And Iran is Next

With the recent, most terrifying Big Bad Terrorist Plot that struck just a month after the tenth anniversary of 9/11, it seems that our government is quite ready to invade Iran. Or, at the very least, it's posing quite effectively, making us think it's quite ready to invade Iran. Apparently, two men with links to a Mexican drug cartel decided to try and kill the Saudi ambassador to the US, a target that even to my mind doesn't seem to make much sense. There's also their chosen method of execution.

The Iranians planned to employ Mexican drug traffickers to kill Jubeir with a bomb as he ate at a restaurant, U.S. officials said.

The logistics alone to this seem like a nightmare. From the use of Mexican drug traffickers (who might not even be able to get into the country, much less to DC, and run the added risk of being recognized and thrown in jail for the ignominious charge of marijuana possession), the fact that a restaurant is a rather iffy place to find the ambassador, liable to change at a moment's notice.

Not that it was ever much of a threat, anyway, since the United States Attorney has stated that law enforcement officers were guiding their sources the whole time, and no explosives were ever placed anywhere. In essence, we've arrested a man on the basis of what he might have been able to do if the CIA and FBI had let him.

As a result of all this, Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton have touted the need for further sanctions against Iran, because obviously not talking to them helps them come to our side, just the way social ostracism works in high school.

Throughout all my travels through the internet punditry and news sites, I've not seen any concrete proof of Iranian involvement, except the fact that Mansour Arbabsiar (a disheveled, disorganized, divorced man in never-ending trouble with a long list of creditors) might have had contacts with the Iranian Quds.

Overall, it just seems like a rather ridiculous assertion, and I hope nothing more than a few hurt feelings will come from it. For more, Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent column on this subject. Enjoy.

Egypt

So I thought it was high time that I say something on this subject, since its been going on for weeks now.

I've heard some interesting things from both sides. The Republicans, as always, are taking the opposite side from President Obama. The President apparently decided it would look good politically, and earn us more friends, if he gave a nod to the "rioting masses" in Egypt. Since then, I've seen numerous Facebook comments from Republican friends saying something to the effect that Obama is stupid, Egypt should quell the uprising with deadly force, and that the people of Egypt should stop trying to contest the government.

A couple problems with that, Yoda has.

*ahem* Number one, you didn't see this kind of lay-down-and-take-it attitude when the communist government in China was blasting unarmed protesters in Tiananmen Square some years ago. Then, uprisings were wonderful. Uprisings such as that, movements of the people should be honored!

Number two, I think those people are forgetting their own country's heritage. People, America was founded on rabble rousers who formed...an uprising. And were none too quiet about it, either. They like, had guns. And were shooting people. Yeah.

So, to put it succinctly- Egypt's people have the right, just like all humanity, to choose their leaders. Isn't that one of the trademarks of the "American tradition?" Since Mubarak is a repressive dictator by all accounts, our wish to keep him in office is nothing more than the selective "freedom" we like to enforce. And as Mubarak wouldn't leave office quietly, the Egyptian people are doing their level best to make their intent and wishes known.

As to Egypt being a threat to us...what's changed, again? Get used to the fact that people don't like us, and it's probably because of us. That's how the world works.

Depressing Current Events

North Korea attacked South Korea. We were all duped by a shopkeeper in Afghanistan. Tom DeLay was arrested for money laundering or some such. The TSA is still being a pain in the neck. I found out that each aircraft carrier we have commissioned carries the equivalent of many countries' actual air force. And we have these all over the world. And we wonder why people feel threatened by us. I wonder why we feel threatened by them.

Just your typical, happy-go-lucky Thanksgiving week, in other words. I hope everybody had a good one...I got to cook nearly our entire Thanksgiving dinner because my mom wasn't feeling well. It was actually pretty fun- I ran down the battery on my iPod and got to get very hungry cooking it all.

Since all that was going on, I don't actually know that much about the whole Korea thing. As near as I can tell, North Korea apparently shelled a small South Korean island, which of course made South Korea a little angry. North Korea subsequently issued a warning that war could follow if things got too heated. Like, if we got involved, things might get a little tense.

But, of course, we have to stick our big noses where they don't belong. Why we have to conduct military maneuvers with the South Korean navy in the first place...I have no clue. But I think that qualifies as butting in and getting involved. Just a little.

I still don't understand why we think we should have to be involved in every thing that happens on the planet. Or why, like the substitute on the Glenn Beck Program said this morning, other countries should "fall in line" with us. Yeah. Because we're the world's mommy. We have to save them from themselves.

Of course, I don't think North Korea will actually do anything. With the power shift currently going on there, I'm inclined to believe this is just saber-rattling to make sure people don't think that now, as their power structure is changing, would be a good time to attack them. Amidst all this, China isn't even trying to get involved. They don't want war breaking out in their backyard. Again. And I understand why not- they're in the middle of prosperity. They don't want to mess it up. ^.^ If we only had as much sense.

Recent News

I'm just going to go over a few of the current issues that are making the rounds these days...been super busy, and I don't have enough of an opinion on a lot of it to actually make full blog posts. So, without further ado...

The Healthcare Bill

So I predicted it would pass. I also predicted Scott Brown would vote for it. That one didn't come to pass, unfortunately, because it would have been so much fun to say "I told you so" to all the "glory-be-hallelujah-Scott-Brown-got-elected" people. Ah well. Political face-saving wins again...

Having not actually read the healthcare bill itself, I'm not going to go into detail on what I think is wrong with it. I've heard plenty of alarmism and "this is going to take away all our liberty and institute a mark of the beast and make us all get chips in our foreheads and help, help, help!" But I haven't actually seen citations of that (of course, if somebody wants to provide me with some, feel free. :) )

To me, the primary reason this bill is messed up is 1) it takes way too much power away from the states, and their right to decide how things are run, and 2) it will increase our government's spending, and taxes on the citizen.

So yes. If anyone has any other points of concern you think I should know about, please share (with actual citations, if you would, to the actual bill). ;)

States Stepping up to Bat

This week Nebraska passed a law banning abortions after 20 weeks, based on fetal pain.

Well good for them. Is this unconstitutional as some people are claiming? Well to my mind...no. According to my understanding of Constitutional law, the Supreme Court making laws in the first place is unconstitutional, which would make Roe vs. Wade unconstitutional. Hence, the responsibility for abortion laws falls directly to the states, as this power is not granted the Congress.

I think abortion advocates should just get over it. This measure is constitutional: it keeps power where it should be, in the hands of the state. That isn't wrong, that is a very good thing. Furthermore, I do think we should take into account the baby's pain level, at least to some extent. If you want an abortion, get one early. It isn't rocket science.

Obama's Nuclear Summit

So I admit it, I laughed. Especially since it doesn't appear either North Korea nor Iran has signed this pact-thingymajigger, making it so that two of the "greatest threats to our safety"...still have nukes. Real smart.

Of course, Iran doesn't actually have nukes yet apparently...they're just enriching uranium and using the tough-guy approach to try to keep us from invading. Not that it'll work. Hussein tried it, too (well, he actually tried Pakistan's approach- ingratiate oneself and maybe we'll leave one alone. Nope).

So anyway...I do think Obama has good intentions at heart. Do I think those good intentions will reap much? Eh, probably not, considering how many other measures like this have failed in the past. People still have nukes, people are still developing nukes, and in the end, one can't really stop stupidity and pure cussedness.

Oh, and on the subject of the summit- dont'cha know that free press is just totally eighteenth century.

So yes, just a quick blurb on a few issues I found interesting. :)

Palestinian Christians Speak

Very interesting, this. A group of Palestinian Christians have gotten together and written a very interesting document detailing their belief that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is unjust. It is a powerful document, and they make a good case.

Here is the main website, and here is the PDF file.

As with anything, it should be taken with a grain of salt- there have been outrages committed by Palestinians as well (as they acknowledge briefly), so there is fault on both sides.

Take the position of both sides, and somewhere in the middle, that's where truth lies.

Define a Terrorist

At what point do you become a terrorist? When you bomb a building? When you attend a training camp? When you talk to a terrorist?

Apparently all of those, even the last, hold true.

According to this article, in 1996, a law called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act {PDF} (so much for there being nothing to deal with terrorism), set up a system whereby anyone providing "material support" (Supplies, people, etc.) would be treated as a terrorist- detained, imprisoned, etc.

With the advent of the PATRIOT act {PDF}, in 2001, the definition of "material support" was expanded to include "expert advice or assistance," and "service."

I see many problems with this- mostly because it is so incredibly abstract and over-reaching. What, exactly, is "service?" Is it doing electrical work in a house that is used by al Qaeda operatives? Delivering pizza? Or do there have to be overt tokens of actual complicity in the organization?

"A lawyer would commit a crime, she [Ms. Kagan] said, by filing a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a terrorist group. Helping such a group petition international bodies is also a crime, she added."

This is so incredibly wrong, I don't even know where to start. I really don't understand why we shouldn't be trying to reach out to groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and yes, even al Qaeda and the Taliban. Perhaps we should listen to them, try to figure out their beefs with us or their main antagonists, and then perhaps we could reach a solution that would be mutually amicable.

It's like the Kurdistan Worker's Party (P.K.K.)- I've heard so many Americans use the Kurds as one of the biggest beefs with Saddam Hussein. "Don't you know Saddam killed hundreds of Kurds in nerve gas attacks?!"

Yeah. And you wonder why they were engaging in terrorist activities against him. The Kurds have been set upon by both the Turks and the Iraqis- and their situation isn't getting any better. But somehow, only Americans are allowed to be freedom fighters: all other peoples are just going to have to suffer in silence until we get around to helping them out.

"Support of any kind, Justice Kennedy said, “will ultimately inure to the benefit of a terrorist organization, and we have a governmental interest in not allowing that.”"

I can see his point in a way, but I also still think that this law is way too overreaching. Like I said above- where do we stop? The pizza delivery guy's pizza will come to benefit the terrorists, but should we go after him as an accomplice in terrorist activities? What about a school teacher? Should the men who taught the 9/11 hijackers to fly planes be imprisoned?

I have been saying for a long time that the PATRIOT act is way too powerful. I still think I'm right. And I think this confirms it.

Bushama the Valiant

Yet more proof that there is really very little difference between Bush and Obama- unless, of course, you count the fact that Obama seems to be more commited to the wars than Bush ever was. Especially given this tidbit from this article (written, by the way, by a republican sympathizer):

"But Obama has rejected this advice and instead increased the Bush defense budget from $513 billion in fiscal year 2009 to $537 billion for fiscal year 2010 and $549 for 2011. If defense budgets are one of the best indicators of the direction of policy, Obama's defense budgets mark him as no leftist."

And so we discover that Obama is not only a quasi-Republican, at least in defense issues, but he's even more Republican defense-wise than Bush was!

Big surprise.

Thanks to Don Emmerich for the link to the article. :)

Mullah Baradar

Well, we finally managed to actually get something done in Afghanistan. (So much for the claim that Obama is soft on terror and the wars.) Mullah Baradar, allegedly the second-in-command in the Taliban, was captured last week.

Of course, I find it not quite as significant to the future of the Taliban as some. Sure, he knows some stuff- but within a few weeks, what he knows probably won't be applicable anymore because the Taliban will move, and they'll have a new second-in-command. I would be willing to bet that there were plenty of people within the Taliban itself that would have been more than willing to shoot him so they could have his spot anyway, but his capture will serve the same purpose.

From the article:
"The participation of Pakistan’s spy service could suggest a new level of cooperation from Pakistan’s leaders, who have been ambivalent about American efforts to crush the Taliban."

Well of course they're cooperating. We've threatened to invade them. They probably figure if they be Good Little Friends and help us out, we won't send soldiers into their country. Small hope, that.

Current Events

Yes, yet another combined-issue post. I've been pretty busy lately, trying to raise funds for a missions trip to Africa I'm taking this summer. But I thought I'd just go over a few recent issues, and give my take.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abdulmutallab too

The Obama admin caved. They're not going to hold Mohammed's trial in NYC anymore, which really shows yet another incredible lack of political backbone. But I digress. Apparently, too many people found it unpalatable for him to be tried in NYC, which for myself I see as a very proper venue. It would show that we're not afraid to face our past demons.

(And of course, any event like this can't go without its mention of the most recent big, bad, scary terror plot- this time in the form of the "Underwear Bomber". Dianne Feinstein, a senator from California, stated-
"Without getting into classified details, I believe we should view the attempted Christmas Day plot as a continuation, not an end, of plots to strike the United States by al-Qaeda and its affiliates," (!!!!) "Moreover, New York City has been a high-priority target since at least the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The trial of the most significant terrorist in custody would add to the threat."

I find it quite hilarious that people actually think this kid who couldn't even light the bomb right was actually part of al Qaeda. We're talking about the organization that managed to coordinate attacks on some of the most famous landmarks in the US, not to mention plan and execute simultaneous attacks on embassies thousands of miles apart. And this kid, who had a bomb that wouldn't even take out his own seat, is representative of their organization?! Yeah, sure.)

Anyway, back to Mohammed. A bunch of people have been protesting trying Mohammed in NYC- or anywhere on US soil. Why? Well, you never know- it just might be that American values might forever be undermined if we were to take this incredibly drastic step.

Of course, this move is not without precedent. Bush also tried al Qaeda and other terror suspects- in civilian courts. 87 terror suspects, in fact. And (just an interesting little tidbit), Bill O'Reilly (one of the most outspoken voices against trying Mohammed on US soil) vigorously defended Bush's decision to allow these trials to move forward!

Healthcare and Scott Brown

Scott Brown the Republican Liberal won Massachusets, and thereby ensured that a watered-down version of healthcare reform will get through. I say watered down because he does want socialized healthcare, but just doesn't think the current plan will adequately fix things.

I happen to agree with him on the latter point. But I also happen to think we don't need another plan. I think his idea that individual states should take care of healthcare (though he seems to only half-heartedly believe in that, at best) is a good one, not to mention Constitutional.

'Course, Obama has already decided his healthcare bill ain't doing so hot, and has switched to other issues, probably in an attempt to dispel murmurs against him in the Democratic phalanx. (I think his time could be better spent trying to get DOMA or the PATRIOT act repealed, like he promised.

Middle Eastern Issues

So we're toughening sanctions on Iran (and planning to launch missiles at them), Karzai is reaching out to the Taliban, an imam got shot by American troops in Kabul, and the Brits are doing investigations into Tony Blair's (Former Prime Minister of the UK) conduct concerning Iraq.

To start with Iran- I have to wonder what morality we're appealing to that gives us the right to impose sanctions on anyone, especially someone who is innocent. And Iran, to all appearances, is innocent. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that they don't have nukes, have never had nukes, and have no intention of having nukes anytime in the near future.

And, lets face it, sanctions do very little except make third-world countries even worse off. Cuba, a country that has had sanctions against it for years (while we simultaneously do business with them) is no closer to getting rid of Communism now than it was ten years ago. The people are starving, but our lofty goals of ridding the world of evil...mm, well not much progress. That is all sanctions do, in any case- rid the average people of food and supplies they need to survive.

Karzai, our lovely puppet-President in Afghanistan is opening peace/"moving forward" talks. At least he's trying. In fact, the Taliban (with the interesting stipulation that they must be "moderate" Taliban) is invited to said talks.

And the Brits are investigating Tony Blair, their former Prime Minister. Why? Because of Iraq, and his ardent support of it (and his friend, Bushie). I applaud the Brits for their ability to do so. I think we ought to do the same thing to Bush, but that might just be me. Of course, we lack the British capability to detach ourselves from our emotional turmoil. It might not work here.

Corporate Campaign Contributions?

As most of you probably know, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a 2001 ban (Feingold-McCain) on corporate campaign contributions. I agree. Sort of, and let me explain.

I see nothing wrong with corporations exercising the first amendment right to free speech, which includes using money as leverage in a political campaign. But I also think that voters should be informed enough to watch where their prospective elected officials are getting their money.

Hence, if prospective Senator Ronald McDonald has gotten $200,000 in campaign donations from McDonalds, it might be wise for voters to wonder if there is some sort of ulterior connection between said Ronald McDonald and McDonalds, and decide their vote accordingly.

***

I can't help thinking there was something else I needed to cover. Oh well. I'm going to be doing a post on the President's State of the Union sometime this week...a week after he gave the speech. But it should be up here soon. :)

The War on Terror

I think my full views and thinking on this matter have not been explained well, so this is my attempt to correct a few misconceptions, as well as explain why I think the way I do.

Disclaimer- just because I don't want to fight two useless wars in the Middle East with the terrorists, does not automatically mean I am 'with' the terrorists. I believe there are better, more cost-effective, less bloodthirsty ways to go about reaching a solution.

I am for national defense. I just do not think that, in this case, the way we went about national defense was the most effective way, as evidenced by our failure to accomplish anything significant (besides a mountain of debt and hundreds of thousands of deaths) during the last eight years. The 'war on terror' we are fighting is unwinnable, pure and simple.

The number one reason for this is because we cannot fight terrorists as if they were a conventional enemy.

By 'conventional' I mean one with a uniformed, organized military, located and based in a central area, constituted by a country or other boundary. The terrorists are not a conventional enemy, making them a unique target for us. This is the first time we, the US, have faced an enemy of such a nature. Their power is indirect, exerted from so many different places, it's impossible to pin them all down. They have proponents all over the world, from Brooklyn to London to Kabul to Beijing.

The reasoning for the men who use the tactic of terrorism is as varied as Americans' reasoning for disliking Obama. Some reasons are as simple as the incentive of the seventy virgins myth says they will receive if they are martyred. Others are more prosaic; they have had friends and family killed by the Americans, and wish to wreak their revenge. For others is a matter of nationalism: we have repeatedly invaded their lands, occupied their countries, and they're sick of it.

These reasons are firmly believed in, no matter who the men are. Some don't fully ascribe to the doctrinal beliefs of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but the two groups seem to know what they're doing, so they go along with it. On the other hand, some of the men stuck in the Taliban and al Qaeda were forced to join. Quite regularly, men are impressed into service via threats against family members, or physical harm to themselves. Still others merely want the money and loot they might be able to pick up if they stick around.

Another reason we will never get rid of these terrorists with our current tactics is because al Qaeda and like groups hide. Their main skill set is in hiding. They are of such a temperament that they must hide, or die. And so, they hide.

Our military, on the other hand, is used to going out, proverbial banners waving, acting macho and facing an organized military of the same caliber as they. And so, they are wholly inadequate to our current conflict. But I do not blame them for these 'wars'. They are merely doing what they are supposed to: follow orders. These 'wars' are the fault of our politicians, and a bit indirectly, our fault for letting them get away with their power-grabbing ways.

Another reason I believe we cannot win, and never will is because of the innate nature of terrorism.

Terrorism is a tactic. It has been used by militaries, yes, by countries, of course, but the tactic is still just that; a tactic. You cannot fight a tactic via conventional warfare, as I explained briefly above.

One more reason, on the tack above, is that the groups that use the tactic of terrorism are resilient, adaptive, and highly tenacious.

We utterly destroyed the Taliban. Or at least, we thought we did. But within weeks after we 'destroyed' them, they were back, their resolve strengthened by their initial defeat.

In this vein, we also often hurt our own cause. bin Laden's primary argument against us is that we are imperialistic. That is also the complaint of many of the Middle Easterners, including the Taliban. And when we act in a way that fulfills his opinion of us, we give he and his cronies yet more reason (not to mention propaganda material) to dislike us. In the same way, when we destroy what we thought was a 'military' target, and it instead turns out to be a civilian target, we enrage the Middle Easterners more, and give bin Laden and his ilk that much more ammunition to throw at us.

It is a good rule of thumb for both the economy and our present circumstances- when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Another reason we will not catch these terrorist groups if we keep going the way we are is because effective intelligence cannot be gathered.

The CIA, the FBI, and the NSA have all acknowledged that their high-tech SIGINT (signals intelligence) and COMINT (communications intelligence) gathering equipment is virtually useless in the medieval-like atmosphere of Afghanistan and Iraq. Unlike here, computers/internet, cell phones, or even radios are scarce. Satellite phones were in usage for a short time, but al Qaeda has ceased using them- with excellent results for them, but bad ones for us. We don't know where bin Laden is, nor where any of his top lieutenants are.

Our HUMINT (human intelligence) gathering efforts have also been sad. We get very little reliable intel from our captives or the people in the countries. Much of this is because a) the captives hate us, and b) the people hate us too. The captives have a vested interest in not telling us anything, especially if they're religiously motivated. If they hold out, Allah will reward them. More prosaically, many of them have friends and buddies in the organizations we try to get them to talk about, and they don't want to betray them. Also, for men used to the heavy-handed tactics of the Taliban, fear for retribution against their families if they talk could also figure in.

The people hate us because, quite frankly, we've ruined their countries. We've demolished their infrastructure, overthrown their governments, and become a bit tiresome. In fact, the Afghan people have begun calling us the "New Russians!"

Another reason we cannot win is because we cannot conquer the minds and hearts of the people...especially when we don't know their language.

Very few translators or Arabic-speaking individuals were sent to Iraq or Afghanistan. Leading up to the invasions, private contractors (in much the same fashion as for our hired mercenaries) were found to hire Arabic-speaking individuals to be quickly trained and sent with the military. This means that very few of our people over there can communicate in any intelligent fashion with the Iraqi or Afghan people, which can cause great problems.

This is also another reason our SIGINT, COMINT, and HUMINT efforts fail so spectacularly. Simply put, we do not have enough people who can speak the language, and so we cannot understand what they are saying. For all we know, we could have missed several excellent opportunities that the Iraqi and Afghani people afforded us, but the opportunity was lost because our soldiers simply did not understand what they were saying.

Because of all these factors, I believe that the 'war on terror', and the associated 'war' in Afghanistan is wrong. Our proclaimed goal- to fight terror- is something we will never accomplish.

In any case, even if our intentions are pure (which I'm sure, for some Americans, they are), we are still going after the wrong people. Pakistan is most likely feeding funds to al Qaeda, and isn't exactly disapproving of the Taliban. Saudi Arabia is a known sponsor of terror, not to mention the fact that they've given funds to radical Islamic and secular terrorist groups in the past. Afghanistan, in comparison, is (and was) merely a medieval-minded, Islamic loony-bin, for all intents and purposes.

On the subject of Iraq

Were we justified in taking our Holy War into Iraq? In a word, no.

Donald Rumsfeld, then secretary of defense, Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, and their friends Dick Cheney and George W. Bush used sketchy intelligence to push their case before the UN (a speech made by Powell) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Of course, using such a tactic was merely a means to an ultimate end for him- right after he heard about the 9/11 attacks, he was convinced they were the work of Iraq, without intelligence, without even preliminary reports to go on.

Basically, Powell used two major things as argument in his speech:
1. Intercepted SIGINT concerning 'modified vehicles' (which turned out to be trailers to carry weather balloons), a message concerning the deletion of certain phrases from the files of the Iraqi government (which turned out to be just purging of extraneous information concerning their former chem-weapon program; the remaining information, mainly just references to certain kinds of weaponry, was purged pending the UN inspection so as to not give the US provocation or cause to attack), and another message speaking about unmanned drone tests (of all the intel, this proved to be the most sound; a prototype of a Soviet-style UAV was found, but its range didn't extend over the Iraqi border, and it was barely holding together as it was).
2. That Saddam Hussein had used chem weapons before- which was true, but UN inspectors had found no evidence of chemical or biological weapons in their inspection, and Hussein had repeatedly said he had none.

Saddam Hussein repeatedly said he did not have WMD's, and that he had not been planning to make them- yet we still attacked him.

A better, Constitutional Solution

I don't claim to have all the answers. But I do think there were better options available to us immediately after 9/11. For starters, we could have ensured every person here with an expired visa or green card left. The 9/11 hijackers were living here on expired visas, along with millions of other prospective terrorists. Second, we could tighten up the medicare system so that illegals cannot benefit from our taxpayer money, and potentially use it for illegal activities.

Third, we need to make an effort to tighten up our border security, both from Canada, Mexico, and on our coasts. A lucrative business is run in Mexico running in drugs, illegals (including Arabs) and other contraband material. If we were to close off that outlet, it would make it much more difficult for potentially dangerous people to get in.

Lastly, invest more money in the immigration process. To get into this country legally takes forever; hence why so many people try to get in illegally. If we had taken the money we spent in the wars, we could have easily accomplished this by hiring more immigration workers and giving them the tools they need to do their job.

In Conclusion

To sum up- our reasoning and our plan for executing this 'war on terror' is fundamentally flawed. Our flawed understanding of terrorists and what terrorism truly is cripples us, because it traps us in a conflict we will never win.

We will never win it because our actions are counter-productive, our intelligence-gathering nonexistent, and our mission statement too vague. Our reasoning for going into both Afghanistan and Iraq was sketchy at best, wrong at worst.

Afghanistan Part II

The second part to my former Afghanistan post- which is below.

I am critiquing President Obama's recent strategy/policy speech for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"They've blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state. "

Yes and only we can do that. Because we are the all-important American people. The fact that we did this to two countries already (well, maybe not the second one...not all the way) is of no import. The only thing that matters right now is that....

Terrorists are evil. They want to kill us. Allah is evil. Muslims are evil. Terrorists are evil. Kill them!!!

"We will insist that action be taken, one way or another, when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets."

I have an idea. When you hear about some high-level al-Qaeda operative somewhere...send an assassin! A good assassin- you know, like one from a movie or something. It would be cheaper, and vastly more effective than our current regimen of invade - occupy - switch countries.

"The government's ability to destroy these safe havens is tied to its own strength and security."

I love how he makes it sound like we're going to be helping the Pakistani people. They don't want our help. They've been feeding us low-lifes from the Taliban for years- many of whom have absolutely no knowledge of anything.

And now we're going to invade them. Despite his high-flown words, that is basically what we're doing. We're going to send in troops. And occupy them.

"It's important for the American people to understand that Pakistan needs our help in going after Al Qaida. .... And that's why we must focus on military assistance on the tools, training, and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists."

Uh-huh. Military assistance, my eye. We'll be giving military assistance as in oh, a bunch of troops occupying them.

"And after years of mixed results, we will not and cannot provide a blank check."

Really? I mean, that's worked so well for us in the past. You know, what with the Afghan-Soviet war (where we channeled funds to the Mujahideen...through Pakistan), or 'Nam. Or Korea. Or pretty much any other country where we went in to help and ended up making a bigger mess than we started with.

The fact is President Obama, that you can't provide a check at all. Maybe you haven't noticed, but your country is like...bankrupt. There is no money. There is no more money to pursue your dreams of imperialism, begun by your predecessor. Sorry. But there is no way we can pursue this or any other war!

"To avoid the mistakes of the past, we must make clear that our relationship with Pakistan is grounded in support for Pakistan's democratic institutions and the Pakistani people. "

What mistakes of the past would that be?

Because I seem to remember...oh let's see, a failed mission in Vietnam. Or a blood bath in Korea. Or the Afghan-Soviet debacle that ended in (recently) disastrous outcomes for us. Or a war in Iraq/Kuwait that was waayyy out of our proper role.

So maybe this time, just this once, we could pursue a policy of non-interventionism. After all, if we don't mess with them, I doubt they'll feel inclined to mess with us.

"Now a campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. Al Qaida offers the people of Pakistan nothing but destruction. We stand for something from the time."

Oh yeah. We see how beautifully an American invasion turned out for the Iraqis. And the Afghans. I mean, they're dancing in the streets, they're so....wait.

Oops. Was that our bomb?

"So, today, I'm calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years, resources that will build schools, roads, and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistan's democracy. I'm also calling on Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co- sponsored by Maria Cantwell and Chris Van Hollen and Peter Hoekstra that creates opportunity zones in the border regions to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued with violence. "

No. No. That is not the way it's done. Of course, considering the precedent that has been set by previous presidents, it's no wonder he's a bit confused.

When you invade a country, you have to declare war on them. Not just send in soldiers and give them money. That is way unconstitutional.

"As we provide these resources, the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction must end. So my budget will increase funding for a strong inspector general at both State Department and USAID and include robust funding for special inspector generals for Afghan reconstruction."

Unfortunately, your budget is already bankrupt. Sorry.

"I remind everybody the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001 for doing nothing than going about their daily lives. Al Qaida and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries."

Apparently, President Obama, just like his predecessor, sees no problem with invading an entire sovereign country to get at a couple hundred terrorists. And going over there and attacking them simply confirms what the terrorists think of us.

In Osama bin Laden's announcement of the inauguration of the World Islamic Front, he proclaimed their purpose in attacking the US and her people:

"The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food ... No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone: ...

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples ... If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. ...

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula."

Considering this (which was written during the Gulf War), its easy to see that we're merely repeating past mistakes. And that Osama bin Laden's points, at least in his mind and the minds of his followers, are still quite valid. We are confirming his position and his beliefs about us.

And I am quite sure that others will see that he still has a point. And though they may not join his organization to perpetrate violence, they will still agree with him, and bin Laden wins a PR victory.

Well, I guess that's the end. The rest of it is just kumbaya, everybody loves everybody else.... ^.^

Here's a link to the transcript, if you'd like to read.

Afghanistan Part I

I went through and read the transcript of President Obama's Afghanistan/Pakistan speech.

And my thoughts on the matter are still unchanged. But I'm going to go through the speech and detail why, just to be objective and all that.

"Many people in the United States and many in partner country that have sacrifices so much have a simple question. What is our purpose in Afghanistan?"

Really? You're just now noticing that is a question? Hmm. What was your first clue? The upswell of public opinion on the polls?

The fact of the matter is that we have no purpose, despite his professed reasons- which sound eerily like something out of the Bush administration. Say hello, once again, to the Bushama Administration.

"Al Qaida and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

Oh. I see now. And it makes so much sense to attack an entire country just to get at a few underground people who are hidden where you'll never find them. Ah, but he already knows that:

"They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, and communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan."

Ah. So we're going to fight not one, not two, but three senseless wars on the basis of the fact that these men are...hidden? Uh-huh. I see how this makes sense. We're going to throw our entire army at an underground organization that we will probably never track down.

I say we will never track them down because we haven't yet. We've managed to get what, five of the men who actually knew a single thing beyond "Oh yeah, we were gonna' blow up a building." Yeah, our track record is impressively amazing.

Let's see- Osama bin Laden was first put on the FBI's Most Wanted List in 1998 or thereabouts. Al Qaeda was formed in 1988. That means we have had almost twenty years to catch he or his organization leaders. Twenty years. Twenty years in which we fought four years and wasted lots of time- oh, and we launched some cruise missiles at where we thought bin Laden might be.

Also, one bit of trivia that never ceases to amaze me- we helped the Afghanis get weapons. In fact, we gave them weapons. During the 80s', when the Soviets were locked in a war with the Afghanis for control of their country, we gave the Mujahideen weapons and money. Bin Laden benefited from this in a rather round-about way, by joining a man named Abdullah Azzam in Afghanistan- who was a Mujahideen.

Bin Laden and Azzam created the splinter group Maktab al-Khidamat- which, in the long run, only trained 100 mujahidin and only funneled $2 mil to the Afghan Mujahideen. Al Qaeda rose out of Maktab al-Khidamat. During the Afghan-Soviet war, the US and bin Laden were basically working together, in the common pursuit of getting rid of the Soviet threat.

The Taliban also rose out of the Mujahideen- they replaced the constant fighting of the Mujahideen, with some sort of stability and order. This gave them great popularity amongst ordinary Afghans. And the Taliban also took advantage of the weapons we channeled to Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan war. We created the monster we all hate now.

How ironic.

"But this is not simply an American problem, far from it."

I didn't know Afghanistan was an American problem. Or maybe it is- since we created it, we should fix it....despite the fact the Afghanis didn't want us to fix it. They're tired of us being there, tired of us destroying their way of life, and they just want us to leave.

Neither is Pakistan our problem. Bin Laden may or may not be our problem, but a full-scale invasion of a sovereign country is not the answer.

"For the Afghan people, the return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people, especially, women and girls."

And that works for them. Just like having Saddam worked for the Iraqis. What, are we the International Meanness Police now too?

We have enough problems here at home. Like our economy. This constant warfare is killing us. It is killing our economy, it is killing our military, and it is slowly and surely killing our country. We cannot maintain this steady rate of warfare and conflict without serious consequences.

"A return in force of Al Qaida terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence."

Perhaps President Obama should study his history. Before the Taliban took control, there was constant in-fighting between the Mujahideen. After the Soviets left, the Mujahideen aimlessly turned on each other. The Taliban conquered them. Too bad for the Mujahideen.

And the Taliban brought stability to the region. They established a steady government that worked for them. True, they were a bit kooky and some weird rules (according to us) but it worked for them.

"We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future."

Oh really. So we're just there to....ruin their infrastructure...and kill their people...and destroy their government....and stay there forever...and....dictate...what they can do.

Not the same thing at all.

"We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends, and our allies and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists."

President Obama has a mistaken idea of what terrorism- and terrorists- are. Terrorism is a tactic. Terrorists are the people that use the tactic. In this case, they are Muslim extremists. We cannot 'confront' the terrorists, for the simple reason that a) we have absolutely no idea where they are, b) they won't let us know where they are, and c) did I mention we don't know where they are?

Once again- the decision about their regime is the Afghani peoples'. Yes, the Taliban had quite a hold. But the Afghani people have proven time and time again that they can conquer despite a stronger enemy. If they truly wanted out from under the Taliban, I have no doubt they would do something about it.

They do not need our help for their freedom- especially not so we can impose our idea of what freedom is.

"So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future."

Ah yes. And how do you plan to do this again, Mr. President?

I guess he shares the mistaken ideas of his predecessor- if we tear up enough roads, kill enough civilians, and dismantle enough regimes, bin Laden will hand himself to us on a silver platter.

Sorry, but I don't think it works that way. Bin Laden has proven that our meddling merely makes his resolve stronger. The more innocent civilians we kill, the more territory of theirs we take over, the more Muslims come around to his way of thinking and join him. We cannot fight a radical ideology with guns and troops.

And maybe, just maybe, the man has a point. Even Hitler had some sort of logic under his depraved, mentally unstable ravings. Bin Laden's point is simple- Americans are inhabiting their countries. We need to leave.

I do not agree with his way of trying to get us to see that. But I definitely agree with his point. We are meddling way too much in the politics and dynamics of that region. We need to stop while we're ahead. And by stop, I mean cease and desist completely. Not leave a few half-hearted squads of soldiers to guard their state secrets, not leave advisors there to continue telling their new regime what to do.

"And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same. We will defeat you."

Keep saying that. If you say it often enough, it might come true!

That we will defeat the terrorists has been the mantra for the past eight years. Guess what. The terrorists are still at large, and there is no indication that our inept intelligence services and our futiley struggling army will be able to catch them any time soon.

"To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter, and comprehensive strategy."

I have one for you- leave the people alone! After all, the strongest way we can make these people see that we mean them no harm is by showing that we trust them to make their own decisions.

Ah but yes...they're just like the average American- too dumb to know what's best for them.

"To enhance the military, governance, and economic capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support."

That might be difficult to do. Especially in light of the fact that Britain isn't all that keen on the way they got into Iraq....I doubt they'll be feeling too eager to jump head-first into yet more conflicts.

"And to defeat an enemy that heeds no border or laws of war, we must recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan..."

If they heed no borders, then we cannot fight them in the conventional sense of the word. They don't have borders. They don't recognize borders. They spread like a disease. There are terrorists everywhere- there are even terrorists here in the US!

The fact of the matter is that we cannot pinpoint where the terrorists are. They could be anywhere in the Middle East, in North Africa, East Africa...practically anywhere in the world. It is impossible to fight them with conventional means.

"Al Qaida and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11. They've killed many Pakistani soldiers and police. They assassinated Benazir Bhutto. They've blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state."

And what are we going to do?

We're going to go in like we went into Afghanistan and Iraq, kill hundreds of thousands of their citizens, destroy their infrastructure, take over their government...and when we get down to it, the terrorists will be long gone.

Look out for Part II.

Terrorists and Trials

The ruckus: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (or 'KSM' as he has been nicknamed by the media) is going to be tried here in the US. In New York City, to be precise.

Well, I see nothing wrong with that.

So long as he was read his Miranda Rights before he was arrested. Which I doubt. Highly. Mostly because he was captured not by American forces, but by the Pakistani Intelligence Services!!

Otherwise, he must be tried as a prisoner of war. And he needs to be tried. In fact, the international agreement we entered into concerning POWs means we must try him somehow. (Those are the Geneva Conventions, in case you were wondering.)

The problem is, at this point, that most of the men in Guantanamo Bay and the other unsanctioned prisons all over the world have not even had a chance to access counsel. These men are totally cut off from the world. They are charged, on evidence that is either coerced out of them or largely circumstantial. It must be circumstantial, because terrorist organizations don't just let their records out into the open (kind of like government and government officials).

Add to that the fact that many of the men detained at Gitmo and CIA black sites were not even captured by US forces- they were captured by Pakistani or other Middle Eastern forces, and then turned over to us. Makes me wonder- are the men they are giving us really terrorists, or just people the governments of those countries want to get rid of? And what are those countries' incentives?

Changing the 'status' of these men does nothing. Redefining them as 'enemy combatants' does nothing. An enemy combatant is a soldier who is fighting against you. When you capture him, that makes him a prisoner. Since we're supposedly at war, that makes him a prisoner of war. He should be afforded every courtesy generally given to POWs.

During World War II, the German and Japanese POWs were treated very well. This was because we hoped if we treated them well, our men would be treated well if captured. In fact, the POWs were treated so well that some of them stayed here, having gotten a very good taste of life in America.

I'm not saying that we should feed the men in Gitmo T-bone steak and turkey every day- but I do think there should be some semblance of openness in the process of everyday life and interrogations at Gitmo. The silence about what goes on there is worrisome.

There's also the problem of the CIA 'black-sites'. They are places generally in other countries with known histories of human rights violations where the CIA imprisons people with no oversight, no legal counsel, and giving absolutely no way for anyone to know where they are or what goes on behind their walls.

And all this in the name of national security.

We have imprisoned teenage boys, forced recruits, and cooks. Yes, some of them (a very few) have actually committed crimes. But the problem is that we don't know which ones have and which ones have not. They are given no trial, there is no review of the evidence, these men don't even have the benefit of a lawyer!

The CIA abducts men from their homes, sends them to other countries (extraordinary rendition) where it is quite likely they will be tortured or killed. These men are not told what they are being charged with, they are not given the benefit of a formal arrest, the arrests are not even carried out in an acceptable fashion!

And we justify all this by saying that they're 'just terrorists'. We don't need to worry about it because they want to kill us.

I have just one thing to say to that: even an evil man deserves a chance to defend himself. We gave Hitler's cronies that much benefit. We should do it for these men.

Afghanistan and Party Crashers

Strange subjects to go together, I admit. But that's what makes them fun.

As we all know, President Obama has chosen to send more troops to Afghanistan; a predictable decision everyone saw coming- at least, I did. I didn't watch his entire speech (mostly because I'm sure it was full of the same kind of justification and rejustification that always comes after a decision like this) but I read the recap.

Firstly, I don't think more troops should go there. Especially not when we want to leave.

Secondly, I think we should be drawing out a lot quicker. This war has been dragging on long enough, just like Iraq. It's time we sit down, mind our own business, and let them work out their own problems. If the Taliban takes them over again, that's their problem. The minute they attack us, it becomes our problem- a problem that should be dealt with in the correct way, not with preemptive action that ignores the proper chain of command.

I'm a bit upset at Obama's lack of spine on this issue. Instead of sticking by his promise to bring the troops home from the Middle East, he caved. And he's going to keep caving. Instead of sticking by his guns, saying "No, I'm bringing these boys home like I said I would," he's taken action that will prolong both the money-guzzling and the life-guzzling wars we have going on.

Anyway, on to lighter subjects. Or a lighter subject.

It's been about two weeks ago now I guess- a couple walked right into a White House party.

Ha.

Sorry. I don't mean to laugh.

I just find it hilarious.

They went through two checkpoints. The Secret Service let them in. Twice. They then proceeded to have their pictures taken with the whos-who of Washington.

And the most hilarious quote in this entire thing- "What would have happened if they had had Anthrax or another biological weapon hidden on their person?!" (Somebody on Fox News)

Well, I'll tell you- everybody at that party, including them, would be dead.

And then nobody'd be laughing, but we'd be able to get out of having to listen to all those celebrities' and Joe Biden's gaffes.

That's not nice.

But the Salahi's didn't have any bioweapons. And they just wanted pictures taken with Obama and the other elite. I can't blame them. I also can't blame them for trying something that I'd love to try.

I mean, who doesn't want to get into the White House? And if the Secret Service will just let you in...

To the Nations of the World

Dear Nations of the World-
We would like to extend a thank you for some things. For starters, thank you for letting us shelter our delusion that we are still the top dogs of the universe. You can't know how important that makes us feel. We enjoy knowing that at any given time, we will be able to mandate our will upon you, the ignorant, unwashed masses of the globe.

We also thank you for humbly submitting to our occupation of your countries. We know that Germany has not been in the grasp of a tyrannical dictator for sixty years, and we also recognize that Iran just might feel threatened by the American military bases surrounding it, but really, we thank you for giving us the benefit of the doubt on that matter.

We also thank you for cooperating with our imperialistic vision of the world. Once again, being able to occupy your countries even in a state of peace makes us feel very important and as if we were actually doing something to contribute to peace.

Because of your humble, honest cooperation we can all have peace, regardless of whatever arrogant dishonest drivel comes out of our leaders' mouths. Peace is good. Peace is our friend.

Understandably, we also thank you for the right you have reserved to us- the right to crush you if you trespass on any statute of our very important, as yet unspoken, American-world treaty. However, we can sincerely say that we have not had many problems with you.

And so, we can all dance and sing kumbaya in the peace and serenity that comes with cooperation. Thank you.

The United States of America

(Note- this letter is not real, however IMO it conveys the view of our current foreign policy.)

Aid or Political Pressure?

I'm beginning to wonder- why, exactly do we give 'humanitarian aid' to other countries? Is it to help them or to exert political pressure?

I ask because recently, we stopped sending aid to Honduras. Why? Because they decided they didn't like their president and ousted him.

Wait. Isn't that the wonderful 'democracy' our government so wants to institute the world over? Why aren't they happy? Why aren't they jumping and dancing in the streets?

From the CNN story- "The political crisis stemmed from [Honduran President] Zelaya's plan to hold a referendum that could have changed the constitution and allowed longer term limits. The country's congress had outlawed the vote and the supreme court had ruled it illegal. De facto President Roberto Micheletti and his supporters say Zelaya's removal was a constitutional transfer of power and not a coup."

So... where's the problem? Zelaya was trying to do something they said was illegal. So they decided something had to be done. So they did it- within the bounds of their Constitution, apparently.

From the Honduran Constitution-
"Article 3 .- No one owes obedience to a usurper government or to those who assume public office or employment by force of arms or using means or procedures that violate or are not aware [of] this Constitution and the laws. Acts verified by such authorities are zero. People are entitled to resort to insurrection in defense of constitutional order. "

"Article 4- The alternation in the office of President of the Republic is required. "

"Article 5 .- The government must rest on the principle of participatory democracy which is derived from national integration, which involves participation of all political sectors in public administration in order to ensure and enhance the progress of Honduras based on political stability and the national reconciliation."

"ARTICLE 184 .- Laws may be declared unconstitutional on grounds of form and content. In the Supreme Court of Justice is responsible for understanding [and making] resolution[s] original and exclusive in the matter and shall act with the requirements of the final ruling. "

"ARTICLE 237 .- The presidential term is four years and will start [on the] seventh day of January following the date on which the election was conducted. "

"ARTICLE 304 .- It is for the courts [to] apply laws to specific cases, [and] prosecute and execute judgments. At no time may [the justice] set up courts of exception."

"ARTICLE 306 .- Courts if necessary require the help of the security forces to fulfill their resolutions, if they were refused or [are not] available, citizens will demand it."

"Article 321 .- The servants of the State [have] no powers other than those expressly conferred by law. Any act that [falls] outside the law is null and entails[?] responsibility. "

Anyway...

"'At this moment, we would not be able to support the outcome of the scheduled elections,' the State Department statement said."

Why under God's blue sky is our state department worrying about what happens in another country? What is so special about this Zelaya guy? Why must we lodge our own little protest, tying the hands of Honduras to do what we want?

And why do our government officials absolutely insist in playing world policeman- through foreign aid, of all things!?

Afghanistan

Our lovely President is considering sending more troops to Afghanistan. After all "There’s broad agreement that for many years, our effort in Afghanistan has been under-resourced politically, militarily and economically," as Robert Gibbs put it.

Sorry, but I don't think we need to be in Afghanistan, anyway.

Let's face it- more than likely, the reason the Afghan people are throwing bombs at us is- get this, it's totally unexpected- we're in their country. We've moved in like their country is ours, for...well, we're not really sure what. To stop Taliban activities, to further the cause of democracy, to...

OK, let's face it- we have no idea what we're doing in Afghanistan, we just like seeing things explode I guess. And I suppose we can't see things explode when our 'war effort' is 'under-resourced.'

Seems like the most logical explanation to me. (Or, of course, they're 'rogue nations' that must be 'dealt with'...)

Debt, Aid, and Zimbabwe

Why, you ask, are we sending money overseas when our own country is in a mountain chain of debt?

I don't know.

Ask our President.

Of course, he's likely to tell you that "we continue to be concerned about consolidating democracy, human rights, and rule of law", so we have to help people overseas, too!

Let's forget the fact that the US is trillions of dollars in debt, China virtually owns us, every single country in the world hates us, we're single handedly funding the UN, and people hate what our government is doing.

Forget all that, because after all, we have to help others!

I'm all for helping others, but let's let private citizens and charities do so; not the government of the United States of America!!

MORE Money?!

Alright, so I know this is probably absolutely no surprise to anyone, but...President Obama is requesting Congress for over $80 billion to channel into military operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

I've said it once; I'll say it again. This is stupid. And, I'll ask another old question. What happened to 'let's get out of the Middle East'?

Actually, I'd better amend that question. He never said the Middle East. He said Iraq, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

This still makes absolutely zero sense to me. Why do we have to be over there? Iraq is still a struggling republic, yes, but they're never going to figure it out on their own if we stay in their business.

So, let's let them take care of it. That's why God gave them brains. Yes, I know I've been over this territory before, time and again. So, I won't waste your time with my rant, LOL

Embrace our enemies...

They'll think you're a great person! At least, that's what six congressional members of the Black Caucus think. They went to Cuba this past week, and met with (both) Castros!!

In fact, these lawmakers didn't just meet with the Castros- according to Fidel himself, one of them even said America should 'apologize'. Of course, the delegates denied this.

Castro also (and this they did report) said- "looked directly into our eyes, quite aware of what was happening. He said to us, 'how can we help President Obama?'"

OK, that's really reassuring. I've always wanted an oppresive Communist regime leader helping my President. I'm sure that's what all my fellow Americans want, too!

Another...gem...from the page: "So I know foolhardy approaches and asinine labels when I see them, " said Rush (one of the delegates). "American people need to be told the truth and they have been lied to for too long about the threat from Cuba."

Huh. A Communist country that hates our guts isn't a threat? Since when?

Another quote, once again from the page: "The CBC members conceded there were limited discussions about human rights abuses in Cuba. "We didn't talk about it much," said Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio. "You don't go into someone's house and insult them."

Uh-huh, OK. That makes...sense. Sort of. In a crazy, upside down, enemy-free world.

Yet another wonderful little jewel on the neck of this article: "The Air Force then gave each lawmaker a pin featuring adjoining American and Cuban flags to help identify them as members of the delegation."

Alrighty then. I guess that pretty much ends this post. After all, once we're willing to consort with our enemies, there isn't anywhere we're going to stop.