MALAYSIAN authorities have deported a young Saudi journalist accused of insulting the Prophet Muhammad on Twitter, despite fears he could face execution in his home country.

Jiddah-based newspaper columnist Hamza Kashgari was detained Thursday upon his arrival in Malaysia. Some Saudis have reportedly made death threats against him or called for him to face criminal charges over remarks he tweeted that many considered offensive.

On the occasion of the Muslim prophet’s birthday last week, 23-year-old Mr Kashgari tweeted: “I have loved things about you and I have hated things about you and there is a lot I don’t understand about you.”

“I will not pray for you,” he added.

It is stupid shit like this that convinces non-muslims that Islam is a crazy, worthless religion, especially the Saudi version. They want to whack off a young man’s head for twittering his doubts about his religion? What makes this story even worse is the apparent betrayal of Kashgari by Interpol. Why?

This is a stain on Interpol, whose charter clearly and unequivocally prohibits any cooperation in matters that are political, religious and a few other things as well. Putting out the equivalent of an international warrant for Kashgari for an alleged violation of ‘Sharia law is a clear violation of Interpol’s charter. Making it worse is the fact that Interpol’s current President, since 2000, is a US citizern, Ron Noble, who served as an Under Secretary of the Treasury during the Clinton Administration:

where he was in charge of the United States Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.[1] He was head of the Department’s “Waco Administrative Review Team” which produced a report on the ATF’s actions against the Branch Davidians leading to the Waco Siege.[2]

Ron is too smart a guy to allow something this stupid and morally wrong to happen on his watch.

Has Rick eschewed earmarks? You know, putting specific spending measures in a bill to benefit constituents and supporters? No. He was a big player in this regard. Did Rick want to keep Government out of health care and limit its size? Double hell no. He fully backed the idiotic Republican sponsored prescription drug benefit.

Has Rick ever created a real job in the private sector outside of hiring consultants to help him get elected? Very few (and here I’m counting clerical staff and legal aides at his law firm, though he was never a Managing Partner).

So why are conservatives so enamored of this guy?

I understand the hunger and passion to get rid of Barack Obama. But wanting to get out of a burning airplane does not justify strapping a concrete block to your back and jumping into the abyss.

So here is your chance to tell us why Ricky should rule.

Democrats and Republicans are largely an unprincipled lot who care only about holding power and reaping the rewards that come from being in charge. No? Then how do you explain the Democrats sudden enthusiasm for using U.S. military Special Ops forces and the President’s own death squad? Surely you’ve heard the Democrat talking points extolling the fact that Obama has killed more terrorist overseas, including Bin Laden, than his predecessor, George W. Bush. Of course those same Dems wanted to haul George W. before the World Court and try him for the war crime of putting presumed terrorists in Guantanamo. Imagine the conniption fit on the left if Bush had ordered the killing of American citizen Anwar al Awlaki? But when their guy does it, “no problemo.”

Which brings us to the new crises involving Syria and Iran. Who is the terrorist threat we should be most concerned about? When George W. Bush was in office it depended. Prior to September 11 the Bush Administration told the FBI not to blame Bin Laden/Al Qaeda for the bombing of the USS Cole. Source for this? Ali Soufan’s book, BLACK BANNERS. Then came the attacks of 9-11 and Al Qaeda was temporarily on the front burner.

Getting Bin Laden and destroying Al Qaeda remained a priority for Bush until January of 2002. At that point the emphasis had shifted on going after Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We were told we absolutely were facing a smoking mushroom cloud if we did not act against Saddam. Did anyone in the Bush Administration tell the public that by attacking Iraq we would be empowering Iran?

Hell no. So we get rid of Saddam and populate the government of Iraq with the majority Shia, most of whom had close ties with the Government of Iran. During our 8 years in Iraq, the United States Special Ops forces devoted a lot of resources and manpower to finding and carrying out kill/capture missions against the group we labeled, Al Qaeda in Iraq aka AQI. They also carried out some missions against Shia groups, but the main source of the violence against us and against the Iraqi government came from Sunni tribes and Sunni Salafi activists from other countries like Libya, Yemen and Egypt. The violence subsided significantly, not because of the surge per se, but because U.S. forces started paying Sunni tribes to provide security in their areas. Most of the bombings and attacks previously had been carried out by unemployed Iraqi Sunnis who were offered money for mayhem.

Enter Barack Obama. Despite pinky swearing to withdraw all U.S. forces by the end of May 2010, he stuck with the deal negotiated by Bush. And Obama also continued with the Special Ops capabilities created by General Stan McChrystal and allowed them to continue their efforts to find and finish terrorists around the world. Now here is the interesting part. With the head of Al Qaeda–Osama Bin Laden–dead, where is the threat?

We are still told that Al Qaeda is a threat but has shifted to Somalia and Yemen. But aides to DNI Chief Clapper are also out briefing the Obama team with the claim that Taliban equals Al Qaeda. With me so far?

Yet we also are being warned in increasingly dire language that Iran is the biggest, baddest mutha on the planet. Iran is the source of most terrorism (so we are told). The Obama team eagerly has circulated the arrest of an Iranian loon in Texas who supposedly was acting under the direction of Iran’s version of the CIA to plot murder of the Saudi Ambassador in a Washington, DC restaurant. Then we are told that Iran is the new Nazi Germany and Ahmadinejad is an Iranian Hitler and we must stop him at all costs.

Except go back to Iraq? Iran continues to wield enormous influence in Iraq and has an enormous intelligence network operating in all of the major Iraqi cities. And what does Iran do with that network? They send support to Syria’s Government and they go after Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. Why? Because Al Qaeda is a Sunni/Salafi movement while Iran is under the sway of Shia clerics.

Don’t think that matters? Remember the Zarqawi, the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed in a U.S. military mission in May of 2006? Zarqawi directed his followers to spend more time killing Shia (because they are godless evil doers) rather than kill “Crusaders” (that’s us).

The fighting in Syria is like Iraq in reverse. The majority of the population in Syria are Sunnis whereas the majority in Iraq are Shia. Syria’s leader, Assad, is aligned with the Shia and has been getting extensive support from Iran, both economic and military. The Sunni majority in Syria are getting lots of support from other Sunni Arab nations. The Muslim Brothers in Egypt are backing them. And, I hope you are sitting down, Al Qaeda (or at least Sunni radicals who claim sympathies with Al Qaeda).

And the Obama Administration’s response? Go after Assad. Why? Because it is the frontline of the looming war with Iran. We can’t allow Iran to expand its hegemony. EXCEPT, we already did that dirty work for Iran by getting rid of Saddam and installing Iranian loyalists in power in Iraq.

So where is our Middle East policy? IT IS A TOTAL MESS. And yes, this is also the fault of Secretary Clinton. I like and respect Secretary Clinton, but the current policy unfolding in the Middle East may show some strokes of tactical brilliance, but the strategic vision is zero. We are now on a collision path for a war with Iran while having lost significant influence over the key Sunni nations–Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

We are now in a position that we may act in Syria to counter Iranian influence and, whether by design or by accident, will empower the most radical elements of Sunni Islam. Those radical Sunnis have populated the ranks of Al Qaeda over the past 20 years. U.S. influence in the region has eroded dramatically. Egypt is trying to prosecute democratic activists and the Muslim Brothers will be in full control of the Parliament. Our relationship with Turkey also has soured.

If a delegation from Mars lands tomorrow and is briefed on what is unfolding in the Middle East now, it would quickly conclude that the major threat the U.S. is prepping to confront is Iran. That delegation would also understand the U.S. counter terrorism focus is shifting away from Al Qaeda.

We actually have a schizophrenic policy. We insist that we are fighting Al Qaeda. And we are. We also are gearing up to fight Iran. But in the process of doing that, especially within the intelligence and military communities, some are treating Al Qaeda and Iranian backed terrorist groups (i.e., Hezbollah), as the same thing.

Our current policy toward Syria is dangerous and short sighted. It is headed in a direction that we will end up empowering those most sympathetic to Al Qaeda. Will Obama want to run on that accomplishment?

But there are some differences. Santorum insists he is the authentic conservative though he had no qualms about backing that other great Republican conservative, Arlen Specter. Santorum loved to do earmarks. That’s another authentic conservative principle. Right?

Part of me hopes that Santorum gets the nomination. Why? Only after he gets thoroughly crushed in the general election and helps the Dems take back the House of Representatives will the so-called conservatives like Santorum finally sit down and shut up.

One of the key beefs I have always had with Obama is his complete, utter lack of experience as an Executive and in managing large scale projects/activities. So the prescription of the conservative base of the Republican party is to advance a total lightweight like Santorum? That is completely insane. But hey, who said the Republican faithful are sane?

I am a person without a party if Santorum is the Republican ideal of Presidential timber.

The Democrats are equally nuts. Look at the hordes who excuse Barack Obama keeping Guantanamo open and executing American citizens overseas without any judicial due process. If George Bush was doing that shit the Dems would be hollering for impeachment. Obama does it?
No problem. It is okay.

The country is in trouble but we are being presented a choice of Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber.

The first comes courtesy of the Weekly Standard. Penned by Jonathan V. Last, Obamacare vs. the Catholics, provides a pithy, succinct and biting analysis of Obama’s idiocy:

On the last weekend of January, priests in Catholic churches across America read extraordinary letters to their congregations. The missives informed the laity that President Obama and his administration had launched an assault on the church. In Virginia, Catholics heard from Bishop Paul Loverde, who wrote, “I am absolutely convinced that an unprecedented and very dangerous line has been crossed.” In Phoenix, Bishop Thomas Olmsted wrote, “We cannot​—​we will not​—​comply with this unjust law.” In Pittsburgh, Bishop David Zubik wrote that President Obama had told Catholics, “To Hell with your religious beliefs.” Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria asked his flock to join him in the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, which concludes: By the Divine Power of God / cast into Hell, Satan and all the evil spirits / who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.

It was a remarkable moment, in part because despite their stern reputation, most Catholic bishops are not terribly conservative. They tend to be politically liberal and socially cautious. If they were less holy men, stauncher conservatives would call them squishes. Real live conservative bishops are so few and far between that whenever one appears on the scene, such as Philadelphia’s Archbishop Charles Chaput, he’s seen as a vaguely threatening curiosity. You can tell when a bishop is conservative because you will hear him referred to as “hardline” or “ultra-orthodox,” so as to mark him apart from the rest of the herd.

But that’s only a taste. Obama didn’t stop there. He tried to shutdown the First Amendment rights of Army Chaplains.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who leads the Roman Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, wrote a letter to be read at all Sunday Masses for U.S. military personnel around the world that said that a regulation issued by the Obama Administration under the new federal health care law was “a blow” to a freedom that U.S. troops have not only fought to defend but for which some have recently died in battle.

“It is a blow to a freedom that you have fought to defend and for which you have seen your buddies fall in battle,” the archbishop wrote. . . .

The message from the archbishop touched off a controversy both in and outside the military when the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains told the service’s senior chaplains that Catholic priests serving as Army chaplains should be told not to read the archbishop’s letter from the pulpit. . . .

The Archdiocese for the Military Services has described that move as a violation of the archbishop’s First Amendment rights as well as the First Amendment rights of the Catholic chaplains involved and their congregations. . . .

In his Jan. 28 telephone conversation with Army Secretary McHugh, Archbishop Broglio was able to extract from the secretary an admission that it had been wrong for the secretary to try to silence the Catholic chaplains. The archbishop decided that the line in his letter that said Catholics cannot and will not comply with the “unjust law” of the HHS regulation would not be read aloud in Catholic Masses by the chaplains, but that the rest of the letter would.

The line stating “we will not … comply with this unjust law” did remain, however, in the printed letter that was distributed at Masses said by Army chaplains and it remains in the copies of the letter posted on the website of the Archdiocese for the Military.

Call this Obama’s jihad on Catholicism. Way to go sport. I encourage you to read both articles. Astonishing.

On a different front, the U.S. Military Academy at West Point banned retired Lt. General Jerry Boykin from speaking at the West Point prayer breakfast:

Yet when the West Point National Prayer Breakfast convenes February 8, the cadets will be deprived of hearing from a world-renowned expert on counterterrorism. General Boykin was a founding member of the elite Delta Force. He commanded the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and served as deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence. But this week, the Council on American-Islamic Relations put General Boykin on the new blacklist. He won’t be at West Point next week.

CAIR lobbied the academy’s superintendent, Lieutenant General David Huntoon, to rescind General Boykin’s invitation. Apparently the self-esteem of Muslim cadets and Allah’s adherents elsewhere would suffer lasting damage if General Boykin – who is unashamed of his Christian faith, an expert on radical Islam and one of the planet’s foremost practitioners of unconventional warfare – were to speak on these matters. This isn’t the first time Islamists and leftists have intimidated military leaders here at home and demanded the silencing of Christian voices. In 2010, the Pentagon issued – and subsequently withdrew – an invitation for Franklin Graham to speak at the DOD National Day of Prayer. Earlier that year, Tony Perkins, a former Marine and head of Family Research Council, was invited to speak at a prayer luncheon at Andrews Air Force Base. But when Barack Obama subjected our military to open homosexuals, Perkins was deemed too controversial.

Officials at CAIR claim that their opposition to appearances by people like Boykin or Graham is well-intentioned and argue that remarks deemed critical of Islam can precipitate violence.

Boykin is viewed by some as too strident on the issue of Islam. That’s too damn bad. He is not a government official, at least not now, and has the full right to speak his heart and mind. And the cadets have every right to hear him. Let them make up their own minds about whether his views are worthy of their consideration. The Obama plague of political correctness is out of control and it certainly appears that the crosshairs are fixed on Christians.

The United States’ plan to wind down its combat role in Afghanistan a year earlier than expected relies on shifting responsibility to Special Operations forces that hunt insurgent leaders and train local troops, according to senior Pentagon officials and military officers. These forces could remain in the country well after the NATO mission ends in late 2014.

The plan, if approved by President Obama, would amount to the most significant evolution in the military campaign since Mr. Obama sent in 32,000 more troops to wage an intensive and costly counterinsurgency effort.

Under the emerging plan, American conventional forces, focused on policing large parts of Afghanistan, will be the first to leave, while thousands of American Special Operations forces remain, making up an increasing percentage of the troops on the ground; their number may even grow.

This is the best strategy going forward in terms of tactics but does nothing to address strategy. Why?

We do not have enough combat forces in Afghanistan to seize control of the country. We could do it but would have to dramatically expand the size of the Army and the Marines and we would have to be prepared to spend upwards of $600 billion. Anyone ready to write that check or send their son into combat?

Couple of points to remember. Special Forces is not the same as “Special Operations Forces” aka “SOF.” SF equals Green Beret. The SF specialty is training foreign fighters and conducting counter insurgent operations.

Special Operations Forces is a term to describe to elite, generally highly classified units, that conduct counter terrorism operations. The SOF specialty–conducting kill/capture operations on the leadership of insurgent and terrorist groups. Has been a very effective tool in Afghanistan and has helped reduce the level of violence from what it could be. It is a great tactical tool.

But we still beg the question–what are we trying to accomplish in Afghanistan? On that issue Obama is lost. Okay, got to catch a plane. To be continued.

Oh oh. Remember when the National Enquirer reported that John Edwards was screwing around and had a love child? So ask yourself, would the National Enquirer risk a lawsuit by making a false, unsubstantiated claim against the potential First Lady?

Is this why Newt is going to hold a press conference? Fold his tent rather than put his family life under further scrutiny?

I don’t think this kind of allegation, if true, necessarily is disqualifying. If it is false Newt may become the owner of the Enquirer. If this story catches legs then Newt is toast with the Christian right. My issue with Gingrich remains his lack of competence, not his wife’s sexual preference. How can you trust someone to be a competent President when he fails to meet the basic requirements to be on the ballot in Virginia, Missouri or Arizona?

But this week, he expanded the ass clownery and raised further questions about his focus:

Gingrich has had a rough time on the trail ahead of the Nevada Caucus, the first presidential contest in the West. Sources in or close to his campaign gave reporters incorrect information that Donald Trump would endorse Gingrich (he endorsed rival Mitt Romney). Gingrich also missed a meeting with the Silver State’s popular governor, Brian Sandoval, a Rick Perry supporter who was viewed as a possible Gingrich endorsement after Perry dropped out and endorsed the former House Speaker, according to The New York Times.

Newt ought to spend less time on “BIG IDEAS” and more time on ensuring that his campaign at least appears competent.

Anyway, has anyone read the Enquirer piece? What do you think?

UPDATE–God bless you Retired. An old friend who comments on the blog sucked it up and got to the bottom of the National Enquirer shocker headline:

For those of you who can’t wait until your next run to the Piggly Wiggly, the National Enquirer article is an alleged exclusive interview with the current Mrs. Gingrich’s alleged female high school buddy and college and sorority classmate Karen Olson, currently a canon with Minneapolis-based Episcopal Church. Karen Olson was a bridesmaid at Newton’s and Callista’s wedding. Olson says that she and Callista have been “best friends” since high school, and that both Newton and Callista are aware of her sexual orientation and are OK with it. Except for some titilating layout and presentation, there is no specific allegation that Callista is a lesbian in the article. Sorry, readers.

While the Enquirer broke news on the John Edwards love child, this is a cheap ass shot. There is plenty of fact to fuel legit attacks on Newt without stooping to smears of his third wife.

Speaking of, Newt is in fullblown meltdown. Check out Ed Morrissey’s take on Newt’s graceless press conference last night:

The surprises, and the fireworks, came from Newt Gingrich, who called a press conference rather than give a speech, which I watched this morning. It turned into a surprisingly angry, bitter affair, with Gingrich blaming Romney for spreading rumors that he was going to drop out after Nevada, when in fact the speculation started in the press when Gingrich called the unusual press conference. He attempted a little bit of press-baiting, but mostly took every opportunity to vent his loathing at Romney and his campaign, calling him the George Soros choice, pro-abortion, and so on. If people thought that the lack of graciousness after Gingrich’s loss in Florida was a careless mistake, this press conference dispelled that notion and made Gingrich’s speech in Florida look courtly by comparison.

Victor Davis Hanson writes today that Gingrich’s speech was about the only way the candidate could possibly have made a bad night even worse:

For Hot Air aficianados you may be surprised to read such a tough, anti-Gingrich piece. Ed and company have been largely supportive of the Newt. Not in this piece.

Newt keeps touting that he is a big idea guy, but can’t seem to grasp the simple idea that if you are going to run a nationwide campaign for President you must raise money, put together an organization and register according to the laws of each state. My jihad on Newt stems fundamentally from his chameleon character. He tries to slam Romney as a “Rockefeller” republican when the only candidate in the Republican field who actually worked on the 1968 Rockefeller campaign is Newt Gingrich. He tries to slam Romney as part of the “Washington Establishment” when he, Newt Gingrich, has spent more than 34 years in Washington and is the only candidate in the field with a Washington consulting business.

Will Newt drop out? NO. He is delusional and focused only on himself. The welfare of the Republican Party or America is the furthest thing from his mind.

Newt. The new synonym for “boor” or “lout.” Typical self-centered asshole. Did he have the grace to call Mitt Romney and congratulate the former Massachusetts Governor for his victory in Florida? Oh, hell no. Did Mitt call and congratulate Newt when the latter won in South Carolina? Oh, HELL YES!

But that is not what reveals Newt for the all-consuming narcissist that he is. It is what he did not do for Rick Santorum. It is Newt’s fundamental lack of compassion for actual people. He can pretend he is rooting for the poor or the sick, but what does he really do? Let’s ask the Rick Santorum camp:

“Gingrich has been trying to push us out, and people find it offensive,” Brabender says. “We’re not going to tell him to get out of the race; that’s a personal decision.”

The timing of Gingrich’s comments — they came around the time Santorum was tending to Bella, his hospitalized daughter — inflamed the fractious relations between the two campaigns. “The mere fact that he was doing it smells of political opportunism and people found it problematic and troubling,” Brabender says.

“Beyond that, I won’t talk about Gingrich,” Brabender says. “I will compliment Governor Romney and Congressman Paul. Their campaigns personally reached out to us [regarding Bella]. None of that was expected, so I won’t criticize anybody for not doing it. But that was very sincere and gratifying.”

Speaking on background, a handful of Gingrich advisers acknowledge that they could have “played the weekend message a little better, been a little more careful about angering Santorum,” as one surrogate puts it. Other Gingrich backers say that as Romney surges, there is not enough time to wait, that Gingrich must begin to showcase his strengths and Santorum’s shortcomings.

This is the real Newt. A gentleman would have taken time to call Rick Santorum and inquire about the well-being of his daughter. Both Romney and Paul are class acts. They did so and did it out of the limelight. They did not do it to win political advantage. They did it because it was the right thing to do. Not Newt. That tells you all you need to know about that fat horror-show of a human being.

I realize you kool aid drinkers assume that I hate Obama so much that I will refuse to give him credit where credit is due. Well, that just shows what a complete moron you are. I really do want the economy to turn around. I really do want more people going to work. There is no partisan benefit in my mind from having people shut out of the economy. So please take a close look at the numbers.

Let’s start with the fact that you need to create 141,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with population growth. That is not my opinion, that is a fact. Okay?

We will look at both seasonally adjusted and non-seasonally adjusted numbers and will compare January 2011 with January 2012.
If you want to do this for your self just click HERE and check the appropriate boxes and hit “retrieve.”

The non-seasonally adjusted civilian non-institutional population 16 and above one year ago was 238,704,000. Today? 242,269,000. That means the number of people available to work in the US labor force has increased by 3,565,000 folks. That works out to an increase in the labor force of 297,000 people over the age of 16 each month.

How many are actually in the labor force?

Non-seasonally adjusted 2011–152,536,000 2012–153,485,000
That means the total number of employed in the last year, without statistical adjustment, has increased by 949,000 workers. In other words, only 79,000 jobs per month in the last year have been added. Remember, we need to add 141,000 per month just to keep pace with normal population increase. We are more than 720,000 jobs shy of keeping pace with population growth.

Seasonally adujsted? The numbers are not much better. The seasonally adjusted numbers show an average of 95,416 jobs per month. That means we are 660,000 short of just keeping pace with population growth.

Labor force participation rate? In January 2011 64.2% of the labor force was employed. Today, using Obama’s own seasonally adjusted numbers? 63.7%. Got it? Fewer people are working today as a percentage of the labor force than was the case one year ago.

The actual number of people working? In 2011 the number, not seasonally adjusted, was 137,599,000. One year later? 139,944,000. That means there are 2,345,000 more people working today than one year ago. But, as I noted at the outset, we add almost 1.7 million people to the labor force every year, the Obama “recovery” has only created a net of 653,000 jobs.

Here is how you get a decline in the unemployment rate–eliminate people from the work force. In January 2011 there were 86,168,000 considered “not in the labor force.” One year later that number has grown to 88,784,000. That means 2,616,000 are no longer in the labor force even though the population is growing.

So what do we make of today’s jobs report? A feeble move in the right direction but it in no way reflects a fundamental strengthening of the economy or a vindication of the Obama recovery policy. To the contrary. Significant weakness remains throughout the economy, especially in the construction sector. I have said it before and will repeat it again for the thickheaded Obama supporters–until the housing market bottoms out and the construction industry turns around the economy will continue to drag and the number of Americans out of work will remain alarmingly high.

It is only in the delusional fantasy world of Barack Obama and his zombie supporters that the elimination of almost 3 million people from the job roles is trumpeted as a success. Really? Anything goes to create the illusion of economic growth? This is beyond intellectually dishonest. Trust me on this–if the number of folks no longer in the labor force had shrunk by 2.6 million and the number of actual employed increased by 350,000 I would be celebrating because those are real numbers, reflecting real growth. But this report today? It is propaganda designed to mislead an ignorant public.

Now we have Panetta telling David Ignatius of the Washington Post:

Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t want to leave the fate of Israel dependent on American action, which would be triggered by intelligence that Iran is building a bomb, which it hasn’t done yet.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon when he asked last month to postpone a planned U.S.-Israel military exercise that would culminate in a live-fire phase in May. Barak apologized that Israel couldn’t devote the resources to the annual exercise this spring.

President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold. But the White House hasn’t yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack.

Panetta is no fool. He is an old Washington hand and fully understands how to use the media to spin policy and apply pressure. While the Obama Administration is pursuing serious sanctions against Iran that carry their own risk of provoking a war with Iran, Obama and his National Security team do not want Israel to do anything unilaterally that could spark a regional conflagration.

Attacking Iran is something that Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak want to do but they have had problems gaining the full support of the IDF and Mossad. The Israeli military and intelligence professionals opposing a military strike fully understand that Israel does not have the capability of delivering a knock out blow to Iran. Destroying Iran’s ability to enrich uranium and develop the means of producing a nucelar warhead would require, at a minimum, a sustained bombing campaign of at least one month followed by inserting troops against the target sites to ensure the technology and production systems were actually destroyed.

While Panetta’s comments many be intended to pressure Israel they also serve to inspire and rally the people of Iran. Imagine how we would react if we received news that Pakistan was backing Al Qaeda operatives who were going to attack the United States. You think we would sit back and do nothing? Do you think that no political pressure would be brought to bear on our President to “do something” to protect our nation?

My point? This is a dangerous damn game and nothing good is likely to come from this.

Seriously. You’re upset because I’m trashing Herman Cain? Mr. Serial Adulterer who claimed to be a great businessman but couldn’t organize a campaign?

You’re upset because I trash Newt Gingrich? The consummate Washington insider who became wealthy by trading on his Washington contacts and now wants us to believe that he’s an outsider?

And Sarah Palin? She claims to be a principled conservative and ends up backing the icon of Washington insiders who also happens to be a serial adulterer?

I dare to criticize these hypocrites and you’re upset? Do I permit you to write protests about Mitt Romney? Yes. Do I insist that you must support Romney? No. Do I allow Obama supporters to post their rantings? Yes (witness PA).

So, you’re upset because I don’t like your particular icon? Well, grow up. Too damn bad. Unless you want to foot the bill for this blog I will continue to state my opinion regardless of worrying about whether you like it or not. That’s No Quarter. If you want to go then don’t let the door hit you in the ass. As Tommy Lee Jones expressed it, “I DO NOT CARE!”

But I do care that you express your opinion. If you personally attack me, then you have crossed a line. If you argue your position based on your reasoning you’ll never have a problem with me. if you are looking for someone to stroke your ego then I’m not your blog. I only want folks with backbone and conviction. Clear?

I was one who defended Palin back in the day. I thought she got a bum rap and was not properly served by the McCain team. But then she bails on her term as Governor of Alaska. Why? To run as President? Hell no. She did her bus tour, however, as a shrewd move to drum up publicity for herself.

Leave it to the so-called ultimate outsider to play a tough inside game and become a multi-millionaire in the process.

I don’t begrudge her the wealth (that’s the American dream), but I do get pissed off at the flagrant hypocrisy. There may have been a time in her life when Sarah was willing to take on entrenched political interests and put all at risk. Now she has become the very thing she claimed once to oppose. Leave it to Sarah to back a serial adulterer who prospered from insider deals in Washington while opposing the guy who has been married to the same woman and earned his money by working for it. Great consistency Sarah.

So Newt wants to make this campaign an issue of character. REALLY? When it comes to truthfulness and honesty, what planet is Gingrich living on? Gingrich running on character is like Bill Clinton running on sexual abstinence.

Let’s start with marriage vows. If you are going to insist that character, honesty and trustworthiness are critical then it is fair to look at your sexual misconduct. Newt Gingrich has twice broken the sacred vow he made to different women to be faithful to them. He double-dealed a woman with cancer and a woman with multiple sclerosis. Compare that with Romney. Romney has been married once. No bimbo eruptions or jilted lovers coming out of the closet. Character Newt?

Take the Contract with America. Newt promised to reduce Congressional staffs and committees. He bailed on that promise. He was called on the carpet by conservative Republicans (see here).

How did you make your money Mr. Character? Did you leave Washington and get a legit job in the private sector? Or did you hang out a shingle on K Street and parlay your prior experience as Speaker of the House into “consulting” contracts and became wealthy? Nothing wrong with getting wealthy, but at least recognize you did it by sucking off of the public tit.

The issue with Newt really is a matter of trust. But it also is a matter of being thin skinned and being unable to take a punch. On that front Newt is a coward and a whiner. So he’s getting savaged by Romney’s campaign and wants the media to make it stop. Are you shitting me? What does Newt think the Obama team will do to him? Send him a bimbo and offer him a blow job? Welcome to the big leagues Newt.

I’m old enough to recall Newt pitching a fit because he did not get to sit up front on Air Force One with Bill Clinton. Newt was mightily offended and whined about it in public. And what happened? He became a joke and his influence diminished.

Romney and his team are showing they are tough enough to take on Obama. Newt? Send him a blanket and some Kleenex to comfort him and wipe his tears. Hell, Palin took a worse public beating from Democrats and didn’t whine like this clown.

The Pentagon is rushing a “mothership” to the Middle East to be used by commando teams as unrest in the region heightens, reports The Washington Post.

The U.S. Navy is planning to refit the USS Ponce, an amphibious transport docking ship, which was about to be retired and decommissioned.

The Post reports that it will now be modified into an “Afloat Forward Staging Base” and used to support mine-clearance ships, smaller patrol ships and aircraft in the Middle East.

This is a bullshit leak and should have been kept quiet. This one is on the Obama team. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

If you want to get up to speed quickly on what this kind of operation will entail I suggest you read the paper written by now retired Navy SEAL Captain, Pete Wikul. Pete served under a close, old friend of mine. My friend designed, deployed and commanded the Herculues barge. The story of that mission is largely unknown by the public, but Pete’s paper lays out all of the gritty, dramatic details.

You can find the paper, Mobile Sea Base Hercules in the Northern Persian Gulf: Beirut Barracks II?, here.

Thesis: Because U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) did not apply the lessons learned from the Beirut Barracks bombing on 23 October l983 to the planning and deployment of Mobile Sea Base (MSB) Hercules to the northern Persian Gulf, U.S. forces almost suffered another Beirut tragedy.

Background: The United States military takes great pains to write, catalog, and disseminate lessons learned to improve doctrine. An analysis of the planning and manner in which MSB Hercules was deployed to the northern Persian Gulf is cause for concern. It makes one wonder if anyone seriously reads, studies and applies lessons learned. The Long Commission identified problems and recommended solutions to preclude another Beirut tragedy, but CENTCOM appears not to have provided sufficient command oversight to Commander, Middle East Force prior to their deploying MSB Hercules near Farsi Island without adequate protection. A little over two weeks later, the Iranians launched an attack. The Iranians lost. Because America won a decisive victory on the night of 8 October l987, serious problems went unnoticed.

Recommendation: All military planners should thoroughly review lessons learned to avoid repeating tragic mistakes. This is especially true for those planners at the operational level who are tasked to provide command and oversight to the tactical forces.

Some interesting details not widely known–the Stinger the Iranians fired at the US helos had been supplied to the Iranians as a result of Ollie North’s arms-for-hostages deal with Iran. How do we know this? The serial number on the launcher, which the SEALs recovered at the scene. That is one of those legacies of the Reagan Presidency that we best better forget about. A shameful act by Ollie.

None of the guys involved in Operation Prime Chance are still on active duty. Ergo, lessons that should have been learned have not been learned. Bone up guys.

In 1997, ten of my fellow classmates had led a coup attempt against Gingrich, shutting down the House over the speaker’s efforts to violate the Contract with America by swelling the number of committee staff members. . . .

Newt did not take the rebellion lying down. He immediately summoned the sergeant of arms to drag the 11 rebels down to a Republican caucus meeting in the bowels of the Capitol basement, where Newt lined us up in front of a packed room of seething House members who were now missing the first day of their Easter recess because of our insurgency. Gingrich then began screaming and demanded that the 11 of us account for our behavior.

He then taught me a political lesson I will always remember: Never willingly hand the microphone over to your enemies. Especially when the first rebel to speak was elected to the NFL Hall of Fame and one of People Magazine’s Most Beautiful Men Alive.

As Steve Largent grabbed the microphone, the crowd of GOP members was still shouting insults. But by the time he stood behind the podium, even our most hostile opponents grew quiet.

Steve spoke softly about how he signed a contract with the Seattle Seahawks and remembered shaking the hand of the team’s owner after the deal was done. A few years later, the NFL Players Association went on strike. But Largent told the mob, who were now transfixed, that he crossed those picket lines because he signed a contract and gave his word. Largent told the group that a few years later, the NFL players went on strike a second time and he was once again one of the few NFL players to keep reporting for work. For Steve, it was a matter of principle.

The beautiful NFL Hall of Famer then quietly moved in for the kill.

Turning to the Speaker, who a year earlier had been named Time Magazine’s person of the year, Largent said, “Newt, you were the one who drafted the contract and then told us to sign it. Now, you’re the one pressuring us to break it. But Newt, if I wasn’t intimidated by the thought of 250 pound linebackers who wanted to kill me every time I crossed the field, why would I be intimidated by you?”

This is not about personal animus towards Newt. This is all about trust. Can he be trusted to stick by his sworn oaths and promises? Conservative members of Congress who served with him say no. Two of his ex-wives say no. It is incumbent on the American people to do the same–No Newt, We Can’t Trust You.