Obama and Terrorism

Barack And The Bad Guys -- 2010

Custom Search

Jihad?

Obama doesn't see it

Archived chronologically, in order of discovery -- first in, first out -- it's early in the year -- most of the stuff is at the "2009" button -- in the left column . . .

It's The Enemy, Stupid

Scott at PowerLine blog says Scott Brown's remarks at last night's victory celebration reiterated one of the winning themes of his campaign in a memorable fashion: "And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation -- they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."

Obama's national security policy -- his treatment of enemy combatants as American citizens is indefensible. The case of Umar Abdulmutallab is a powerful example. The Obama administration has in fact put forth no principled defense of its endowment of enemy combatants such as Abdulmutallab with the rights of American citizens. Obama's irrationality on this point is obvious and devastating. Andrew McCarthy elaborates in, "It's the enemy, stupid."

Wake Up And Smell The War

The New York Daily News believes the evidence is mounting that Obama is following not merely an erroneous anti-terrorism strategy, but one that is increasingly incoherent and incompetent. Two recent developments highlight his failure:

First, senior administration intelligence and homeland security officials testified to Congress that they were not aware in advance that the Christmas Day terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, would be read Miranda rights, arrested and charged with crimes. Stunningly, it appears that these decisions were essentially made wholly inside the Justice Department.

Second, the administration has conceded that some 50 terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay could neither be safely released nor tried and would therefore be held indefinitely. This flatly contradicts repeated Obama promises to close Gitmo. It also undercuts the rationale for Obama's planned civilian trials for other terrorists and previous decisions -- including some by the Bush administration -- to release far too many who simply reverted to terrorism.

Obama has strained mightily to move away from former President George W. Bush's "global war on terror," changing many of its underlying policies and even sidelining the phrase "war on terror." That Obama has not fully succeeded in reversing Bush's policies is not for lack of trying, but only because global realities have made it impossible for even someone so determined to succeed in just one year.

However, make no mistake: Obama has not given up. He remains determined to revolutionize America's conceptual basis for dealing with terrorism. His approach is a throwback to the pre-9/11 paradigm of treating terrorism as a problem to be handled through conventional law enforcement channels. That means full constitutional rights, including Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections and evidence restrictions, public jury trials and more.

Continue reading here . . .

Obama Earns An "F"' On Stopping WMD Attacks

David A. Patten is reporting that the national weapons of mass destruction (WMD) commission established by Congress has given the Obama administration an "F" for failing to protect America from nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks.

"Nearly a decade after 9/11, one year after our original report, and one month after the Christmas Day bombing attempt, the United States is failing to address several urgent threats, especially bioterrorism," stated former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., chairman of the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism.

The report charges the administration "is simply not paying consistent and urgent attention to the means of responding quickly and effectively so that [WMD attacks] no longer constitute a threat of mass destruction."

Surprisingly, the Commission concluded there still exists "no national plan to coordinate federal, state, and local efforts following a bioterror attack, and the United States lacks the technical and operational capabilities required for an adequate response."

An outgrowth of the 9/11 Commission report, the WMD Commission is charged with evaluating U.S. defenses against WMD attacks. The report issued Tuesday examines 17 areas deemed vital to defending against WMD.

The Commission gave the administration an F for not improving the nation's ability to respond rapidly to a biological attack inflicting mass casualties, and an F for poor implementation of the education and training programs needed to train national-security experts.

It also awarded Congress an F for poor oversight.

Obama Won't Connect Terror Dots

The Washington Times says the state of the Caliphate is better than it should be.

When a man is apprehended with a cache of weapons, body armor, a map of a military installation and jihadist personal effects, the natural response of most Americans is to assume the situation is terrorist-related. The Obama administration says otherwise.

Lloyd R. Woodson was arrested Jan. 25 in rural New Jersey. He had been observed behaving strangely, wearing military-style fatigues and a bulletproof vest. He had a weapon modified to fire .50-caliber rounds from beneath his jacket. He had a hotel room full of weapons and ammunition. Despite all these warning signs, the immediate response from the government was that this was "not a terrorism thing."

Bureaucratic lack of concern raises a critical question: If this is not the behavior of a terrorist, what is?

It's not clear what Obama thinks terrorism is, if it thinks it exists at all. The administration doggedly maintains that political, especially jihadist, violence by individuals with no international linkage is not terrorism. This definition might come as a surprise to the Unabomber, who for years was the most sought-after terrorist in America.

Obama's knee-jerk response that the Christmas Day bombing plot was not terror-related was probably one of the factors that led Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to be Mirandized quickly and treated as a criminal suspect. It shouldn't matter that this was a domestic incident; he is a jihadist warrior, and the aircraft was his battlefield.

The same was the case with Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, charged with killing 14 persons and wounding 31 in the Fort Hood massacre. America was assured that Maj. Hasan had no foreign terrorist links, and he was not charged with committing an act of terrorism. The Obama administration's report on the shooting, released three weeks ago, avoids mentioning radical Islam as a motivating factor in his rampage. However, both Maj. Hasan and Mr. Abdulmutallab had relationships with Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is a leading member of al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, and Abdulmutallab was trained by al Qaeda overseas.

Woodson also may have links to Islamic radicals. A report by the Northeast Intelligence Network reveals that, according to a member of New Jersey law enforcement, Woodson's personal effects "not only associate him with 'radical Islam,' but also with a 'militant Islamic group.'" But as the two cases mentioned above indicate, even this would not qualify him as a terrorist under the Obama administration's narrow definition.

In his State of the Union address, Obama bragged that in 2009, "hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008." He claims this is a metric of progress. However, if Taliban leader Mullah Omar gave a State of the Caliphate address, he could make the same claim. More Coalition forces are being killed in Afghanistan, and Taliban attacks are increasing in size, scope and frequency.

Analysts suggest that Osama bin Laden's audiotape released last week signals the potential for future attacks. An unusually high number of people on no-fly lists are trying to board aircraft. Increasing casualties and activity on both sides are not metrics of progress; they are signs that the war is heating up.

According to the Pew Research Center, terrorism ranks slightly below jobs and the economy as a top public priority. Americans know there is a problem. Official statements claiming that incidents are not terror-related will not change the fact that they are. Connect the dots, Mr. Obama. The war on terrorism is still on, and it's getting hotter.

Obama Buys Prison

Lynn Sweet is reporting that Obama budget includes $237 million to buy an Illinois prison for Guantanamo detainees.

Obama's proposed a $3.8-trillion fiscal 2011 federal budget that includes $237 million for the purchase and upgrading of a prison in Illinois to house detainees now at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba.

Obama sends his spending blueprint to Congress, with the money to buy the nearly vacant Thomson Correctional Center in northwest Illinois, 150 miles west of Chicago, in the Department of Justice funding request. The State of Illinois and the federal government are currently negotiating over the purchase price of Thomson.

Continue reading here . . .

And we have a perfect facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba that functions perfectly well. This is nothing more than a $237 million kiss to Obama's cronies in Illinois.

The Obama Democrats Have Outdone Themselves

Andy McCarthy says that while the country and the Congress have their eyes on yesterday's dog-and-pony show on socialized medicine, House Democrats last night stashed a new provision in the intelligence bill which is to be voted on today. It is an attack on the CIA: the enactment of a criminal statute that would ban, "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment." (See here, scroll to p. 32.)

The provision is impossibly vague -- who knows what "degrading" means? Proponents will say that they have itemized conduct that would trigger the statute (I'll get to that in a second), but it is not true. The proposal says the conduct reached by the statute "includes but is not limited to" the itemized conduct (McCarthy's italics). That means any interrogation tactic that a prosecutor subjectively believes is "degrading" (e.g., subjecting a Muslim detainee to interrogation by a female CIA officer) could be the basis for indicting a CIA interrogator.

The act goes on to make it a crime to use tactics that have been shown to be effective in obtaining life saving information and that are far removed from torture.

Continue reading here . . .

Update: Michelle Malkin is reporting that House Republicans were on the ball, they forced the Intel bill that contained the stealth measure to be pulled.

Obama Authorizes Assassination Of U.S. Citizen

The liberals at Salon have their panties all in a twist because both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that Barack Obama has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill the American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield.

Glenn Greenwald agonizesd at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far away from a battlefield (i.e., while they're sleeping, at home, with their children, etc.) and with no due process of any kind. He won't repeat those arguments -- they're here and here -- but he does want to highlight how unbelievably Orwellian and tyrannical this is in light of these new articles today.

Read how the NYT reports on Obama's assassination order and how it is justified here . . .

There are plenty of us that think this is about time. Killing terrorists whenever, and wherever they are found is OK by me, and someone ought to inform Greenwald that it's not murder if deemed a legal killing -- and under the Rules of Land Warfare, killing the enemy is definitely legal.

Obama's Jihad On "Jihad"

The Washington Times editorializes, to Obama, there's no such thing as an Islamic extremist.

Obama's latest strategic innovation in the war on terrorism is to ignore jihad and maybe it will go away.

Obama is removing terms such as "jihad" and "Islamic extremism" from the U.S. National Security Strategy in an attempt to convince Muslim countries that America doesn't view them solely through the lens of counterterrorism. It's reasonable to look beyond terrorism in developing relationships with Islamic states. Our assistance programs are based on humanitarian motives, for example, so they need not explicitly draw links between promoting good will and hopefully making it less likely that people will fly aircraft into our buildings.

But the National Security Strategy is not some kind of outreach initiative, it is the framing document for America's global safety. The United States cannot effectively combat the root causes of Islamic extremism by ignoring them. The war on terror -- rather, the "overseas contingency operation," in O Force terminology -- won't be effective if this country overlooks the nature of the enemy and his motives. The U.S. strategic blueprint is not the proper place for a public-relations stunt.

Even the Muslim majority states in question understand the religious component of terrorism as a motivator, recruiting tool and strategic road map. They are threatened by Islamic extremism even more than the United States and have no problem describing the threat by its true nature, which must be understood if it is to be defeated.

The most troubling signal is the one being sent through the bureaucracy that any thoughtful discussion of Islamic radicalism and the global threat it poses will be hazardous to one's career. Analyses of the extremist Muslim threat will be increasingly deleted from briefing papers, assessments and planning documents. Those who continue to spread the alarm will be marginalized and ignored. Such sanitizing may please the White House, but it's likely to put the United States in more danger as threats that should have been detected in advance slip by because officials have been trained not to look for them.

The new development is a disturbing example of Obama's seeming obsession with all things Muslim. It's reminiscent of the Department of Homeland Security's 2009 draft glossary of domestic extremist groups that listed Christian and Jewish organizations as threats but didn't include any Muslim groups. Or the administration's obstinate unwillingness to describe the Fort Hood massacre as an example of Islamist terrorism, even though the shooter -- Nidal Malik Hasan -- clearly was wrapped up in that ideology and shouted the traditional jihadist war cry "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire.

Obama's Muslim mania increasingly pervades government and has yet to be adequately explained or even addressed. It places America in growing peril.

Obama Caves To Islamic Group’s Dictates

Jim Kouri says that after more than a year of prodding by terrorism apologists and radicals, Barack Obama and his national security team are bending to their wishes.

For example, yesterday the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, released a statement that they "welcomed an announcement that the Obama administration will remove 'loaded' terms linking Islam to extremism" from a newly revised national security document.

The Obama White House claims the change would remove terms like "Islamic radicalism" from the National Security Strategy, a document that was created by the previous administration to outline the Bush doctrine, which CAIR and other suspicious groups opposed.

"We welcome this change in language by the Obama administration as another step toward respectful and effective outreach to Muslims at home and abroad," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.

"We hope this positive change in language will lead to policies that will deal more effectively with important issues such as peace with justice in the Middle East and withdrawal of our nation’s forces from Iraq and Afghanistan."

He recommended that media professionals and commentators adopt similarly neutral and objective language and avoid "loaded" terminology. Awad noted that "CAIR has been calling for changes in the use of terminology falsely linking Islam to terrorism for a number of years."

"CAIR is always playing the victim card, said a decorated police officer.

"In other words, soldiers, cops and politicians are supposed to ignore common sense so as to not hurt the feelings of terrorists? Catholics did not fly planes into the World Trade Center. Protestants didn’t attempt to blow up a plane in Detroit. Jews didn’t plot terrorist attacks on the New York City subway system and its passengers," said former intelligence officer and police detective Mike Snopes.

Continue reading here . . .

Barry And The Pirates

J.R. Dunn is reporting that the government of Kenya is no longer accepting pirates captured by the international task force operating in the Red Sea and approaches. Kenya claims that its justice system is overloaded with Somali pirates and that it just can't handle any more of them. This policy was initiated with no warning or even a public announcement.

The task force has already started cutting loose pirates caught in the act. A Dutch vessel did so early last week, followed by a U.S. Navy destroyer that tossed back a crew that had actually opened fire with RPGs.

This is obviously a situation that cannot be maintained. Those clowns have to be locked up somewhere. To do otherwise -- to continue throwing them back like so many underweight trout -- will turn the entire business into a game and simply encourage the vast punk population of Somalia to try their luck.

Which raises the question: what world leader happens to have close relatives serving in the government of Kenya? That's right -- none other than the Obamessiah himself. His father, Barack Sr., was an economist in the first post-colonial government. One of his half-brothers, Malik Obongo Obama, is a rising political star, and I'm sure you wouldn't have to throw many stones to hit a cousin or two employed by various ministries. And don't forget cousin Raila Odinga. Obama has more personal pull in Kenya than in any other country in the world.

Yet what has he done to address Kenya's sudden dash for the exit? Nothing at all, as far as can be seen. A number of possible solutions suggest themselves -- international funds to the cover the costs of imprisonment, private prison companies encouraged to open facilities in the area, the Organization of African States persuaded to step in. There are no doubt plenty of other possibilities that could be suggested by people more familiar with East Africa than I am.

And yet, it appears that Obama is simply going to ignore the entire impasse, to give it the silent treatment as he does with everything else that isn't of immediate benefit to him. Not a single word has been heard from the White House involving Kenya, and nobody from his lapdog media has seen fit to bring it up. Does anyone care to bet how long it will be before we see any action?

Of course, that's his prerogative. He's in the office, and presidents get to choose which battles they fight. But if he truly can't handle something so close to home, a problem where he has actual personal contacts to draw on, then maybe he should start thinking twice about posing as the grand redeemer where infinitely more difficult challenges such as Mideast peace and nuclear proliferation are concerned.

Obama Ignores Islamic Extremist Threat

James Zumwalt says in June 1876, U.S. Army General George Armstrong Custer was defeated by Cheyenne Indians at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. In what became known as "Custer’s Last Stand," defeat was attributed primarily to a false assumption. Custer expected to encounter an enemy force of approximately equal size; instead, he faced a force at least three times the strength of his. That false assumption cost the charismatic general his life -- as well as the lives of 267 men trusting in his leadership. Had Custer been better informed -- and the threat better understood -- disaster may well have been averted.

One hundred thirty-four years later, a false assumption and lack of understanding by Barack Obama for a threat of a new era could well spell similar disaster -- this time for an entire nation.

There is a common thread tying together most terrorist activity occurring around the world today. Whether it is Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, China, Yemen, Lebanon, Gaza, etc., that common thread is Islamic extremism. And, when Islamic extremism raises its ugly head, it matters not that most victims of its violence are fellow Muslims. As was the case in the 20th Century, more Muslims in the 21st Century are being killed by Islamic extremists than by non-Muslims. One can only imagine the threat posed to non-believers by an ideology whose believers do not hesitate to "eat their own" in this manner.

The Bush Doctrine correctly identified the threat by stating: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict in the early years of the 21st Century." But Obama is issuing new national security guidelines from which any reference to religious terms such as "Islam," "Islamic extremism" and "jihad" is to be avoided.

According to a U.S. government official, the rationale for this is that there is "a very narrow segment" of the world’s population at risk of turning to extremism but, by using such terms in referencing terrorism, we "risk offending people by creating the impression that we think they are going to go that way, when in fact they don’t."

By this logic, the administration worries more about offending Muslims -- clearly not prone to embracing extremism -- by avoiding any linkage between Islamic extremism and terrorism than it does about educating both Muslims and non-Muslims on what the real threat is. In other words, we don’t want to run the risk of alienating non-extremist Muslims by pointing out the 800 pound Islamic extremist gorilla in the room disrupting everyone’s public order and safety.

This approach ignores a few important factors, described here . . .

Jihadi Echoes Obama

Pamela Geller says If you close your eyes and listen to Zarein Ahmedzay, the jihadist convicted Friday for his role in unleashing a bomb in the New York City subway system on the anniversary of the 9/11 Islamic jihad attacks on America, you would here disturbing echoes of the policy of Barack Obama and his dhimmi administration: "I strongly urge the American people to stop supporting the war against Islam. And this will be in their own interest. ... The real enemy of this country are the ones destroying the country from within ... I believe it's a special group, Zionist Jews, who want a permanent shadow government." Obama hasn't spoken about "Zionist Jews," but the underlying sentiments are similar.

Ahmedzay's narrative reflects Obama's policy on Islamic jihad. He urges America to stop defending herself against the global jihad. Like Obama and his silly Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Obama suggests that fighting jihad will only...create jihad. And as for all the jihadi attacks before Iraq and Afghanistan operations, well...that's irrelevant, an inconvenient truth. The left never lets logic and evidence get in the way of its anti-American narrative.

The day this New York subway jihad bomb plot was foiled, Obama was in New York addressing the United Nations. His speech was about the greatest threat facing mankind today: global warming. I kid you not. He said on that occasion, "We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations." He said that a failure to address the threat could lead to an "irreversible catastrophe." Time, he said, is "running out," but "we can reverse" the problem. "If things go business-as-usual, we will not live; we will die," he said. "Our country will not exist." He told us that it wouldn't be easy, but "I am here today to say that difficulty is no excuse for complacency. Unease is no excuse for inaction."

All that would have been true if he had been referring to the jihad against the United States. But his only response to that is to give the jihadis whatever they want.

Obama's strategy in dealing with Islam is summed up by a single word that is the very definition of Islam -- submission. His cover-up of the Islamic motivation and other aspects of the Fort Hood jihad massacre, the largest attack on a military base on American history, will go down in history as the most blatant act of subversion ever committed by a president of the United States.

And Friday, just as Obama points to Israel as the problem, an Islamic jihadist who wanted to commit mass murder with weapons of mass destruction in New York blamed the "Zionist Jews" as well. No jihadist rant is complete without full-on Islamic Jew-hatred. Ahmedzay stood up in court and said, "Your Honor, I would like to quote from the Qur'an." Then he quoted the passage of the Qur'an that Muslims use to justify suicide bombing: "Quote, Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their wealth for the price of Paradise, to fight in the way of Allah, to kill and get killed. It is a promise binding on the truth in the Torah, the Gospel and the Qur'an. End of quote."

It isn't really in the Torah or Gospel at all, but it is in the Qur'an: the promise of Paradise to those who "fight in the way of Allah" and "kill and get killed." And Ahmedzay did more projecting, too: When he said that he believed that "Zionist Jews" want to establish "a permanent shadow government within the government of the United States of America," it sounded as if he were describing the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood at the senior levels of all branches of the U.S. government.

Nine years after 9/11, the image of the wrecked Pentagon has become iconic and metaphorical. After the Fort Hood report and the disinvite of Franklin Graham to the Pentagon at the demand of the un-indicted co-conspirator, Hamas-tied hate sponsor CAIR, the unforgettable image of the Pentagon destroyed by Muslims is quite fitting.

As for Zarein Ahmedzay, fifty years ago, this plotter to overthrow the American government would be put to death. And he should be. But he won't be.

Not in Barack Obama's America.

Insanity

Jim Hoft says the new Obama strategy refuses to blame Islamists as the root of terror.

A wise man once said -- If you can’t identify the problem, you can’t find the solution. Once again, the radical Obama shows that he is incapable problem solving and unable to break free from his Alinsky-Ayers-Wright-ACORN foundation.

And, once again, he puts America at risk.

The radical Obama Administration will soon release their first National Security Strategy (NSS) Report. The report will make clear that the US in not in a "War on Terror" and that Islamists are not the root of terror.

The Obama Administration will soon issue its first National Security Strategy ("NSS"). How will it compare with those issued in 2002 and 2006 by the Bush Administration?

The most fundamental US national security objectives are well established and bipartisan. The highest priority is always to keep America and its allies safe. This requires maintaining a strong military capacity; effective alliances; and policies that enhance economic and social well being at home and abroad. We encourage the spread of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law throughout the world. We strive to defeat terrorism and to stop the spread of WMD.

The Obama team will reconfirm all these objectives, but in different terms than those used by the Bush Administration.

• "Leader" not Hegemon. The 2002 Bush NSS proclaimed America’s "unparalleled" power, eager to use alliances but able if required to act alone. Obama’s NSS will promise America shall remain strong, but describe its role as "leader" of like-minded states and incapable of ensuring even its own security without the help of others.

• No more "War" on terror. The Bush strategy statements proclaim that the US is in a worldwide "war" against terror. The Obama NSS will avoid using the "war" word, pleasing those who believe terrorism should be treated as criminal activity. But it will call for "defeating terrorism" worldwide.

• Dropping the "Preventive Force" Doctrine. The most notorious aspect of the Bush strategy was the view that attacks of terrorist groups cannot be deterred and must be prevented, through force if necessary, and soon enough to stop threats before they are realized. The Obama NSS will drop this declaration and stress the need to prevent attacks through diplomacy and preparation. But it will continue to use force preventively when necessary to kill known enemies.

• Adopting a "Multilateralist" Tone. The Bush strategy promised to act through existing multilateral institutions, including the UN, when possible; but it stressed its willingness to "act alone" if required. Obama’s strategy will emphasize the importance of acting through the UN and alliances. But it will preserve the right to act alone, as NATO does, by affirming that the Security Council has "primary" (though not exclusive) responsibility for international security.

• "Islamic Fundamentalists" become "Violent Extremists." The Bush Administration described the current terrorist threat as having been caused by Islamic Fundamentalists, while crediting Islam as one of the world’s great religions. Obama will describe all terrorists as "violent extremists," or with some such religiously neutral phrase. But his targeted killings have all been of Muslims.

Obama Unprepared For Emerging Homegrown Jihadist Threat

While the Obama administration ties up resources investigating CIA interrogators and pushing civilian trials for terrorists, a new threat has emerged in the form of homegrown jihadists who are very hard to spot and stop. Yet Obama still doesn’t understand that individuals like the suspected Times Square car bomber are the frontline troops in a global terrorist war threatening America, writes Newsmax Chief Washington Correspondent Ronald Kessler.

Continue reading here . . .

Political Correctness Governs Obama’s Counter-Terrorism Program

James Corum says that the fact that the man accused of planting a large bomb in Times Square almost made it out of the US and to safety in the Middle East shows that the Obama administration can’t get the most basic things right when confronted with a major terrorist incident.

The suspect, Faisal Shahzad, bought a ticket to Dubai under his own name, got on the plane, and was minutes from take-off before an alert customs agent looked over the flight manifest and spotted his name. This time we were fortunate that America’s number one terror suspect did not successfully flee the country. It also proves my long standing contention that we have plenty of dedicated and competent people in the war against terrorists -- the gross incompetence only comes into play as one moves up the leadership chain.

According to senior officials in the Obama administration, quoted on ABC News, the reason Faisal Shahzad was able to board the Emirates Airlines flight is that the airline periodically, but not frequently, updates its no-fly list with information from US intelligence agencies.

The obvious question to ask -- but one that the incredibly tame and uncritical mainstream media will not ask -- is why Emirates Airlines was not required by the Transportation Security Administration to constantly update its no-fly list. How can any airline with an apparently cavalier attitude towards security be allowed to fly in and out of American airports?

People from the Middle East often feel offended when they are required to screen passengers against a list of terrorist suspects. The Obama administration has forbidden government employees to use terms like "radical Islam" or "Jihad" for fear of offending Muslims. Did they ease off monitoring Middle Eastern airlines for the same reason?

Update: Gateway Pundit is reporting that the Obama Administration removed Faisal Shahzad from the Terror Surveillance List before attack, and that Faisal had contact with Awlaki, the Taliban chief, and Mumbai Massacre mastermind.

And Atlas Shrugs has posted an image of what it calls Faisal's motivation.

Obama Is Stonewalling On Terror Cases

Byron York says tensions are rising inside the House Intelligence Committee over the White House's refusal to fully brief lawmakers on events leading up to the arrest of accused Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad. Angry at having been kept in the dark during previous terrorist incidents, all nine Republican members of the committee have sent a letter to Obama accusing the administration of withholding critical national security information. "A clear pattern has emerged," the lawmakers write, "of the administration refusing to provide requested briefings or information or to engage with us despite repeated requests on issues such as Guantanamo, the Fort Hood attack, the Crotch Bomber attack, Yemen, critical issues involving the FISA Court, and now the Times Square attack."

The GOP committee members say the law requires Obama to keep the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently" informed about intelligence matters. "The administration may not lawfully refuse to fully and currently inform the committee or instruct intelligence agencies not to provide requested information necessary to intelligence oversight," they write.

That is a clear reference to the unhappiness many members have felt in the days since the Times Square bombing attempt. Even though administration officials were holding news conferences highlighting their success in apprehending Shahzad, they ignored some congressional requests for briefings. On Wednesday, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, who had requested and not been given a briefing on the Times Square matter, said the White House was preventing intelligence agencies from speaking to Congress -- a pattern Hoekstra said has been consistent through the Ft. Hood, Christmas Day, and now Times Square incidents. "There are some really good people in the intelligence community who have wanted to share information in all of those cases," Hoekstra said. "And they were just very frustrated by the clamps that the White House has put on them."

The letter to Obama was signed by Hoekstra and Reps. Elton Gallegly, Mac Thornberry, Mike Rogers, Sue Myrick, Roy Blunt, Jeff Miller, Michael Conaway and Peter King -- the entire Republican side of the Intelligence Committee. "We cannot work with you collaboratively to ensure our national security if you do not meet these fundamental obligations," they conclude.

Below is the entire text of the letter.

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing to express our significant concern at the affirmative efforts that the administration has repeatedly taken to withhold information from members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on critical national security matters.

Unfortunately, a clear pattern has emerged of the administration refusing to provide requested briefings or information or to engage with us despite repeated requests on issues such as Guantanamo, the Fort Hood attack, the Christmas Day attack, Yemen, critical issues involving the FISA Court, and now the Times Square attack. The law unambiguously requires you personally to ensure that the congressional intelligences committees are kept "fully and currently informed" and that departments and agencies "furnish any information or material concerning intelligence activities." The administration may not lawfully refuse to fully and currently inform the committee or instruct intelligence agencies not to provide requested information necessary to intelligence oversight.

We cannot work with you collaboratively to ensure our national security if you do not meet these fundamental obligations.

Obama's "Good Luck" Terrorism Strategy

The Washington Times says that Rep. Ike Skelton, the Missouri Democrat, responded to Republican charges that Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad's plot failed only because of luck, said, "What's wrong with being lucky?"

Nothing at all -- until the luck runs out.

Two potentially devastating terror attacks in five months failed only because of terrorist incompetence. The Crotch Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was unable to ignite his suicide bomb, sparing the lives of passengers on Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Had Mr. Shahzad's car bomb been assembled with greater care, hundreds of people at Times Square might have been killed or wounded. They were lucky, indeed.

There was only bad luck for the victims of Fort Hood jihadi, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Luck also ran out for the victims of Arkansas recruiting station shooter Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. Each of these recent incidents reminds us that policies pursued by the Obama administration have made the United States measurably less safe from terrorist attacks.

Consider the contribution administration policies may have made to the near success of Mr. Shahzad's attack. It was reported last week that Mr. Shahzad was on the Department of Homeland Security's Traveler Enforcement Compliance System list as late as 2008. The Obama administration removed him from that list. He also was under scrutiny of the national Joint Terrorism Task Force until the Obama administration waved it off the case.

Mr. Shahzad was being watched for very good reasons. Like Maj. Hasan and Mr. Abdulmutallab, he had ties to American-born Muslim radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. He had family connections to the Mehsud clan, which plays a leading role in the Pakistan Taliban. He traveled regularly to the Pakistani frontier area, which is the epicenter of violent religious extremism in that country. None of these things automatically made him a terrorist, but they did provide a rational basis for keeping a close watch on Mr. Shahzad. The Obama administration disagrees with the rationale, apparently obsessed with downplaying the possibility that any Muslim could ever be a domestic terrorist. It is the Obama team's perverse twist on racial and ethnic profiling.

These disturbing revelations about the case of Mr. Shahzad raise pertinent questions regarding U.S. domestic security. Who gave the order to shut down surveillance of Mr. Shahzad? Who removed him from the Traveler Enforcement Compliance System list? Who else has been removed from this and other lists and why? Were they removed simply because they were Muslims and the administration believed that ipso facto they were being persecuted unfairly? What have they been up to since being freed of government scrutiny?

A top-to-bottom review of all such actions taken by the Obama administration is in order. The public deserves to know whether policy directives given since Obama took office materially contributed to the near success of Mr. Shahzad's terror plot. There is nothing wrong with luck. With this president, America needs all the luck it can get.

Obama Slashes New York's Anti-Terrorism Cash

Michael Mcauliff says the White House slashed New York anti-terrorism funds amid buzz Obama will meet with NY Police Department Times Square heroes.

Eleven days after the botched plot to bomb Times Square, the Obama administration on Wednesday slashed some $53 million from the city’s terror-fighting budget.

"For the administration to announce these cuts two weeks after the attempted Times Square bombing shows they just don’t get it and are not doing right by New York City," fumed Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

To top it off, the news arrives as Obama comes to town today amid buzz he will meet with the very cops who helped thwart the bombing.

Obama will also be tapping the city’s deep pockets for the Democratic Party.

"The President seems more interested in raising money for political campaigns than providing New York the money it needs to defend itself against Islamic terrorism," said Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.), the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee.

The cuts, to be announced today, target the annual allocations for transit and port security, legislators said.

Continue reading here . . .

No Money For You, NY

The New York Post editorializes -- Obama to New York: Drop dead. That was the message Team Obama sent -- loud and clear -- yesterday in slashing anti-terror funding for the city. But what do you expect?

The local congressional reps -- Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer and Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, etc. -- have been such lapdogs for Obama (at New York's expense), why wouldn't his team feel free to hang the city out to dry?

Under the plan, the feds will slice Gotham-area funds for transit and port security by $53 million -- 27 percent.

Never mind what happened less than two weeks ago -- when a terrorist parked a ticking bomb smack in the heart of Times Square. Never mind that the city suffered far more than anywhere else on 9/11 -- and today remains Target No. 1 for jihadists.

The Times Square attack -- if not the plots against local subways, bridges, synagogues, you name it -- should have reminded Obama & Co. where to set up its first line of defense. (Hint: It's not Pascagoula, Miss., which will get $1 million in port-security funding alone.)

Nor is there any doubt that terrorist operations aimed at New York are as broad-based as they are deadly. Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, for example, says he was trained in far-off Pakistan. And yesterday, FBI agents raided sites in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Maine in connection with Shahzad's attack. (Three people were arrested, though it wasn't clear if any played an active role in the Times Square plot. )

Obviously, local counterterror efforts require money. And since attacks on New York are meant to hurt the whole nation, Washington has a duty to provide it. Certainly the city's congressional delegation has an obligation to fight for it.

Yet Gillibrand, Schumer, Nadler & Co. have become so ineffective, Team Obama apparently thinks it can get more political mileage by spreading funds around.

Sure, Schumer griped about the funding, for whatever that was worth. (Mayor Bloomberg was so worried, he tried to personally get Obama to change course.)

How ironic: These Dems are supposed to have some sway over their party-mates in the White House. Yet Team Obama is taking New York for granted -- and New York's reps seem helpless to do much about it.

Which makes you wonder: What good are they to New York, anyway?

A Morally Ill And Wholly Degenerate President

Pamela Gellar says that if this doesn't unnerve you and turn your stomach .............. you are made of stone.

Obama: Daniel Pearl's Beheading "Captured the World's Imagination" (00:17)

The Daniel Pearl beheading "captured the world's imagination" -- spoken like an ..........anti-Semitic Muslim terrorist. Pearl was beheaded because of Islamic anti-Semitism and violent jihadi doctrine. Freedom of the press had nothing to do with it. And this coming from a plant who is attempting to restrict these freedoms ..............press and speech.

This is terrible. Obama is a sick man.

Jim Hoft adds that’s crazy sick. Obama told reporters yesterday that the video of Islamic radicals sawing off a Daniel Pearl’s head with a butter knife "captured the world’s imagination."

"Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is."

No, Barack. It was horrifying.

And… It had nothing to do with freedom of the press. They beheaded Daniel Pearl because he was an American and a Jew. They beheaded Daniel Pearl because they were Islamic radicals. Something you have not yet figured out.

I have not included the link to the brutal Pearl murder video. If your curious, it's at the first link, above.

Obama Sides With Hamas

Jim Hoft says the Obama White House is now siding with Hamas over Israel. Despite the documented ambush on the Israeli soldiers this week by radical Islamists in the Mediterranean, the White House is pressuring Israel to end its blockade of Gaza essentially undermining Israel’s last wall of defense against the Islamic killers of Hamas.

Obama refused to side with Israel after the attack and told Prime Minister Netanyahu to go back to Israel out of concern that the Israeli Prime Minister would use the White House as his backdrop while discussing the flotilla ambush.

Reuters reported:

The White House said on Friday Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip was unsustainable and urged a Gaza aid vessel sent by pro-Palestinian activists to divert to an Israeli port to reduce the risk of violence.

"We are working urgently with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and other international partners to develop new procedures for delivering more goods and assistance to Gaza," said Mike Hammer, spokesman for the White House National Security Council.

"The current arrangements are unsustainable and must be changed. For now, we call on all parties to join us in encouraging responsible decisions by all sides to avoid any unnecessary confrontations," Hammer said in a statement.

Israel was preparing to intercept the Irish-owned ship the Rachel Corrie, bound for Gaza with aid and activists, after its naval operation on Monday in which nine Turkish activists were killed on another ship when it was boarded by Israeli forces.

The White House is asking Hamas to act "responsibly?" Since when has Hamas acted responsibly?

As Charles Krauthammer wrote this week:

Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.

But, if none of these is permissible, what’s left?

Exactly. Obama wants the Israelis defenseless. There can be no other explanation.

Obama Still Mulling Where To Try 9/11 Plotters

Agence France-Presse is reporting that the Obama administration is still mulling where to hold the trials of the alleged co-plotters behind the September 11 attacks, US attorney general Eric Holder said Sunday.

"We are still in the process of considering that," Holder said in an interview with CBS "Face The Nation," adding "No decision's been made yet as to exactly where the trial is going to occur."

Holder, who has vowed to push for the death penalty for the self-confessed mastermind of the 2001 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, recalled he had recommended the trial should be held in civilian court.

But many are still pushing for the trial to be held in a military court, and the process has bogged down with no trial yet underway more than eight years after the attacks.

Continue reading here . . .

Obama is incapable of making a command decision on anything that doesn't directly affect him. He's busy golfing and campaigning.

Obama Cleanses The Terrorism Glossary

Rowan Scarborough says Obama and his cast of aides will lash out at Republicans, the Tea Party, banks, oil companies and Arizona, but when it comes to radical Islam, Obama and the Obots treat it with kid gloves or ignore it altogether.

Recent speeches show that -- rather than identifying the enemy for what it is, bands of Islamic extremists who use their religion to justify murder -- the administration searches for the root cause of terrorism, a "why do they hate us?" obsession, which serves only to paralyze a global war to defeat terrorist killers.

Islamic extremists use mosques to raise funds, recruit and plan attacks. In Pakistan tribal areas, Taliban and al Qaeda use mosques as safe havens and as munitions stockpiles. Imams, Muslim religious leaders, use their positions to preach hate and encourage violence, citing verses from the Koran.

When Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty this week to trying to blow up an SUV in Times' Square, he declared himself a "Muslim soldier."

The bottom line is that Islam and terrorism are intertwined. America will never understand its enemy, an enemy dedicated to its destruction, unless it comes to grips with that fact.

Continue reading here . . .

Only A Terror Attack Can Save Obama

Paul Watson says a former senior advisor to Bill Clinton says that the only thing which can rescue Barack Obama’s increasingly tenuous grip on power as his approval figures continue to plunge is a terror attack on the scale of Oklahoma City or 9/11, another startling reminder that such events only ever serve to benefit those in authority.

Buried in a Financial Times article about Obama’s "growing credibility crisis" and fears on behalf of Democrats that they could lose not only the White House but also the Senate to Republicans, Robert Shapiro makes it clear that Obama is relying on an October surprise in the form of a terror attack to rescue his presidency.

"The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership," said Shapiro, adding, "He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that."

Shapiro’s veiled warning should not be dismissed lightly. He was undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs dung Clinton’s tenure in the Oval Office and also acted as principal economic adviser to Clinton in his 1991-1992 campaign. Shapiro is now Director of the Globalization Initiative of NDN and also Chair of the Climate Task Force. He is a prominent globalist who has attended numerous Bilderberg Group meetings over the past decade.

Shapiro is clearly communicating the necessity for a terror attack to be launched in order to give Obama the opportunity to unite the country around his agenda in the name of fighting terrorists, just as Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11 when his approval ratings shot up from around 50% to well above 80%.

Continue reading here . . .

C'mon Paul! Don't put any ideas in Obama's head.

Related: The October Surprise is coming.