And that brings us to this article, Heroes Took Huge Risks To Save Others. Not only are we learning more about Hasan as time passes by, but we are learning more about the actions of that tragic day on Fort Hood, and others who acted selflessly. No doubt, the big hero is Sgt. Munley, and I will get to her in just a minute Here is another hero:

Pfc. Marquest Smith, on his way to Afghanistan in January, was completing routine paperwork about a bee-sting allergy when the sounds erupted.

A loud popping noise. Moans. The sudden, urgent shout of “Gun!”

Smith poked his head over the cubicle’s partition and saw an extraordinary sight: An Army officer with two guns, firing into the crowded room.

The 21-year-old Fort Worth native quickly grabbed the civilian worker who’d been helping with his paperwork and forced her under the desk. He lay low for several minutes, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition and wishing he, too, had a gun.

After the shooter stopped to reload, Smith made a run for it. Pushing two other soldiers in front of him, he made it out of the Soldier Readiness Processing center — only to plunge into the building twice more to help the wounded.

Smith had survived the worst mass shooting on an American military base, a rampage that left 13 dead and 30 wounded, including the alleged shooter, Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

It could have been much worse, but for the heroics of Smith and others — including the diminutive civilian police officer who single-handedly took down Hasan.

Of course, that would be Sgt. Munley. More on her below as the picture of what happened on Fort Hood gets filled in. A big piece of that is we are getting some information on where the shooting began:

Decisive Action

At the processing center on the southern edge of the 100,000-acre base, soldiers returning from overseas mingled with colleagues filling out forms and undergoing medical tests in preparation for deployment.

Around 1:30 p.m., witnesses say a man authorities later identified as Hasan jumped up on a desk and shouted the words “Allahu Akbar!” — Arabic for “God is great!” He was armed with two pistols, one a semiautomatic capable of firing up to 20 rounds without reloading.

Packed into cubicles with 5-foot-high dividers, the 300 unarmed soldiers were sitting ducks (emphasis mine). Those who weren’t hit by direct fire were struck by rounds ricocheting off the desks and tile floor.

Let’s just reflect on that for a minute. Hasan chose an area in which the soldiers were close together. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. That’s pretty much what he did after he jumped up onto the desk and started firing. Just picture the logistics of that – man on desk firing on unarmed soldiers (only the MPs and contracted civilian police officers carry guns), 5 foot dividers, 300 soldiers. The potential for mass casualties was set in motion:

When he decided the shooter wasn’t close to being out of ammo, Smith made a dash for the door. He’d made it outside when he heard cries from within.

“I don’t want to die.”

“This really hurts.”

“Help me get out of here.”

Smith rushed back inside and found two wounded. He grabbed them by their collars and dragged them outside.

Around this time, Fort Hood Police Sgt. Kimberly Munley got the call of “shots fired.” The SRP isn’t on Munley’s beat; she was in the area because her vehicle was in the shop.

Munley, 34, was on the scene within three minutes.

Just over 5 feet tall, Munley is an advanced firearms instructor and civilian member of Fort Hood’s special reaction team. She had trained on “active shooter” scenarios after the April 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech. She didn’t wait for backup.

As she approached the squat, rectangular building, a soldier emerged from a door with a gunman in pursuit. The officer fired, and the uniformed shooter wheeled and charged.

Munley was hit at least three times in the exchange — twice through the left leg and once in her right wrist. Hasan was hit four times.

From the first shots to the last, authorities say the whole incident lasted less than 10 minutes.

Sgt. Munley’s fast response time, not waiting for backup (I wonder if she’ll get lectured about that?), and her willingness to put herself in harm’s way saved who-knows-how-many lives. Clearly, her training kicked in, and she did what she was trained to do. This article, Hero ‘Civilian Cops’ Emerge After Fort Hood Shooting: Sgt. Kimberly Munley Lost So Much Blood Doctors Feared She Wouldn’t Survive, goes into even more detail as to what Sgt. Munley did that day (H/T to American Girl in Italy for this article), as well as another police officer, Sgt, Mark Todd:

After Sgt. Kimberly Munley helped stop the Fort Hood massacre by shooting Major Nidal Malik Hasan several times, she collapsed from her wounds and doctors who treated her were afraid she wouldn’t survive.

“She was fading in and out of consciousness. She wasn’t saying much,” medic Francisco de la Serna, who began treating Munley when the shooting stopped, told ABC News.

Munley, a 34-year-old former soldier who became a civilian cop on the Fort Hood base, was shot twice in both legs during Thursday’s confrontation. Two powerful “cop killer” rounds allegedly fired by Hasan tore through her left thigh, exited and blasted through her right thigh as well. She was also struck in the wrist.

Sgt. Mark Todd, 42, a retired soldier who also works as a civilian police officer at Ford Hood, also engaged in a firefight with Hasan that lasted less than a minute, according to The Associated Press. Todd was not wounded.

Army officials say that an investigation is under way about whose bullets brought down Hasan as there was much confusion following the shooting. Munley’s supervisor initially credited her with the shot that stopped Hasan.

Todd told The Associated Press Saturday that he was unsure if Munley had wounded the suspect, because “once he started firing at me, I lost track of her.”

After firing his Beretta at Hasan, Todd said the suspect flinched, slid down against a telephone pole and fell on his back. Todd recalls hearing people say, “two more, two more.” He first thought they were referring to more shooters, but he realized that the bystanders were urging him to fire two more rounds, Todd said.

Todd said he approached the suspect and saw that he still had a gun in his hand, which he kicked away. Todd told the AP, “He was breathing, his eyes were blinking. You could tell that he was fading out. He didn’t say anything. He was just kind of blinking.”

Munley, the mother of two girls, was sped to Metroplex Hospital several miles away where doctors say she lost so much blood that they feared she would not make it.

I suppose we will have to wait to find out exactly whose bullet brought down Hasan – Munley’s or Todd’s, but there is no dispute that had she not started firing on Hasan, he would have inflicted more damage on the soldiers.

Her wounds were clearly severe, especially after being hit by “cop killer” bullets:

Munley proved to be as tough in the operating room as she was while confronting Hasan in their close-range shootout.

Dr. Kelly Matlock, who treated Munley at the Metroplex Hospital, said her first words in recovery were concern about Hasan’s victims.

“She opened her eyes and said, ‘Did anybody die?’ That’s what she said, ‘Did anybody die?’” Matlock said.

That pretty much tells you all you need to know about the make up and constitution of this woman. Her first thought, her first question, wasn’t about herself, but others. I am in awe.

Sgt. Munley got her question answered:

Munley now knows that the man she shot is alive, and that he is accused of killing 13 unarmed people and wounding 38.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry visited Munley in the hospital today and later described her as “understated.”

“She is a classic public servant who is not interested in anything other than getting on with her life,” Perry said.

Chuck Medley, the director of emergency services at Fort Hood, said many more would have died if Munley had not leaped into action.

“If she had not responded the way she had, we would have had an extremely high number of dead and injured,” Medley told ABC News Friday. “The number of lives that this person saved … We will probably never know. But there is a lot of ammunition left, a lot of magazines,” he said referring to what Hasan was allegedly carrying.

Uh, yeah. That, along with Hasan giving away his worldly goods, screams premeditation to me. No doubt about it.

While much of this has been covered already, the way in which this is written really paints a picture:

Sgt. Kimberly Munley’s Shootout With Major Nidal Malik Hasan

Medley described a scenario worthy of a Hollywood script. He said Munley, who is a member of the base’s SWAT team and a weapons expert, ran towards the gunfire and came upon Hasan when she rounded a corner and saw him pursuing a soldier who had already been wounded once.

“She fired on him twice and drew the attention toward her. He immediately spun around and charged her,” Medley said. “She fired a couple more rounds and fell back, continuing to fire.”

Despite getting struck three times by Hasan’s fusillade, Munley stayed upright and kept firing at the charging gunman.

Let’s stop right there. What kind of person is capable of doing this? What kind of person puts herself in the line of fire to save someone else? What kind of intestinal fortitude must this woman have to STAY UPRIGHT after being seriously hit, firing at the gunman?

I have a close friend who was a police officer at one time before he became a minister. I asked him that question – what makes some people run into danger, be it firefighters, police officers, military personnel, when everyone else is running away as fast as they can? What kind of courage and bravery must someone have to do something like Sgt. Munley? It is hard to fathom. Sure, many of us would like to THINK we would, but honestly – WHO would rush into this situation, size it up, and intentionally put herself in the line of fire to protect others? It is simply remarkable. This breed of human being is rare indeed.

At least according to this report, if it even matters at this point, it was Munley who brought Hasan down (as mentioned above, ballistics will have the final say):

“She struck him a couple times in the upper torso and he went down,” Medley said.

“When she rounded that corner she made a split-second decision to put her life at risk,” he said.

Lt. Gen. Robert Cone said Munley’s aggressive tactics averted even more carnage.

“She had been trained in active response,” Cone said. “They had rehearsed scenarios like this. Oftentimes, the idea is you would encircle the building and wait until you have more backup. What the belief is, if you act aggressively, to take the shooter out, you’ll have less fatalities.”

Munley acted aggressively, not waiting for backup. She went after the gunman and quickly found him. As Cone put it, Munley decided “to seek him out, to confront hm.”

Medley said he visited with Munley early Friday. “She’s doing very well. She was in good spirits. She was smiling and laughing,” he said.

Her boss said he told Munley, “The action you took saved countless peoples’ lives. People are healthy, alive and walking around today because of the action that this officer took. She’s a hero.”

Munley’s grandmother, Monirie Metz, told ABC News that the former South Carolina surfer girl would probably object to being called a hero.

“Kim doesn’t want be called a hero. She’s worried about everyone else right now and is very concerned about her colleagues with whom she is very close,” Metz said.

Of course Sgt. Munley would object to being called a hero. After what we have learned about her, who would be surprised by that? Not me. That speaks even more about her remarkable character. Can anyone not be impressed by this woman? I imagine her family is extraordinarily proud of her, as they should be.

Speaking of family:

Her husband, Matthew Munley, is a soldier at Fort Bragg, N.C., and was flown to Fort Hood. She also has two daughters, ages 15 and 2, from a previous marriage.

Needless to say, Sgt. Munley’s daring feats are already garnering tributes:

Facebook Tributes to Fort Hood Hero

In the hours after the shootings, two Facebook groups sprung up dedicated to Munley and her heroic actions.

“At that tragic moment you were able to use your training and abilities to bring an end to a day that will haunt the lives of many for years to come,” one member posted in the group “God Bless SGT Kimberly Munley.” “Thank you for being a true hero.”

And in the group “Sgt. Kimberly Munley: A Real American Hero!,” one woman stationed in Japan with her military husband said that Munley had inspired her to learn how to shoot once she returned to the U.S.

A true hero indeed – I know she’s mine.

Or this:

And finally (!), this:

I sure as hell know I am. Oh, and all photos came from this Huffington Post site – where else, unless it was MSNBC? Ahem. There are plenty more, if you wish to go see them. I know you’re surprised by that.

I tell you who I would rather see. While the Obamas and their pal, Oprah, you know, the one who anointed Obama as The One, were wasting our tax dollars on a trip no other president has made EVER, there was someone who was hard at work for the country. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, of course, as the photos* below make clear. She was meeting with Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, who is the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to discuss issues related to Muslim relations around the world. Here she is greeting him:

Here is Secretary Clinton in rapt attention as he speaks:

And here, Secretary Clinton indicates it is time to move on:

Look at how he looks at her. We have seen this look of respect from leaders all around the world. They know what so many of us know – this woman is no political lightweight. She is brilliant, she is knowledgeable, and she is capable. She will get the job done, no hemming and hawing around, no sirree.

Sophie B. Hawkins says it all in the video below:

Damn – I wish she was president, too…

* All photos by Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America

Now, you know I can’t abide Andrew Sullivan for a bunch of reasons. Hence my unwillingness to give him any traffic at all by even going to his site and re-posting his article here. But when I saw this blurb, and Sullivan’s arrogant, and sexist, title, I just couldn’t resist. I almost cracked up laughing that he, of all people, is getting his nose out of joint about the questions Cheney was asked in this interview. Apparently, he has forgotten just about every interview Obama has had since he began his campaign, and he was running for the highest office in the land! Cheney is not running for anything (and I hasten to add, I have absolutely NO love lost for Dick Cheney. I appreciate that he supports his daughter, her partner, and their child, but that’s about it).

Perhaps Sullivan forgot this interview by Charlie Gibson of ABC News, an outlet that uses OUR airwaves for FREE, of Obama during the campaign:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Oooooohhhhh – how di Obama withstand those WITHERING questions?

Or more recently, how about Brian Williams and his day at the White House, one that culminated in THIS moment:

Seriously?? He really wants to go down this road of how political interviewees are handled? How about this clip with George Stephanapoulous:

Heck, George even supplies the correct verbiage to Obama! And may I just say one more time – HOW was this man portrayed as being ELOQUENT??? Holy smokes.

Okay, one more to prove the point, if you can stomach watching Keith Olberman:

Oh, yes – that is some HARD-HITTING “journalism” there for Mr. Sullivan. Get one of the two most biased for Obama show hosts (I refuse to call Olberman a “journalist”) to lob softballs for Obama to trash the Republicans.

By the way, remember Obama’s appearance with McCain at Ground Zero? Yeah, so dignified:

I digress. Back to the whole hard-hitting journalism thing: At least Steve Kroft pointed out Obama’s inappropriate laughter here:

But he did so with a smile, and accepted that lame-ass excuse from Obama as to why he was laughing while indicating how he was going to use our money to bail out the UAW even though Americans were STRONGLY opposed to that idea.

Sullivan complains about the questions asked Cheney? Maybe he should have been so worried about the questions asked of Obama…

You’re not going to believe this:

Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering the pool in normal swimming attire.

Instead they are told that they must comply with the “modest” code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees.

Huh? What kind of coverings? Like this?

(Photo Credit)

That’s from 1864. Yes, that’s right – 145 years ago. That’s what all the women were wearing then.

This is about what they are wearing in 2009:

(Photo credit)

Uh yeah. Pretty much. Even if they are NOT Muslims, women are supposed to wear this so as not to offend. I’m sorry, how is that again? They are going to allow one religion, not even the NATIONAL religion, mind you, to dominate what women and men (though the latter is FAR less restrictive) can and cannot wear while swimming?? In a PUBLIC pool? Well, that’s simply stunning, isn’t it?

Not everyone is onboard with the whole “burkini” thing, though, as you might have guessed:

The phenomenon runs counter to developments in France, where last week a woman was evicted from a public pool for wearing a burkini – the headscarf, tunic and trouser outfit which allows Muslim women to preserve their modesty in the water.

The 35-year-old, named only as Carole, is threatening legal action after she was told by pool officials in Emerainville, east of Paris, that she could not wear the outfit on hygiene grounds.

Not that I think she should have been tossed out of the pool or anything, but she was not trying to force everyone ELSE to wear one, either:

But across the UK municipal pools are holding swimming sessions specifically aimed at Muslims, in some case imposing strict dress codes.

Croydon council in south London runs separate one-and-a half-hour swimming sessions for Muslim men and women every Saturday and Sunday at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.

Swimmers were told last week on the centre’s website that “during special Muslim sessions male costumes must cover the body from the navel to the knee and females must be covered from the neck to the ankles and wrists”.

There are similar rules at Scunthorpe Leisure Centre, in North Lincolnshire, where “users must follow the required dress code for this session (T-shirts and shorts/leggings that cover below the knee)”.

In Glasgow, a men-only swimming session is organised by a local mosque group at North Woodside Leisure Centre, at which swimmers must be covered from navel to knee.

At a women-only class organised by a Muslim teacher at Blackbird Leys Swimming Pool, Oxford, to encourage Muslim women to learn to swim, most participants wear “modest” outfits although normal costumes are permitted.

Hmmm. Well, that’s something at least – that regular dress is allowed at this one place. Though still, to impose their standard of “modest dress” on others is still, well, an imposition, is it not?

Here’s the problem:

The dress codes have provoked an angry reaction among critics who say they encourage division and resentment between Muslims and non-Muslims, putting strain on social cohesion.

Ian Cawsey, the Labour MP for the North Lincolnshire constituency of Brigg and Goole, said: “Of course swimming pools have basic codes of dress but it should not go beyond that.

“I don’t think that in a local authority pool I should have to wear a particular type of clothes for the benefit of someone else. That’s not integration or cohesion.”

Good point, isn’t it? But how about a leader who does have a large Muslim populaiton:

Labour MP Anne Cryer, whose Keighley, West Yorkshire constituency has a large number of Muslims, said: “Unfortunately this kind of thing has a negative impact on community relations.

“It’s seen as yet another demand for special treatment. I can’t see why special clothing is needed for what is a single-sex session.”

Muslim swimming sessions are also held at a number of state schools around the country. At Loxford School in Ilford, east London, a local Muslim group organises weekly sessions for Muslim men, with the warning that “it is compulsory for the body to be covered between the navel and the knees.

“Anyone not adhering to the dress code or rules within the pool will not be allowed to swim”.

The practice of holding special Muslim swimming sessions has led to non-Muslims being turned away.

Well, that’s a bit of a problem, isn’t it, whent it is a public pool? I can see where people might get testy over not being allowed in if the don’t adhere to the strict dress code of a religion not their own:

David Toube, 39 and his five year old son Harry were last year refused entry to Clissold Leisure Centre, in Hackney, east London, after being told the Sunday morning swimming session was for Muslim men only.

Council officials later said staff had made a mistake and both Mr Toube, a corporate lawyer, and his son should have been admitted.

After discovering the rules at Thornton Heath one Croydon resident, 34-year-old Alex Craig, said: “I think it is preposterous that a council should be encouraging this type of segregation over municipal facilities.

“Surely if Muslims want to swim then they should just turn up with their modest swimwear at the same time as everyone else.”

That does not sound too outrageous to me, but I freely admit, I am not in the camp that women should have to hide their entire bodies to be able to go swimming. That’s just me, though.

But it is just that kind of directive that brings this up:

Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, last night condemned the practice. He said: “This kind of thing is extremely divisive.

“Non-Muslims see these extremist demands as an example of Muslims wanting things to fit into their lifestyle, when there aren’t similar things organised for Hindus, Buddhists or Jews.

“It also puts moderate Muslims in an awkward position as it suggests, wrongly, that they are not devout enough, simply because they choose not to cover themselves in a shroud in a pool.”

A press officer at Croydon council, which introduced Muslim-only swimming in 2006, claimed that the wording on the website was a mistake and the dress code should be regarded as a suggestion rather than a requirement.

The website was late changed to remove the reference to the dress code.

However, an official at the leisure centre said the dress code remained compulsory.

Earlier, defending the segregation policy, a Croydon council spokesman said: “We appreciate that certain religious groups, such as Muslims, have strict rules on segregation for activities including sports, so in response to requests from the local community, we have been running these sessions at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.”

All in all, it sounds like quite a kerfluffle.

So, what do you think about this requirement? Should non-Muslim women be forced to wear “burkinis” while swimming in public pools? Let’s, um, flesh this out, shall we?

The founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, is a Navy man, is also a Christian of the conservative strand. He has given a bunch of money to conservative causes, including James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” group. Just to set the stage.

And Obama said, as a candidate, that he would not “rule out” keeping Blackwater, now “Xe,” in Iraq. Hillary not so much, not even close:

(she) released a statement announcing that Clinton is now co-sponsoring legislation to “ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq,” saying, “The time to show these contractors the door is long past due.”

Uh huh. And what has Obama done since becoming president? He’s given Blackwater, aka, Xe, a $70 million dollar contract. Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Here’s the thing: the founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, has been implicated by two former employees for murder. Yep. And you are not going to believe this story. It is going to make you SO happy (that’s snark) that Obama has chosen to give this man, and his company, more money to stay in the Middle East. I’ll give you some of the highlights, but I urge you to read the whole piece (and the author, Jeremy Scahill, has written a LOT about Blackwater. He was a bit snide about Hillary Clinton and her resolve to NOT have Blackwater on the payroll any longer, even though that was in the same article in which he pointed out that Obama the Candidate he wouldn’t “rule it out.” Still, the articles are worth reading.). To the article:

A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company’s owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,” and that Prince’s companies “encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life.”

Now is when I remind you that Obama chose to retain this company. A “Christian crusader” hellbent on wiping Muslims off the map. WOW. There’s more:

Doe #2 states in the declaration that he has also provided the information contained in his statement “in grand jury proceedings convened by the United States Department of Justice.” Federal prosecutors convened a grand jury in the aftermath of the September 16, 2007, Nisour Square shootings in Baghdad, which left seventeen Iraqis dead. Five Blackwater employees are awaiting trial on several manslaughter charges and a sixth, Jeremy Ridgeway, has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and attempting to commit manslaughter and is cooperating with prosecutors. It is not clear whether Doe #2 testified in front of the Nisour Square grand jury or in front of a separate grand jury.

The two declarations are each five pages long and contain a series of devastating allegations concerning Erik Prince and his network of companies, which now operate under the banner of Xe Services LLC. Among those leveled by Doe #2 is that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe”:

To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.

Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince’s executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to “lay Hajiis out on cardboard.” Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince’s employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as “ragheads” or “hajiis.”

Among the additional allegations made by Doe #1 is that “Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq.” He states that he personally witnessed weapons being “pulled out” from dog food bags. Doe #2 alleges that “Prince and his employees arranged for the weapons to be polywrapped and smuggled into Iraq on Mr. Prince’s private planes, which operated under the name Presidential Airlines,” adding that Prince “generated substantial revenues from participating in the illegal arms trade.”

Doe #2 states: “Using his various companies, [Prince] procured and distributed various weapons, including unlawful weapons such as sawed off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers, through unlawful channels of distribution.” Blackwater “was not abiding by the terms of the contract with the State Department and was deceiving the State Department,” according to Doe #1.

This is disturbing on so many levels, isn’t it? Naturally, Prince denies any wrongdoing:

In their testimony, both men also allege that Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq. One of the men alleges that Prince turned a profit by transporting “illegal” or “unlawful” weapons into the country on Prince’s private planes. They also charge that Prince and other Blackwater executives destroyed incriminating videos, emails and other documents and have intentionally deceived the US State Department and other federal agencies. The identities of the two individuals were sealed out of concerns for their safety.

These allegations, and a series of other charges, are contained in sworn affidavits, given under penalty of perjury, filed late at night on August 3 in the Eastern District of Virginia as part of a seventy-page motion by lawyers for Iraqi civilians suing Blackwater for alleged war crimes and other misconduct. Susan Burke, a private attorney working in conjunction with the Center for Constitutional Rights, is suing Blackwater in five separate civil cases filed in the Washington, DC, area. They were recently consolidated before Judge T.S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia for pretrial motions. Burke filed the August 3 motion in response to Blackwater’s motion to dismiss the case. Blackwater asserts that Prince and the company are innocent of any wrongdoing and that they were professionally performing their duties on behalf of their employer, the US State Department.

Yes, Prince is claiming everything he did was on behalf of the State Department. Oh, sure. I have no doubt that, given how Hilary Clinton spoke of his organization during the campaign, that she was all behind what he was doing in Iraq. Again, that is snark.

So – will Obama be held accountable for keeping Blackwater/Xe on the payroll and at the State Department, or will he pass the buck (again) and blame Clinton, even though she wanted nothing to do with them?

Will Erik Prince get his comeuppance for his private “crusade” against Muslims? Will he be held to account for smuggling weapons into Iraq? If what has been alleged against him is true, he deserves everything that is coming to him. Personally, I am exceedingly offended that this man and his company have been on OUR payroll, operating this way on OUR behalf. What he has been accused of doing is obscene. Just reprehensible.

Tell me again why Obama renewed his contract, because I don’t get it (even before these allegations)…

As some of you know, my mother suffered a stroke recently. I am currently in my home town spending time with her and getting her house in order. As a result, I rushed a recent post on “DADT” I wrote in order to get to the nursing center in a timely fashion. Alert No Quarter reader, Ed, gently (I am not being snarky here – he really was) pointed out to me that the soldier whose actual case went before the Supreme Court was not at ALL amused at Obama’s lack of support, though the rest of my post stands as is, I think. The point is, he is dong nothing, and too many people are allowing him to WORM (What Obama Really Meant) out.

The soldier whose case was thrown out by the SCOTUS, had something to say about it, alright, and it was not a whole bunch of WORMing, as this article makes clear,

Dismay Over Obama’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Turnabout. Check this out:

When Barack Obama sought the presidency, he pledged to reverse the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military. Yet on Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a gay Ohio soldier’s challenge to the law — with the legal backing of none other than the Obama Administration.

James Pietrangelo II, the former Army infantryman and lawyer whose case the high court declined to review, reserved most of his ire for President Obama instead of the court. “He’s a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar,” Pietrangelo said in an interview with TIME shortly after the high court declined to hear his appeal. “This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people,” he added. “If there were millions of black people as second-class citizens, or millions of Jews or Irish, he would have acted immediately” (emphasis mine) upon taking office to begin working to lift “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Pietrangelo fought in Iraq in 1991 as an infantryman, and returned as a JAG officer for the second Iraq War, before being booted out in 2004 for declaring he was gay as he was readying for a third combat tour. He was representing himself before the high court.

I don’t want to overreach or anything, but it does sound like Pietrangelo is a tad hot under the collar, as he SHOULD be. About damn time the MSM bothered to report that not everyone is in love with Obama.

As for “DADT” and Obama’s lack of action:

The Obama Administration, in its brief in the case last month, said a lower court acted properly in upholding the gay ban. “Applying the strong deference traditionally afforded to the Legislative and Executive Branches in the area of military affairs, the court of appeals properly upheld the statute,” argued Elena Kagan, who as Solicitor General represents the Administration before the Supreme Court. The bar on gays serving openly is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion,” her 12-page filing added.

The endorsement of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” by the Administration marks the latest rightward tack by Obama. The President denounced many of George W. Bush’s national-security policies during the campaign, but in office has adopted more conservative positions, including endorsing military commissions to try purported terrorists, and declining to release a second batch of photographs depicting alleged U.S. maltreatment of Iraqi detainees. His stance on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” may be more surprising, because Obama aides have made clear the President wants the ban lifted eventually.

“EVENTUALLY”??? Just how the hell long is THAT?? I’m not buying what he’s selling, and neither is Pietrangelo:

Pietrangelo doesn’t buy the line from Obama aides — and the Pentagon — that they’re too busy grappling with a faltering economy and two wars to handle the gay ban right away. “It’s a complete lie that he has too much stuff on his plate — this is the guy who criticized Bush for not being able to multitask,” Pietrangelo says. “We have an old saying in the military — the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters.” (Emphasis mine.)

Pietrangelo and others argue that Obama has leeway under the law that codified “Don’t ask, don’t tell” after the 1993 outcry when Bill Clinton tried to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. The President, they say, could instruct the Secretary of Defense, who has the sole power to carry out the law, to make investigations a rarity, so that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” simply does not function. Indeed, Obama could tell the Pentagon that, as a general matter, it is not in the best interest of the armed forces to expel a service member solely for saying he or she is gay or bisexual.

But the trouble is that the law was passed by Congress and, if Obama decided to go around the legislature, he would face political blowback. The current law allows gays to serve, so long as they keep their sexual orientation secret. The legislation means that a majority of the 535 members of Congress is going to have to vote to undo the ban — and that will have its political fallout. Obama is plainly taking his cue from the 1993 fiasco, which hurt Clinton’s relationship with conservative members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican, and with many in uniform.

But Obama also has some ammunition that Clinton never had: a new Gallup poll finds that most conservatives — 58% — now support openly gay people serving in uniform (nationally, 69% support the change; when Clinton assumed office, a Gallup poll found 53% of those polled opposed lifting the ban). Perhaps even more surprising, 58% of self-described Republicans, and 60% of weekly churchgoers, also support gay men and women serving openly in uniform. “While the Administration to date has not taken action on the issue,” the polling firm reported last Friday, “the Gallup Poll data indicate that the public-opinion environment favors such a move.”

Here’s what gripes me about this, and the other service members who have been kicked out of the military for being LGBT, including Arabic linguists, whom we could actually use right now: the military has actually lowered its enlistment standards over the past few years because of the two wars we are fighting. I am not kidding. Click HERE to read more about it. Doesn’t that just gripe you, too?

Uh, yeah, so enough with the excuses already about “DADT.” Like I said, if Obama has the time to do a videotaped message for Stephen Colbert, giving a “lawful order,” he sure can pick up the phone to call Pelosi and Reid, and tell them to push this through. Dadgummit!

And here’s another good one, courtesy of faithful reader, SF Indie, who informed me of THIS new pick by Obama,
Head Of Pro-Life* Group Gets Job At HHS (* I take issue with the term “Pro-Life, and prefer “Anti-Choice.”). Well I’ll be darned – he’s throwing NARAL, NOW, and a whole bunch of other women and women’s groups under the bus, too???? Oh, I am so, so, so surprised!!! Not, not, not:

The Obama administration has picked the former head of a pro-life Catholic organization to run faith-based and community outreach programs at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Alexia Kelley, co-founder of the liberal group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was appointed Thursday to run HHS’s Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives. (The administration wouldn’t immediately confirm that, but the Catholic Reporter published a press release from Catholics in Alliance trumpeting the announcement.) Catholics in Alliance’s main goal since Kelley helped found it in 2005 has been to emphasize the Catholic Church’s social justice teachings in the political sphere; like other progressive religious groups, it lines up with Democratic positions on health care, poverty, labor and other issues.

On abortion, the group has mostly worked to find ways to reduce demand, rather than to push laws aimed at curtailing the availability of the procedure. But its Web site makes clear that it isn’t pro-choice. “Catholics in Alliance believes in the sanctity of all human life — from conception until natural death,” says a frequently asked questions page.

Pro-choice activists weren’t happy: HHS oversees health care, including abortion policy, for much of the federal government. Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, called it “a defeat for reason and logic.” “The administration has talked a lot about reducing the need for abortion, and progressive groups like my own are totally with the administration in doing that,” he told Salon. But “to have someone working in HHS who oversaw an organization that is anti-abortion… really beggars belief.” The timing of the appointment — just days after abortion provider George Tiller was murdered in his Wichita, Kan., church — is likely to aggravate pro-choice groups even more. (Anti-choice organizations, though, have criticized Catholics in Alliance for giving cover to pro-choice Democrats, by attempting to shift the debate from banning abortion to simply reducing it.)

Well, golly gee – they aren’t happy with the man they chose to support over the WOMAN who has shown her resolve on this issue time and time again?? As Kathy Griffin would say, they can suck it. Again, had they BOTHERED to look at his record (or lack thereof) or his experience (or lack thereof) rather than jumping on the popularity bandwagon, they wouldn’t be so unhappy now. They brought it on themselves BY themselves.

Oh, and you’ll like this part:

Aides at the White House and HHS didn’t immediately return calls and e-mails for comment.

ROTFMLAO – really? They White House and HHS didn’t want to talk about this?? Yeah, I bet.

One last piece:

Update: A spokeswoman for Catholics in Alliance, Jennifer Goff, just sent over a statement. The group clearly wasn’t happy with the criticism from Catholics for Choice: “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is working toward reaching common ground in order to make real progress on the moral and political challenges our country faces instead of resorting to spurious attacks launched by those who are more concerned with inflaming the culture wars than effecting positive change.”

Okey dokey. Sure. Whatever they say…

By now, I am certain everyone has heard of the tragedy at the Holocaust Museum. It was a tragedy indeed, and my heart goes out to the security guard’s family, as well to those who were present at the time. But. And you knew it was coming. When President Obama comes out with a statement tout suite on the security guard’s death, and even Fox News talking about honoring this guard’s service, it makes me a bit irritated. And if you have been reading my posts of late, you know why: because Obama waited DAYS to say anything about the soldiers being gunned down in the street outside a recruiting center, men who were not just doing a job, but giving their LIVES in service to this country (and I meant that in the big picture sense – when you are in the military, it ISN’T just a job. It is your LIFE.). Bottom line is this: Private Long deserved at least as much attention as the security guard did, not to in any way, shape, or form diminish the tragic, senseless loss of life at a museum dedicated to memorializing one of the most horrific periods in world history (and it is an amazing, amazing place).

I’m just saying enough WORMing on Obama’s lack of support to our military, for those lost through an unequal law, or through a politically, religiously motivated attack on service members on our own soil. And, enough WORMing on the poor choices Obama continues to make. Enough already.

Again, big thanks to Ed and SFIndie…

That being said, there is no doubt that Private William Long, the Army soldier gunned down outside an Army Recruiting Center (along with Private Quinton I. Ezeagwula, who was wounded), was killed for political and religious reasons by a convert to Islam, who studied jihad in Yemen. To deny that, to gloss over that reality because President Obama was getting ready to go give a speech in Egypt to the Muslim community (and you know that is why), is yet another example of the failure of the Fourth Estate to do its job, instead of acting as the PR arm of Obama’s Administration. It is revisionist history, to be sure, but one that has consequences, not just in Little Rock, AR, but also for those serving our country who expect, no, who are ENTITLED to, better treatment by their country. It dishonors them, their service, us, and this dishonor is being perpetrated by their Commander in Chief. It is reprehensible.

And so, with the caveat above, here is a link to a post from Atlas Shrugs regarding an event at a Remembrance Rally for the fallen Pvt. Long. One of the points made at the other post was the lack of coverage of this event compared to the protesters at Dr. Tiller’s funeral. At least that seemed to garner some national media attention.

I hasten to say, though, I think it is inappropriate for protesters to be at ANYone’s funeral, whether it be Dr. Tiller’s by Operation Rescue-type people, or at Pvt. Long’s by those who think the US is “The Great Satan,” or whatever. Some of you may know that Fred Phelps’ gang, um, I mean, “church,” often stages protests at the funerals of military personnel (you know, supporting a country that supports LGBT people), and at the funerals of gay people (like Matthew Shepard, for example). If you have not seen any comments made by this group, this should give you an idea:

“The first sin was being a part of this military. If this young man had a clue and any fear of God, he would have run, and not walked, from this military,” said protester Shirley Phelps-Roper. “Who would serve a nation that is godless and has flipped off, defiantly defied, defiantly flipped off, the Lord their God?”

And this:

One protester had an American flag tied to his belt that draped to the ground. He was holding a sign that read, “Thank God For IEDs,” which are explosive devices used by insurgents to blow up military convoys.

It only goes down hill from there.

Ironically, there are often veterans there to counter the Phelps’ people, but they know that this is a free country, which means they have to listen to this crap and not lash out in kind.

Oops – sorry for the digression. The point (I’m getting there!) is two-fold: first, the lack of coverage relating to this violent attack by someone who has a HISTORY of violence and “fun with guns” (ahem), who attacked members of our military motivated by religion and politics continues to upset me. There should be more outrage about this, if you ask me, and more concern, especially since Muhammad seems to have larger connections. Maybe the FBI should have been keeping a closer eye on him.

Second, protesting at a memorial remembrance, or anything like that, is inappropriate, in my opinion that is. People are grieving the loss of their loved ones, and especially when they have been taken by violent means, to then have to deal with protesters is just cruel. I am ALL for free speech, a right sacred to us in a democracy, one in which I engage in regularly, and through protests. It is a right that the veterans mentioned as being why they tolerate the hateful comments made at funerals of soldiers by the Phelps “church.” It is why the videographer at the Rally said over and over, “Can you do this in Saudi Arabia?” (as in, can a woman stand on a street in Saudi Arabia and say whatever she wants? I kinda doubt it.).

But I also believe there is a time and place for such protests, and at someone’s funeral, or even their memorial rally, flies in the face of decency and decorum. That concept seems to be sorely lacking these days, but it wouldn’t hurt to get back to it, and I hope we do. Any ol’ day now…

Wow. That is some mighty disturbing news (here is the LINK, if you’d rather read the article), is it not, both in terms of Muhammad and bin Laden? Well, Joe Biden said this president was going to be “tested by an international crisis within the first six months,” and so he is. It’s a shame he’s too busy trying to garner more accolades from other countries* rather than dealing with the very pressing issues here at home, but I think most of us expected that, didn’t we?

And so this isn’t abstract, this is Private Long, the soldier whose life was snuffed out bu this domestic terrorist:

As of this writing, Obama STILL has not made a statement about the soldiers ambushed in Little Rock. His silence speaks volumes. Especially as he IS the Commander in Chief. But he has nothing to say about two US Army soldiers gunned down in broad daylight in one of our cities? Nothing?? Holy smokes. Like I said – that speaks volumes to me, and what it says is NOT GOOD.

I cannot help but wonder how these two soldiers’ families feel that Obama has remained silent this attack? Especially Private Long’s family, as they deal with their tragic loss with no phone call from the White House? Not to mention what it says to their fellow soldiers…What kind of impact is this having on them? I can only imagine… I know it’s having a pretty big impact on a whole bunch of us who care about terrorists attacks on our own soil of those who have given their lives in service to this country…And I do know that many of us extend out hearts and prayers to all of them, the families, the other soldiers, and the people of Little Rock.

The difference between the treatment and coverage of the murders of Dr. Tiller and Pvt. Long is getting some notice, though:

I hope that Obama will wait no longer to extend his sympathies to Pvt. Long’s family. But I’m not holding my breath…And that’s just sad.

* By the way, Obama has claimed that our country has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. This is laughable on the face of it, but if you want to read the actual statistics, and a great post on this topic as well as Obama’s latest Magical Mystery Tour, I recommend LisaB’s, “When Is ‘Hussein’ Not A Smear? When Obama Say’s It’s Not, OF Course.” I won’t keep you in suspense – we are nowhere CLOSE to having the largest Muslim population in the world. We have about 2.3 million Muslims here, nowhere NEAR as many as a number of other countries.

The candidate was even offended when referred to by his initials “BHO,” because he considered the use of his middle name, “Hussein,” an attempt to frighten voters.”

——–

In September 2008, candidate Obama told a Pennsylvania crowd. . . {Republicans are ] really saying is, ‘We’re going to try to scare people about Barack. So we’re going to say that, you know, maybe he’s got Muslim connections.’. . . Just making stuff up.”

Over at NYT Caucus blog a writer notes Obama’s statement in Germany that the US could be considered a Muslim country.

The president said the United States and other parts of the Western world “have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam.”

“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,” Mr. Obama said. “And so there’s got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples.”

Jihadwatch thinks that’s over the top, noting:

Here is a What-Is-Obama-Smoking? Alert:

Indonesia: 200 million Muslims. India: 156 million Muslims. Pakistan: 150 million Muslims.

United States: 2.3 million Muslims (according to the Pew Research Center).

2.3 million? More than the Republic of Macedonia but less than Mongolia. But whatever.

Now, BO is not a Muslim. He says he’s Christian, and, for what it’s worth, I believe that is the label he prefers.

This story aggravates me strictly because people were branded racist or moronic, or “just plain wrong” because they dared mention BO’s connection to Islam. But what was once unthinkable for Americans to talk about is now an important talking point to the Islamic world.

SusanUnPC also talked about this back in April and included a clip of BO equating people questioning his background with those talking about Bristol Palin’s womb

Obama and his minions were clearly concerned his middle name and history might prove too close to Islam for some Americans and chose to go on the offensive early in the primary. Remember all those pundits who piously said emphasizing “Hussein” was, if not racist, then nearly as wrong? So much so that during the campaign, Time asked why “Hussein” was “off-limits.”

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.: that is the full name of the junior Senator from Illinois — neither a contrivance nor, at face value, a slur. But John McCain couldn’t apologize quickly enough after Bill Cunningham, a conservative talk radio host, warmed up a Cincinnati rally with a few loaded references to “Barack Hussein Obama.” Asked afterwards if it was appropriate to use the Senator’s middle name, McCain said, “No, it is not. Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate.”

[Clearly, many people didn't get the memo when it came to Senator Clinton.]

The pundits were quick to applaud McCain’s fatwa against the use of Hussein, and broadcasters began trying to report on the controversy without actually saying the name too much, dancing around the offending word as if they were doing a segment on The Vagina Monologues. In both cases, the word comes off as not quite illicit, but certainly a little taboo.

NPR also discussed the “middle name problem” some time ago, but the tone from the start was that it was, basically, unacceptable to use it. They also said the “name-which-cannot-be-said” meme started with Karl Rove.

Using Barack Obama’s middle name, Hussein, sounds “like a rallying cry for bigots.”

No, that didn’t come from anyone in the Barack Obama camp. Nor did it come from any liberal pundit defending him. It actually came from someone many liberals consider akin to Darth Vader – Karl Rove.

But if the whole “name-which-cannot-be-said” meme started with Rove, then you’d think the way to answer it, if BO was as enlightened as some thought (light bringer, anyone?) would be open discussion. BO had attended a Christian church, after all, for 20 years.

OK, maybe drawing attention to his church attendance was a bigger problem. Can’t use THAT argument.

Slate did a sympathetic article back in Dec 06 about the whole “name game,” giving credibility to studies of the effect of middle names on politics. (Seriously.) It seems as if even grown-ups can’t resist riffiing on a rival’s middle name, when it’s a little bit silly – as many middle names are.

The research of Grant W. Smith, a professor of English at Eastern Washington University, who has studied how voters react to the sounds of candidates’ names, suggests that Obama’s name could hurt him with undecided voters, who, since they sometimes cast ballots on the basis of vague sentiments, may be influenced by a candidate’s unusual moniker.

(An aside here. A judge, running for chief justice of the NC supreme court, listed his name on the ballot as I. Beverly Lake. The thought at the time was he wanted to appear as a female to voters not familiar with him, so I’d say the “name game” cuts both ways. Oh, and he won.)

Slate also notes an early push-back against the use of “Hussein.”

Just days after Barack Obama mused about running for president, Republican strategist Ed Rogers winged the senator on Hardball. “Count me down as somebody who underestimates Barack Hussein Obama,” sneered Rogers, carefully enunciating Obama’s middle name—a family moniker passed down from his Kenyan father and grandfather.

Obama’s camp, which had not hidden their man’s middle name or bragged about it, cried foul. “It wasn’t a slip of the tongue, I know that,” Obama’s communications director, Robert Gibbs, told Maureen Dowd. “You can’t solve Iraq with a campaign about people’s middle names.”

Obama’s team advanced a moral argument, saying his name and background could not be used to question him, in fact that it was wrong to do so at all. And the MSM bought big.

But it was a political wrong rather than a moral one. POLITICALLY Obama could not stand for people to discuss or mention his connections to Islam, tenuous though they were. So, the machine set to scapegoating anyone who tried with a moral wrong. Using “Hussein” became racist.

Until it wasn’t. Now Obama touts those connections. Now that the politics of the thing has changed, it’s OK to remind Americans (via foreign speeches, natch) about Obama’s time in Indonesia and his name-that-shall-not-be-said. No more moral hazard? Don’t bet on it. It’ll be OK for Europe to talk about it; OK for the Islamic countries to talk about. In fact, the only people not allowed to talk about it are us. Well, just those of us not making up the Muslim country of America.

And when did political wrongs turn into moral ones anyway? And why didn’t calling Sarah Palin a c–t ever rise to the level of moral wrong? Nah, that was just hard-balled politics, wasn’t it?

But which blogs are reporting this story? Reports Newsbusters.org:

While Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit, Red State, and other conservative bloggers have denounced Tiller’s murder, Keith Olbermann, Think Progress, the Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars, and AmericaBlog haven’t even mentioned William Long’s murder at the recruiting center as of this writing.

That is to say, the same people who rushed to denounce Tiller’s murder have been quiet about Private Long’s, at least so far. I hastily add, I am not a fan of people like Bill O’Reilly, whose name has been bandied about regarding Tiller’s murder, but there does seem to be a double standard here in the media.

Here is the full report from CNN:

An Arkansas man was arrested Monday in connection with a shooting at a Little Rock military recruiting center that killed one soldier and wounded another, authorities said.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad — a 24-year-old Little Rock resident formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe — faces a first-degree murder charge and 15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act, Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas said. The terrorist counts stem from the shots fired at an occupied building.

While authorities continued to investigate a motive, Thomas said Muhammad is a Muslim convert and, based on preliminary interviews with him, investigators believe there were “political and religious motives” in the shooting.

Military officials initially believed the shooting was a random act, but Thomas said police believe the shooter acted alone “with the specific purpose of targeting military personnel.”

The soldier who was killed was identified as Pvt. William Long, 24, of Conway, and the wounded soldier is Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, 18, of Jacksonville, Thomas said.

Ezeagwula is in stable condition and expected to recover, the police chief said.

“I’m relieved there’s a suspect in custody,” said Capt. Matthew Feehan, commander of the center.

Feehan said seven other recruiters were in the building, but nobody else was injured.

Thomas said police recovered three guns from Muhammad’s black Ford SUV: an SKS semi-automatic rifle, a .22-caliber rifle and a pistol.

I am relieved there is a suspect in custody, too, and very thankful that Pvt. Ezeagwula is in stable condition. I still have a hard time believing this happened, and that a young soldier’s life was lost in a Little Rock street:

The victims were just out of basic training and had not been deployed, said Lt. Col. Thomas F. Artis, commander of the Oklahoma recruiting battalion that oversees the Little Rock recruiting center.

Melvin Bledsoe of Memphis, Tennesee , who was listed on the police report as Muhammad’s father, declined to comment, referring questions to Little Rock Police.

The soldiers were part of a recruiting program called “hometown recruiting assistance,” Artis said. Under the program, recruiters have the soldiers tell their stories to potential recruits. It’s a volunteer position taken while soldiers are visiting or based back in their home region, Artis said.

The FBI has opened an investigation into the incident, said Steven Frazier, spokesman for the agency’s Little Rock office. “Based on what we find, we will determine whether there is any federal jurisdiction to prosecute,” he said. (CNN’s Mike Phelan, Mike Mount and Terry Frieden contributed to this report.)

Wow – this is just hard to believe. These young men were doing nothing but serving their country, and encouraging others to do likewise. They were, literally, gunned down on the street. In the United States of America.

My prayers are with their families, their friends, their fellow soldiers, and the city of Little Rock. And my prayers are with our country, in which such a thing could happen…

and SUsan

I think that we Americans need to stop exaggerating the level of threat to the United States that originates or will originate in Afghanistan.  The temptation to see the activities and scheming of takfiri jihadis as parts of a world war between the Islamic "House of War" and the rest of us has caused us to begin to re-design our society(ies) for total war against an all powerful and virtually eternal enemy.  This is nonsense.  Islam, Islamdom, and Islamicate Civilization are much given, as are other such cultural constructs, to revivalism in a pattern that recurs over centuries as memory of the costs of each revival fades from the living collective mind.  The present phenomenon of Islamic zealotry is not something new.  It is something old come again.  This wave of revivalism has peaked and will decline under the pressure of local government and religious establishments, foreign military intervention and the competition presented by other forms of Islam, each with its claim to universal authenticity and its own circle of adherents. 

In Afghanistan there is always war; war for resources, honor, leadership, authenticity of Islamic identity.  The causes of war are endless.  There are many different peoples in Afghanistan;  Pushtun, Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara, Turkmen, Nuristani, etc. etc. etc.  Many of these groups speak mutually incomprehensible languages.  They are mostly Sunni, but some, like the Hazara, are Shia.  What we see now in Afghanistan is NOT a "theater of war" in  a "global war on terror."  Rather, it is a continuation of the ancient Afghan pattern of traditional warfare among the peoples, their groupings old and new, and sectarian definitions of Islamic truth.  The minions of the Al-Qa'ida related zealot groups are scattered and hidden in the "landscape" of ever shifting conflict that is Afghanistan.  They are like raisins in a cake.  These "raisins" are a danger to the United States.  They are a danger but not an "existential" threat to our "way of life" as they are sometimes described.  Americans are not going to experience a mass conversion to the Al-Qa'ida version of Islam.  Such a conversion would be a threat to our "way of life" but it will not happen.  Nuclear, biological or chemical weapons in the hands of Al-Qa'ida?  The "dirty bomb" thing?  None of these threats are existential threats to the United States.  The US is too big a country for that.  The Soviet Union with its thousands of hydrogen bombs was an existential threat to the United States, but not Al-Qa'ida.  Americans in their obsession with self tend to confuse personal survival with group survival.  In this case, the group under consideration is the American polity.  That entity is in no way threatened existentially by the raggedy jihadis in Afghanistan or their better dressed fellow enthusiasts elsewhere.  For true Muslims, the survival of the 'Umma is all important.  The base line truth is, as Cieran says, that attacks with 50kt. weapons would be met with retaliation with multi-megaton weapons.  That would be the end of Islamdom in many places.  It would not be the end of Islam but Muslim polities would suffer to an extent that few can imagine.  Faced with that truth only a handful of fanatics would even consider such a thing.  Therefore, it is the handful of fanatics that should be the objects of our attention.  They are dangerous to us at the individual, familial and local levels. 

President Obama in his announcement of policy with regard to Afghanistan, said that our goal would be to disrupt, disorganize and destroy our enemies.  That is an appropriate goal given the actual size and intensity of the threat.  Forget about nation building in Afghanistan.  Forget about generational commitments of vast amounts of treasure that we no longer possess.  Forget about Cheney's nonsensical 1% solution.  This sounds like a half-baked "lift" from the Israeli Right.  A decent regard for the opinion of mankind would point to the wisdom of infrastructure building aid for the Afghans on a multi-national basis.  Past that point we should focus on killing and disrupting the adherents of tiny sects that opt for violent action against what they see as unbelief.  Most Afghans, indeed most Pushtuns do not want an unending war with the US.  They are more than willing, like Willie Sutton, to go where the money is.  The goal of policy in Afghanistan should be to pit the majority(ies) against the handful of people who actively threaten us.  Is this war?  Yes.  It is my kind of war.

In Pakistan the problem is very different.  There, a developed post-colonial state is threatened by a reversion to ancient forms of conflict.  Once again, the Pushtuns of the mountain and hill country seek to impose their will on the people of the plain of the Indus watershed.   The nuclear arsenal of Pakistan makes a victory of the hillmen unacceptable to the US.  As I wrote at the National Journal blog this week, a return to Pakistan Army control of the government and imposition of government control over the border country seems the only acceptable solution and the United States should stop impeding that outcome.  — pl

The introduction of the AfPak plan — so named because rather than focus on Afghanistan it also incorporates Pakistan and the Pashtun populated border — seemed a big step forward for the Obama administration. According to South Asia experts, this plan was bound to succeed and seemed to have it all. But as time elapses the realities on the ground are raising questions about the wisdom of the plan — even if it was meant to be.

This proves that charting out a plan is different than implementing one. It’s certainly a positive step that Obama has “thinkers” on his side, but the reality is that academics, experts and academics are a dime a dozen. The US needs an implementation strategy, as well as someone willing to take charge and responsibility. Right now the plan has been to combat the Taliban. But if you want to kick the Taliban out of Pakistan, you need to understand Pakistan as well the NWFP, the intra-tribal friction, FATA (the Federally Administered Tribal Area), and of course the Arab influence.

The reality is the FATA has always been “sharia inclined”, meaning that the stage was set for what the Taliban were trying to gain. The society is already conservative. But the more cruel face of “Taliban-introduced Islamic law” started taking root during Musharraf era. Sufi Mohammad, the founder of Tehreel-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM), a Pakistan militant organization vying for implementation of Sharia law, was not confronted then and is not confronted now. I mentioned Musharraf because that was the time when the army should have acted to stop the radicalization of the area, but they did not are now finding it difficult to prevent rapid seepage. So technically the infamous Swat “peace” deal is with the TNSM and not Taliban. It is also pertinent to clarify that the deal was signed by the President Asif Ali Zardari after it was passed by the parliament and under a lot of pressure by the NWFP’s provincial government. Though the provincial government is led by a center-left ruling party, they have been acting in diametric opposition to their stated position and beliefs. Their submission to religious parties or groups shows that they have lost control and are operating at cross purposes with the locals.

This is the same Sufi Mohammad, BTW, who was financed the overthrow Benazir Bhutto’s first government. This indicates that this problem has a history prior to the events of the past several weeks. Reports in the Pakistani media confirm that the provincial bureaucracy has been involved in protecting Sufi Mohammad and his like-minded minions. In fact, the Commissioner of that area is considered one of Sufi’s followers. Why hasn’t the Pakistani state government acted against such people? The growing strength and influence of Taliban proves that Pakistan government is not able to take any actions.

It is important to point out that this radical interpretation of Islamic law is a transplant of Arab, Tajik and Uzbek influence. This form of fundamentalism, which is not to be confused with the religious conservatism of the Pashtuns, is not Pakistani in origin.

So, the US strategy should not be to force the government of Pakistan to “do more” but rather to do what has already been asked of it. There is still time to confront Sufi Mohammad in Swat, instead of striking out peace deals, given that Sufi Mohammad is the leader of TNSM and not the Taliban, a misunderstanding which has been propated in the media. Sufi’s son-in-law, however, is the leader of the local Taliban, which makes him like-minded of their ideology.

Not many know that when the Taliban try to took over Buner not only did they faced resistance from the locals but that again neither the state nor the US were there to support them. The Taliban were kicked out but were called back in by the help of the local bureaucracy, contrary to the will of the people. During their week-long takeover, they helped strengthen their local supporters in Buner, not only taking out their “enemies” but established headquarters in their homes. The idea that the Taliban have left Buner is a hoax. But there is still time to take on the insurgents before they move on somewhere else.

What needs to be done – along with military action by the US (and only when it is absolutely necessary and there are no options) – is to pressurize the Pakistani government to support the locals against the Taliban.

The absence of local leaders – whether they were killed or fled the area because of threats from the Taliban – has created a leadership vacuum. This needs to be filled by educated and broadminded individuals to represent the local sentiment but instead is being filled by the power hungry, illiterate Taliban.

Here are the particulars:

President Obama’s nominee to be the State Department’s legal adviser has ignited a fury among conservative critics who say his views are a threat to American democracy — an accusation the White House on Tuesday called “outrageous” and “completely baseless.”

Former Clinton administration official Harold Koh, who has been dean of the Yale Law School since 2004, once wrote that the U.S. was part of an “axis of disobedience” with North Korea and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Koh also has long held that the U.S. should accept international law when deliberating cases at home.

Obama nominated Koh on March 23 to become the State Department’s legal adviser — an appointment that, if confirmed by the Senate, will give Koh far-reaching influence over the extent to which international norms affect U.S. law.

“This is not a desk job. This guy will be the face of American international law around the world,” said Steven Gross, legal expert and fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“The top legal adviser at State travels extensively and is involved in international legal negotiations, treaties and in major United Nations conferences.

“The president should have the right to choose the most conservative or liberal legal advisers to give them advice, but this is much more than that. The concern is that he cares as much about — if not more about — international law and integrating that into the American judicial system than he does about protecting American prerogatives and American sovereignty,” Gross said.

The White House vehemently defended Koh’s nomination on Tuesday, telling FOXNews.com that he is “one of the most respected members of the legal community.”

Koh “earned wide bipartisan praise as assistant secretary of state and he’s universally respected by legal scholars,” White House spokesman Reid Cherlin told FOXNews.com. “The president looks forward to working with him at the State Department. He’s a strong believer in the Constitution, and the president nominated him because of his firm defense of the Constitution.”

State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid also offered praise for Obama’s nominee.

“Dean Koh is universally respected for his legal scholarship and previously served as an assistant secretary of state — and was praised for his work by Republicans and Democrats alike,” Duguid said. “President Obama and Secretary Clinton strongly believe he’s the right person for the job.”

Know what I find interesting? That Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not quoted here. I mean, it just seems to me that if Koh is going to be the Legal Adviser to the State Department, maybe someone should have asked her what she thought. Ahem.

There is more:

Koh, like Obama, is a strong opponent of the Iraq war and the use of harsh interrogation techniques that some consider torture. He has fiercely criticized former President George W. Bush for invading Iraq in 2003 and has accused the Bush administration of trying to “block public release of more Abu Ghraib type pictures.”

“We should resist the claim that a War on Terror permits the commander in chief’s power to be expanded into a wanton power to act as torturer in chief,” Koh wrote in an article published in May 2006 in the Indiana Law Journal.

Koh also advocates a “transnational legal process” and has criticized the U.S. for its failure to “obey global norms.”

In an article published in the Berkeley Journal of International Law in 2004, Koh wrote, “What role can transnational legal process play in affecting the behavior of several nations whose disobedience with international law has attracted global attention after September 11th — most prominently, North Korea, Iraq and our own country, the United States of America? For shorthand purposes, I will call these countries ‘the axis of disobedience.’”

And in a Stanford Law Review article published in May 2003, Koh wrote that supporters of the International Criminal Court should bring pressure to bear on U.S. opinion “with an eye toward persuading U.S. officials that the ICC actually serves U.S. interests.”

I believe the US does have to work well with the international community, and that international law is important. But what REALLY concerns me is this:

A March 21, 2007, blog posting on National Review’s Web site shows a letter written by New York attorney Steven J. Stein to Koh, challenging Koh for supposedly saying during a speech to the Yale Club of Greenwich that year that Islamic law could apply to disputes in U.S. courts.

“In your discussion of ‘global law’ I recall at least one favorable reference to ‘Sharia,’ among other foreign laws that could, in an appropriate instance (according to you) govern a controversy in a federal or state court in the U.S.,” Stein wrote in his letter addressed to Koh.

Cherlin said Stein’s version of events is “not accurate,” and that the host of the event in question disputed the account. Stein could not be reached for comment.

Koh’s critics insist his legal views undermine the U.S. Constitution and American sovereignty.

And that’s just it. Sharia law can be imposed here in the US?? SERIOUSLY?? Holy freakin’ cow. Every woman in this country should be shaking in her boots at that thought. I am not kidding you. Following this article is a video interview of an Arab woman describing in more detail just what Sharia law is. I can sum it up here: it is scary shit.

And then there is this concern, also no small matter:

John Fonte, senior fellow and director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institute, told FOXNews.com that Koh’s views have “a very big practical effect on American foreign policy and on American democracy.

“This is international imperialism. Under Koh’s plan, the Constitution would become secondary and international law would take precedence regardless of what Americans said about the matter.”

See, I have just a wee problem with subsuming our Constitution. I realize that Obama has been hell-bent on that from the get-go when he refused to provide his actual birth certificate, or ANY documentation about his background, not to mention when he engaged in bullying, intimidation, and fraud to get his way. Oh – and firing the CEO of a privately held company has to be a problem. Then there is his connection with ACORN and its receipt of US Taxpayer dollars to engage in partisan politics as well as voter fraud (if you didn’t see the Lou Dobbs video I posted recently on this, here is the LINK). So, yeah – I realize he does not seem to hold it in high regard, his minions claims of him being a Constitutional Scholar notwithstanding (just because someone CLAIMS to be an expert doesn’t mean they ARE an expert, after all).

And for the other side:

Supporters tout Koh as a leading expert on public and private international law, national security law and human rights.

He served as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor from 1998 to 2001, and previously had served on the secretary of state’s Advisory Committee on Public International Law. He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court and testified before Congress dozens of times, and he’s received more than 30 awards for his human rights work, according to Yale’s Web site.

Cherlin described Koh as “an American success story.” (His brother, Howard Koh, was tapped by the president two days later for a position in the Health and Human Services Department.)

“He’s the son of immigrants. He’s a dedicated teacher and professor, and does great work. We don’t have any question whatsoever about any of these issues raised by critics who are sworn opponents of the administration,” said Cherlin, who said the conservative critics’ opposition was “ideologically driven.”

So, because he is the son of immigrants, we should just throw the Constitution and our laws aside? Because he’s such a nice guy, it’s okay that he doesn’t mind Sharia Law imposed here? I’m sorry, but that’s just a smokescreen to attack his critics with a broad brush without dealing with the issues raised, and they are serious issues, indeed.

As promised, here is the video mentioned above:

While Harold Koh may be a great teacher and all that, it does not make up for his willingness to supersede US law in a State Department position. Once again, Obama is pushing a candidate who is not the best choice, not for the country, or for the Constitution. And most definitely, not for women.

With every step forward that women in Afghanistan take, violent incidents highlight the fact many still struggle for basic human rights eight years after the ouster of the conservative Taliban regime.

In a speech commemorating International Women’s Day on Sunday, President Hamid Karzai challenged Afghan religious leaders to denounce violence against women and reject traditional practices that treat women as property.

“The forced marriages, the selling of women — these are against Islam,” Karzai told some 600 women gathered in a high school auditorium in the capital, Kabul.

The Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 forced women to stay at home and banned them from appearing in public without a body-covering burqa.

There have surely been improvements, as the article details (it’s an AP article, and they are very picky about having those reprinted). Thank heavens for that.

But that is not the end of the story. The same day President Karzai was speaking to this group of women, a woman, a widow, set herself on fire to escape the poverty in which she lived, and from which she saw no escape:

The incident occurred in an area where scores of women have killed themselves by self-immolation to escape abuse, forced marriages or other oppressive customs. As a widow, Bibi would have been on the bottom rung of traditional Afghan society — undesirable for marriage and unemployable because of her gender.

Even in the cities, where women have made great strides in employment and recognition, there are signs of backsliding in recent years. Karzai noted in his speech that the number of women working in government ministries has actually dropped to 21 percent from an earlier figure of 32 percent.

A U.N. report this week on human rights in Afghanistan said that “threats and intimidation against women in public life or who work outside the home have seen a dramatic increase.”

Things are getting better in some ways for women, but too much is still the same, or getting worse.

And not just in Afghanistan, unfortunately, but in Iraq in which mothers are selling their daughters into prostitution (H/T to Cheneywatch.com). This TIME article describes the far-reaching extent of this practice, with many of the daughters not yet teenagers, some going to our close friends in the Middle East. For the sake of space, I am not reprinting the whole article here, but I urge you to read it all:

…That underworld is a place where nefarious female pimps hold sway, where impoverished mothers sell their teenage daughters into a sex market that believes females who reach the age of 20 are too old to fetch a good price. The youngest victims, some just 11 and 12, are sold for as much as $30,000, others for as little as $2,000. “The buying and selling of girls in Iraq, it’s like the trade in cattle,” Hinda (an undercover human rights worker) says. “I’ve seen mothers haggle with agents over the price of their daughters.”

The trafficking routes are both local and international, most often to Syria, Jordan and the Gulf (primarily the United Arab Emirates). The victims are trafficked illegally on forged passports, or “legally” through forced marriages. A married female, even one as young as 14, raises few suspicions if she’s travelling with her “husband.” The girls are then divorced upon arrival and put to work. (See Iraq’s return to “normalcy”.)

Nobody knows exactly how many Iraqi women and children have been sold into sexual slavery since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, and there are no official numbers because of the shadowy nature of the business. Baghdad-based activists like Hinda and others put the number in the tens of thousands. Still, it remains a hidden crime; one that the 2008 US State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report says the Iraqi government is not combating. Baghdad, the report says, “offers no protection services to victims of trafficking, reported no efforts to prevent trafficking in persons and does not acknowledge trafficking to be a problem in the country.”

Mere children are being sold into sexual slavery in Iraq, and it has gotten WORSE under our watch. Sadly there is more, horrifying information in this article, but Hinda’s experience is pertinent:

Hinda the activist-investigator also knows what’s its like to be betrayed by family and considered human merchandise. Raped at 16, she was disowned by her family and left homeless. In many parts of the Arab world, the stigma of compromised chastity, even if it was stolen, is such that victims are at best outcasts and at worst killed for “dishonoring” their family or community. Desperate and destitute, Hinda turned to prostitution.

Now 33, she is using her knowledge of the industry to infiltrate trafficking rings across the country. She gathers information about the victims, where they are from, how much they’re sold for and who is buying them. Most often she poses as a buyer for overseas clients, a cover that enables her to snap pictures of victims and claim that they are for her potential customers. She drags out the negotiations for several days, knowing that the victims are usually sold during that period. Playing a disappointed pimp helps keep her cover intact, she says. She can’t rescue the girls, but the hope is that when the government decides to take trafficking seriously, her work and that of others will eventually help prosecute offenders and identify victims. She moves away from each trafficking ring as quickly as she can. To linger would be to invite suspicion.

But these days, she says suspicion is getting harder to avoid. She has been beaten before, by the security guards of pimps who suspect her of encouraging young victims to escape or offering them help. But in the past week she has received several death threats, some so frightening and persistent that she penned a farewell letter to her mother. “I’m scared. I’m scared that I’ll be killed,” she says, wiping away her tears. “But I will not surrender to that fear. If I do it means I’ve given up and I won’t do that. I have to work to stop this.”

So do we. But not just in Iraq, or Afghanistan. We, too, have a government that needs to work to stop this abuse of women. I have written before about domestic violence, and rape, but in more general terms. Today, though, it will be more specific. Today, I speak out for our women in the military. Yes, I said the women in our military. More than 1 in 4 women, officers and enlisted, are either raped or sexually assaulted. More than 25% of our women in uniform are sexually assaulted. And they are assaulted by fellow military personnel (96%). These women are putting their lives on the line for US, and while in the service of our country, over 25% are assaulted in the most horrendous way possible for a woman (at least in my opinion).

The statistics above came from a House panel on Friday, March 7, 2009. Again, thanks to Cheneywatch.com for bringing these to my attention. If you do not have time to watch all 4 of them, please watch the first one:

I am sickened by this, absolutely sickened. But it is cultural, unfortunately, here in the States. Valuing men above women, using women as a means to an end, using women as objects, treating them with callous disregard and with violence.

In our military, where women go to serve their nation, too, too many are being subjected to the most despicable form of violence, taking something by force that can never be returned, and from which most never fully recover. By their contemporaries. With whom they are forced to remain in contact. Can you even begin to imagine the psychological effects this has on them?

We saw the most qualified person, a woman, with the majority of support by members of her party, forced to concede her victory to a lesser qualified, far more inexperienced man. This was able to happen because of the tacit acceptance of rampant sexism and outright misogyny (as a reminder – misogyny means HATRED of women), perpetrated by men in that party and in the media, as well as from the women who wanted, no, craved, men’s approval. It is a matter of degrees, and in this country, we have made it quite clear – even the very best, most qualified women are not as good, not as WORTHY, as the worst of con men with little to offer.

And this has effects on all of us. The lessons it teaches us, our daughters, our nieces, our grandchildren, is that they are less than, they are tools to be used, they are objects. Like Afghanistan and Iraq, while some strides may be made, there is always a price to be paid, and too many women in our country, in our military, are paying that price. That is simply unacceptable, and it must stop. Now.

Anyone (like Barack Obama) entertaining ideas of western democracies establishing friendly relations with the radicals of the Islamic world should watch this video.

While watching the inflammatory rhetoric of the speaker, remember that this is not a jahidist from Iran but a professor from Kuwait – a country with every reason to be grateful to the USA for liberating it from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein’s invasion.

Qatar, the country from which it was broadcast, is also supposed to be one of the Middle East countries more friendly to the USA than others in the region.

Together with increasing criticism from supposedly friendly Iraqis about America’s operations in the region, it suggests that America is fighting a losing battle in its attempts to win friends in the region, and that a final showdown with Islamic extremism is inevitable, since there is no room for compromise with people who believe as this Kuwaiti professor does.