Was Benghazi A False Flag Op Meant To Insure Re-Election?

and make the Muslim Brotherhood the heros in a rescue action? It would explain why the SEALs were told to stand down. It would not explain why Dear Leader was absent for 7 hours.
Where was he? Why are there no pictures from the Situation Room like there were when SEAL Team 6 took out Bin Laden? Dear Leader was ready to take all the credit for that operation. He wasn't shy about releasing a lot of intel regarding the Bin Laden take down. Why is he hiding from this one?

Why Petreaus was sacrificed:
This thing is playing out like a well written mystery novel. Is the worst still yet to come?

I received this message yesterday. If this proves to be true, it is impeachable grounds. It also may help explain why Petreaus was forced out a few days before the Benghazi hearings. It explains a lot of the behavior by Obama and his administration - the pulled security, the "stand down" orders, and blaming everything on that stupid video. The fireworks may be coming. And it could be the first of many disasters ahead.

According to sources in the State Department and the CIA, and intercepted communications from the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama "staged" the attack in Benghazi in order to create a monumental "October Surprise" that would guarantee him re-election.

Yes, you read that right, and no, I'm not making this up. Obama, we now know is and has been working with the Muslim Brotherhood secretly to engineer the release of the "Blind Sheik," Omar Abdel Rahman, the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center attack.

In Obama's October Surprise, he intentionally set up the consulate to have no security so that Chris Stevens could be kidnapped and held for ransom by Al-Qaeda (and the Muslim Brotherhood). Then, several days before the election, the plan was to trade Chris Stevens for the Blind Sheik, making himself look like a hero, and all but guaranteeing re-election.

This was one of the top reasons why Obama was so insistent on the Muslim Brotherhood getting $1.2 Billion in U.S. Aid. They were to have a primary role in getting Obama re-elected. That is why, even though they knew days before the attack that it was going to occur, no effort was made to bolster security. It was intended to be non-existent. The Libyan security forces were intended to quietly slip into the compound when the attack began. And they did, just as planned. That is why, even though 2 C-130U gunships, which were built SPECIFICALLY for this kind of attack, and which could have saved the lives of our people there, and were a mere 45 minutes away, were never scrambled at any time during the attack.

There was to be no resistance whatsoever. That is why there were not one, but TWO armed drones flying over the consulate during the conflagration... Our CIA operatives on the ground were painting targets because they knew air cover was available. That is why, even though requesting support and backup three times, their requests were NOT ignored, but were intentionally and specifically DENIED three times, and they were told to "stand down," which basically means to "surrender." That was part of Obama's plan.

They were not to fight back. That would potentially undermine the kidnapping effort and cause unnecessary "complications." That is why, even though the CIA operatives and ex-Navy Seals were on the ground, providing real-time reports, and even though they were "lighting up" the source of the mortars attacking the compound with lasers, no gunships or support ever came. They weren't supposed to resist. That wasn't "part of the plan." It also wasn't part of the plan for one of the CIA operatives to intentionally defy Obama's orders, and who rescued the body of Sean Smith and then stood up against orders and engaged the enemy who was attacking American soil. It was supposed to be "clean, quick and efficient”.
Kidnap the Ambassador and get out.

They didn't factor in a tiny group of highly trained ex-Navy Seals/CIA operatives... American Patriots and heroes. Even though they eventually lost their lives in the firefight, they managed to employ the full measure of their skills, and took out over 80 attackers in the process, which enraged the attackers who were led to believe that they would encounter no resistance.

THAT is why Ambassador Stevens was murdered and dragged through the streets. In their warped minds, they believed that they had been betrayed by the U.S. yet again. They believed that Obama was their friend. They believed that they were going to get their beloved Blind Sheik back. And yet, there were 80 of their own dead by American hands.

Obama was asked directly in an interview if he denied their request for assistance.  He refused to answer, and instead droned on with a canned response promising to "bring those responsible to justice."  Former CIA and State Department personnel are coming out now with damning evidence that indicts President Obama and reveals the truth about what is going on.  Stay tuned.

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.”

Jihad In America

One year of Jihad in America
Christopher Holton
This was never a war on "terrorism." Jihad is being waged against us and we have tied ourselves in knots to deny that reality. When will we wake up?

There is mounting evidence that the global Jihadist insurgency is fully entrenched in the United States After the Fort Hood massacre news services seem divided between those hell-bent-for-leather on denying that the Fort Hood massacre was a case of anything other than a persecuted loner "snapping" and those who proclaimed it the first "terrorist" attack on U.S. soil since September 11th.

This focus is wrong. Fort Hood was an act of Jihad and that's really all that matters: It is essential that we find out how extensive Nidal Malik Hasan's ties to other Jihadists were. Of this there can be no doubt.

But we must refrain from entering into a debate on what amounts largely to semantics about whether or not the Fort Hood massacre was an act of "terrorism." We need to get away from focusing on the term "terrorism" anyway. Some observers still don't consider the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing by Hezbollah, which killed 241 Marines, sailors and soldiers, an act of "terrorism" because, by some widely recognized definitions, attacks on combatants cannot be termed "terrorism."

This Just Warms the Heart

- Northeast Intelligence Network -
http://homelandsecurityus.com -

Planning for Jihad - on U.S. soil
Posted By Director On July 20, 2009 @ 8:41 am In Domestic Terrorism, Douglas J. Hagmann, Editorials, Fifth Column, Ideological Jihad, Randy Taylor, al Qaeda Comments Disabled
Douglas J. Hagmann, Director

20 July 2009: The call for jihad and seditious takeover of the United States by Islam was made loud and clear yesterday in Chicago. The fundamentalist Islamic political party known as Hizb ut-Tahrir (America), or HTA, hosted a conference at the Hilton Hotel in the Chicago suburb of Oak Lawn yesterday. The attendees, dressed in traditional Muslim attire, were segregated by gender according to the oppressive tenets of fundamentalist Islam.The women in attendance were covered from head to toe in fundamentalist Islamic attire, sat away from the men during the presentations.

While a small flurry of protesters gathered outside and across from the hotel and TV news crews gained only limited access to this threat to democracy and American values, a covert operative of the Northeast Intelligence Network successfully secured entry into this politically charged conference. According to this group’s leadership base in the U.S., present and speaking at the conference, “the time is right to advance the goals and objectives [of HTA] across America.”

Those goals include the establishment of a worldwide Islamic state governed under Sharia law with a Muslim ruler. And, according to the group’s U.S. leaders as stated yesterday - information secured through surveillance conducted by the Northeast Intelligence Network, the political climate in the U.S. is ripe to actively and openly solicit the support of Muslims in the U.S. in the advancement of these global objectives.

The operative at the conference stated that the tenor of the meeting was “one continuous incendiary attack against capitalism, democracy, and Western values.” Capitalism and democracy were described as evil, and Western values, Christianity, Judaism, and other non-Islamic beliefs as the antithesis of true Islam that must be “dealt with” in order to establish an Islamic Caliphate.

One unidentified event organizer stated that soldiers and supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir have made significant progress in gaining political clout within the U.S. - an interesting claim considering that the group’s leadership had urged its members to sit out last year’s elections. It has been suggested by counter-terrorism researchers that Hizb ut-Tahrir is now entering the second or more public stage of their three-part strategy (Article link HERE).

Although the conference spokesman, Mohammed Malkawi, denied that his organization has or had any ties to terrorists or terror groups (calling the claims “absolutely baseless”) , it is well known that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zarqawi, and countless other Muslim terrorists were members of Hizb ut-Tahrir and promoted their doctrine. This group has been covertly developing a broad base of support in the U.S. and Canada for at least the last three decades.

They have acted as the recruiting and indoctrination arm for al Qaeda, and are considered by some to be the visible political arm of al Qaeda and their ideology.

The presentations made at the conference were virulently anti-American and anti-Israel, with presenters criticizing the continuing U.S. and Israel alliance and U.S. involvement in Muslim countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan. It was stressed that Jihad is “the duty of every Muslim” to achieve complete domination and the implementation of a pure Muslim global state.

HisHighness is Stonewalling on Gitmo

Boehner Statement on Delay of Administration’s Six-Month Report on Guantanamo Bay Terrorist Prison
WASHINGTON, DC - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on the delay of the Administration’s six-month report, as ordered by the President’s executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay terrorist prison by January 2010:

“For months, Republicans have been asking the President to present his plan for what to do with the dangerous terrorists currently housed at the Guantanamo prison. The delay of this six-month report is further proof that the Administration has no plan, and six months away from the his arbitrary deadline for closing the prison, the American people are right to ask if the Administration will import any of these terrorists into the United States. Despite the fact that a solid majority of the American people and a bipartisan majority here in Congress oppose releasing or bringing these imprisoned terrorists into the United States, the White House has yet to provide the American people an iron-clad guarantee that it will not choose this dangerous course of action. Instead of taking unilateral action that could put our nation at risk, the Administration should listen to these concerns, take them into account, and outline a comprehensive strategy for keeping these terrorists off American soil.
“Two months ago, Republicans introduced the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act to protect Americans from dangerous terrorists being imported into our communities. This legislation includes common sense provisions to require governors and state legislators to pre-approve the transfer of prisoners into their states. In the absence of a plan from the White House, if Democratic leaders are serious about protecting the American people, they will schedule this bill for a vote in the House of Representatives.”

NOTE: On May 7, House Republicans introduced the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act (H.R. 2294) to:
(1) affirm Congress’ opposition to transferring or releasing terrorists held at the Guantanamo Bay prison into the United States;
(2) prohibit the Administration from transferring or releasing any terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay to any state without express approval from the state’s governor and legislature; and
(3) prohibit the President from transferring or releasing a terrorist detainee into the United States unless he provides notification and certification to Congress.

The War in Afghanistan

The War in Afghanistan
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 3:38 PM

NATIONAL REVIEW
BING WEST
Along the Durand Line, Northeast Afghanistan
The view from the Karir Pass on the Durand Line separating Afghanistan from Pakistan is spectacular. To the west, a river meanders toward the city of Jalalabad. To the east, Pakistani towns lie amidst emerald green swaths of farmland that stretch to the horizon. I am accompanying Lt. Col. Mark O’Donnell, commander of the 1st Battalion of the 32nd Infantry Regiment, and his scout platoon on a visit to the Pakistani outpost, 100 miles northeast of Kabul. Although their post has a panoramic view, the Pakistani soldiers say they haven’t challenged anyone crossing the border. They explain that they cannot even visit the nearby Pakistani village, because the Taliban would kill them.

Because the Pakistani (and Afghan) border forces aren’t up to the job, the mission of the 1st Battalion is to control an 80-mile section of the border. But the Durand Line runs for 1,600 miles. Looking down on the valleys on both sides gives an impression of the vastness of the challenge. After leaving the Durand Line, I visit the seasoned French 10th Mountaineer Brigade, operating in the mountains and valleys east of Kabul. I ask their commander what the critical strengths of the Taliban and the ten other fundamentalist gangs opposing him are. “Watchers and information manipulation,” he says, succinctly summarizing the security problem.
By “watchers,” he means the network of sympathizers and sentries, including women and the ubiquitous goat herders, who warn of the approach of NATO forces. When I accompanied patrols with Viper Company of the 26th Infantry Regiment in the Korengal Valley, the interpreters could hear the watchers reporting our movements over handheld radios. The fundamentalists took inaccurate shots at us from 600 meters away and then ducked into ravines when our A-10 jets appeared. This system of over-watch has enabled the enemy to control their casualties in their mountain strongholds, while in the villages their spies intimidate the people, preventing the flow of information to friendly forces.

When I accompanied a U.S.-Afghan army platoon to make a rare arrest in a thriving town north of Kabul, hundreds of unsmiling Afghan males with folded arms gathered around us. Some muttered “feringhee” (foreigner) as I walked past. Well, I was wearing my Red Sox cap in a cricket-playing nation. But who was watching them? “I don’t know what’s in their minds,” First Sgt. Jason Rivas said, staring back at the dispassionate crowd. “I do know the Taliban owns the night. They come and go as they please. We’re rarely out here, and everyone knows when we’re coming.”

Maj. Jason Dempsey, the battalion’s operations officer, showed me pictures of teenagers placing boulders behind U.S. vehicles so they cannot turn around when under attack. The Taliban and other opposition groups appeal to a mixture of tribal jealousies, xenophobia, and Islamic fundamentalism. Yet instead of issuing a nationalist rallying cry to discredit the Taliban, Afghan president Hamid Karzai emphasizes civilian casualties caused by American air attacks. “We don’t have the moral high ground,” Karzai said recently, while comfortably ensconced in a TV studio in Washington, D.C. A weak leader likely to be reelected for another five-year term in August, Karzai is politically tone-deaf. He reinforces the disinformation campaign of the Taliban, instead of developing messages that undercut theirs. Despite little fighting and very low casualties by Afghan or other historical measures, his administration has lost ground to the Taliban and like-minded fundamentalists. A shadow government has gradually emerged in large swaths of the rural areas.

In response, over the past year, the U.S. military in Regional Command East, around Kabul and to its north and east, has adopted the Petraeus model from Iraq and deployed over 100 U.S. and Afghan companies in outposts among the population. This maneuver has reestablished some control, as evidenced by a drop in violence affecting civilians. But the Americans are still foreigners controlling a population that, fearing retribution, rarely offers information that identifies the fundamentalists. In Iraq in 2007, Gen. David Petraeus presided over a shift in Sunni attitudes that led to a steady flow of information against al-Qaeda. Nothing similar has happened in Afghanistan. Until the local population decides to inform, the government in Kabul faces a serious problem.

In Regional Command South, including the key poppy-growing centers and the city of Kandahar, the security situation is worse. But 10,000 U.S. soldiers and Marines are surging into that area to clear the populated zones and then turn over the task of population protection to Afghan forces. By the fall, they can be expected to push back the Taliban. But what happens after that? How will Kabul solidify the gains?

On May 11, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates replaced the commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, with Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Changing commanders had less to do with redirecting strategy than with strengthening teamwork. In March, President Obama had announced a new Afghanistan-Pakistan policy that sounded like a continuation of the Bush policy. At that time, Bruce Riedel, Obama’s point man on Afghanistan, stressed that the president had laid out “a strategy” and that “it’s not intended to be a campaign plan.”
Not picking up on the clear signal that a campaign plan was necessary but still missing,

McKiernan failed to produce one. Petraeus, when in Iraq, had issued clear letters of his intent to all the soldiers. In contrast, McKiernan did not share his vision with his soldiers. He remained aloof and detached from his troops and from Washington. So Gates, in a shift that showed the power of Petraeus behind the scenes, selected some aggressive but compatible personalities. McChrystal had worked closely with Petraeus, Gates, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Because they are comfortable with one another, these four men share perspectives candidly. Soon there will be five: Adm. James Stavridis has just been appointed NATO commander. For the past three years, he has served as U.S. commander for Latin America, dealing with the drug wars. That experience is critically needed in Afghanistan, which is a major opium producer.

Gates must insist that either Mullen or Petraeus provide an objective risk assessment, independent of McChrystal. By way of analogy, every corporate board of trustees has an assigned risk assessor. Some senior general must remain detached enough from the day-to-day diplomatic and military crises in Afghanistan to warn if the strategy writ large is going awry.
As for the military campaign plan itself, it has still not been written. “Our mission,” Gates said, “requires new thinking and new approaches from our military leaders.” Does that mean that the deployment into outposts was a mistake — or that the Marines are wrong to try to clear the populated areas and then transition population protection to Afghan forces? No: The basic concepts appear sound. But operations are proceeding at a slow pace, because the size and bulk of each unit leaving the bases is large in order to minimize casualties.

So what “new approaches” should be included in the campaign plan? The first step is to agree that the goal is not to win, but to turn the war over to the Afghans. Many — perhaps most — Afghans have become accustomed to letting America and NATO do most of the fighting for them and deliver economic improvements. At the same time, they want to keep their distance from foreigners, accommodate the fundamentalists, and cling to the tribal values challenged by modernity. How do we put Afghans in the lead in their own country, to settle their own differences, while not losing the country to fundamentalists intent on attacking us?

There are two basic options. First, we can put more resources and urgency into the standard counterinsurgency approach. Militarily, this means recruiting more local militia at the village level. Once the overt Taliban fighters are pushed out of a populated area, a force has to come in to impose order, and that includes arresting seditionists. The traditional solution would call for improving the wretched police and installing American civilians to advise (and supervise) the district and provincial officials and thus strengthen the sinews of government. This approach would take several more years and several hundred million dollars not yet budgeted.

The second approach is more radical: strengthen the Afghan military as the backbone of government. Since the war cannot be won by killing the fundamentalists, they must be separated from the population. That is not happening. The U.S. holds about 600 prisoners in Afghanistan. Another 400 are held in the central Afghan prison. The number of enemy fighters imprisoned is absurdly disproportionate to the violence and intimidation — and amounts to a severe critique of intelligence and police effectiveness.

The enemy lives somewhere; it needs housing, food, transportation, resupply, etc. We have not trained Afghan units to acquire and run agents at the village and district levels, and to arrest the supporters of the fundamentalists. Our Special Operations Forces and CIA do a good job with the high-level enemy operatives, but the lower-level agents are walking around free and without fear. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and 13,000 Americans were arrested under martial law. There must be a similarly stiff penalty for sedition, and knowledge among the population that the Afghan government has agents, a net of informers, a military that makes arrests, and adequate prisons.

The U.S. should fund a pension plan to allow the quick retirement with dignity of a raft of superannuated Afghan officers who are performing poorly but have no means of living if they retire. In return, the U.S. should insist on joint U.S.-Afghan promotion boards for Afghan military and police officers at the company command level and above. As it stands now, our advisers can tell which leaders are poor or corrupt — but they can do little about it.

The police cannot function without a military umbrella, but the military can function as police. Instead of moving frequently, Afghan battalions should remain for years in one locale, so they become acquainted with the local politics. The police should be placed under army control. The army can also supervise the services supposedly provided by district and provincial officials.

This is a step back from the democratic model by which the Eastern European nations emerged from Communism. It points toward Turkey or Pakistan, or Mexico until recently. The American goal, however, is to prevent Afghanistan from becoming again a sanctuary for Islamic fundamentalists. The Afghan army, the nation’s most respected institution, is already working hand in hand with our military and offers the fastest means of reducing our burden in that country.

DHS Lexicon of Terrorism

From WND:

Two weeks before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security penned its controversial report warning against "right-wing extremists" in the United States, it generated a memo defining dozens of additional groups – animal rights activists, black separatists, tax protesters, even worshippers of the Norse god Odin – as potential "threats."

Though the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon" was reportedly rescinded almost immediately, Benjamin Sarlin of The Daily Beast recently obtained and published online a copy of the unclassified memo, dated March 26, 2009.

While many of the groups listed in the lexicon – such as Aryan prison gangs and neo-Nazis – may indeed be widely considered extremists, others will likely take offense at being described as a potential "threat."

For example, the memo defines the "tax resistance movement" – also referred to in the report as the tax protest movement or the tax freedom movement – as "groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified." (yep, that pretty much describes me)

The report, however, continues in its assessment of tax protesters, asserting that members "have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals."
(emphasis mine)

and for the record, I have never advocated or engaged in criminal activity or plotted acts of violence or terrorism to advance my goals

Similarly, the lexicon concludes its definition of "black separatists" by asserting, "Such groups or individuals also may embrace radical religious beliefs. Members have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence directed toward local law enforcement in an attempt to advance their extremist goals."

In his blog piece titled "Who You Calling an Extremist?" Sarlin writes, "Partisans leapt to decry the first DHS memo as part of a Democratic conspiracy to marginalize right wingers. But it became clear that DHS's broad descriptions of extremists were symptomatic of an ongoing agency problem that crossed ideological lines."

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.

Barack Obama’s Record of Poor Judgment

Once again, the folks at Family Security Matters have nailed it.

As an extreme liberal, Mr. Obama's priority is to weaken national security, not strengthen it. He wants face-to-face meetings with America's enemies but won't meet with Chris Wallace on the Fox News Network. He has pledged to withdraw troops fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq and would allow homosexuals in the military. That's his idea of enhancing national security.

Gregory D. Lee

Barack Obama and his supporters are fond of citing his opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq as an example of his superior judgment over his rival John McCain. To me, it's just the opposite, and illustrates how poorly Mr. Obama, as commander-in-chief, would handle national security matters.

Saddam Hussein ignored 16 United Nations resolutions demanding UN inspectors'
unfettered access of his facilities to locate and dismantle weapons of mass destruction. After a protracted cat-and-mouse game, Saddam finally kicked inspectors out and thumbed his nose at the world. How many more resolutions would Mr. Obama like to have seen before forcing Saddam's compliance? If you don't comply with our next resolution and let our inspectors back in the country, we're going to be really, really mad. We mean it this time, Mr. Saddam. At what point does the UN finally protect its credibility and enforce the provisions of its resolutions? Is Mr. Obama suggesting that finally enforcing the resolutions is an example of poor judgment.

And don't tell me President Bush manipulated intelligence and lied to Congress and the American people to justify military action because that is simply ludicrous. Such a lie would have required the complicity and cover up of the entire intelligence communities of the U.S., Great Britain, White House staffers and the U.S. military. Doesn't it stand to reason that at least one person from those organizations would have the integrity and moral fiber to blow the whistle on such a conspiracy?

U.S. and European intelligence agencies concluded that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and that he was most likely conducting covert operations to acquire nuclear weapons. That's pretty scary, especially in a post-9/11 world, since Saddam had a history of attacking his neighbors and using chemical weapons against his own people in northern Iraq. There was every reason to believe he had WMDs at his disposal and would use them against his enemies, namely the United States. President Bush's decisive action was required to not only protect the nation, but also maintain the U.N.'s flimsy credibility.