this operation.

The irony is that they were vehemently opposed by our current president while he was a freshman congressman.

Reality has a way of doing that. It provides a certain clarity of thought.

Now, can we get down to business and finally start acting like we have enemies who want to kill us?

Pretty please?

The cynic in me thinks that this operation had far more to do with campaign optics than anything else. President Obama now has the reputation as The Man Who Killed Liberty Valance Osama bin Laden. There’s no doubt OBL deserved his fate, but given what we know about Al Qaeda’s operations, he was more of a figurehead due to his high profile. His fame worked against him and caused him to take a less active role in the day-to-day activities of that group of animals. That doesn’t diminish the danger, as someone else will surely be glad to assume the distinction of being the world’s most wanted man, probably Al-Zawahiri. It also doesn't diminish the symbolism of us taking out the world's worst enemy.

We can and should expect the attacks to continue even after the symbolic head of the AQ snake has been cut off. This really changes nothing. We are still faced with a determined, patient and cunning enemy that has proven its willingness to kill anyone, be they men, women, or as we recently saw in Jerusalem, small children, (innocents all) to advance their religious beliefs.

So, now what?

It could be that Obama will borrow a testicle from George Bush and finally get serious with terrorists. That would still leave GWB with two. Until Sunday, the contrast couldn’t have more stark between them. It’s painfully clear that Obama owes his predecessor a great deal for his success in taking bin Laden out. A simple “thank you” would suffice for Mr. Bush, I’m sure, but I’m not gonna hold my breath waiting for one, and neither should he.

We have a golden opportunity to turn the global war on terror to our favor. We could choose to demonstrate our national determination to rid the earth of terrorism and its adherents and advocates whenever and wherever we find them.

There is only one way to do that. It’s a proven method that works every time it’s tried.

We start killing them.

If you’re somewhat taken aback at that statement, it may be due to the fact we hadn’t used that strategy against our enemies until Sunday. In fact, we haven’t used that strategy for quite a while. All you need to do is look at the Rules of Engagement that our fighting forces are forced to comply with in the Mideast to understand that we seemingly have no interest in winning a war.

Here’s an example of the stupidity of these rules from the good folk over at Flopping Aces:

… occasionally there are riveting communications, such as a recent e-mail from a noncommissioned officer (NCO) serving in Afghanistan. He explains why the rules of engagement for U.S. troops are “too prohibitive for coalition forces to achieve sustained tactical successes.”


Receiving mortar fire during an overnight mission, his unit called for a 155mm howitzer illumination round to be fired to reveal the enemy’s location. The request was rejected “on the grounds that it may cause collateral damage.” The NCO says that the only thing that comes down from an illumination round is a canister, and the likelihood of it hitting someone or something was akin to that of being struck by lightning.


Returning from a mission, his unit took casualties from an improvised explosive device that the unit knew had been placed no more than an hour earlier. “There were villagers laughing at the U.S. casualties” and “two suspicious individuals were seen fleeing the scene and entering a home.” U.S. forces “are no longer allowed to search homes without Afghan National Security Forces personnel present.” But when his unit asked Afghan police to search the house, the police refused on the grounds that the people in the house “are good people.”


On another mission, some Afghan adults ran off with their children immediately before the NCO’s unit came under heavy small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), and the unit asked for artillery fire on the enemy position. The response was a question: Where is the nearest civilian structure? “Judging distances,” the NCO writes dryly, “can be difficult when bullets and RPGs are flying over your head.” When the artillery support was denied because of fear of collateral damage, the unit asked for a “smoke mission” — like an illumination round; only the canister falls to earth — “to conceal our movement as we planned to flank and destroy the enemy.” This request was granted — but because of fear of collateral damage, the round was deliberately fired one kilometer off the requested site, making “the smoke mission useless and leaving us to fend for ourselves.”

Well, that worked out according to plan, didn’t it? Their plan.

It seems that hiding among the civilian population while not wearing uniforms works to our enemies’ advantage. If only there were some way to, oh, I don’t know, maybe make that sort of combat illegal. Maybe a bunch of governments could get together and outlaw that type of warfare. Then that’d sorta make the playing field a little more even while our soldiers are getting shot at, wouldn’t it? That might even be a more civilized way to fight a war and be a bit less dangerous for the civilian population, eh?

If only there was a way to do that…

Oh, wait. There is! It’s called the Geneva Conventions and it just so happens that they did outlaw the use of warfare by non-uniformed soldiers. They even have a name for those who engage in that type of warfare. Believe it or not, they call them “illegal combatants.” Wow, who knew? We can even kill these “illegal combatants” when we catch them. Again, who knew?

I ask you, gentle reader, who would fall under such a designation? Osama bin Laden? He would, were he still alive. How about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Did he not plan the 9/11 attacks? That sounds like an act of war carried out against civilians by someone who didn’t wear a uniform? How about Al-Awalaki or however his name is spelled? Isn’t he doing the same thing by encouraging attacks on American interests?

How about all the Gitmo detainees? Weren’t these guys all captured on the battlefield sans uniform?

The evidence seems to point to an enemy that doesn’t abide by the rules of engagement that the rest of the world agreed to many years ago in an effort to restrict warfare to those with the hardware to wage war. But for some strange reason, we’re not exercising our agreed-upon right to execute them. Why?

I know why and you do too. It’s because there are certain people who think we can win the "hearts and minds" of our enemies by being nice to them. The unfortunate thing is that many of these people reside in Washington and are actively engaged in preventing our troops from winning these wars. Note the insanity in sending the most effective fighting force the world has ever seen to some foreign land and then telling them they can’t kill their enemy who’s shooting at them, hiding among the civilians to use them as shields and who don’t wear uniforms.

Even more insanity is on display in the effeminate disdain of those on the left who are against the use of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” on “humanitarian grounds.” They claim “we’re getting down to their level” by using anything more than harsh language on them. That we, as Americans, have a moral imperative to be more civilized than our enemy and refrain from anything that closely resembles violence against our enemies.

Really? Tell that to the thousands of innocent Americans who died on 9/11, many of whom leaped to their death. Tell that to Daniel Pearl, who was beheaded while he was still alive and whose murder was broadcast on the Internet for the world to see. Who got tortured and killed: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Pearl? Does KSM still have all his fingers and both eyes and ears? Can he walk, talk, and eat? If he suffered no physical damage, how has he been tortured? Who cares if he has a rather pronounced facial tick and is now deathly afraid of napkins?

This attitude of supposed moral superiority is leading us to do things that fly in the face of both common sense and our traditional history of directly confronting our enemies with deadly force. When a crime is committed, do the police start looking for random people or do they start looking for someone who fits a description of the suspect?

Let me show you a picture of the 19 hijackers and then ask you a question.

Do you see any 6-year-olds?

Then why is the TSA patting them down?



We could stop this by the application of the oldest means of persuasion against an enemy. I’d even go so far as to say that we could stop patting down 6-year-olds at airports and stop handing over all of our deadly shampoo if we’d do one simple thing. After making sure that we had every bit of information from every Gitmo detainee using whichever methods got results, we then executed what was left of them. Preferably on pay-per-view.

And announce it to the rest of the world. Let them howl. Then point out that these animals are in open violation of the Geneva Conventions, loudly and often, while also pointing out that we are acting within those agreed-upon rules. Every time some human rights group held a press conference to chide us for collateral damage, we’d remind them of why innocent civilians were put in that situation in the first place by the actions of the enemy, not by us. Why we aren’t doing that has been a source of curiosity and frustration to many ever since this they started this war against us some thirty years ago.

War has been, and will always be about who thinks they can be more aggressive. By willfully showing weakness in the face of aggression, we are doing more to invite that aggression than any good will that might be gained by being nice to our enemies. In case those in Washington haven’t noticed, our actions are not responsible for muslim hatred of us. Their hatred of Americans (and “infidels” in general) is instilled in them at an early age. If it weren’t Gitmo, they’d invent another excuse to kill us. By bending over backwards to appear all civilized and stuff, we’re doing ourselves more harm than good and giving them the victory. If you think for one moment they aren’t gloating over forcing innocent American children to be frisked at our airports, you’re wrong.

So, will we capitalize on the momentum that’s clearly on our side following the successful eradication of OBL? Will we finally dedicate ourselves to fight a war on terror and win it, so we can get back to normal and rid the world of this affront to true civilization?

Will we start making our enemies fear us for a change?

The Newest Form of Terrorism

ASHEVILLE NC - A ten-block area of Asheville was evacuated last Thursday in what was described by authorities as “a unique form of terrorism.” SWAT teams were called in, surrounding a late model SUV with New Jersey plates as horrified citizens scattered.

North Carolina Chief of Homeland Security Menachem O’Halloransky described the scene this way, “There was a brief moment of pandemonium as people realized what was happening. There were only minor injuries in the rush to escape, most have been treated and released from local hospitals. Everything is back to normal and there’s no reason to panic. While we understand everyone’s concern, the public can rest assured that police have the situation under control.”

Local resident Congolia Breckenridge wasn’t convinced. “I knew it had to be something pretty serious because I’ve never seen that many cops downtown before. Had I known what was in that truck,” she said, “I would’ve been even more scared. Look at my hand, it’s trembling. I’ve never been through anything like this.”

A defiant Wes Bolan said, “Those bastards think they can intimidate us by doing something like this. They’re about to discover just how tough we Ashevillianiters are.”

Police are questioning a “person of interest” in the case. Bernard von NotHaus was seen in surveillance video nervously walking away from the rented Cadillac Escalade. Obviously hoping to get lost in the confusion and panic, he ducked into a local coffee shop where he was later led away in handcuffs before the shocked patrons. “He seemed a little shaky. I served him a double chocolate latte with extra whipped cream. For some strange reason, that seemed to calm him down,” said a distraught Amy Soporafach, an employee at the coffee shop. “We were all pretty lucky they caught him when they did. Who knows what else he may have done. Everybody was really shaken when they saw him being arrested.”

A later report from the police noted a second suspect, William Kevin Innes, had also been taken into custody. “These are serious allegations of terrorism. We expect to move quickly on this case.” O’Halloransky said to reporters.

This case has garnered nationwide attention, putting pressure on prosecutors to assure the public that justice was swiftly being pursued. For their own safety and that of the public, the two suspects were transferred to a maximum-security facility in Asheville, NC where they faced charges of domestic terrorism. Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano was out of the country and not available for comment.

The case was investigated by the FBI, Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office and U.S. Secret Service with help from the U.S. Mint.

“We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government,” US Attorney Anne Tompkins said.

She elaborated, “Those who are determined to terrorize innocent American citizens by distributing gold coins will find themselves on the receiving end of our justice system, one that will not stand for this kind of action against the country.”

Authorities have warned the public to be on the lookout for these gold coins, called “Liberty Dollar coins” by the alleged terrorists. The coins are marked with the dollar sign, the words “dollar,” “USA,” “Liberty,” “Trust in God” (instead of “In God We Trust”) and other features associated with legitimate U.S. coins. O’Halloransky said, “Should you find yourself in the proximity of one of these coins, close all the doors and windows, evacuate the area immediately, and dial 911.”

“Try to remain calm and remember that help is on the way,” he said, “Don't panic.”

Orlando Mosque Raises Funds for Terror Group, Local Newspaper Silent

I ran across this video on Breitbart’s Big Peace website yesterday. It’s a story that you should be aware of regardless of your locale.



The article reveals that over $1M was raised from that mosque and sent to Gaza for use by the terror group Hamas.

Very interesting indeed. Not only is there a local player engaged in supporting Hamas, but this mosque appears to have ties to our current Governor, Charlie Crist. This could be big. It could sink Crist’s Senate campaign. Naturally, this blog wanted to find out more about this potentially explosive story.

Since this happened where I live, I naturally assumed that our local newspaper would have more information. So, off I went to the Orlando Sentinel’s website where I found, wait for it…nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Not one article or even the mention of a very serious matter involving local ties to the global terrorist movement and our own Governor. I did discover, however, that Paris Hilton was “embarrassed” to have her SUV searched.

How curious, I thought. Well, maybe I just didn’t look hard enough, or the article appeared a few days earlier and I missed it (I’ve learned over the years to suspect operator error first). OK, I’ll do a site search and see what happens. I entered the search term “Hamas” and received this message: “Did you mean hams?”

Um, no, I didn’t.

This isn’t good. How are we to combat terrorism in America when we don’t even know about it? I seem to remember a time when newspapers had things called “reporters” whose job it was to report on these things called “stories” so we could be “informed” about important issues, particularly ones that involved our national security and the security of other countries. In the case of terrorism, this is even more important since terrorism targets innocent civilians in defiance of international law and rules of combat.

I searched some more, specifically looking for local news outlets who might have written about it. Still nothing. I did find lots of links to the story, but none of them were from traditional local news gatherers. How can this be? Surely, someone in town must be covering this story. It is a local story with international implications. Doesn’t that kind of make it a big thing? Kind of?

After all, don’t most local news outlets pride themselves on being “first on the scene” of local news? That’s what I see in all of their advertisements. So why the silence on this story? Where’s all the breathless reporting?

Having reached a dead end in my quest for local links to this story, I decided to call someone who might know would be covering this, Tom Trento, Director of Central Florida Security.org, who produced the video. During our telephone conversation, he confirmed that there were no local news organizations currently covering this story to his knowledge, but there may be one in the pipeline.

One.

This still isn’t good. If the folks who broke this story weren’t aware of anyone else covering it, what is the average citizen to do? More importantly, why are traditional news organizations such as the Orlando Sentinel silent?

Why are they covering this up?

Why We're Losing the War on Terror

The Geneva Conventions were designed to restrict the effects of war upon unarmed civilians by requiring that lawful combatants be identified, generally by wearing a uniform. In the War on Terror, our enemy does not recognize these rules. By their actions, terrorist organizations are explicitly rejecting the agreed-upon rules for civilized warfare. They disguise themselves as civilians, with no markings or uniforms to warn of their presence (which the Conventions give us the right to know) and, by inference, their intentions.

Common sense would dictate that if our enemy won’t abide by the rules that attempt to civilize the barbaric act of war, new rules to deal with them and reduce their effectiveness must be created. In rejecting the GC rules of engagement and identity, our enemy seeks to use our willingness to abide by the rules against us. If we continue to shackle ourselves with rules our enemy won’t follow, they have won. Our own civility will be used to defeat us just like our own airplanes were used as missiles on 9-11.

The shock of this rejection of civility has been quite effective in silencing human rights groups when confronted with the beheadings of captured civilians. Normally, these groups scream over the least of provocations, but are curiously silent when confronted with the type of barbarity shown in the beheading of Daniel Pearl.

The Obama administration has shown that they don’t know what to do to keep America safe from these animals that assume human form. In the most recent attempt on Christmas Day, the only thing we see from Washington is laughable attempts at spin control (Janet Napolitano’s quote that “the system worked” when it really didn't) and ineffective efforts to put on a show for the public, such as revoking the PantyBomber’s visa after the fact. President Obama himself cannot understand the reasons why our enemies despise us. He points to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility as the primary reason for Al Qaeda’s Arabian Peninsula operations. That may be true in that particular instance, but if it weren’t Gitmo, it would be some other excuse. The hatred that burns in the heart of our enemy will use any reason, and any fool will believe it.

Fortunately, not all politicians are clueless. Sarah Palin gets it. And so do the American people. We wonder when this administration will get serious and start executing these terrorists like the rabid animals they are. When this happens, and our enemies begin to genuinely fear us, when Gitmo becomes a place to be frightened of instead of closed, then the tide will begin to turn and terrorism will become a thing of the past.

Dick Cheney Notes Obama's Weakness Against Terror

Today, Dick Cheney correctly noted President Obama's effete stand on terrorism. In a statement at Politico.com, the former Vice-President points out that Obama is "trying to pretend we're not at war".

“Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society.”

The only thing weaker that Obama's efforts to protect America was the response by an unnamed senior Democrat: "It's telling that in attacking the president and the administration, that Vice-President did not condemn the attack against our nation on Christmas Day."

Really? That's the best you can do to criticize the truth, Mr. Unnamed Senior Democrat? You don't even want to be identified? Well, in light of that inane statement, I wouldn't want to be identified either.

This administrations' retreat to the pre-9-11 mentality of terrorism being a law enforcement issue does several things. First and foremost, it assuages the delicate sensibilities of those on the left who believe that terrorists are just like them and will respond to soft words, soothing music and a non-aggressive posture. These people are also the ones who believe that we are causing terrorism by our very existence and our "oppression" of Muslims, when reality is just the opposite. These same misguided people coincidentally think that we should close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

Second, our legal system isn't designed nor suited for overt acts of war against civilians. In this case, the "alleged" underwear bomber has a defense counselor ready, willing and able to prevent any type of interrogation of the "suspect". This prevents any effort to uncover and stop future attacks that the "suspect" may have knowledge of. In essence, our enemy is using our own court system against us, much as our own planes were used against us on 9-11. And this administration is aiding and abetting them in doing so.

Thirdly, we are sidestepping the very mechanism that allows us to defeat terrorism: The Geneva Convention. Enemy combatants who are not in uniform can be executed. This provision is conveniently ignored by the same people who claim to protect us. It has a precedent and is perfectly legal. It also sends a message to our enemies that we will defeat you.

Mr. Cheney, yours is a much needed voice of strength in a crowd of weaklings. We need more men like you in Washington.

The Failure of Janet Napolitano: "The system worked."

Perhaps she was too busy looking for domestic terrorists at the local VFW post to notice, but the rest of us got a reminder on Christmas Day.

We have enemies.

We have enemies who hate us. We have enemies who hate what we stand for. We have enemies who hate us for being, for living, for breathing, for working, for raising families. We have enemies who, at this very moment, are sorry that no one was killed in the attempt to blow up a plane full of Christmas passengers.


In a display of incompetence that would, had this occurred anywhere else besides Washington, result in the immediate firing of the person responsible, our head of Homeland Security said that "the system worked". Later retracted, but telling nonetheless, her statement is proof of the insulation inherent inside the Beltway, the insulation that prevents officials from being fully cognizant of the effects of their policies. In this case, only the swift action of regular citizens prevented a disaster. Not the DHS. Not the TSA. Not the 30 billion or so dollars spent after 9-11 to "upgrade" airport security.

These are the same regular citizens who realize that Janet Nepolitano should resign. The same citizens who understand that this administrations' efforts to prosecute terrorists in court is misguided and will do nothing to dissuade our enemies from striking at civilian targets. It may even provide a valid reason to strike us again due to the protection our courts accord defendants. Give a terrorist a lawyer and read him his Miranda rights and watch every effort to gain intelligence about future terror strikes vanish.

These are the same citizens who wonder when our government will become truly determined to stop terrorism by whatever steps are necessary.