Jed Babbin-Founder of Human Events Asks the Big Question

Obama, the Weak Horse
by Jed Babbin
01/11/2010

Soon upon us will be the one-year anniversary of President Obama’s inauguration. It’s time to ask, are we safer or in more danger than we were a year ago? By every objective measure -- what we know about Islamic terrorism, its intentions and capabilities -- the answer is no. We are far less safe now than we were then.

To ask how much danger are we in is fatuous. You may as well ask, “[H]ow much danger is there”? The president has taken actions that -- again objectively -- have increased our vulnerability tremendously. Two of the actions he took immediately after taking office prove the point. And the actions he and Attorney General Eric Holder have since taken only increase the danger.

Last week, White House counterterrorism czar John Brennan said that we would still, on a case by case basis, release Gitmo detainees to Yemen. This despite the facts that would-be underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was trained there by an al Queda cell that reportedly contains two Gitmo alumni and that the Yemenis released Jamal al-Badawi, one of the men responsible for the 2000 attack on the USS Cole.

“The Intelligence Committee has held a number of briefings and hearings in the past year that clearly demonstrate that the security situation in Yemen has deteriorated. Terrorists, including al Queda, have found Yemen to be a relative safe haven from which to plan attacks, both against Yemeni targets and externally. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on assurances that detainees transferred to Yemen for detention will be held securely until they no longer pose a threat.”

Morning Must Reads from DCExaminer

New York Times -- Afghan Suicide Bomber Killed C.I.A. Operatives
The deadliest day ever for the CIA comes as a suicide bomber detonated his explosive vest inside a forward base where drone attacks and covert operations in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan are staged.
The rapidly deteriorating security situation in Pakistan (another suicide bombing has sent the U.N. packing) and the renewed fervor of jihadis around the globe seem to suggest that the second Obama surge in Central Asia will be met with not just the quasi-military maneuvers of the Taliban, but the rank terrorism used by Islamists around the world.
Writers Alissa Rubin and Mark Mazzetti explain:
“A NATO official said the bomber managed to elude security and reach an area near the base’s gym. It was not clear whether the bomber, who apparently died in the blast, entered the gym. Among other questions raised was whether the bomber worked at the base and had clearance, or if a security slip allowed him to gain entry, and whether other operatives had access to the base.”

New York Times -- Spy Agencies Failed to Collate Clues on Terror

The emphasis in the story from Mark Mazzetti and Eric Lipton – as with many other stories today fueled by leaks from the Obama administration – was how the security apparatus failed to pull together strands of intelligence to stop Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and his explosive underwear from getting aboard a Detroit-bound flight.

Times writer Scott Shane even lays the failure at the feet of the National Counterterrorism Center for failing to put together the clues to stop Abdulmutallab.

But this wasn’t about a lack of intelligence sharing, this was about a lack of intellect.

The bomber’s father pleaded with the State Department and CIA to stop his son, showing them damning text messages Abdulmutallab had written. Then, the lad showed up with cash and no luggage to buy a ticket on a U.S.-bound flight having already been placed on double-secret airline probation and still got a seat.

The idea that this was a systemic failure that has to be addressed with another overhaul of the bureaucracy dilutes the culpability of those individuals who failed to act correctly and prudently when presented with clear evidence. Sacking those responsible (and prosecuting them if the dereliction is severe enough) would do more to snap the bureaucracy to attention than calling for a big, hazy, Obamian overhaul.

But with the administration in another political firefight with Dick Cheney after the former vice president blasted the administration for treating Abdulmutallab like other criminal defendants, expect the problems President Obama finds when he receives his security evaluation today to point to major problems with the system he inherited, not boneheaded moves by individuals.
“The father, a wealthy Nigerian businessman named Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, had urgently sought help from American and Nigerian security officials when cellphone text messages from his son revealed that he was in Yemen and had become a fervent radical.

A family cousin quoted the father as warning officials from the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency in Nigeria: ‘Look at the texts he’s sending. He’s a security threat.’
The cousin said: ‘They promised to look into it. They didn’t take him seriously.’”

Wall Street Journal -- U.S. Probes Cleric's Tie to Jetliner Bomb Plot

The American-born Yemeni cleric who provided online tech support for Maj. Nidal Hasan’s radicalization may have also been coaching up Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab while the Nigerian banker’s son was taking foreign-language training in Sana’a.

Writers Evan Perez, Margaret Coker and Siobhan Gorman look at the ties between the most recent terrorist attacks and Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

They paint the picture of a propagandist for jihad whose American ties make him well-suited to preach a murderous doctrine to western Muslims like Hasan or those who have lived lives of privilege because of access to the western system, like Abdulmutallab.

“Mr. Awlaki, 38 years old, followed a familiar path of privileged young man to radical. Born in New Mexico to an affluent father -- a former Yemeni minister of agriculture who is currently an adviser to Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh -- Mr. Awlaki was educated in the U.S.

After coming under the scrutiny of U.S. and U.K. authorities following 9/11, Mr. Awlaki returned to Yemen, where he continued his religious teaching and lectured at Imam University, the head of which has been designated by the U.S. and the United Nations as a terrorist financier.”

The Hill -- State AGs request Reid, Pelosi drop Nebraska Medicaid funds from health bill

What a crafty bunch these attorneys general are. Rather than threatening a suit over the whole health bill or even the part that, for the first time in American history, requires every American to purchase a private product as a condition of citizenship, a group of 13 AGs says that Ben Nelson’s $100 million “Cornhusker Kickback” is illegal because it treats the states differently.
Nelson, who has lost 30 points in the polls at home, felt the need to pay for a pricey ad during the Cornhusker’s 33-0 beatdown of the Arizona Wildcats in the Holiday Bowl last night to explain to his constituents why paying to play is the Senate way.
By singling out Nelson, the AGs apply pressure on him at home, but also make the focus on the corrupt bargain angle in the Senate. That leaves other, bigger, legal gambits for later, when the legislation is passed.

“The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution. As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the “Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs.”

Washington Post -- Support grows for tackling nation's debt

Writers Elaine S. Povich and Eric Pianin look at what is expected to be the central piece of the Obama administration towards fiscal restraint – a commission to take the responsibility for spending away from Congress and put it in more responsible hands.
The idea, like the one Obama had about health care in Illinois and suggests for Medicare now, is that a group of experts makes budget (i.e. tax) proposals to Congress which then votes the packages up or down as a whole.

It would be a rather stunning admission of failure by Congress -- sort of like a brethalyzer lock on the car of a multi-DUI offender – to abrogate their central constitutional authority of budgetary control.

“The most vocal advocates of the idea are Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who this month jointly unveiled legislation to create an 18-member task force consisting of 16 members of Congress and two administration officials. Under the proposal, if at least 14 of the panel members reached agreement on how to rein in skyrocketing spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and reform the tax code, Congress would have to consider it immediately and give it an up or down vote, without amendment.”

Watch What We Do, Not What We Say

*Ms. Burlingame is a former attorney and a director of the National September 11 Memorial Foundation, and the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.*

Originally published 8 May 2009 in the Wall Street Journal

Obama and the 9/11 Families
The president isn't sincere about 'swift and certain' justice for terrorists.
Debra Burlingame

Over the years, the Cole families have seen justice abandoned by the Clinton administration and overshadowed by the need of the Bush administration to gather intelligence after 9/11. They have watched in frustration as the president of Yemen refused extradition for the Cole bombers.

Now, after more than eight years of waiting, Mr. Obama was stopping the trial of Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the only individual to be held accountable for the bombing in a U.S. court. Patience finally gave out. The families were giving angry interviews, slamming the new president just days after he was sworn in. The Obama team quickly put together a meeting at the White House to get the situation under control. Individuals representing "a diversity of views" were invited to attend and express their concerns.

On Feb. 6, the president arrived in the Roosevelt Room to a standing though subdued ovation from some 40 family members. With a White House photographer in his wake, Mr. Obama greeted family members one at a time and offered brief remarks that were full of platitudes ("you are the conscience of the country," "my highest duty as president is to protect the American people," "we will seek swift and certain justice"). Glossing over the legal complexities, he gave a vague summary of the detainee cases and why he chose to suspend them, focusing mostly on the need for speed and finality.

Many family members pressed for Guantanamo to remain open and for the military commissions to go forward. Mr. Obama allowed that the detention center had been unfairly confused with Abu Ghraib, but when asked why he wouldn't rehabilitate its image rather than shut it down, he silently shrugged. Next question.

Mr. Obama was urged to consult with prosecutors who have actually tried terrorism cases and warned that bringing unlawful combatants into the federal courts would mean giving our enemies classified intelligence -- as occurred in the cases of the al Qaeda cell that carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and conspired to bomb New York City landmarks with
ringleader Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh." In the Rahman case, a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators given to the defense -- they were entitled to information material to their defense -- was in Osama bin Laden's hands within hours. It told al Qaeda who among them was known to us, and who wasn't.

Mr. Obama responded flatly, "I'm the one who sees that intelligence. I don't want them to have it, either. We don't have to give it to them." How could anyone be unhappy with such an answer? Or so churlish as to ask follow-up questions in such a forum? I and others were reassured, if cautiously so.

News reports described the meeting as a touching and powerful coming together of the president and these long-suffering families. Mr. Obama had won over even those who opposed his decision to close Gitmo by assuaging their fears that the review of some 245 current detainees would result in dangerous jihadists being set free. "I did not vote for the man, but the way he talks to you, you can't help but believe in him," said John Clodfelter to the New York Times. His son, Kenneth, was killed in the Cole bombing.

"[Mr. Obama] left me with a very positive feeling that he's going to get this done right."

"This isn't goodbye," said the president, signing autographs and posing for pictures before leaving for his next appointment, "this is hello." His national security staff would have an open-door policy.

Believe . . . feel . . . hope.

We'd been had.

Binyam Mohamed -- the al Qaeda operative selected by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) for a catastrophic post-9/11 attack with co-conspirator Jose Padilla -- was released 17 days later. In a follow-up conference call, the White House liaison to 9/11 and Cole families refused to answer questions about the circumstances surrounding the decision to repatriate Mohamed,
including whether he would be freed in Great Britain.

The phrase "swift and certain justice" had been used by top presidential adviser David Axelrod in an interview prior to our meeting with the president. "Swift and certain justice" figured prominently in the White House press release issued before we had time to surrender our White House security passes. "At best, he manipulated the families," Kirk Lippold, commanding officer of the USS Cole at the time of the attack and the leader of the Cole families group, told me recently. "At worst, he misrepresented his true intentions."

Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder told German reporters that 30 detainees had been cleared for release. This includes 17 Chinese fundamentalist Muslims, the Uighurs, some of whom admit to having been trained in al Qaeda and Taliban camps and being associated with the East Turkistan Islamic Party. This party is led by Abdul Haq, who threatened attacks on the 2008 Olympics Games in Beijing and was recently added to the Treasury Department's terrorist list. The Obama administration is considering releasing the Uighurs on U.S. soil, and it has suggested that taxpayers may have to provide them with welfare support. In a Senate
hearing yesterday, Mr. Holder sidestepped lawmakers' questions about releasing detainees into the U.S. who have received terrorist training.

What about the terrorists who may actually be tried? The Justice Department's recent plea agreement with Ali Saleh al-Marri should be of grave concern to those who believe the Obama administration will vigorously prosecute terrorists in the federal court system.

Al-Marri was sent to the U.S. on Sept. 10, 2001, by KSM to carry out cyanide bomb attacks. He pled guilty to one count of "material support," a charge reserved for facilitators rather than hard-core terrorists. He faces up to a 15-year sentence, but will be allowed to argue that the sentence should be satisfied by the seven years he has been in custody. This is the kind of
thin "rule of law" victory that will invigorate rather than deter our enemies.
Given all the developments since our meeting with the president, it is now evident that his words to us bore no relation to his intended actions on national security policy and detainee issues. But the narrative about Mr. Obama's successful meeting with 9/11 and Cole families has been written, and the press has moved on.

The Obama team has established a pattern that should be plain for all to see. When controversy erupts or legitimate policy differences are presented by well-meaning people, send out the celebrity president to flatter and charm.

Most recently, Mr. Obama appeared at the CIA after demoralizing the agency with the declassification and release of memos containing sensitive information on CIA interrogations. He appealed to moral vanity by saying that fighting a war against fanatic barbarians "with one hand tied behind your back" is being on "the better side of history," even though innocent lives are put at risk. He promised the assembled staff and analysts that if they keep applying themselves, they won't be personally marked for career-destroying sanctions or criminal prosecutions, even as disbelieving counterterrorism professionals -- the field operatives and their foreign partners -- shut down critical operations for fear of public disclosure and political retribution in the never-ending Beltway soap opera called Capitol Hill.

It worked: On television, his speech looked like a campaign rally, with people jumping up and down, cheering. Meanwhile, the media have moved on, even as they continue to recklessly and irresponsibly use the word"torture" in their stories.

I asked Cmdr. Kirk Lippold why some of the Cole families declined the invitation to meet with Barack Obama at the White House.

"They saw it for what it was."

Ambassador Alan Keyes Issues Warning

I'm no fan of prison planet, but they posted Dr. Keyes' remarks.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes has given perhaps his most dire warning yet, saying that the Obama administration is preparing to stage terror attacks, declare martial law and cancel the 2012 elections, which is why they are demonizing their political enemies as criminals and terrorists.
Keyes is best known for his performance during the 2000 Republican presidential debates, when he was accredited by many media outlets as being the clear winner during a series of debates with George W. Bush and John McCain.
“It’s obvious that they will stop at nothing,” Keyes told attendees of a reception in Fort Wayne, adding, “We may wake up one day and there’s a series of terrorist attacks, the economy is paralysed….martial law will be declared everywhere in the United States and it won’t end until the crisis ends.”
Keyes said that Americans should be thankful if they even see another election in 2012, stating, “If we don’t wake up and work to see that it happens, we will not see another election.”
“The minute they think they can get away with it, they will end this system of government and that is their intention,” added Keyes, noting that everyone acting as if the time we are in was just “business as usual” reminds him of the attitude of politicians in the Weimar Republic when Hitler was rising to power or eastern Europe when the Communists were taking over after the second world war.
Keyes said that because the majority of people are decent-minded, they believe others will play by the rules when this simply isn’t the case, warning that this attitude will allow evil to take over before we can do anything about it.
“It is so clear hat we have now put a faction in place - they are not playing by the rules and they don’t intend to play by the rules - if they were playing by the rules they wouldn’t have tried to identify their opposition as criminals,” added Keyes, making reference to the recent controversy surrounding the release of the MIAC and Homeland Security reports, which implied that Americans who exercise and are knowledgeable about their constitutional rights are a threat to law enforcement and potential domestic terrorists.
Keyes said that the only solution was from the bottom up because our leaders “are so gutless that they won’t even ask that the Constitution be enforced for clear, plain, absolutely unequivocal requirements,” and respond meekly with “their lips shut and their hearts terrorized.”
Keyes also warned of Obama’s agenda to create a civilian security force and said it was part of the ultimate agenda to disarm American citizens and create a police state.
Keyes has been a vocal critic of Obama, warning that he is a radical Communist who is determined to destroy America, and that if his agenda is not stopped then the country as we know it will cease to exist.