For all you believers, Afghanistan has a proposition for you. The Taliban leaders had a grand Jirga and suggested that each riteous Christian should be offered a sum of money, a couple of grand, to change their hearts.

Now, we know not all good Christians are sell outs…but look when you take gas prices, utility bills, unemployment, health, inflation, and the kids’ education into account, is it that hard to imagine that more than a few people would consider the Taliban’s offer? Good Christians might secretly visit Church even after agreeing to the deal. But what’s going to happen once the money is gone? Good Christians will return to their faith, or will scheme to keep the money coming their way.

Does this sound ridiculous enough?

Well, that’s what Afghanistan’s puppet President Hamid Karzai proposed at the London Conference. The United States backed the idea, and has decided to raise one billion dollars to buy off Taliban or Taliban sympathizers. The specific amount of money each member of the Taliban would receive has not yet been worked out, but given the high corruption level in Afghanistan, my shot in the dark is that they won’t get enough money to keep their loyalties to one party.

Over the next 5 years, as proposed by the Afghan government, this money would be used to establish a trust to finance the reintegration program that would persuade the militants to lay down their weapons.

The U.N. Security Counsel also removed the names of five Taliban leaders from the “black list” of 144 dangerous terrorists figuring in the sanctions regime under Resolution 1267 dating back to the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. This shows that we are back to square one. As the UN envoy to Afghanistan put it, “If you want results, then you have to talk to the relevant person in authority.”

Paying the bribe to purchase a change of heart is a bogus idea. But some argue that Taliban supporters have failed to realize why international forces are in their country. Interestingly, this idea is supported by the argument that it can’t be worse than the previous efforts.

Well, then the previous efforts were wrong, as this one. Bottom line is, you can not correct a historical blunder with such idiotic tactics. This is what the West never understood and still refuses to.

–
Cross Post from: The Pakistan Update

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has learned very little from the military trials and tribulations of the United States over the past 50 years. During that period, the United States has lost three costly and avoidable wars in Southeast Asia, Southwest Asia, and the Middle East. These wars involved U.S. military forces for more than 12 years in Vietnam, more than six years (and counting) in Iraq, and eight years (and counting) in Afghanistan.

Despite our military, intelligence, and technological superiority, we were stymied by two countries that had no air force, no navy, no army, no air defense. We were able to deploy weapons of great lethality, sophistication, maneuverability, and firepower. Nevertheless, Secretary Gates wants to reorient planning at the Pentagon so that the United States could be positioned to fight more such wars.

Despite his previous lip service to ensure that the State Department and various civilian agencies get more involved in implementing American national security policy, Gates clearly wants the Pentagon to have pride of place in international areas outside the principal mission of military operations. He wants to expand the military’s role in equipping and training foreign forces, and for educating foreign officers.

He also wants to expand the nation-building programs that grew out of our egregious experience in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, which the Obama administration seems to favor for our involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Like his regional commanders, Gates seems to see the Pentagon as a “big Velcro cube that other agencies can hook to so we can collectively do what needs to be done” in such regional commands as the Middle East and Southwest Asia. Gates apparently would do nothing to reverse the trend of the recent past that allows general officers and particularly regional commanders to have more influence and leverage than their civilian counterparts in the implementation of American foreign policy.

The emphasis on adding to the ranks of the Army, the Marine Corps, and special forces and greater spending on low-tech weapons that are best suited for guerrilla or irregular warfare points to continued problems for American national security. Gates explained that he is “just trying to get the irregular guys to have a seat at the table and to institutionalize the needs they have.” Any shift in the direction of greater funding for such counter-insurgency operations as Iraq and Afghanistan is not encouraging.

The United States (and the Western community in general) can point to very few military successes in such operations and run the risk of large-scale and long-term occupations. We invaded Iraq six years ago when there was no connection whatsoever between that country and U.S. national interest, and now we are committing greater forces and resources to Afghanistan where there is no connection to our vital interests. President Obama and Secretary Gates want to move in the direction of nation building, although there is no operational strategy for involving the State Department and the Agency for International Development in stabilization and reconstruction in troubled areas.

Some aspects of the Gates’ doctrine are laudatory, particularly the decision to scale back spending on national missile defense; to create a professional procurement process; to cap production of the Air Forces’ F-22 fighter jet; to cancel production of a new presidential helicopter; and to reduce the Army’s Future Combat Systems. The effort to fix the procurement system is long overdue, and even Gates’ two previous budgets were mere straight-line projections of Donald Rumsfeld’s budgetary and procurement agenda.

The Pentagon’s weapons-procurement system has been a well-known disaster that presidential administrations and congressional committees have refused to address. In taking on the Pentagon’s inability to make hard choices in weapons systems or to undertake major reform, Gates is taking on President Eisenhower’s military-industrial-congressional complex.

A more promising development is in legislation sponsored by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ), who want to create a director of independent cost assessments, who would have a senior staff with the authority to obtain data from weapons contractors and to ensure that costs are justified. The services, which are responsible for cost estimates on weapons programs, have never developed a professional staff to provide accurate cost estimates, let alone discipline profligate weapons manufacturers.

Last year, according to the Washington Post, the Government Accountability Office reported that cost overruns on the largest weapons systems totaled about $300 billion.

Sadly, the Gates’ doctrine still points to the United States as the “indispensable nation,” in the words of former president Bill Clinton and his secretary of state Madeleine Albright, endowed by providence with unique responsibilities and obligations.

Gates and presumably President Obama want the United States to be able to respond to any and all crises, even those that have no relevance to American national interests, let alone vital national interests. Gates wants to maintain the offensive orientation of the Bush administration’s foreign policy and obviously believes that American military power will preserve law and order.

In his inaugural address, President Obama emphasized that “power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please.” It does not appear that Obama’s secretary of defense was listening.

Melvin A. Goodman,a regular contributor to The Public Record, is senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and adjunct professor of government at Johns Hopkins University. He spent more than 42 years in the U.S. Army, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Defense. His most recent book is “Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA.”

NOW on to the BUMPING UP of Larry Johnson’s EXCEPTIONAL essay that sensible people everywhere should read. We realize that the KoolAid dipsomaniacs are unable to see, let alone comprehend, but we’ll persist.

By LARRY JOHNSON, originally published on November 11, 2008:

If you enjoyed the George W. Bush era, you are gonna love the Barack Obama regime, because Obama is relying on some of the same folks who helped create the mayhem and failures in the CIA. That’s right, boys and girls. Take a look at today’s Wall Street Journal:

President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party. . . .

The intelligence-transition team is led by former National Counterterrorism Center chief John Brennan and former CIA intelligence-analysis director Jami Miscik, say officials close to the matter. Mr. Brennan is viewed as a potential candidate for a top intelligence post. Ms. Miscik left amid a slew of departures from the CIA under then-Director Porter Goss.

Advisers caution that few decisions will be made until the team gets a better picture of how the Bush administration actually goes about gathering intelligence, including covert programs, and there could be a greater shift after a full review.

The Obama team plans to review secret and public executive orders and recent Justice Department guidelines that eased restrictions on domestic intelligence collection. “They’ll be looking at existing executive orders, then making sure from Jan. 20 on there’s going to be appropriate executive-branch oversight of intelligence functions,” Mr. Brennan said in an interview shortly before Election Day.

Putting John Brennan in charge of this effort is mind numbing. Brennan was one of the George Tenet toadies who defended the former CIA Director when I, along with a group of other retired CIA officers, demanded that Tenet donate part of the proceeds of his book to the families of U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq and to return his medal of freedom.

Brennan was part of the group of the insiders who saw no problem with George Tenet helping cook the intelligence and mislead the American people about the threat in Iraq. Here’s what Tim Shorrock wrote about that dust up:

Tenet’s ties with contractors were underscored last week in a dispute between two groups of former CIA officials over Tenet’s legacy. On April 28, six former intelligence officers wrote to Tenet, saying he shared culpability with President Bush and Vice President Cheney for “the debacle in Iraq,” and suggesting he donate half the royalties from his book to Iraq war veterans and their families. All of the signatories had severed their ties to U.S. intelligence, although three of them, Phil Giraldi, Larry Johnson and Vince Cannistraro, work as consultants for news organizations, corporations and government agencies outside of intelligence.

A few days later, six recently retired officers responded. They called the first letter a “bitter, inaccurate and misleading attack” on Tenet and pointed out that it was drafted by officers who “had not served in the Agency for years.” Tenet, his supporters said, “literally led the nation’s counterterrorism fight.” And three of its six signatories were directly involved in that fight — as contractors. They included John Brennan of the Analysis Corp.; Cofer Black, Tenet’s former counterterrorism director and vice chairman of Blackwater, the private military contractor; and Robert Richer, the former deputy director of the CIA’s clandestine services. Richer recently left Blackwater to become the CEO of Total Intelligence, a new company formed with Black and other ex-CIA officials to provide intelligence services to corporations and government agencies.

In the immediate aftermath of 9-11 Brennan was in charge of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (which was replaced subsequently by the National Counter Terrorism Center) and failed to give the U.S. State Department the correct statistics on the number of terrorist attacks in 2003. He forgot to count an entire month’s data. I discovered the error and alerted folks at State Department.

Professors Alan Krueger and David Laitin independently discovered the discrepancies and published an op-ed in the Washington Post. Here’s a link for a comprehensive article discussing that intelligence failure.

So you think I am being too hard on Brennan? Sure, anyone can make a mistake. However, he was back in the news in 2005. I learned in March of that year that the State Department was not going publish the CIA stats on terrorism because the number of attacks had dramatically increased and the Bush Administration thought that made it look like they were losing the war on terror. John Brennan was part of that effort to keep the truth from the American public. Here’s the piece I wrote to help draw attention to this issue back in 2005:

The numbers are in and the news is not good for U.S. efforts to contain and reduce the threat of international terrorism. 2004 marked the highest number of significant incidents of terrorism since the intelligence community started keeping statistics in 1968. (An incident is counted as significant if an attack results in the death, injury or kidnapping of one or more persons or property damage in excess of $10,000). Attacks jumped from 175 in 2003 to 651 in 2004. This surpasses the previous high of 273 significant attacks in 1985.

The bad news kept on coming. One thousand nine hundred and seven (1907) people died in international terrorist attacks last year. This marks the second highest death toll since 1968; falling short of the infamous record of 2001.

Unfortunately, former 9-11 Commission Staff Director, Phil Zelikow, and chief of the National Counter Terrorism Center, John Brennan, tried with some success to confuse the press and suggest that the numbers do not matter. In a deft display of obfuscation and spin Messrs. Zelikow and Brennan made several points. It started with Zelikow’s claim that:

The compilation of data about terrorist attacks is not a required part of the report, but traditionally had been provided by the State Department, going back to the years in which the State Department was basically the public voice of the U.S. Government on international terrorism, generally. . . . But what’s important for our purposes is what the law said the NCTC should do. It said the NCTC was the primary organization for analysis and integration of — and I’m quoting from the law now — “All intelligence possessed or acquired by the United States Government pertaining to terrorism or counterterrorism.” The law further stated that the NCTC would be the United States Government’s “shared knowledge bank on known and suspected terrorists and international terror groups, as well as their goals, strategies, capabilities, and networks of contact and support.” (Phil Zelikow)

State Department’s role as the lead for coordinating international terrorism was established by a National Security Decision Directive signed by President Reagan in early 1986. This was in response to an interagency fight that broke out during an effort to apprehend the terrorists responsible for the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship. While flying over Italy in late 1985 in pursuit of Abu Abbas, a State Department official and a CIA officer argued heatedly over who was in charge of the mission. Recognizing the need for a clear chain of command the Department of State was put in charge of coordinating the efforts of CIA, DOD, and FBI efforts to track and deal with terrorism. The first man put in charge of this effort was L. Paul (Jerry) Bremer.

Mr. Zelikow is misleading the media by asserting that the State Department “traditionally compiled the data”. That is simply not true. The State Department never was in charge of collecting or compiling the statistics. It simply coordinated the process of assembling the data in order to provide the Congress and the American people with a comprehensive view of international terrorist activity. Since 1986 the Counter Terrorism Center at the CIA had the task of compiling the data and writing the narrative analysis. Don’t take my word for it, just ask the former Chiefs of the Counter Terrorism Center starting with Dewey Claridge and ending with Cofer Black.

By splitting the statistics on terrorism from the country reports, Zelikow is creating the kind of stovepiping of information which the 9-11 Commission claimed helped undermine US efforts to detect and defeat Al Qaeda’s effort to launch their suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There is nothing in the new law requiring this move.

John Brennan, the head of the National Counter Terrorism Center, made the unbelievable admission that when the CIA shifted responsibility for counting terrorist incidents to the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) in the fall of 2003 only three part time people were assigned to the task. Brennan said:

To ensure a more comprehensive accounting of terrorist incidents, we in the NCTC significantly increased the level of effort from three part-time individuals to 10 full-time analysts, and we took a number of other steps to improve quality control and database management. This increased level of effort allowed a much deeper review of far more information and, along with Iraq, are the primary reasons for the significant growth in a number of terrorist incidents being reported.

The American people are asked to believe that nobody at TTIC understood in the aftermath of 2001 that we needed to keep a comprehensive count of terrorist events. Implicit in this criticism is a smear on the good work done previously at the Counter Terrorism Center. CTC did not consider counting terrorism events an afterthought. They used a sound methodology of monitoring news media reports, FBIS reports, and cables from US Embassies and Defense Attaches to identify possible acts of international terrorism. An act of violence did not necessarily mean that terrorism was involved. Instead expert analysts from CTC and State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) would meet periodically to review and decide what incidents represented acts of international terrorism.

This process broke down when the responsibility for doing this was shifted from CTC and put under Mr. Brennan’s stewardship at the Terrorist Threat Integration Center in late 2003. Mr. Brennan in fact shares much of the responsibility for the debacle with the statistics that were misreported in the report issued in April 2004. He did not ensure that his part time employees could count.

With the beefed up work force at NCTC we now know that 10 analysts were involved in counting 651 significant international terrorist attacks in 2004. Geez, I guess that means it took each analyst one year to keep track of 65 attacks.

Brennan asks the media and the American people to believe that the rise in attacks is simply the result of better counting by more people. Not true. An independent data source from RAND-MIPT shows a similar dramatic rise in attacks and deaths. This is not an artifice of methodology. Something bad is going on out there.

Two countries account for a major portion of the increased terrorist activity—the Kashmir region of India and Iraq. With respect to Kashmir, it is important to note that since 1998 this area has consistently appeared in the appendix in Patterns of Global Terrorism that described significant incidents. I have used this data in briefing for foreign governments during that period to point out that not only was India being repeatedly attacked by Islamic jihadists (who were funded and trained by Pakistan), but that the people of Kashmir repeatedly suffered one of the highest death tolls of any country in the world from terrorist attacks. The sad fact is that media, and to a lesser extent the U.S. Government, tended to ignore these attacks.

It is worth recalling that the cruise missiles fired by President Clinton in August of 1998 in retaliation for the Al Qaeda bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania struck a camp in Afghanistan and killed members of one of the groups that carried out attacks in the Kashmir as well as two Pakistani intelligence officers. In the war against Islamic extremists Kashmir matters.

Brennan’s response on Iraq is more puzzling:

QUESTION: Do you regard the Iraq numbers that you just gave us — for which, thank you — as comparable? And the reason I ask is that I’ve got to figure that if there’s one piece of real estate that the U.S. intelligence community has devoted enormous resources to in the last two years, it’s got to be — two-and-a-half years — it’s Iraq. Therefore, do you think those figures are comparable, ‘03 to ‘02?
MR. BRENNAN: In terms of what the term you’re using — “comparable” — to sort of denote here, I’m not certain. The rigor that we applied worldwide for the 2004 data also applied to Iraq. So it was Iraq, Kashmir, and others. So that number, I think, is the result of exhaustive search and research on that. Also, as I pointed out, the number of civilians that have come not just from the United States, but also from other countries — the number of individuals who, in fact, are in different places in Iraq that have been involved in some of the attacks that have taken place there, I think that is the reason why, in fact, we’re seeing an increase in that number.

Although Brennan is not certain about the comparability of the numbers we do not have to rely on him. Data maintained by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is reported on at least a weekly basis to the Secretary of Defense, shows clear unambiguous data that the level of terrorist activity in Iraq mushroomed in 2004. In fact, the highest level of attacks ever recorded in Iraq occurred in December 2004.

Iraq is relevant to the threat of international terrorism principally because it is serving as a drawing card for jihadists throughout the Islamic world. I have had recent discussions with senior government officials representing three countries in the Persian Gulf. To a man they were alarmed by the images coming out of Iraq showing US soldiers abusing muslim women and the shooting of unarmed insurgents. The perception of the United States as an invader is inciting terrorism in the region, not quelling it. Several commented on the perceived parallel of the U.S. presence in Iraq as comparable to what the Soviets did in Afghanistan during the 1980s. They worry that we are sowing the seeds of future jihadist terrorism.

The real news from the press conference of Messrs. Zelikow and Brennan is that they have not finished counting the incidents from last year and that the numbers are likely to go up when revised statistics are issued in June. Moreover, both conceded that events in Russia and Philippines, where several hundred were killed, were excluded from the data.

I welcome Mr. Brennan’s commitment to look at the methodology and recommend corrections. The failure to count attacks inside Russia by Chechen separatists, for example, needs to be re-examined. While ten years ago there was no evidence that the Chechen were receiving outside assistance, that is not the case today. In fact Chechen fighters in the battle of Anaconda in Afghanistan in March 2002 killed American soldiers. The Chechen movement has clear economic and military ties to international jihadists. In future reports it would be entirely appropriate to classify as international attacks something carried out by any group with established ties to groups outside of their country.

There is no single statistic that can tell us what is happening in the war on terrorism. Reporting multiple attacks does not necessarily mean that casualties will follow. As Brennan and Zelikow correctly note most of the casualties were caused by a relatively small number of attacks. But, those attacks were carried out by Islamic extremists that have clear ties with Al Qaeda.

In light of this it is breathtaking that someone with Zelikow’s intellect can argue that numbers don’t matter. The following exchange occurred during the Wednesday afternoon press conference:

QUESTION: Um, 651 attacks in 2004, compared to 175 attacks in your report in 2003. That’s a sharp increase in terrorist attacks. What does that tell us about the war on terrorism — the global war on terrorism and the cooperation? . . . .
MR. ZELIKOW: I mean, the short answer is it doesn’t tell us anything about the war on terror. The statistics are simply not valid for any inference about the progress, either good or bad, of American policy. I think that’s the honest answer. If you just look at what the statistics are and what kind of inferences can legitimately be drawn from them, I can’t come up with a defensible inference.

Here’s the bottom line. Numbers do matter. If more people are being killed in Iraq and India then we need to ensure that US policy for combating terrorism is focused on those areas. To pretend that the threat of terrorism is as great in Brazil as in Iraq is delusional. And to pretend that objective facts say nothing about the reality of terrorism perhaps shows us why the US effort to deal with Islamic extremists is going in the wrong direction.

Friends in the intelligence community tell me that Zelikow, when confronted with the higher numbers, tried to have those numbers suppressed. Once word of this leaked out Zelikow shifted gears to damage control and constructed the artificial and misleading explanation that NCTC is now doing something new that was never done before. Oh yeah, and it is mandated by law.

Sadly this simply shows how uninformed Zelikow is about the history of counter terrorism policies and procedures during the last 25 years, notwithstanding his post as staff director of the 9-11 Commission. Maybe this explains why the Commission had such difficulty identifying who failed in their duty to prevent those terrible attacks in September 2001. Phil Zelikow by his own admission has trouble making sense of numbers.

So you thought Barack Obama would bring change to the abuses at CIA? Think again. He’s relying on folks who helped debase and embarrass the CIA. That’s not change I want to believe in.

Don’t think for a moment that just because the election is over, that President-elect Obama’s Kool-Aid drunk hordes of internet volunteer/bots/thugs are going to fade away and go back to playing Doom, Sims, Dungeons and Dragons or trolling for dates on Facebook.

In fact, one of the netroots’ great gurus, none other than Joe Trippi believes the Community Organizer in Chief will harness the power of his millions of devoted on-line minions to create one of the most powerful lobbying forces ever. Frank Greve of the McClatchy newspapers writes about that here.

Oppose the President at your own peril.

Joe Trippi, the Internet politics guru whose computer geeks made Howard Dean a contender in 2004 and who went on to design Obama’s socially networked campaign machine, offers a provocative and educated guess.

Trippi predicted that Obama would use his forces, first and foremost, to intimidate congressional foes of his agenda, rally his allies and forge “one of the most powerful presidencies in American history.”

Certainly, Obama reaches the White House with the biggest, best organized, fastest-acting grass-roots army in the history of presidential campaigning.

Moreover, because his Internet operation was miles ahead of Republican John McCain’s, Obama’s liberal-to-libertarian electronic activists are in a position to dominate the new political medium much as conservative Republicans dominate talk radio.

As for political utility, many thousands of volunteers such as Hood will be deployable within hours, with great precision and at almost no cost, thanks to the campaign’s state-of-the-art information-management systems.

The president-elect’s political operatives know, for example, the ZIP codes and hence the congressional districts of each of Obama’s million most active campaigners, those who volunteered via his Web site mybarackobama.com. It’s a social network that the campaign set up to communicate needs, events and assignments to volunteers.

We have already witnessed the power of his online intimidation network. Pro-Hillary websites shut down after thousands of false spam reports from Obots, personal e-mails of bloggers reported for spam and turned off as well and of course those lovely trolls who invade every site to hijack any discussion that deviates from the Obama party line.

Several media outlets were bombarded with harassing phone calls, e-mails and protestors minutes after the devoted received “Obama action alerts” letting them know that opposition voices were soon to appear on certain programs.

Those who read here are already well aware that the candidate who promised a new kind of politics also approves of a new kind of political dissent. That is of course, no dissent at all.

It really is scary to think of how he might use that power to pursue his agenda. All the more reason that we at No Quarter must begin to organize ourselves and grow our ranks. It will be the only way to combat the power of the mob.

We are facing the risk of a president so little traveled that he had to make a whirlwind tour of Europe this summer just to get a “postcard” feel for the continent, who did not visit our gravely injured soldiers in Germany because no photographers could accompany him, and who spent most of the time prepping for a lavish rally in Berlin that was nothing more than expensive theater:

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama paid a German company nearly $700,000 for staging, sound and lighting services at a time he delivered a speech this summer in which he declared himself a “citizen” of both the U.S. and the world… (Flopping Aces blog)

Given that the first year of a presidency is especially dangerous, American voters must ask if it is John McCain or Barack Obama who is best able to face frightening international crises that come out of the blue. Mike McConnell, National Intelligence Director, explains:

And … remember this … who do YOU want answering that phone?

You all remember Hillary’s “3 a.m.” ad that shattered the “rose-colored glasses” of many voters and led to the stark realization that she would be a steady force as our nation’s leader but that Barack Obama simply didn’t have the experience or qualifications. In three words, he isn’t ready.

Then think about this:

Today, U.S. Senator John McCain issued the following statement concerning Barack Obama’s hedging on foreign policy and Iran:

“Earlier today, when asked about efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, Senator Obama said he might apply tougher sanctions — ‘potentially.’

I have called for tougher sanctions against Iran for years. I have supported tougher sanctions during this campaign that Barack Obama opposed, and if elected, I would work to lead an international effort to put tougher sanctions in place — not potentially but actually.

Senator Obama last year opposed legislation with broad bipartisan support that called for tougher sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for its terrorist activities.

Senator Obama was also asked today about capturing Osama bin Laden — he said he would ‘try him, apply the death penalty to him where it is necessary.’ I do not know why Senator Obama would have any doubt that it is necessary. There is no one more deserving of execution than Osama bin Laden. If he survives capture, the death penalty would be necessary, just and appropriate.

Senator Obama continues to hedge his bets on national security issues showing his inexperience and weakness. Senator Obama’s comments demonstrate once again that America cannot afford untested leadership when facing the threats posed by Iran and Osama bin Laden.”

Here is what Barack Obama told Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s “Situation Room” yesterday, October 31, 2008:

CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: Senator McCain says he knows how to capture Bin Laden and he says I’ll get him, if he’s elected president. Do you know how to capture Bin Laden?

BARACK OBAMA: I’m reminded of — he said this during the debate. I think that night, maybe, Jon Stewart on Comedy Central said, you know, why have you been holding out on us over the last six years? The fact is, along with George Bush, John McCain championed the strategy that distracted us from capturing Bin Laden that focused on Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11. And so clearly, Senator McCain doesn’t know how to capture Bin Laden because he was supportive of a huge strategic blunder when it came to accomplishing the task. I will focus on what Secretary Gates and others have indicated is our number one security threat, and that is Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. We will go after him. We will kill him or capture him, try him, apply the death penalty to him where it is necessary. That’s the threat we should have stayed focused on. That’s the threat I will focus on when I’m president.

BLITZER: Senator McCain says that if he’s elected president, Iran will not become a nuclear power. Can you make that same commitment?

OBAMA: Well, I’ve said I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. I think it would be a game-changer. It would not be acceptable. It would be a threat to our strongest ally in the region, Israel. But it would also potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. And we have to both apply much tougher diplomacy and sanctions, potentially, if they do not move in a better direction. We have to give them some inducements to walk away from their nuclear program and we should never take a military option off the table.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

NOW PLEASE READ THIS AGAIN:

Senator Obama continues to hedge his bets on national security issues showing his inexperience and weakness.

THEN ASK YOURSELVES AGAIN:

Is it company he’s kept all these years — all those dinners, meetings, and phone calls for with Palestinian radical Rashid Khalidi, anti-American radicals Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and his anti-American racist minister Jeremiah Wright who consorts with the racist, anti-Jewish Minister Louis Farrahan, and many other elite liberals who hate this country — that makes Senator Obama incapable of putting country first, incapable of putting the safety of the American people first, and incapable of being tough when it is essential to the nation’s security that we be tough?

There’s Obama’s list of close friends — Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, and Father Michael Pfleger.

Then there’s McCain’s list of close friends — including Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. And those are two patriotic senators who are known for (1) putting country before party, and (2) working effectively with all sensible senators who can cross the aisle.

IS IT ANY WONDER THEN THAT YESTERDAY GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER SAID:

“John McCain served longer in a POW camp than his opponent has in the United States Senate. … Ladies and gentlemen, I only play an action hero in my movies, but John McCain is a real action hero.”

“The man tested in crisis.”

I believe that that is who we all should vote for, don’t you?

That was a vile intro, wasn’t it. But such fun to write. (My mother would have been aghast.) BUT, HARK! MORE IS TO COME! Truthteller is posting a critically important story about Israel, our vital ally in the Middle East. Stay tuned!

Oops! How did that second YouTube get in here? Okay, who did that?!?!?!?! I wonder if it’s someone who’s worried that Obama is going to cut our defense spending by one-fourth aka 25%? I wonder if it’s someone knows that, last count, over 300 flag officers have endorsed John McCain?

I imagine those 300+ flag officers who, even though they’re retired from the military, probably can’t sleep these last weeks of the presidential race.

Those retired military people, still experts in their fields, must be so worried that a complete amateur could become president.

Actually, it is wholly unfair to genuine amateurs to call Obama that. He is both unskilled and unschooled in this global game of life and death.

Here are Barack Obama’s words on May 18, 2008, in the rodeo town of Pendleton, Oregon which is, by the way, the land of sagebrush, tumbleweeds, rolling hills and wide vistas as well as a hell of a lot of cattle and horses, not to mention some authentic cowboys who bleed red, white and blue:

Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That’s what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That’s what Nixon did with Mao. I mean think about it.

Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we’re going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall. Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take. You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military.

If Iran ever tried to pose a serio us threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn’t mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world.

There are a couple of very troubling things about Obama’s response and meeting. There was a witness to the meeting with the Foreign Minister and Obama. Can anyone identify the witness to Obama’s comments and meeting? Beyond that, I am unsure if Obama is calling the newspaper writer a liar or if Obama is calling Foreign Minister Zebari a prevaricator when his campaign said:

“Taheri’s article bore ‘as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial.’”

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

But once again the Obama campaign thinks they have “plausible” deniability. Or?

According to Ed Morrisey of Hot Air in post dated today. Did Obama just confirm Taheri? Ed quoted from Glenn Reynolds,

He (Glenn Reynolds) doesn’t see any daylight between them. Yesterday, Taheri accused Obama of attempting to derail a status-of-forces agreement between the US and Iraq by telling the Iraqis to wait until after the American elections and stop negotiating with the Bush administration. Obama responded by essentially confirming Taheri’s account:

According to Ed, Obama did try to interfere with diplomatic negotiations. Obama may have done a bit more than that, he may have violated protocol rules set forth in the following document, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 18 April 1961. Entered into force on 24 April 1964. See Article 41 for more information.

More from Ed:

Which is exactly what Taheri wrote. Barack Obama went to Iraq and interfered with the diplomatic efforts of the elected United States government, in a war zone no less, by telling the Iraqis to stop negotiating with the President.

Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi also said this:

“Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations, nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades.”

“These outright distortions will not changes the facts — Senator Obama is the only candidate who will safely and responsibly end the war in Iraq and refocus our attention on the real threat: a resurgent Al-Qaeda and Taliban along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.”

Ed really exposed his outrage on this subject, a rage that all American citizens should be feeling at this time. I have Ed’s statement on that:

It wasn’t enough for Obama to fail at forcing the nation into a defeat in Iraq when he opposed the surge. Now he has interfered with our efforts to stabilize Iraq and provide for its security after the surge succeeded in keeping Iraq from falling into a failed state. And when he got caught working for failure and defeat, he tried making it into a smear against John McCain.

Ed we feel your rage over here at NoQuarter. I hope you and all other citizens of this country pay attention to the following statement. A former Deputy U.S. Attorney General, who will remain anonymous, relayed through Eastan McNeal yesterday and shared in a conversation this morning:

I saw the underlying piece by Amir Taheri in the New York Post today and believe him to be reliable.

There is a marginal difference between asking the Iraqi foreign minister “why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington” and asking him TO delay such an agreement, but that goes more to the Logan Act formalities than to the political significance of the interaction between Senator Obama and the Iraqi foreign minister.

Based on the reported information, Senator Obama was skirting closer to a violation of the Logan Act than to conduct conforming to the Constitutional definition of treason.

But whether or not Senator Obama’s conduct was unlawful, it was outrageous.

Now, apparently going to Pakistan on a school break during college counts, or living in Indonesia for 4 years while a child counts, but not living next door to a major world power.

Alert No Quarter reader, BMC, presented information yesterday about the Alaska National Guard, and the responsibilities of the Governor of Alaska. I’ll bottom line it for you – since Alaska IS next to Russia (Obama does know that much – he said he saw it on a map – I kid you not, that’s what he said), the Alaska National Guard’s 49th Missile Defense Battalion is on duty ALL THE TIME:

Eleven ground-based interceptor missiles buried in underground silos here represent a key part of a multi-layered defense system designed to protect the United States from a ballistic missile attack. These interceptors, and two more at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., would destroy incoming missiles at the “midcourse phase,” outside the earth’s atmosphere.

In the event of an attack, members of the Alaska Army National Guard’s 49th Missile Defense Battalion based here would use sophisticated surveillance and radar systems to track the missile through its initial boost phase, explained Maj. Joe Miley, the unit’s operations officer. If the missile reached the mid course phase, the Alaska Guardsmen would await the order to engage it.

On order, they would fire an interceptor at the incoming missile. The force of the collision –the equivalent of two refrigerators slamming into each other at 15,000 mph — would destroy the target before it reentered the atmosphere, Miley said.

Miley noted that the National Guard is perfectly suited to perform such an important mission.

Wowie zowie. So, there is a battalion on full alert all the time, keeping its eye on Russia. But Governor Palin has no foreign policy experience. Yeah, okay, Obama. Just because YOU don’t doesn’t mean others don’t, either. Just sayin’.

Well, how about Homeland Security, then? Major Joe Miley says this:

“The National Guard has traditionally done homeland defense,” he said, citing National Guard history dating back 370 years to the Minutemen in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. “And this is the epitome of homeland defense.”

Here at what Miley called the “strategic sweet spot” for missile defense, almost 200 Alaska Guardsmen who came from around the country to serve in the 49th Missile Defense Battalion take that calling pretty seriously.

The unit is a cross-section of America, at one time representing 46 states and territories, and all its members applied for three-year, Active Guard and Reserve assignments with the program, Miley explained.

Getting accepted into the program is tough, but passing the extensive training required is even tougher, Miley said. Applicants go through nine to 14 weeks of air defense training at Fort Bliss, Texas; a nine-week Ground Missile Defense operator course in Colorado Springs, Colo., then four more weeks of unit training in Colorado Springs before taking a certification test.

“We hire the best and put them through a rigorous training program,” Miley said. To pass the GMD operator course, for example, students have to score 90 percent or better.

“You have to be an A student or you can’t do GMD,” Miley said. “The way we conduct our training, you basically have to get everything right to progress to the next level, so there’s no room for error. We have very high standards.”

That’s a good thing, he said, in light of the responsibility they shoulder every day. Whether they’re providing security at the 800-acre missile defense complex here or manning fire direction center in what Miley called “the tank turret of missile defense,” they’re on the front lines of homeland defense.

There is more to this interesting article, and if you can, take a look at it. For anyone to claim that Governor Palin, as Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard is merely serving as a figurehead is just plain inaccurate. I can sure see why Obama, who has not been an executive of ANYTHING would try to frame it that way, but – SURPRISE – he’s incorrect. (By the way, there is an email going around that speaks even more to Palin’s day-to-day oversight regarding the Alaska National Guard, but I have not been able to obtain independent verification of it beyond blogs, so I am not including it here.)

And can I just add, for Obama to claim PALIN is just “making stuff up” (funny – he said the exact same thing about Dobson) is laughable. Here is a man who hasn’t met a fact he couldn’t twist, or deny, or exacerbate. His books are proof enough of that, but if you need more, there are plenty out there. Here’s a fun game. How many half-truths, truth manipulations, and flat out lies have come from Obama? I’ll start you off with just two – there are so many, I don’t want to monopolize them. The first is one of my favorites mainly because of the letter Senator McCain wrote to him regarding it. I’ve written about this before several times, and so has Larry Johnson. It’s the one about Obama and Campaign Finance Reform. He brought it up again at Saddleback, all his work on it, and “quotes” from conversations he had. If only he had actually DONE any work on that committee, but he did not. McCain slammed him in his letter to him (which you can read HERE). Then there was his claim while in Israel that he was on the Banking Committee. He is not, never has been. You can watch the video HERE. And he has the “AUDACITY” to talk about anyone else’s claims? What a joke. (I might add, from all reports, Palin is pretty much “what you see is what you get.” Her open government and life, about which we know FAR more than Obama’s in just a week, is far more transparent than Obama has ever been. He still refuses to release ANY pertinent information about himself or his records.) So, go to it – what are YOUR favorite Obama-manufactured statements?

Furthermore, if you’ve ever been lucky enough to have turned on C-Span during one of the exceptionally well-organized forums that Steve sets up (which is what he does for a living), you have been in for a treat. One of our best regular readers — whose comments are always a must-read — is “Mr. Murder.” He sent me an e-mail on August 15th about Steve’s latest forum, “Scripting America’s Priorities: The Democratic Party Platform.” Go to Steve’s blog, and read all about this important forum. (And thanks to Mr. Murder for sending me his e-mail.)

Steve Clemons’ fealty to the “Golden Rule” is an amazing feat since he is very well-connected in Washington, D.C. and knows nearly all of the major players, and I can only imagine how difficult it is to stay true to himself in such a hardball city. It would be natural to become cynical and to indulge in the gossip common in that cut-throat environment. (A prime example is Sally Quinn, who with one hand proudly holds up her religious faith, and with the other cuts people like the Clintons to shreds because they don’t meet her rather snobbish criteria for inclusion in her inner sanctum. Her snobbery is a dishonor to her supposed faith.)

So, when I read this written by Steve Clemons at his fine blog, Washington Note, I know he has thoroughly checked this story, and that he knows whereof he speaks.

Furthermore, I sense, strongly, that Steve Clemons was very unhappy as he wrote this:

“Obama to General Wesley Clark: Your Services Not Needed”

General Wesley Clark is not attending the Democratic National Convention. I was told by General Clark’s personal office in Little Rock that he would not be attending.

Clark was informed by Barack Obama’s people that there was no reason to come.

General Clark has been given no role of any kind at the convention.

Rubbing salt in the wound even more, the “theme” of Wednesday’s Democratic convention agenda is “Securing America.”

Wesley Clark’s PAC also happens to be called SECURING AMERICA.

This speaks volumes about Barack Obama. As the person who sent this article to me added, Barack Obama “holds grudges and is petty.” That is true. Furthermore, it is just plain stupid. One of Barack Obama’s glaring electability issues is his complete lack of experience in the essential arena of NATIONAL SECURITY. Barack Obama needs Gen. Wesley Clark FAR MORE than Gen. Clark needs Barack Obama. This rebuff demonstrates not only pettiness, it proves that Barack Obama lacks common sense.

Here is more from Steve Clemons about the Obama’s campaign notice to Gen. Clark that he is not welcome at the convention in Denver:

This is a mistake in my view. There are a lot of perspectives and competing agendas about how to direct America’s next national security posture — and General Wesley Clark should be one of the top tier names and personalities at the table. …

Please read all of Steve Clemons’ article. And consider the heavy heart with which I sense he wrote this.

[NOTE: I hope that our cartoonist PatRacimora also writes about this. PatRacimora knows Gen. Clark and has long been involved in his campaign activities and his PAC. She will add an important personal touch to this disappointing story.]

During the primaries, Steve Clemons made every effort to be fair to all of the candidates, including both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. He was also critical of all of the candidates when he felt they deserved to be criticized.

He told it like it is. Always. There were a couple times when I wrote to him about columns he published that were critical of Hillary Clinton, and he always — always — wrote me a thoughtful reply.

He is an honorable person. To his core. And so is General Wesley Clark.

In other words, his blog operates as an even-minded resource in the blogosphere — a true rare instance of “objectivity” these days when, frankly, we hunt and choose which stories to write about based on our own feelings and prejudices. I’m as guilty of that as anyone, at times. But Steve never is.

And now, let’s consider how this makes General Clark feel. He was a devoted partner to Hillary Clinton throughout her primary contests. Then, as soon as she suspended her campaign, he went to bat for Barack Obama. Because of one statement he made about John McCain, he became persona non grata to the Obama campaign.

There are other FINE PATRIOTS who have been similarly treated by the Obama camp. Former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a true American hero who campaigned in several states for Hillary Clinton, immediately CALLED Barack Obama’s campaign and offered his services in any way he could. He has never received a call back.

When heroes such as these are cast aside by a presidential campaign, one must ponder what the campaign is really about.

When such EXPERTS in national security are ignored, one must ponder if Barack Obama has any common sense. He needs these patriots’ advice. Desperately.

Aside from winning, that is.

It is a bit understandable that, for a while, the Obama campaign might be wary of General Clark’s services after his sincerely unintended “faux pas” regarding John McCain, which he in NO way meant as an insult but simply as a statement of fact. (It was unfortunate, but what’s past is past. And General Clark has such a distinguished record that the WHOLE of his professional and personal history must be honored.)

And why ignore Joe Wilson? Why ignore Valerie Plame Wilson? Why not appreciate and promote these fine Americans who have given their careers — and in both instances have paid a high price for sticking to their true American values — to protecting this nation and trying, always, to do the right thing?

There is a reason that 30+ flag officers endorsed Hillary Clinton. See:

• “More Flag Officers Endorse …“
• “Gen. Shelton Endorses, Obama Thinks Rumsfeld OK“ (This includes the statement of Gen. Antonio Taguba who endorsed Hillary because of her strong stand against the use of torture. Gen. Taguba was assigned to investigate Abu Ghraib and had his career “shunted” by DefSec Donald Rumsfeld as a result.)

There still is time to nominate Hillary Clinton who has the experience and track record on the hard issues to match John McCain.

I have no doubt that, if it’s useful, the RNC will also make an ad about that one speech that Obama made in 2002, and the true story behind that ad:

See also, the true story about that 2002 Iraq speech, so little noted that it wasn’t videotaped or even covered in Chicago media, forcing the Obama campaign to “recreate” the speech, as reported by NPR: “The Staged Iraq War Speech & More “Creative” Embellishments.”

This means, of course, that we have to take creative marketing guru David Axelrod’s word for it that he really spoke those words in 2002. By the way, after that unreported speech — unremarkable because he uttered those words safely ensconced in a very liberal neighborhood of Chicago — Obama never lifted a finger or spoke out again on Iraq. That is, until it became politically useful for him to make a major production out of that single unreported, unrecorded speech.

Sadly, his followers haven’t reviewed the true history of that one speech, haven’t questioned the authenticity of its reproduction in a recording studio, and haven’t factored in that Obama didn’t make any further effort to aid the anti-Iraq-war movement, even when he joined the U.S. Senate — where his voting record is identical to Hillary Clinton’s, except that he voted FOR the ill-suited Gen. George Casey, while Hillary Clinton did not. … Joseph Wilson’s writings about his memories of those opposed to the Iraq War and Obama’s notable absence from any participation in lobbying against the war before and since joining the U.S. Senate [are a must-read].

We are certain that the Denver delegates, entrusted with a very serious task of nominating a qualified presidential candidate, will review writings such as these:

Former ambassador Joseph Wilson noted in an op-ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer, “Obama’s Illusions on Foreign Policy“:

[...]

[Obama's] entire foreign-policy claim that he would be a better president than Hillary Clinton rests on the slender reed that he possesses intuitively superior judgment, which would have led him to vote against the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq had he been in the U.S. Senate in October 2002.

What would Obama have done differently in the first gulf war from what he claims he would have done in 2002 had he been in the Senate at that time? In 1990, Saddam was deemed a threat by the first Bush administration. Senior administration officials threatened military action while working toward a diplomatic solution. Congress was ultimately faced with a vote to support the president’s approach. Some Democrats, including then-Sen. Al Gore, voted with the administration, while a majority voted against.

Obama claims that an antiwar speech he made while running for state Senate in the most liberal district in Illinois is proof of his superior intuitive judgment. But if Obama had been in Washington at that time, participating in the national debate, he would have come face to face with Secretary of State Colin Powell, the same Colin Powell who, as Gen. Powell, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first Bush administration, the one Obama wishes to emulate.

Powell would have told him, as he told the other senators he briefed at that time, including Sen. Clinton, that the president wanted to use the Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolution not to go to war but, rather, as leverage to go to the United Nations to secure intrusive inspections. George W. Bush repeated this claim publicly.

Would Obama’s intuitive judgment have led him to defy Powell while still remaining faithful to his fantasy of the “wisdom” of the Bush 41 foreign policy? Perhaps Obama would have urged a summit with Saddam Hussein, with no preconditions, as he has since proposed as a means to “transcend” traditional foreign-policy methods with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Secretary of State Jim Baker did meet with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz before the launch of Desert Storm, but this meeting was for the express purpose of conveying to the Iraqis the military consequences of not departing from Kuwait before the Jan. 15, 1991, deadline. There was never any question of demeaning the presidency by an unconditional summit for the simple reason that presidents don’t haggle. That’s why presidents have secretaries of state.

In fact, Obama’s understanding of foreign policy is extraordinarily limited. He has had one job in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: chairman of the Europe and NATO subcommittee. He has not held a single policy hearing in that capacity because, as he said in a debate, he has been too busy running for president. He has not even taken a fact-finding trip or provided any other oversight.

As to Obama’s self-promoted “judgment,” which judgment would that be? Would it be to follow the path of Bush 41: tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action, as in the first gulf war? Would it be to ignore the rationale put forward by Colin Powell in the debate on the second gulf war? Would it be to vote exactly the same way Sen. Clinton did on war-related issues since he became a U.S. senator, which he has? Or is it simply to criticize from the sidelines with the benefit of never having had to face tough decisions with real consequences?

The next president will be presented with two difficult wars, U.S. moral authority at low ebb, and unprecedented complexity of our relations with the rest of the world. Obama has no record whatsoever, only his utter absence from his committee responsibility. His claim to be the one true heir to George H.W. Bush is a misguided illusion and no substitute for offering more about what foreign policies he would actually follow.

Read all eight of Joseph Wilson’s writings posted here at No Quarter with his express permission. Those writings include:

• “Legitimate questions of judgment, experience”
• “The Obama Campaign: Consent of, or Contempt for, the People”
• “Smears and Tears: How Obama’s National Security Week Turned Into the Mendacity of Hype”
• “Obama’s Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country“

At the immediate moment, our chief concern is ensuring that we Democrats nominate a candidate who the American people will find experienced and knowledgeable about foreign policy.

The boost in the wake of the primaries about which Obama supporters have been gloating has evaporated.  According to Gallup’s three day tracking poll, Obama and McCain are now tied at 45%.

Obama also trails McCain in the important state Missouri by a margin of seven points in a poll Survey USA released today.  McCain has already consolidated the support of a slim majority, or 50%, of Missourians, while Obama underperforms at 43%.  Consider Missouri a red state in 2008 now that superdelegates selected Obama as the Democratic nominee.

Perhaps PUMA, Just Say No Deal and I Own My Vote are finally affecting polling data.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=i9dVfylr5bg[/youtube]

Another explanation is Obama’s obvious weaknesses on issues of national security.  According to another poll Gallup released today, Obama trails McCain by a staggering 25 points on this important aspect of the Presidency.  

And while Obama has attempted to neutralize these concerns in his recent advertisement entitled “Country I Love,” he exacerbated this problem by taking credit for extending health care benefits for veterans when he in fact did not even vote on the bill he cites in the commercial.  This, I believe, will not resonate well with voters who are preoccupied with national security, and I imagine it will have electoral effects.   

Continue to support PUMA, Just Say No Deal and I Own My Vote, for our votes will decide the outcome of the election in November.  

Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: “Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.”

Look, I am all for thinking outside the box. But this guy is thinking outside the universe of reason. What should we expect next? That Patti Solis Doyle will pick Dr. Seuss as Obama’s running mate. Strangely, that somehow seems entirely appropriate.

But it isn’t just Pooh that we should emulate. Danzig believes that Luke Skywalker has a place in an Obama Administration as well.

In a briefing which will inform Mr Obama’s understanding of terrorists, Mr Danzig said he learnt much from recent interviews with jailed Aum Shinrikyo terrorists who released sarin nerve gas on the Tokyo underground in 1995.

He said that even people who are relatively well off and successful can feel like failures and become alientated from their societies. He said one terrorist told him: “We have been raised on a theory of superheroes. We all want to be like Luke Skywalker.

So this guy Danzig that is apparently on Obama’s very short list to become his National Security Advisor learns things from Cult leaders. No wonder Obama wants him on his team. Danzig will be fawning all over him, in awe of the Master.

If you aren’t sure by now that this dude needs some emergency mental health care just look at these words of wisdom from a close advisor to Obama.

“When we’re doing mundane things, we lose track of our ambition but when someone comes along, like Asahara, the head of the cult, and presents himself as a messiah and gives us a picture of progress that is ordained by heaven and that we are carrying out a saintly mission on earth that is for us extraordinarily evocative.”

Mr Danzig added: “The parallels with al Qaeda are obvious.”

Uh, Earth to Danzig. You seem to be describing your boss fairly well. Not exactly a great selling point if you ask me. Next time, try laying off the Cult-Aide for a few hours before you brief the rest of us on how Obama will make us safer by following the advice of imaginary characters.

And if we weren’t convinced enough that Danzig was WAY out there he offers one more tidbit of wisdom. And folks, you just can’t make this stuff up.

He said that another lesson about terrorists can be learnt from studying violent football fans. “One of the best books I’ve read on terrorism in recent years was not about terrorism at all,” he said. “It’s Bill Buford’s book Among the Thugs, which is a description of soccer violence in Britain.

“Buford became absorbed by soccer violence. He describes the most appalling examples of soccer violence by fans against fans. But he describes with relentless honesty how he finds sickening things attractive. He says violence lets the adrenaline flow; it’s like sex, you live in the moment.”

So terrorism is like violence is like sex. So what exactly is he suggesting? That we should all take a primer course in S & M? Or is he suggesting that the solution to our national security problems is that we aren’t kinky enough? Perhaps we should ask Pooh.

I’m very upset by recent statements you have made about funding education by “postponing” elements of the space program. Let me tell you why this is a very ill-advised position.

1. It makes you look like an idiot.

If you do indeed postpone Orion by five years, you have effectively killed it. The project will lose its knowledgeable personnel, its production schedule will be canceled and there will then be no replacement for the 40 year old shuttle fleet. The Russians (and perhaps by then, the Chinese) will be the only nations with manned access to the ISS and to space.

2. It makes you look like an idiot.

The entire space program soaks up about 0.15 % of the federal budget, the DoD currently consumes about 31% of the federal budget (when you include the costs of our several wars). As president you could extract the entire NASA budget from the DoD budget and they wouldn’t even know it was gone, it’s a rounding error. In addition, the space program is the only government program in our nation’s history which can be shown to have paid for itself – in terms of fiscal and medical benefits derived from cutting edge technology which NASA either invented or sponsored.

3. It makes you look like an idiot.

Every self-serving, tub-thumping, ill-informed, moronic, blowhard political hack in the past fifty years has attacked NASA to herd the ‘proles’ to his side. By pandering to the Luddite, anti-intellectualism rampant in American society, they hope to send a message to the masses: “I’m one of you, I hate smart people too.” This is certainly not hopeful, nor audacious, it’s just old-time political quackery.

4. It makes you look like an idiot.

American education isn’t just about “readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmetic” so you can go out and make great gobs of money. There must be goals – great ones, dreams far larger than rolling up a nice, fat 401K. In order to meld us together as a nation, we need aspirations that demand greatness from us. Young people need to see that there is opportunity to actually accomplish their dreams and a purpose larger than earning a living.

Fools and madmen use our fear to conjure threats, precipitate useless wars and make cowards of us all. Do not be this kind of politician, we have more than enough already.

Leaders address the best that is in us, qualities we didn’t know we had and demand that we rise to meet those expectations because we can rise and we can create something new, beautiful and bold.

The space program represents those qualities of aspiration, expectation and accomplishment that we must embrace as a nation if we are to prosper and live long.

The choice you currently espouse leads, inevitably, downward, stifling creativity and handing the future to others. It is also intellectually lazy and can easily be shown to be massively counterproductive both economically and scientifically – and, it makes you look like an idiot.

You still have the chance to reverse yourself and reject the foolish counsel that proposes to cut off our future in order to make political points with fools.

It’s your choice as to what company you will keep – what will you do?

Cordially,

SANTA FE, N.M. – In recent weeks Americans have been subjected to a litany of outrageous statements from Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. While Obama was finally compelled to distance himself from his radical preacher, the relationship raises legitimate questions about Obama’s judgment and naivete.

Obama, after all, wants to be president of the United States, and in that quest has proposed unconditional summit meetings with some of our country’s most determined enemies, including Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Obama’s campaign has been built upon his supposed transcendent qualities and intuitive judgment. His foreign policy experience is limited to having lived in Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10, and having traveled overseas briefly as a college student.

He further claims that a speech he gave against the war in Iraq six years ago to extremely liberal supporters in a campaign for state senator in Illinois is sufficient proof of his superior judgment in national security matters and qualifies him to be president and commander-in-chief of U.S. Armed Forces at a time when we are fighting two extraordinarily difficult wars. As with his relationship with Wright, a closer examination is warranted.

In the U.S. Senate, to which he was elected in 2004, a year after the launching of Operation Iraqi Freedom, he has done little to act on his asserted anti-war position, and has said repeatedly that had he been in the Senate at the time of the vote on the authorization for the use of military force he doesn’t know how he would have voted.

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Europe, with jurisdiction over NATO, he has held not a single oversight meeting because, as he admitted, he was too busy running for president, even though NATO’s presence in the Afghanistan war is critical to success in that venture.

Obama repeats the incorrect and politically irresponsible mantra that Sen. Hillary Clinton voted for the war and that therefore he is more qualified to be president. Unlike Obama, as the last acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq during the first Gulf War, I was deeply involved in that debate from the beginning.

President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell made it clear publicly and in their representations to Congress that the authorization was not to go to war but rather to give the president the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations to reinvigorate international will to contain and disarm Saddam Hussein, consistent with the resolutions passed at the time of the first Gulf War.

With passage of the resolution, the president did in fact achieve a U.N. consensus, and inspectors returned to Iraq. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector, has said repeatedly that without American leadership there would have been no new inspection regime.

l l l

SADDAM WAS A SERIAL VIOLATOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS, had started two wars in the region in the previous decade, continued to threaten his neighbors, including Israel, which he once said he would destroy with weapons of mass destruction. We may not have fully understood how little remained of his WMD arsenal, but were we really willing in the aftermath of 9/11 to give him a free pass, as Obama’s rewriting of history suggests he might have done?

The approach of tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action was the correct one and it yielded exactly the desired results, a unanimously passed U.N. resolution and the capitulation of Saddam when he readmitted the inspectors.

The betrayal occurred not when the president was given the tools he needed to secure international support for inspections, but rather when Bush refused to allow the inspectors to complete their work and decided preemptively to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq.

That decision and power was his alone — not the Congress’ and certainly not Hillary Clinton’s. Obama is wrong to turn Bush’s war into Clinton’s responsibility. And Obama is dangerously na•ve in failing to understand the need in international crises to blend tough diplomacy with the other foreign policy tools at our disposal to achieve a strong national security posture.

Judgment and leadership in foreign policy are not intuitive. They are learned through experience. Obama’s long and close relationship with the anti-American hate-monger Wright, his inattention to his responsibilities in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his careless approach to Iraq all suggest that he would benefit from more experience. We should ask whether we want those lessons to be learned in the White House.

____________

(Joseph C. Wilson IV is a former diplomat and U.S. ambassador. He was senior director for African Affairs in the Clinton administration. In 2003 he wrote a New York Times opinion piece, “What I didn’t find in Africa,” challenging the Bush administration’s use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq.)