Axelrod re: Afghanistan & terrorists being tried in NYC

November 16, 2009

Are you aware that David Axelrod sits in the discussions about Afghanistan?

David Axelrod the WH’s resident lobbyist discussed Gitmo closure, Afghanistan decison and KSM being tried in NYC on State of the Union with John King (Lou Dobbs new replacement). Axelrod sets up Holder as the one responsible – barry was informed of the decision and the reasoning behind it. Axelrod admitted Gitmo won’t be closed completely, but wouldn’t give a deadline. He said they are going to “substantially meet the deadline”. barry said it would be closed. He ran on that and people voted for him because of it. Once the deadline passes – barry’s lies will be 100% complete and he will have been proven to be a complete fraud.

TRANSCRIPT

KING: Let’s begin with the controversial decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 alleged conspirators in the federal courts in New York City, just a short walk from the site of the twin towers collapsing….This is Jim Webb, Democratic senator from Virginia who says, “they do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.”

Why, David Axelrod, did the administration decide to take this step?

AXELROD:

Well, I think for the same reason that Mayor Bloomberg and others felt strongly that we should. We believe that these folks should be tried in New York City, as you say, near where their heinous acts were conducted, in full view in our court system, which we believe in.

Translation: barry wants to make an impression on the world – 9-11 family members be damned. Just like 9-11 anniversary – neither POTUS or FLOTUS went to NYC and they named Sept 11 day of service – like it needed naming. No reason why Michelle couldn’t have been there. And who are the “others”? And the heinous acts were an act of terrorism that resulted in the deaths of 2974 innocent people.

AXELROD: We’ve had, you know, since 2001, have had 195 terrorism cases in the courts, and we’ve been successful 91 percent of the time. We’re very confident about these cases, and we believe this is the appropriate thing to do.

And what if this trial ends in that 9%?

They’re relying on the jury to convict and totally ignoring the judge and whether the confession will be allowed. In civil court, torture obtained confessions are inadmissible. Period. It will come down to whether a terrorist, who has no rights under the Geneva Convention, and who carried out an unprovoked on American soil was read his rights.

AXELROD: This is a judgment the attorney general made in concert with the secretary of defense. As you know, there were five other cases that were sent to military commissions, but we feel strongly that justice will be done here.

And frankly it’s been a long time in coming. A lot of these cases have been delayed for many, many years. And now, the people who suffered so much in that attack will get the justice they deserve.

Did he ask them what they wanted?

A daily reminder? Having to look at the murderers face in the papers and in TV and all over the internet?

KING: We will have later in the program the former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who of course was the mayor when the horrible tragedy of 9/11 took place. And he is among those who say, to him, this reflects returning to a pre-9/11 mentality of treating terrorism as a crime, not an act of war. How would you answer that?

AXELROD: You know, it is odd, because when the 20th 9/11 bomber was tried in Virginia, in a civilian court, and convicted, Mayor Giuliani testified in that case and he heralded the outcome. So he may have changed his view, but we haven’t changed ours.

It may have had something to do with the muslim murderer in Texas.

KING: You mentioned this was the attorney general’s decision. How involved was the president of the United States?

AXELROD: Well, the president was informed of the attorney general’s decision and his reasoning for the decision. This was a decision for the attorney general to make, in concert with the secretary of defense.

Translation: Doesn’t go well, it’s Holder’s head.

KING: It is a reminder bringing these terrorists to New York City for trial, alleged terrorists, a reminder of the controversy about Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We are just now two months and one week away from this promise from the president of the United States.

KING: If you talk, David Axelrod, to top officials at the Pentagon, top officials at the building you work at, in the White House, they say now it is a near impossibility that that deadline will be kept. When will Gitmo be closed?

AXELROD: We believe we are going to substantially meet the deadline. We may not hit it on the date, but we will close Guantanamo. And we are making good progress toward doing that.

“Substantially”?

Open – close are absolutes and barry said one year.

KING: Any idea? Two months, four months, six months more?

AXELROD: I‘m not going to put a deadline on it, John. But we are going to get it done. We are moving toward getting it done in all the different dimensions that are necessary to get it done. The president believes it is important to get it done and to end this chapter in our history. And we are going to get it done.

Too late you already have a deadline. And again, barry’s words mean nothing.

KING: Part of this chapter in our history is the 9/11 attacks, which, of course, were hatched in Afghanistan. And the president is closer to making this big decision he has to make about how many troops. When he makes that decision, will he lay out for the American people not only the rationale for the decision he has made, but an exit strategy for Afghanistan? If you travel the country as I do all the time, people keep saying, eight years later, how long is it going to take? How much is it going to cost? How many lives will be lost? Will the president give us an exit strategy?

AXELROD: Well, I think that is a concern. And it is obviously one of the factors the president is thinking through. We have been there for eight years; it is a long, long time. And we have to keep focused on what our purpose was in the first place. Our purpose was to disrupt and dismantle and destroy Al Qaeda. That remains our purpose.

But obviously we can not make an open-ended commitment. And we want to do this in a way that maximizes our efforts against Al Qaeda, but within the framework of bringing out troops home at some point. And the president has made that clear in all these discussions. There has to be a framework to this decision.

But we are getting close. It has been a good process.

And how many Americans have been killed? How many undeployed soldiers killed themselves so they wouldn’t have to go? He’s not going to make his decision until after the new year.

KING: As you know, conservatives have been critical of the president’s policy review, saying, why is it taking so long? The former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney gave a speech this weekend in which he said, not only why is it taking so long for the president to decide, but he also said, why is David Axelrod, his top political adviser, involved in these deliberations? Let’s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIT ROMNEY, (R-MA,) FMR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I find it incomprehensible and inexcusable that this president invites David Axelrod into national security meetings. Polls and politics have no place at that table. He is the commander in chief. What has he been doing? Do you realize he carried out more than 30 campaign visits in this last season, for various Democrats? While he can’t make up his mind on Afghanistan, or have enough time to meet with generals, he is out there campaigning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Let’s take them in order. Why does David Axelrod deserve a seat at that table? And why is it taking so long?

AXELROD: Well, first of all, let’s be clear. David Axelrod does not have a seat at that table. I have observed these discussions because, as I am today, I have to help communicate the message of the administration. And so it is helpful for me to hear. I have not said a word in any of those meetings.

Now let’s take the second part. Governor Romney has to choose one argument or another. Either he has to say he is not paying attention or he has to say he is taking too long because he has been involved in a rigorous review.

The president has had hours and hours and hours of meetings with his military commanders, with his national security team, to run through every aspect of this, in order to get it right. And we’ve seen in the past what happens when we don’t do that; when we don’t do the necessary preparations. And he is determined to get Afghanistan right. It is something that Secretary Gates supports. It is something that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports. General McChrystal has been supportive of this process.

And, you know, I know that Governor Romney has never had responsibility for any decision akin to this, and so he just may not be familiar with all that it entails. But I think the American people are being well served by a process that is assiduous and in which every aspect of this is considered. Because, after all, lives of American servicemen are involved here. An enormous investment on the part of the American people. We ought to get it right.

He’s Philosopher in Chief not Commander in Chief. Gen McCrystal had to force barry’s hand. It’s clear what he wants.

And why is Axelrod cleared to “observe”?

Who else is in there?

Tags: 9-11 murderers, 9-11 terror attacks, barry soetoro, GUANTANAMO BAY CLOSURE, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, , president obama, september 11 attacks, state of the union,

"Pink boxers" soldier home for 4th of July

July 3, 2009

Remember the “pink boxers & flipflops” soldier?

David Guttenfelder / AP

Left: Spc. Zachery Boyd of Fort Worth, TX, center: Jordan Custer of Spokane, WA and right: Spc. Cecil Montgomery of Many, LA.

In the mountains of east Afghanistan, on May 11th, 19 y/o Army Spc. ZACHARY BOYD of Fort Worth was asleep when his platoon came under attack from the Taliban. He only took the time to put on his vest and his helmet. AP photographer David Guttenfelder (40) just happened to be in position to take a shot of the rest of Boyd’s “uniform”… pink “I Love New York” boxers and flipflops. He bought the boxers when he “stranded in New York”. He called home to tell his parents he made it on the cover of the NY Times but didn’t tell them what eactly he was – or wasn’t – wearing.

Spc Boyd from the front, fully-clothed, arriving home today. - Fort Hood.

He said to his parents:

I may not have a job anymore after the president has seen me out of uniform.

Defense Secretary ROBERT GATES had a different take:

Well, let me tell you, the next time I visit Afghanistan I want to meet Specialist Boyd and shake his hand. Any soldier who goes into battle against the Taliban in pink boxers and flip-flops has a special kind of courage. And I can only wonder about the impact on the Taliban. Just imagine seeing that — a guy in pink boxers and flip-flops has you in his crosshairs — what an incredible innovation in psychological warfare.

I can assure you that Specialist Boyd’s job is very safe indeed.

NewsPoliticsNews

Specialist Boyd arrived at Fort Hood this morning. See video of homecoming.

It’s definitely a good feeling to be home… get to see the family on a very important day, of course.

No word on what he plans on wearing tomorrow...

POTUS statement re: Military Commissions

May 15, 2009

He doesn’t use the word torture but does use terrorist.

From the WH website. Bullets and emphasis added.

Statement of President Barack Obama on Military Commissions

Military commissions have a long tradition in the United States. They are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered. In the past, I have supported the use of military commissions as one avenue to try detainees, in addition to prosecution in Article III courts. In 2006, I voted in favor of the use of military commissions. But I objected strongly to the Military Commissions Act that was drafted by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined our capability to ensure swift and certain justice against those detainees that we were holding at the time. Indeed, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay had only succeeded in prosecuting three suspected terrorists in more than seven years.

Today, the Department of Defense will be seeking additional continuances in several pending military commission proceedings. We will seek more time to allow us time to reform the military commission process. The Secretary of Defense will notify the Congress of several changes to the rules governing the commissions.

The rule changes will ensure that:

• First, statements that have been obtained from detainees using cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation methods will no longer be admitted as evidence at trial.

• Second, the use of hearsay will be limited, so that the burden will no longer be on the party who objects to hearsay to disprove its reliability.

• Third, the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel.

• Fourth, basic protections will be provided for those who refuse to testify.
  

• And fifth, military commission judges may establish the jurisdiction of their own courts.

These reforms will begin to restore the Commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law. In addition, we will work with the Congress on additional reforms that will permit commissions to prosecute terrorists effectively and be an avenue, along with federal prosecutions in Article III courts, for administering justice. This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values.

ACLU’s Amrit Singh, Anderson Cooper, Kevin Madden re: photo release

May 13, 2009

Anderson Cooper discusses barry’s reversal on the release of the torture photos. With him are Ms Amrit Singh of the ACLU and GOP strategist Kevin Madden. I’ve watched and read this several times and have come to my own conclusions. I’ve also read Ms Singh’s initial argument from her Huffington Post entry from March discussed here.

Do you think Ms Singh ever makes her case?

Is there anything else than “the public needs to know”?

The very same public that has been polled with the majority saying they did not want a torture investigation. I don’t know if they have been polled directly on whether they think the photos should be released. I’ll have to check.

Do you think Ms Singh has an ulterior motive?

If so, what you think it is?

VOTERSTHINKdotORG

CNN TRANSCRIPT (Starts at 3;55)

COOPER: Nevertheless the president at the very least hopes to delay their release, saying that making them public now would cause harm to U.S. troops. Joining me now is Amrit Singh of the ACLU, who you saw in Ed Henry’s report. Also Republican strategist Kevin Madden. Amrit, what is wrong with the president trying to protect American troops and tamp down any anti-American sentiment?

SINGH: It is essential that these photographs be released so that the public can know the full scale and scope of prisoner abuse that took place in its name. President Obama’s decision today really does make a mockery of his promise of transparency and accountability.

COOPER: But why are these photos are so essential? If it’s already known what happened? If there’s already been reporting about it, why the photos so essential?

SINGH: Because they convey information that has not been conveyed before about what the abuse actually was. It’s important for the public to see for itself exactly what was done to these victims of abuse. It is only through public airing of these photographs that individuals who authorized torture and prisoner abuse can really be held accountable for what’s depicted in these photos. If they’re suppressed, how will the public know what was done in its name?

[Goes from essential to important. No explanation of how the photos are going to lead to accountability.]

COOPER: Kevin, everyone wants to protect American troops. What about transparency? What about the truth? Doesn’t that matter?

KEVIN MADDEN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I disagree entirely with the argument that showing these photos would be essential. I think what’s essential here and the argument that President Obama has made is national security indications, implications of releasing them and the fury of propaganda that would be unleashed against U.S. forces overseas.

I think — I don’t have to see a body to know there’s been a murder, but I think if the police were to present enough evidence, we could make that argument. I think what has happened here is that we have seen punishment of these people who have engaged in detainee abuse. That’s what’s most important and moving forward and understanding the national security implications of not releasing these photos.

COOPER: Kevin, is knowing what happened in Abu Ghraib the same as seeing the photos in Abu Ghraib? You could have had a report about well some detainees were abused in the Abu Ghraib prison, but to actually see what happened to them, didn’t that open it up in a way that the truth wouldn’t have been known before?

[The photos from Abu Gharib are released. They are out there for folks to see. Yes, it opened up the truth in a shocjing and visceral way that memos could not. And the president said that the photos in questions are not comparable to Abu Gharib. There is no argument there.]

MADDEN: Well, I think what’s important to remember, Anderson, on that point is that a photo is in of itself an event, it is not a pattern. And what we saw with those photos were events of detainee abuse and events that were eventually investigated and then punished. I think what the left is doing, the anti-war left is trying to use this event, trying to use these photos to make an argument — to use them as a vendetta against the Bush administration. And in that process, what they’re doing is essentially smearing the country as a country that condones detainee abuse and condones the torture, when in fact we don’t.

[Bingo. Though they have started to realize that Nancy Pelosi's fate also hangs in the balance and she didn't doing herself or the rest of the Democrats any favors yesterday. And they know that barry's fate is intertwined with Pelosi's. He sat in the Senate at some point - even though he made sure to mention that all this took place before he took office.

How often and how vehemently did he protest waterboarding before it became a campaign issue? And are there still folks among you who belief he is actually going to close Gitmo in a year? Have you read the fine print in his executive order? If you needed a hint the military tribunals he was going to abolish are set to resume. With the caveat that none of the information gained through torture is admissible. barry at his most expedient best.]

COOPER: Let me ask Amrit about that because don’t we actually now know that these are not just isolated incidents, that there is actually a pattern from policies that were made by the Bush administration to things that were done in Guantanamo and then were done in Bagram Air Base and then were done at Abu Ghraib. There is a connection.

[If they are already connected he discounts his argument that the photos would be new information.]

SINGH: Absolutely. And that photograph that you just showed of Lynndie England dragging a prisoner on a leash on the ground is a reflection of policies that were put in place by Secretary Rumsfeld at Guantanamo Bay. Mohammed Al Kahtani was subjected to the same techniques at Guantanamo Bay. He was led around on a leash naked and what you see in those Abu Ghraib photos is a direct link to what was authorized by the highest levels of officials.

[She is making an argument about another - separate - lawsuit, which I do believe has come in to play with this issue. From her face and the tome of her words she finds Lynndie England disgusting and she has great anger toward Rumsfeld. Take careful note of what stirs the most "outrage" in her. This tops the list as does her last statements. What do you see and hear?]

COOPER: Kevin, we know at least 100 people died in U.S. custody, at least 20 of those were investigated as homicides. Do you really believe that everybody who went too far, who committed abuses has already been brought to justice? You think we already know all there is to know?

MADDEN: Well, I think that we can only go based on the evidence we have, and I think the military has in place –

COOPER: But the evidence we have are those photographs, we’re not going off those.

MADDEN: Well I think we have enough evidence within the military and procedures put in place to investigate these detainee abuses and make sure that those that do engage in detainee abuse are then punished. I think that what happens with these photos is that they would sensationalize actual events that have taken place and make it seem that it was not just a pattern, but a widespread pattern, when in fact that’s not the case.

[What was the point of the photographs in the first place?]

COOPER: Amrit, to the point about protecting American troops, particularly at a time when the war in Afghanistan is at a critical juncture, as if frankly the war in Iraq, there is a strong argument though that this inflame anti-American passions and potentially harm U.S. troops.

SINGH: But what is the limit of that argument? If gross human rights violations have been committed, do you sweep them under the rug because they will cause outrage? In a democracy, it is essential to air this information. President Obama –

[Back to the academic "essential" and abstract "in a democracy". They have not been swept under the rug. They have been documented and the people responsible are being sanctioned. The photos - no matter how much she wants to believe - will not make the gross human rights violations any more or less heinous.

Torture is absolute.

Showing photos is not going to change that. Ever. What was done to those men is done. It cannot be taken back or undone. Torture should not - in an circumstance - be used. But handing those photos to America's enemies would directly lead to violence and torture of Americans. An absolute undeniable fact - whether or not one chooses denial or willing disregard.

The very fact that Ms Singh uses the term "outrage" demonstrates she has not taken into account the fact that the US is at war. Our enemies do not deal in "outrage". They deal in blind hate toward any and all Americans and even those loyal to our cause. They deal in beheadings, genital mutilations, rape, child marriages, acid and poison gas attacks on little girls wanting simply to educate themselves. They encourage their own relatives to blow themselves up to further their own fame. They bomb their own innocent civilians to blame it on the US. They use violence for violence sake, which she herself says.

One wonders what is blocking her sight?

And the limit is one American. Allowing those photos to get out would directly lead to the generation of more evil. The evil depicted in the photos begetting more evil.

No matter how she couches it with "the public needs to know" - no good can, or will ever, come from those pictures. Never. That is undeniable fact that she has chosen to subjugate to her own motivation.]

COOPER: No matter the implications?

SINGH: Well, look, we live in a dangerous world, but the terrorists have no dearth of pretext at their disposal to conduct violence. That’s a fact. I mean, they can generate false information. They can conduct all the violence they want without the release of these photographs.

[Precisely. They already hate. They already murder and torture indiscriminately. They are evil incarnate. They don't need propaganda. And supplying it to them would give them a false sense of justification. Evil never justifies the propagation of more evil.]

SINGH: So to pick on these photographs as the cause of violence I think is a grave mistake. There were people who suffered immensely, the victims of torture depicted in these photographs. It’s for their sake and for the sake of future victims of torture that these photographs must be aired.

[Her argument does not follow. There is absolutely no cause and effect. And, again, she completely glosses over the effect the photos will have in a time of war - even after admitting herself that our enemies engage in unprovoked attacks. So why provoke? Which, undeniably, is what the photos will do and it is all they are capable of doing. The photos inherently will not bring about accountability or prevent future torture and she knows that.

She laid out the argument against their release and didn’t even realize it – because her argument is based on emotion. She has a personal stake in the matter. What, I don’t know. And the mere fact she does not acknowledge it and instead uses “the public needs to know” says a great deal about her own character.

Read and listen. Her own words make clear she doesn’t care about what happens after they are released. That she is interested only that they be released. That she cares only about those already tortured, who, again, cannot be untortured. And though she pays lip service in the last sentence to “future victims” she does not have the simple integrity to acknowledge that the “future victims of torture” will be Americans and that it will be directly because of the photos.

Who does she think she is fooling?

There is no doubt that what was done to them was unconscionable and never should have happened.

There is no doubt that the violation of their human rights needs to be documented and acknowledged and those responsible held accountable – all of which is being done and all of which can be accomplished independent of the photos release. Release of the photos will not lead to accountability because they already have been held accountable or will be. That’s a fact.

Whatever evil was perpetrated on those men does not IN ANY WAY justify the use of that evil to promote more. And that is what will happen if those photos are released. And that is what she knows will happen and she demonstrates no concern. She comes from a mindset that I would like to know more about. It is a mindset of vengeance and an eye for an eye. She is not concerned with the use of evil already perpetrated to promote fresh evil and justifies it by saying their evil already exists. This for her is personal and she does not have the integrity to admit to it – illegitimizing every one of her arguments.

I wonder if she is aware how naked her motivation is?

She doesn’t in the least bit care about “the public”. Airing those photos will make the tortured in those photos martyrs and she knows it. And the line about it’s for their sake and the sake of future victims is as disingenuous as it gets.

What she is admitting is that she does not trust barry to keep his promise of not torturing. Because if she did – if she actually listened and heard what he had to say – she would realize how utterly foolish that last statement is. And by saying it – she makes clear that she doesn’t care what happens to American servicemembers. That she is 100% willing to put her own selfish motives ahead of their safety and security.

One has to wonder on what side of the pond her loyalties lie.

———

ACLU’s Amrit Singh’s justification for release of photos
To the ACLU re: release of torture photos
POTUS re: release of torture photos
ACLU’s Amrit Singh, Anderson Cooper, Kevin Madden re: photo release

Photo of the day: “The Afghan Girl”

May 7, 2009

Sharbat Gula born ca. 1972 in Afghanistan of Pashtun ethnicity.

The Afghan Girl (STEVE MCCURRY)

This is an amazing photograph for many reasons. Beyond the beauty of her eyes is what she is saying with them. To me, they reflect the intensely empty stare of war – in her case almost radioactive.

In the early 1980’s her Afghan village was bombed by the Soviets, killing both her of her parents forcing her, her siblings and her grandmother to flee to the Nasir Bagh refugee camp in Pakistan. It took two weeks of walking through the mountains in the winter cold to get there. She was photographed there by photojournalist Steve McCurry and this picture was featured on the cover of the June 1985 issue of National Geographic Magazine. He did not know her name and she was referred to simply as the “Afghan Girl”. She was approximately 13 y/o.

She married Rahmat Gul sometime in the late 1980s and returned to Afghanistan in 1992. She gave birth to four daughters: Robina, Zahida, and Alia – the fourth died in infancy.

It was the first time her picture was ever taken and she was unaware of how iconic her image had become when she was eventually located in 2002 in a remote Pashtun region of Afghanistan. There she was photographed for the second time in her life (age 30) by the same Steve McCurry. A documentary based on her “Search for the Afghan Girl” was aired in March 2002 and she was featured on the cover of the April 2002 of National Geographic.

National Geographic started a charitable foundation in her honor called the Afghan Girls Fund, with the goal of educating Afghan girls and women. In 2008, it was broadened to include boys and the name changed to the Afghan’s Children’s fund. Why the need to broaden it to boys who are allowed to be schooled anyway?

Her second photograph at age 30 is the more important of the two, I think, since it physically embodies the ravages of war and reflects the depression of oppression. She looks bent and broken, filled with an untranslatable weary bitterness and hint of shame not of her making – the pain in her eyes as intense as the green in her first photo. It appears as if she barely had the physical energy to lift her head to look into the camera. And when she did she said: How could you?

Who is she speaking for? To? About?

What did she think when she saw her two photos side by side? What did she see in her eyes and face?

How much is she aware of what goes on beyond her daily life?

I don’t know what went on in the interim and haven’t seen the documentary [click the link above and you can watch it or free] or read the second NG issue. All I know is she didn’t want to bothered anymore and hoped her daughters would get the education she was not allowed to finish.

To me, both are equally beautiful and disturbing.

1984 Sharbat Gula, 13 (STEVE MCCURRY)

2002 Sharbat Gula, 30 (STEVE MCCURRY)

Secretary Clinton re: Pres Karzai & Zaradri meetings

May 6, 2009

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments regarding meeting with presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan during WH press briefing. Emphasis added.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Robert. You know, I successfully avoided this room for eight years. (Laughter.) But I’m very pleased to be here to discuss the series of meetings that we had this morning as part of our second trilateral with delegations from Afghanistan and Pakistan, and this time led by their respective Presidents.

I think the takeaway is that this process is producing some very promising early signs. The level of cooperation between the governments of the two countries is increasing. The confidence-building that is necessary for this relationship to turn into tangible cooperation is moving forward. And I think today’s series of meetings is another step along that road.

As you know, earlier we met in a bilateral with both President Zardari and President Karzai, and then we had the large delegations meeting. So let me just quickly run through some of what occurred and then I’d be glad to take your questions.

I met early this morning at the Willard Hotel with President Zardari and had a chance to see for the first time in 10 years his son, Bilawal Zardari — actually, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. I had not seen him since he was a young boy. And so it was really a personal call that I wanted to make on both of them.

At the formal bilateral that I held with President Zardari at the State Department, I reaffirmed our government’s strong support for him as the democratically elected President. Being able to say “democratically elected President of Pakistan” is not a common phrase, and I think it’s imperative that we support President Zardari and work with him as he extends the reach of the government not only on security, as essential as that is, but also on the range of needs of the Pakistani people.

With President Karzai, it was a very future-oriented conversation. We talked about the necessity to take real, concrete actions to make the kind of progress that Afghanistan desperately needs to see to really deliver for the people of the country.

In both meetings, I thought each President was very forthcoming. We discussed a range of issues that are important going forward, but we kept the focus on what we’re actually going to do. I told each that coming out of this trilateral meeting, we will basically have work plans. We’re going to be very specific. We don’t want any misunderstanding; we don’t want any mixed signals; we want to know what we have agreed to, what they have agreed to, how we’re going to proceed toward meeting those goals and objectives and timetables that will be utilized to keep all of us focused on the job ahead.

At the trilateral meeting, we had very distinguished delegations from both countries; in addition, Secretary Vilsack, Director Panetta, Director Mueller, Deputy Secretary Jack Lew, Ambassador Holbrooke, Ambassador Anne Patterson, Under Secretary Flournoy, Acting Administrator of USAID Fulgham, and General Petraeus.

The format of the meetings were to hear from our Obama administration officials what the specifics of what the next day’s meetings, tomorrow, will focus on in each instance. So, for example, Secretary Vilsack kicked it off because, as you know from our strategic review, we think it’s imperative to focus on the agricultural sector. We certainly intend to provide assistance with issues ranging from water rights to anti-erosion measures, to specific seeds that can grow alternative crops in Afghanistan, to continue to help the agricultural sector in Pakistan, as well.

I thought it was a very significant meeting, in some ways a breakthrough meeting. The high-level participation from our government was very important, and the high-level participation from each of the delegations. A number of the comparable ministers had never met each other. They may have talked on the phone about border security or police training or intelligence sharing, but they hadn’t actually met in several instances.

I was extremely impressed by the candor that was really evidenced throughout the meeting. And it was a physical manifestation of our strategy, of viewing Afghanistan and Pakistan as a regional challenge but also a regional opportunity.

The Trade Transit Agreement memorandum of understanding that was signed today commits both countries to finalizing a trade transit agreement that deals with all of the obstacles and problems of goods and people crossing borders. It was started 43 years ago, and we’re determined to bring it to a resolution. The kind of economic development that will spring up if we see increased trade and commerce between the two countries is one of the best ways that we can provide alternatives for those who might otherwise be dragged into this conflict.

We will continue these meetings at the ministerial level. When, tomorrow, the people of both delegations meet with their counterparts in our government, they will be setting up very specific follow-on planning.

I’m very optimistic that this process is making a difference. I’m realistic enough to know that two meetings does not necessarily turn around the many difficult and complex challenges that confront these two countries and us and our relationship to them. One of the comments that was made struck me, that geography binds us, but we were not connected before. They basically stood on both sides of a border that neither agrees to because it was imposed on them; it was not ever reached by the governments of either country. And yet they have so much both in common and they face this common threat, and they have to make common cause to reach a common objective.

Both Presidents spoke very movingly about the threat and dangers of terrorism. I think that they are committed to this conflict being resolved and their being able to produce more peace and security.

An ancient Afghan proverb says, “Patience is bitter, but its fruit is sweet.” I think that patience is not always in great supply inside our own government, or even inside our own country. But I think in this instance, the kind of patient strategy that the President has adopted and the steps that we are all taking to implement this strategy is the only way forward. It may not give you a story every day, but hopefully it will give us all a better story next year and the years to come.

So I’m very pleased to have this opportunity to make these short comments, and I’d be glad to answer your questions.

Impending civil-military crisis?

April 22, 2009

Perhaps, but not from what you think. I ran across this article which I thought was interesting. It’s focus is military-civil relations and there’s a little insight into the usurper in chief’s MO.

From the (3-26-09) Fort Leavenworth LAMP, WILL KING reporting: [emphasis added]

A panel of experts met to discuss the future of civil-military relations. Dr. Richard Kohn, professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill believes a “conflict in civil-military relations is coming soon, and is not a result of the presidential election.”

No, he didn’t mention the birth certificate or the dissension in the ranks because of it. Was he alluding to it? No idea.

“The Obama administration has taken dramatic steps to avoid a fight with the military,” Kohn said, noting that first lady Michelle Obama’s first official visit outside Washington, D.C., was to Fort Bragg, N.C.

He didn’t do so good at Camp Lejune when he telepromptered his fiipflop on Iraq. He only came out after the the National Anthem was sung by a lone female soldier. Coming out to “Hail to the Chief” like a foreign dignitary or King, who couldn’t be bothered with the pissant peasants. It was shocking. He didn’t even come out for the prayer. See this letter by a Marine present that day.

Next he mentions barry’s retention of Bush people so he would have someone to carry on the blame.

He highlighted the retention of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and nomination of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen for a second term, both holdovers from former President George W. Bush’s administration, as a sign to the rest of the military of respect for the senior military leadership and continuity during difficult wartime conditions.

And of course barry hedged his bets. It’s nice to see a) that someone noticed and b) was willing to say it out loud.

However, Kohn said President Barack Obama purposely sought out other former senior military leaders for his administration, including National Security Advisor retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, Secretary of Veterans Affairs retired Gen. Eric Shinseki, and Director of National Intelligence retired Navy Adm. Dennis Blair.

“The president has arranged it so that he is free to ignore the advice of his uniformed chiefs and field commanders because he will have cover of General Jones by his side, and other senior military in his administration,” Kohn said, “and at the same time demonstrates that he has been reaching out to the military and wants to have military judgment.”

That is barry in a nutshell. Political expedience. Cover all sides of the issue, find the experts to tell him what to do, form a committee, talk talk talk, equivocate his words, make no decisions and then throw somebody selected for just that sole purpose under the bus. And then there’s the probarry media who lets him keep doing it.

He never admits he was wrong because “he was acting on the best advice of the best person with the best available information at the time”. He forgets that he was the one acting and the one who acts is the one who should be held accountable and he has not been held accountable for anything.

Specifics:

The four areas where Kohn sees potential civil-military problems in the future are in Afghanistan, the budget, gays in the military and the restructuring of military forces away from Cold War structure. He said budgetary issues would create the most problems of those four areas.

“The overlapping roles and missions, combat capability, organizational change and rethinking of personnel policies all lie just over the horizon,” Kohn said. “If the Obama administration steps up to these challenges, there will be considerable civil-military conflict.”

Steps up? barry needs to take some baby steps and stick by a decision - any decision - and then admit he was wrong all by himself. The closest he got was Tom Daschle and not until the fourth comment. And it didn’t stop him from picking another self-proclaimed (caught) tax cheat, Ron Kirk.

What type of Commander in Chief does this?

2009 International Woman of Courage: Wazhma Frogh, Afghanistan

March 28, 2009

From the State Department website

2009 International Women of Courage Awardee

Wazhma Frogh, Afghanistan

“My goal is to really represent Islam. It’s not a religion that oppresses women.”

Wazhma Frogh believes in changing systems from within, and is willing to stake a lot on her beliefs. In 2002, when she visited a conservative district in northeastern Afghanistan, the activist overheard the local mullah urging male worshippers to stop her plans to start a literacy program for women. Ms. Frogh marched into the mosque, she told a Christian Science Monitor reporter, and challenged the mullah to hear her out. She recited a number of Koranic passages that supported education, and she decried the use of Islam to justify domestic violence and child marriage. The mullah listened, and then endorsed her plans to start the literacy program.

Ms. Frogh uses her scholarly knowledge of Islam to convince religious leaders to modify their views of women – views, she claims, that are often rooted more in provincial local traditions than in the real essence of the faith. “My goal is to really represent Islam,” she told the Christian Science Monitor. “It’s not a religion that oppresses women.”

Her activism began at a young age. In the eighth grade, she offered tutoring to her landlord’s children in exchange for reduced rent, so as to ensure that she and her sisters would be able to continue school. At age 17, she used her internship at a prestigious Pakistani newspaper to expose poor living conditions and abuses of women’s rights in Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan.

Ms. Frogh currently works as the Afghanistan Country Director for Global Rights, an international human rights organization. She’s launched public debates on domestic violence and marital rape in Afghanistan, both previously unmentionable topics in her country. She persuaded mullahs to join her in a month-long campaign of speaking out against domestic violence, and, by mobilizing a group of over 35 civil society organizations, convinced the government of Afghanistan to take action against child rape. Ms. Frogh also provides training to policewomen on issues surrounding domestic violence and child abuse.

Wazhma Frogh’s bold outspokenness for women, children, and social justice makes her a target in her conservative and volatile society. Her bravery creates safety for those whom the laws make vulnerable, and her commitment to peaceful change through the force of her intellect and persuasive skills creates both opportunity and inspiration for other women to do the same.

***

Madame Secretary Clinton: Women’s History Month
2009 International Women of Courage Awards
Poem presented to Madame Secretary Clinton: "Leaders"
2009 International Woman of Courage: Wazhma Frogh, Afghanistan
2009 International Woman of Courage: Mutabar Tadjibayeva, Uzbekistan
2009 International Woman of Courage: Norma Cruz, Guatemala
2009 International Woman of Courage: Suaad Abbas Salman Allami, Iraq
2009 International Woman of Courage: Reem Al Numery, Yemen
2009 International Woman of Courage: Veronika Marchenko, Russia
2009 International Woman of Courage: Ambiga Sreenevasan, Malaysia
2009 International Woman of Courage: Hadizatou Mani, Niger

First Lady Laura Bush

First Lady Laura Bush

barry love al qaeda style

November 21, 2008

Smurf ayman al-zahari goes after barry. How dense are these people? They could have at least waited till barry actually DID something…though they may have to wait a very long time for that. He’s in seclusion while the market drops 400 points, the auto industry is uncertain and his minions are chirping like hungry angry birdbots about Senator Clinton. This man is weaker than I thought. So weak his own people are leaking to make him DO something.

Highlights of al-zahari's message:

Be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them.

That's pure savagery. They've not gotten out of the stone age.

...And in you and in Colin Powell, Rice and your likes, the words of Malcolm X concerning “House Negroes” are confirmed. [translation: house slaves]

Why was he talking about Malcolm X – the originator of the “chickens coming home to roost”? Shout out to Farrakhan? Has farrakhan ever come out against al Qaeda? Malik Shabazz who used to work for Farrakhan is the head of the New Black Panther Party - whose endorsement was on barry's official website. They were wright's bodyguards at the Press Club. Shabazz went off on barry on FOX radio right after barry trashed wright. And on live TV he called Michell Malkin a whore. Upstanding man.

My final message it is to the American people. I tell it: you incurred defeat and losses by the foolish actions of Bush and his gang, and at the same time, bin Laden sent you a message to withdraw from the lands of the Muslim and refrain from stealing their treasures and interfering with their affairs. So choose for yourselves whatever you like, and bear the consequences of your choice, and as you judge, you will be judged.

This says to me that bin laden is dead. He said bid laden SENT past tense a message -- not bin laden IS watching or WILL BE sending more messages. He’s gotta be dead. Praise Allah.

2008 Election = Cult of personality

November 4, 2008

Here is the sad irony of this election. Hillary routinely polled higher on the economy over barry. She had it as her number one from day one, including the mortgage crisis and bailouts. She was stumping on this before barry even caught on. Barry didn’t have the economy in his top three on March 29, 2008. Think about that. I don’t even recall what the third was. Clinton discussed specifics and laid out concrete plans. Barry was running on hope and Change! and nothing else but Iraq - which I cannot stress enough was the biggest fraud perpetrated on voters in this election. People are still buying it. People don’t care I guess that they have been deceived. Eventually they will. It’s what got him the nomination. Period. And yet, on election day, Iraq is polling at 10% and barry’s positions have changed so many times they reflect exactly what he has done since 2002: talk a big game, lie and do nothing. He had nothing else as evidenced by the “I agree with Hillary on that”.

So Iraq is at the bottom and barry’s positions are no different than Hillary’s. The scam worked and bonus the economy worsened and McCain said the fundamentals were strong as the banks tanked.

Had he picked Romney?

Voters are still concerned about terrorism as they were in 2004 (71-71). And on 10-31-08 barry did not have national security in his top five. So none of it matters. Bush was insurmountable unless a national security crisis happened. Biden’s comments were passed on for the wardrobe inanity. Says a lot of the state of the nation and the power of pro-obama media bias.

Now the economy is the focus (62% ) and Hillary was emphatically thought to be much superior to barry in confidence in handling the economy. So who – another piece of evidence as if we need one - should be president by substance? It’s perfectly clear. And had she still been in the race, the election would not even be a question mark.

This election was a cult of personality, whether anyone wants to admit. Period. A man with a resume so thin he would have been ridiculed had he not have been black and a man. A man not qualified to run a state or even the senate. An inexperienced man chanting nebulous promises and bipartisanship, with no experience of having done so. A man who has never stood up – not once - when it was not politically expedient will be making his first decision of consequence as president.

That is personality and the hope of change. Truth is anything would be change after Bush. Now we wait to see if he can deliver on any promise. Taxes will be increased in six months. Iraq will go one till 2010 and another 2000 brave men and women will be dead and even more damaged. Afghanistan will not be better. Nothing will have been done about energy or healthcare. The budget deficit will be worse. Nothing will have been done about illegal immigration. And we will be in a recession with no halt on unemployment or foreclosures.

How long will it be until that hope turns to disillusionment and anger?

Biden quote of the day: "Are you kidding me?!"

October 23, 2008
Interview of Joe Biden via satellite by Barbara West of WFTV. She has a strange interviewing techniques where she sounds like she's reading not talking to someone live. I can see why he was a little weirded out to begin with and then the questions were right from Limbaugh. Video courtesy of techvids 052oo6 via AmericasNewsToday.Org

[....]
BIDEN: We haven't paid ACORN a single penny to register a single voter. [in the general election - primaries absolutely.]

WEST: But in the past--

BIDEN: They're the facts!

WEST: But in the past Senator Obama was a Community organizer for ACORN, he was a lawyer for ACORN--

[Obama served ACORN and it's associates as an attorney on voter registration and on cases involving subprime mortgages that lead to this current financial crisis.]

BIDEN laughs.

WEST: ...and certainly in the senate he was a benefactor for ACORN.

BIDEN: (Indignant) How's he been a benefactor of ACORN? (Like he truly doesn't know.) He was organizer. John McCain stood before ACORN not long ago complimenting them on the great work they do. Does that make John McCain complicitous in any mistake ACORN has made? Are you kidding me?? C'mon, let's get real here!

West smiles like she's got him now. They discuss Joe the Plumber and spreading the wealthy around and whether Obama made a "crushing political blunder". Biden says, "Absolutely not!" And then goes on about middle class and taxes.

WEST: You may recognize this famous quote (I wasn't sure if she meant it was one he plagiarized. Joe Biden is in the Plagiarism Hall of Fame.) "From each according to his abilities - to each according to their needs." That's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?

BIDEN: Are you joking? (He blinks and gives his classic I'm going to eat you little girl grin.) Is this a joke?

WEST: No.

BIDEN: Is that a real question?

WEST: Yes.

BIDEN: He looks down and does that grin like listen here girlie. He's entertaining even when he's patronizing.) He's not talking about spreading the wealth around. He's talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get the tax breaks they used to have......that's what we think. It's a ridiculous comparison, with all due respect. (Too late, Joe.)

WEST: You recently said: 'Mark my words...

BIDEN nods his head, clenches his mouth and licks his lips...too late...they've already flapped.

WEST: ...it will not be six months till the world tests Barack Obama.' But what worries many people is your caveat asking them to stand with him because it's not going to be apparent initially that he is right. Are you forewarning Americans that nothing will be done and..

BIDEN puffs up his chest and leans forward in his seat.

WEST:...that America's days as the world's leading power are over?

BIDEN: (Barely able to contain himself. The question was designed to provoke him. Is this a FOX affiliate? He closes his eyes and shakes his head. The Obama camp must have been ready to shock his dog collar) No. I am not at all. I don't know who is writing your questions (like even you a dumb blond couldn't come up with these.) - but let me make it clear. The fact of the matter is that everyone has acknowledge from Colin Powell down that the next president of the United States will be tested." He goes on comparing BO & JM and the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea. "Barack Obama's been right. John McCain has been wrong. That was my point. Barack Obama is more ready than John McCain."

[Even for Biden that is a stretch - though he tried to sound convincing.]

WEST: Getting back to the spreading the wealth question...

BIDEN has that incredulous look like how dumb is this broad?

WEST: What do you say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama is going to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?

BIDEN: (He doesn't even other to dignify it.) I don't know anyone who believes that except the far right wing of the Republican Party. (Get me to the hell out of here.)

WEST: Thank you, Senator Biden.

Video cuts off so we can't see what he said.

UPDATE on post interview happenings.

Truth: Barry's foreign travel

4-20-08 Here's the truth about Obama's foreign travel.

Aug/Sept 2005 8-day trip to Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and overnight in England - his only trip to Europe.

Jan 2006 10-day trip to Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Israel and Palestinian Territories

Aug 2006 15-day trip to Africa Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa

Obama traveled to Iraq in January 2006 with Senator Bayh. He was there two days and then left Bayh, which went on to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and headed to Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Israel and the Palestinian Territories for eight days. Curious that Obama, when he had a chance to go to Afghanistan, went to the Middle East instead.

That was 2006. Remember, Obama said he spoke out against Iraq in 2002 - when it meant nothing. The Senate had not yet given Bush authorization to use military force in Iraq.

OBAMA: My objections to the war in Iraq were not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war.

OUTRIGHT LIE.

Obama delivered the speech in Oct 2002. He did not officially declare his candidacy for the U.S. Senate until Jan 2003. Bill Glauber covered the event for the Chicago Tribune and didn't even quote Obama - he focused on the main speaker Jesse Jackson. Crowd about 1000 people.

Obama said he based his 'decision' about Iraq because he felt it would detract from Afghanistan. So what did he do to back up that decision (judgment he calls it) when he finally has a chance? NOTHING. When he got to the US Senate and had to make a decision of consequence, he voted the same way as Hillary. He didn't denounce John Kerry for his decision on Iraq when he delivered the 2004 Democratic Convention speech.

Obama joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2006 and missed three meetings on "new strategy in Afghanistan". He missed the Sept. 21, 2006 meeting. On Feb. 15, 2007, he missed a committee hearing on US ambassadors to Iraq and Afghanistan. He did attend a March 8, 2007 hearing on a Afghanistan strategy and addressed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crock on Sept 11, 2007. But missed the Jan 31, 2008 meeting.

So after his speaking out in 2002, Obama said nothing about Kerry in 2004 speech, voted the same as Hillary on Iraq in the US Senate, DID NOT GO TO AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN in Jan 2006 when he had the chance and missed three meeting on strategy in Afghanistan.

How can this man continue to use his party line on Iraq? His actions completely contradict his words. How are people buying his? Then out of nowhere comes the tale that Obama went to Pakistan for three weeks 27 years ago, which qualifies as experience. Who can believe this? Pure crap.

Comment: NOTE: Senators Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh and Congressman Mc Hugh traveled to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan in Jan 2007. Hillary has gone to Iraq three times to Obama"s once.

Sources for above:
http://thehill.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=71766&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=70

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Ko9Q-4CmwcQJ:obama.senate.gov/press/070911-obama_addresses/+obama+foreign+relations+committe&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/ (trip)

http://obama.senate.gov/news/060105-obama_making_1s/ (trip)

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:68qv6GIO5mIJ:www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/02/28/obama_has_spent_only_two_days_in_iraq+bayh+2006+pakistan+trip&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88988093