 This Jew-hating, terrorist-excusing conspiracy theorist was actually the elected leader of Malaysia - and spoke at a Muslim gathering where he expected his views to win support:
Malaysia’s former premier Mahathir Mohamad said on Wednesday there was “strong evidence” the US faked the September 11 terror attacks as an excuse to go to war against Muslims. “There is strong evidence that the attacks were staged. If they can make Avatar, they can make anything,’ Mahathir told the Conference for the Support of Al-Quds (Jerusalem), as quoted by local media. The former premier also blamed Jews for hindering progress in US foreign policy. Voicing his disappointment that Barack Obama had not yet ended the war in Afghanistan or closed the US terror detention center at Guantanamo, he explained that “there are forces in the United States which prevent the president from doing some things. One of the forces is the Jewish lobby.” Jews “had always been a problem in European countries. They had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred. But still they remained, they thrived and they held whole governments to ransom,” Mahathir said. “Even after their massacre by the Nazis of Germany, they survived to continue to be a source of even greater problems for the world.” Here’s the frightening question: For how many Muslims does Mahathir speak? And perhaps we should for once ask to what extent this man’s disgraceful bigotry and victimology is driven by Islam rather than seek again to blame ourselves for his vileness, as in this recent effort, reported in The Age: Malaysia’s relationship with Canberra was at best prickly and diplomats could not understand why Dr Mahathir held such a jaundiced view. Barry Wain, an Australian journalist who has observed Dr Mahathir for 37 years, provides some of the answers to the mystery. In 1969 Dr Mahathir, a first-term politician and a rising political star, was invited on an all-expenses-paid trip to Australia as a guest of the Foreign Ministry in Canberra. But he lost his seat in an election that year and a few days before he was due to depart the Australians asked him to postpone the trip.... Two years later Dr Mahathir accepted an Australian Government offer to visit Canberra after attending a seminar at his own expense at Monash University, only to find the hospitality in the capital as bleak as the weather. In his book, Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times, Wain maintains Dr Mahathir never forgot how he was treated all those years ago. So does cold hospitality in Canberra also explain why Mahathir believes Jews “had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred”?
Or has some faith or ideology pushed him to that conclusion? Andrew Bolt 
 America needs a streamlined intelligence bureaucracy. What we’re getting from the president, argues 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, is a lot of legalisms and political correctness. Nothing could illustrate more clearly the impotence of our counterterrorism policy than the Pentagon report on why Army Major Nidal Hasan murdered 13 of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood.
It was issued quietly last Friday, only to be buried on Page 10 of Saturday’s New York Times, and illustrates the deadly fusion of mindless bureaucracy with obsessive political correctness. The report tells us of a bureaucratic system in which the Muslim major was continually promoted “…despite concerns from his superiors.” While Islamism is hardly mentioned, a full chapter is devoted to the psychological stress that afflicts all Army doctors.
We are told by the secretary of Defense that a major cause was that the military is burdened by “…attitudes mostly rooted in the Cold War.” We are told by the co-author of the report that the problem is not rooted in Islam. “Suppose it were fundamentalist Christian-inspired… Our concern is not with religion.” Oh, I see; we must be equally vigilant for Mennonite jihad. Any intelligence bureaucrat rash enough to act on experience and insight will soon find their careers going nowhere, dismissed as a “cowboy.” Just as with the undie bomber, there was ample intelligence about Major Hasan’s terrorist sympathies in the bureaucracy. But bureaucracy is about process not outcome, and here process was adhered to and, as before, the system did indeed work; but the 13 patients died. So, nothing here to look at, move along. To deal with the crippling problem of bureaucratic bloat in intelligence, the 9/11 Commission on which I served urgently recommended the creation of a Director of National Intelligence with power to break up the bureaucratic layers and stovepipes and radically reduce the bloat by controlling the budgets, hiring and firing, and personnel policies of the entire intelligence community.
Congress agreed and created the post, but it is deeply upsetting that both Bush and Obama have ignored the intent of the commission. First, Bush created yet another vast new bureaucracy in the DNI, and now Obama will not give his DNI power over budgets or people across the agencies. He is just one more voice. Mindless bureaucracy and irrational political correctness did not of course arrive in Washington with Obama. What he added to this devil’s brew was an obsession with legalism and law enforcement. As explained by the administration in congressional testimony in December, it is now official Obama policy that for information in the intelligence bureaucracy to be acted on (for instance, putting someone on a watch list because of a warning from that person’s father that he might be a terrorist, say, or proposing that a Muslim officer’s jihadist sympathies should be considered by Army promotion boards), such information first must meet the legal evidentiary standard set in the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio. To wit: “Reasonable suspicion requires ‘articulable’ facts which… warrant a determination that an individual is… or has been engaged in … terrorist activities.” Thus any intelligence bureaucrat rash enough to act on experience and insight will soon find their careers going nowhere, dismissed as a “cowboy.” And if there comes yet another terrorist attack? Well, rest assured that the entire government will be focused on forensics—“we will bring these criminals to justice”—and making sure the terrorists are given the full rights of U.S. citizens so that the Muslim world and al Qaeda will be impressed by our fairness.
Oh, and be sure to remind them that we are pressing ahead with our top priority of prosecuting the CIA interrogators of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, and court-martialing the three Navy SEALs who punched the murderer of four Americans in Iraq. John Lehman was secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration and a member of the 9/11 Commission. Daily Beast
 East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet. ––Rudyard Kipling Nidal Hasan, Abdulmutallab and Humam al-Balawi are jihadists who were educated and came from privileged middle- and upper-class backgrounds. Hasan was an American-trained U. S. Army doctor, Abdulmutallab was a London engineering student and the son of a wealthy Nigerian banker, and double-agent Dr. Humam al-Balawi was a member of the Jordanian professional class. Many Westerners are confused by the willingness of university-educated middle-class Muslims to perpetrate barbarous acts of terrorism. It appears to be a reversal of the usual process: typically college students raised in religious households become more secularized by exposure to the humanities and sciences, and the rationalist values of the European Enlightenment.
Yet when embryonic jihadists attend Western universities they graduate with their faith intact: 9/11 terrorists Mohammed Atta and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were both beneficiaries of Western university educations.
These men, who sought to advance themselves with Western training and technical skills, ultimately turned against, and attempted to destroy, the very society that provided them with the means to that advancement. Instead of employing their newly acquired learning and knowledge to improve the lot of their fellow countrymen and co-religionists, they turned this very learning and knowledge against their Western benefactors. This phenomenon begs the question: How do jihadists reconcile such hypocrisy and ingratitude in their own minds? As the 1989 fatwa against Salman Rushdie proved, the list of Jihad’s grievances against the West is subtle and inventive. The exquisite sensitivities of the faithful guarantee the manufacture of injury and insult without end, providing inspiration for Islam’s perennial street theater; for no sooner does the Arab street grow tired of one threadbare grievance, e.g. Israel, than it discovers another in an irreverent Danish cartoon. The familiar explanations for the fierce hatred of Muslim extremists for the West—the presence of Western military forces in sacred Arab lands, that holy war against infidels is a duty sanctioned by the Koran, or the millennial fantasy that a supreme caliphate is destined to rule the world—are as irrational as they are implausible.
For example, before 9/11, America’s military deployment in Islamic countries, in Bosnia, Kosovo and in Kuwait, had been in the defense of Islam itself; but for the timely intervention of American forces in these three places, tens of thousands of Bosnian and Albanian Muslims would have perished in an orgy ‘ethnic cleansing,’ and Kuwait (and eventually Saudi Arabia) would have become provinces of Iraq.
(The only other time Muslims were likely to encounter the U.S. military was when a Navy relief task force arrived with aid for victims of a natural disaster in an Islamic state like Bangladesh.) And though some imams, mullahs and ayatollahs may harbor utopian dreams of world domination and of heavenly rewards for martyrdom, it is hard to believe such apocalyptic visions could motivate educated Muslims. There is evidently something else at play here. Genetic biologists tell us that the principle stages of man’s evolution, from the fish to primate, can be discerned in time-lapse photography of the human embryo.
The evolution of the educated Muslim terrorist is one of those mysteries that, like human evolution, resides in the terms of the problem itself and is only waiting to be made explicit, i.e. the very fact of the terrorist’s contact with the West.
The common strand running through the backgrounds of middle-class jihadists is prolonged and close interaction with Western society, a clue in plain sight that is too often overlooked in the search for esoteric causation, such as religion and culture. Indeed, according to British historian Arnold Toynbee, contact with the dominant universal society is always the first step in the radicalization of Third World revolutionaries and terrorists.
Here is the critical path..... Read it all at FPM William Fankboner is the author of The Triumph of Political Correctness and A Hypertext Field Guide to Marshall McLuhan’s Understanding Media. He runs a web site at: http://home.roadrunner.com/~lifetime. His e-mail address is: williefank@aol.com.
 Avner hunted Black September operatives involved in the 1972 slaughter of eleven Israeli Olympians. He began his mission as a believer, convinced that he was securing his people and bringing their enemies to justice. Now, Avner is confused, conflicted. For every Terrorist secretly killed, Islamic retaliation eliminated an embassy, a team, a close friend. He lives in fear of being hunted, realizing that this fear, as a new shadow, will cleave to him until death. Avner stands in an empty New York City field. His Mossad handler requests that the young man return to Israel, a metaphor, of course, for calling him back to his original disposition towards hunting the killers of innocent Jewish people. Avner’s conscience cries out, “What have I accomplished? For every man I have killed, another has taken his place. Where will it end?” “I cut off my fingernails,” retorts the callous elder, “even though they will grow back.” The agent departs, refusing to break bread with the exile. The audience watches the “abandoned Jew” a moment longer, long enough to ask, “Who is right?” Should cold-blooded murderers be hunted and destroyed before they can kill again, or is this the road to endless bloodshed and mutual hatred? Steven Spielberg, who wove this story of the Israeli pursuit of Black September for his 2005 film, Munich, will force his answer on the audience. The Director had addressed the audience in an unusual, taped “Personal Message” rolled before the feature played in theaters. Spielberg presented himself as the mature, impartial poser of a question. “My movie is not intended to be a statement about the actions of Israel. I merely ask if countries intend the consequences of policies they feel compelled to adopt.” For all his apparent impartial objectivity, Spielberg pronounces a fatal sentence against Israel in the final seconds of his film. His camera abandons the remorseful, haunted Jewish executioner in his empty field and pans the New York skyline until it rests on…of course, our Towers, the next escalation in the war Israel started by having the stone-age reaction of self-preservation. “Violence” begets only violence, anguish, personal and social destruction.” It is trite. It is contrived. It is cruel. Spielberg offers no solution, only a moment of silly Hollywood propaganda.
Munich was irresponsible and transparent. It fueled the anti-War left and afforded viewers an opportunity to revel in their own moral superiority. Why, only the enlightened elite can witness, in a plush seat with Dolby sound, the butchery of Israeli youth and remain true to the cause of real pacifism! On January 15, Spielberg announced his intention to produce a documentary for the Discovery Chanel on the reconstruction of the new World Trade Center Towers, including a special commemoration of those who were killed there in 2001.
While the new Tower rises, Spielberg will be reconstructing our national understanding of what actually occurred on September 11.
We can be certain the Islamic Terrorists will be but a negligible chorus. The stars will be President Bush, stumbling about in all his culpable splendor. We will descend into Machiavellian puppetry with a leering Cheney and watch Madam the National Security Advisor against a backdrop of spider-webs.
From the comfort of the cutting room and the clear skies of Los Angeles, Mr. Spielberg will sanitize the inhuman vaporizing of three thousand friends and family members and, in keeping with the final message of Munich, make sure we leave convinced that we deserved the attacks because of the part America plays in the endless cycle of terror. NewsReal Blog
 The Pentagon’s 86-page report on the Fort Hood massacre was “sanitized” to avoid discussing Islamic terrorism, the congressman who represents the base told POLITICO Monday. The report, released last week, says that the Army’s middle management missed signals about Nidal Malik Hasan in the months leading up to the mass shooting. But missing from the report is any discussion of what Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) said was the a “crisis” with Islamic terrorism.
Hasan allegedly wore ritual Muslim garb shouted “God is great” in Arabic when opening fire on a group of soldiers on the base — facts Carter said should have been disclosed in the report to help soldiers identify such signs in the future. A search of the report does not turn up any mentions of Islam. “People are afraid to speak out and label someone because they’ll be accused of being a racist or accused of profiling or being prejudiced against a certain religion or race of people,” Carter told POLITICO. “But in a time of national crisis, which I believe we are in, all identifiers must be discussed.” Carter’s complaint fits into a larger narrative that Republican lawmakers have been driving in the past few months.
The Obama administration, GOP legislators have said, has been irresponsible in its handling of terrorists, from their decision to close down Guantanamo Bay to the planned adjudicating of a 9/11 mastermind in New York City. In an election year that is already shaping up to be rough for Democrats, Republicans are sure to use such decisions to paint President Barack Obama and his Congressional allies as weak on homeland security. “We want the world to know that we are not prejudiced, even to the people that hate us,” Carter said. “That’s craziness.” Politico
 AN INTENSE security review is under way as the Obama Administration considers holding a trial in Washington for the Guantanamo Bay detainee suspected of planning the deadly Bali nightclub bombing. The move would bring one of the world's most notorious terrorism suspects to a courthouse just steps from the Capitol, officials say. Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, was allegedly Osama bin Laden's point man in Indonesia. Until his capture in August 2003, he was believed to be the main link between al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah, the terror group blamed for the 2002 Bali bombing that killed 202 people, including 88 Australians. Other terrorism trials also might be held in Washington and New York City under a proposal being discussed within the Obama Administration, according to US officials. The officials said the decision could come in a matter of weeks. Authorities have begun reviewing the security measures needed to bring Hambali and others before a Washington federal judge, the officials said. Conducting a trial in the nation's capital would be a symbolic repudiation of the policies of former President George Bush, who portrayed Hambali as a success story in his administration's program of interrogating terror suspects in secret CIA prisons overseas. Mr Bush said such interrogations, which included the simulated drowning technique of waterboarding, helped crack alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and led authorities to Hambali. The Age
 The American people overwhelmingly think that the Christmas Day airplane bomber, not to mention 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, should be treated as enemy combatants, not common criminals or Prisoners of War afforded protections under the Geneva Conventions.
Interestingly enough, Attorney General Eric Holder agrees -- at least, he did back in 2002.
Here’s what he said when discussing the 9/11 terrorists: “One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located.…It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves,…that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not.”
Holder also acknowledged back then that giving terrorists access to lawyers and telling them they have the “right to remain silent” -- as the Obama administration did with the Christmas day bomber -- means you can no longer effectively interrogate them.
In a 2002 interview on CNN, Holder was asked about John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban captured in Afghanistan and brought to America for trial. “How much pressure should they put on this man to get information out of him as they interrogate him?” CNN asked. Holder replied, “Well, I mean, it’s hard to interrogate him at this point now that he has a lawyer and now that he is here in the United States.” How times have changed. In his shocking new book, Courting Disaster: How the CIA has Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama is Inviting the Next Attack, author Marc Thiessen reveals a stunning reversal of opinion when Holder said years later in a speech to the American Constitution Society “I never thought I would see the day when…the Supreme Court would have to order the President of the United States to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention.” Like so many others in this administration, Holder puts political convenience above common sense, military tradition and any concern for the safety of American citizens. As Thiessen points out in Courting Disaster, this is just one more instance of the Obama administration endangering our safety and inviting the next terrorist attack.
 Obviously I was never going to see eye to eye with the benefitchogging Muslim hate cleric Anjem Choudary, but I didn’t realise how many of his own community think he’s dreadful, too. Few of the cafes on his home turf — London’s East End — will accommodate the bearded 42-year-old firebrand and self-styled “most hated man in Britain”. Indeed, just after he flounces out of our interview in one of the few that will — a halal diner in Whitechapel — a waiter asks me: “Is that the coffin man? I can’t bear him. All he wants is fame, and the easiest way to get that is say that Christian people should be persecuted. I don’t see much difference between him and Nick Griffin.” Two weeks ago Choudary, a British-born Muslim of Pakistani origin and the leader of the now-outlawed extremist group Islam4UK, caused a storm when he announced a plan to march 500 coffins through Wootton Bassett in Wiltshire, a town that regularly honours the British soldiers killed in Afghanistan and repatriated to nearby RAF Lyneham. He wanted to “highlight the tens of thousands of Muslim dead in Afghanistan”, he says now, squeezing into a booth. “But as soon as I had the idea — and it was only ever an idea — Gordon Brown said it was disgusting, abhorrent, and that the home secretary, Alan Johnson, would see to any request to ban it.” As it turned out, Choudary ended up cancelling, but not before Johnson had taken steps to proscribe Islam4UK under anti-terrorism legislation. Still, when we meet on Wednesday afternoon, just eight hours before the ban comes into effect, Choudary remains defiant. “Business as usual,” he barks. “I’ll be going to debates, going into the street, having meetings . . .” Indeed, he’s got five followers in tow right now, a noisy rabble of bearded young men, who pile into the cafe, ordering lattes, fielding calls, telling me about their conversions to Islam and recent trips to the Middle East, “on holiday”, emphasises one, while the others giggle. Well, they won’t be giggling for long; they’ll be winding down Islam4UK, shutting the website and ... that’s pretty much all.
The group is “more an affiliation of ideas”, says one, so there aren’t any formal tokens of membership such as cards or fees. Amid concerns that the group will simply change its name and continue, Choudary, who says he learnt about the ban from “the News of the World on Sunday”, insists he has “no option” but to do just that. “Look, Audrey” — he calls me Audrey throughout the interview, although he has demanded to see my press card — “I have no choice but to propagate Islam and invite people. Certain things are obviously illegal so the government will be monitoring . . .” Like what? According to the 2006 act under which Choudary’s group has been proscribed, it is illegal to promote terrorism or to glorify terrorist acts.
One Whitehall insider indicated last Sunday that members of the group had been making posts on the web in contravention of the act; in the past, Choudary himself has been accused of posting incitements on the internet under a false name. The Home Office has not given any precise indication of Islam4UK’s crime. “They haven’t contacted me,” Choudary says. So what does he think are the reasons for the ban? “Well, no reasons really,” he puffs, “but both you and I know, Audrey, they banned us because they were embarrassed because of Wootton Bassett. But also because of our continuous exposing of the British government, our call for imposing the sharia, the fact that we advocate not co-operating with the police in their fight against terrorism.” Choudary has been shut down before: a previous group he belonged to, Al-Muhajiroun, was banned in 2004. Jointly led by Choudary and Omar Bakri Mohammed, a fundamentalist cleric from Syria known as the Tottenham Ayatollah until he was excluded from Britain by Charles Clarke in 2005, Al-Muhajiroun had referred to the 9/11 bombers as “the magnificent 19”. More at Times Online
 by Mark Impomeni Last Friday, nineteen members of the New York Congressional delegation put their names to a letter to President Obama in advance of the upcoming trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and his co-conspirators in lower Manhattan. In the letter, the nineteen representatives, all Democrats, request inclusion of a special line item in the president’s 2011 budget request to “fully reimburse the City of New York for all security and other expenses related to providing a safe and secure trial.”The letter expresses the members’ support for hosting the trial in New York City, but takes note of the burden that will be placed on the New York City Police Department, the community surrounding the federal courthouse, and the budgets of the City and State of New York. “The trial of KSM will require an unprecedented amount of security, both to protect the judicial proceedings at the Courthouse and the surrounding area,” the representatives write. “Without full federal reimbursement, the costs of providing security for this trial will significantly compromise the NYPD’s efforts to prevent crime and terrorism, and further burden the budgets of New York City and New York State, both of which are already reeling from the severe economic downturn.” Rep. Michael McMahon is leading the reimbursement effort on the House side. McMahon also joined Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) earlier this month in calling on the president to provide funds for New York City in connection with the trial. McMahon was elected last year to represent Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn, an area that had been continuously represented by a Republican since 1981. McMahon supported Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to hold the trial in New York City, telling Politico in November, “It’s time to move forward and bring these animals to justice.” That tough talk has given way to concerns about security, “emotional trauma,” and costs as the trial grows closer. All are factors that Democrats largely brushed off when the Obama administration’s decision was announced two months ago. One reason for the change of heart among New York Democrats could be a groundswell of opposition both locally and nationally to holding the trial blocks from the site where nearly 3,000 Americans died in the attacks. On the national level, HUMAN EVENTS and the influential conservative community website RedState.com have joined forces to sponsor a petition drive calling for the trial to be moved out of the civilian court system. The petition has garnered over 80,000 signatures to date. Prominent New York Republicans Rep. Peter King, gubernatorial candidate and former Rep. Rick Lazio, former governor George Pataki, and the former representative of McMahon’s district, Vito Fossella. Lazio told HUMAN EVENTS the decision to hold the trial in New York was “unacceptable and irresponsible,” and said that McMahon’s letter was misguided. “It’s fine to seek reimbursement, but that doesn’t get to the real issue,” he said. “The fact that the cost of security is projected to be over $200 million of additional spending speaks to the seriousness of the risk to downtown New York City. Republican or Democrat, people understand that it is an outrage to have the trial for this terrorist mastermind held in downtown New York, a place that has already suffered great trauma as a result of [Khalid Sheikh Mohammad’s] actions”Lazio was also critical of his potential opponents in the governor’s race, Governor David Paterson, and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, for not doing more to block the trial. He said that Paterson’s public opposition to the trial was “ineffective,” saying that the governor needs to be, “a relentless opponent of having these trials down town.” “Governor Paterson should have been much more outspoken from the start, not just in terms of money, but in terms of the jeopardy created unnecessarily for the people of downtown New York City,” Lazio said. But Lazio saved his most stinging criticism for Cuomo, who has not taken a public position on the trial. “I find it puzzling that the chief law enforcement officer in the state has been absolutely mum on this,” he said. “How [does Cuomo] expect to be chosen to a position of leadership without taking a stand on issues important to New Yorkers?" One local effort is taking place in lower Manhattan’s Community Board 1, which is represented by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, one of the Democrats that signed McMahon’s letter. Marc Ameruso, Assistant Secretary of Community Board 1, led a vocal group of residents at last month’s meeting in specifically asking the board to withhold its support for holding the trials in the area. The resolution was ultimately tabled, but not before about a dozen residents of the overwhelmingly Democratic area spoke passionately about their fear and anger at the Obama administration’s decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and his 9/11 co-conspirators back into their community. Mr. Ameruso had strong words for Nadler, saying his signing of McMahon’s letter was politically motivated. “It’s ironic that Mr. Nadler acknowledges that this neighborhood will have to be locked down, that we will have to relive the experience of September 11th, but yet he is willing to put his constituency through this nightmare,” Ameruso said. “He’s throwing his constituents, of which I am one, under the bus.” Ameruso vows to reintroduce his resolution at this month’s board meeting. He said that he hopes his resolution along with the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253 on Christmas Day will, “wake people up.” “Holding this trial in lower Manhattan puts all of us in danger,” he said.
 Absolute intellectual/informational dominance is the strategic goal. In case you ever wondered why you never got the straight story on Islam directly after 911, and why the media seemed to be in the tank for jihad, here's a clue. The Society of Professional Journalists issued this directive a couple of weeks after 911. And they have followed it in goose step ever since. Just how long has the Muslim Brotherhood been strategizing the take down and take over of the US and the west? Decades. And while we have no strategy for fighting the enemy -- hell, we can't even name them -- they have a war plan that is so detailed and exact that every t is crossed and every i dotted. Take a look at the "diversity" guidelines as set forth by the Society of Professional Journalists not two weeks after 911. The enemy that attacked our country in an attempt to bring it down was writing the narrative. Diversity Guidelines On Oct. 6, 2001 at its National Convention in Seattle, the Society of Professional Journalists passed a resolution urging members and fellow journalists to take steps against racial profiling in their coverage of the war on terrorism and to reaffirm their commitment to: — Use language that is informative and not inflammatory; Even if the horror, murder and bloodshed of jihad is inflammatory, don't tell the people. — Portray Muslims, Arabs and Middle Eastern and South Asian Americans in the richness of their diverse experiences; Portray the axe wielding murderers, the homicide bombers, the infiltrators of our most senior levels, in the "richness of their diverse experience" (you know, stonings, amputations, shariah law, clitorectomies, Jew hatred, Islamic colonialism, the caliphate..........) — Seek truth through a variety of voices and perspectives that help audiences understand the complexities of the events in Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington, D.C. What voices? Hamas front CAIR picked voices?
Guidelines
Visual images
— Seek out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing Americans mourning those lost in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Seek out Muslims ................ — Seek out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing rescue and other public service workers and military personnel. Seek out Muslims.................. — Do not represent Arab Americans and Muslims as monolithic groups. Avoid conveying the impression that all Arab Americans and Muslims wear traditional clothing. Scam the folks on Muslims ........ — Use photos and features to demystify veils, turbans and other cultural articles and customs. "Demystify veils and turbans" Stories — Seek out and include Arabs and Arab Americans, Muslims, South Asians and men and women of Middle Eastern descent in all stories about the war, not just those about Arab and Muslim communities or racial profiling.
— Cover the victims of harassment, murder and other hate crimes as thoroughly as you cover the victims of overt terrorist attacks.
Cover the bogus tales of "harassment" just days after 3,000 Americans were brutally murdered by Muslims on our own soil. The Press is being told to throw Americans under the bus and kiss the adherents to the Islamic ideology that murdered our people and want to take over this country. — Make an extra effort to include olive-complexioned and darker men and women, Sikhs, Muslims and devout religious people of all types in arts, business, society columns and all other news and feature coverage, not just stories about the crisis.
Try to show Muslims out of jihad. And don't talk about the Islamic attacks especially, right after they happen. — Seek out experts on military strategies, public safety, diplomacy, economics and other pertinent topics who run the spectrum of race, class, gender and geography.
— When writing about terrorism, remember to include white supremacist, radical anti-abortionists and other groups with a history of such activity.
There aren't any (except the three under some rock in Appalachia). But not to worry, make it up, or pull the Unabomber out of your ass, and Timothy McVeigh too (just don't mention the third Muslim man).
— Do not imply that kneeling on the floor praying, listening to Arabic music or reciting from the Quran are peculiar activities. — When describing Islam, keep in mind there are large populations of Muslims around the world, including in Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe, India and the United States. Distinguish between various Muslim states; do not lump them together as in constructions such as "the fury of the Muslim world."
But Obama does. The Islamic world does. The ummah is the worldwide global community. — Avoid using word combinations such as "Islamic terrorist" or "Muslim extremist" that are misleading because they link whole religions to criminal activity. Be specific: Alternate choices, depending on context, include "Al Qaeda terrorists" or, to describe the broad range of groups involved in Islamic politics, "political Islamists." Do not use religious characterizations as shorthand when geographic, political, socioeconomic or other distinctions might be more accurate.
— Avoid using terms such as "jihad" unless you are certain of their precise meaning and include the context when they are used in quotations. The basic meaning of "jihad" is to exert oneself for the good of Islam and to better oneself.
— Consult the Library of Congress guide for transliteration of Arabic names and Muslim or Arab words to the Roman alphabet. Use spellings preferred by the American Muslim Council, including "Muhammad," "Quran," and "Makkah ," not "Mecca."
— Regularly seek out a variety of perspectives for your opinion pieces. Check your coverage against the five Maynard Institute for Journalism Education fault lines of race and ethnicity, class, geography, gender and generation. The Maynard Institute for Journalism is "pure diversity" -- check out the front page. It's all Arab Muslims or African Americans. — Ask men and women from within targeted communities to review your coverage and make suggestions. In other words, ask Muslims for the taqiya and the right spin before you publish. Read it all here, and thanks to Atlas
 AMERICAN security agents used sophisticated digital enhancement to create pictures showing how al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden might look like today. The Sun reports the Federal Bureau of Investigation released the pictures showing an aged bin Laden, with his beard trimmed and headdress removed. The Muslim fanatic, 52, is blamed for masterminding the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed more than 3000 people. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners and intentionally crashed two of them into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others in the building. A third hit the Pentagon and the fourth crashed in a field after passengers fought back against the hijackers. Read more about the FBI's old Osama bin Laden at The Sun The Australian
 [Note: This is the latest segment in an ongoing series about Code Pink and its co-founder Jodie Evans. Click here to read earlier articles.] Fresh on the heels of their Hamas-protected trip to Gaza, the so-called feminist, American antiwar group Code Pink, co-founded by top Obama funder Jodie Evans, is running banner advertisements on the English language version of the official Web site of a terrorist sympathizing group, the Muslim Brotherhood, one of which invites the Muslim Brotherhood to “join us in cleansing our country.” The ad, titled “Arrest the War Criminals” with a subhead that contains the invitation to “join us in cleansing our country” links back to a Code Pink site that calls for the kidnapping of former President George W. Bush, his wife Laura and other former members of his administration through ‘citizens arrests’ for defending America against terrorists in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks by Al Qaeda. The Jawa Report first reported the advertising in a post this morning (January 11, 2010). A check by Big Government of the front page of www.ikhwanweb.com. on Janaury 11, 2010 showed three Code Pink banner ads. One near the top, one in the middle and one at the bottom of the Muslim Brotherhood’s official English language Web site. The top one is pink-colored and promotes Code Pink’s “Women Say NO to War!” campaign and features a subhead of “Gaza Peace Delegations & More!” The middle ad features pink handcuffs to promote Code Pink’s “Arrest the War Criminals” campaign. The bottom ad promotes Code Pink’s “Gaza Freedom March” and features a sepia-toned photograph of a forlorn-looking child with a message about the march that concludes with the phrase, “Lift the Siege of Gaza!” The middle ad links directly back to Code Pink’s official Web site, codepinkalert.org, while the other two link back to Code Pink created Web sites that bear the names of the respective campaigns, womensaynotowar.org and gazafreedommarch.org. The Muslim Brotherhood published a statement by Code Pink issued in May to promote Code Pink’s trip to Gaza that month. In December, the Muslim Brotherhood published an open letter to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak by Code Pink and the Gaza Freedom March decrying the Egyptian government’s refusal to allow the group passage into Gaza. Discover the Networks provides background on the current status of the Muslim Brotherhood: In recent years, the Brotherhood has attempted to forge a reputation as a moderate and reformist Islamic group that has renounced its violent past. Lending plausibility to this reputation has been criticism of the organization by radical Islamist groups, who have condemned the Brotherhood’s willingness to participate in the political process as heretical. These groups have also criticized the Brotherhood for supposedly abandoning violent struggle as a means of establishing an Islamic empire. However, numerous statements by the Brotherhood’s leadership belie its moderate posture. Ali Sadreddine Bayanouni, the leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, has repeatedly disavowed violence while concurrently pledging his support for the terrorism of Hamas and Hezbollah. Muhammad Mahdi Othman Akef, a prominent leader of the Brotherhood, has expressed his support for suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq “in order to expel the Zionists and the Americans.” He has also denounced the United States as a “Satan,” saying: “I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.”
Many other leaders of the Brotherhood have likewise justified terrorism against Israel and the United States, with many defending the September 11 terrorist attacks against America.
Jews are another common object of the Brotherhood’s hatred. Of the Jewish people, Sheik Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, the spiritual leader of the Brotherhood, has written: “There is no dialogue between them and us other than in one language — the language of the sword and force.” Even as it is deemed insufficiently militant by some Islamist groups, the Brotherhood has had a discernible influence on contemporary jihadist terrorism.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, was a member of Muslim Brotherhood. More prominently still, Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood preacher, was a mentor to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. A recent sympathetic article on the Muslim Brotherhood was published by the Christian Science Monitor. Jodie Evans and Code Pink attempted to destabilize the Egyptian government by provoking a crisis last month over the government’s refusal to allow all 1362 ‘Gaza Freedom’ marchers to enter Gaza through Egypt. It would appear that Jodie Evans and Code Pink found an ally in Egypt in their opposition to the Mubarak government. This is how Jodie Evans repays the kindness showed by First Lady Suzanne Mubarak who came to Code Pink’s aid after Jodie Evans sent her a letter asking for help delivering the ‘humanitarian aid’ to Hamas-controlled Gaza. Code Pink’s involvement with radical Islamic terrorists and terrorist sympathizers in the Middle East would be troubling enough without Jodie Evans’ close ties to President Barack Obama and his administration. Does CIA Director Leon Panetta know that a close ally of the president he serves is asking a radical Muslim group with terrorist sympathies to join them in “cleansing our country”? Big Government H/T: WeaselZippers
 Unfair? Why? Do they have something to hide? "Saudi US Students Fear 'Unfair' Enhanced Security," by Hadi Faqihi and Mina Al-Oraibi for Asharq Al-Awsat, January 10 Dammam, Washington D.C., Asharq Al-Awsat- There is deep concern among Saudi students with scholarships to study in the United States, following the introduction of enhanced security search measures affecting passengers from 14 states, including Saudi Arabia.
These measures have been taken against the backdrop of the attempt by a Nigerian extremist to blow up an American airliner on 25 December 2009.
The fear of these students is all the more acute as they have returned home to spend the New Year holidays with their parents.
Groups of these students have started to return to the United States as the New Year holidays come to an end.
Meanwhile, the sequestration of a Saudi student at Amsterdam airport in the Netherlands, for two days, has fueled these fears. In fact, many students fear a return to the measures that were taken in the wake of the 11 September incidents: enhanced checking of Saudi passengers, delays in granting entry visas, and other complications that followed the blowing up of the World Trade Center in 2001. Ahmad al-Kaabi, a Saudi scholarship student in the State of Texas, in the United States, returned to Saudi Arabia a few days before the attempted airliner bombing.
He said that he had noticed a great deal of concern among his fellow scholarship students, and mainly the fear that the enhanced security checks would affect their entry into the United States and their return there to finish their studies.
Al-Kaabi pointed out that the particular treatment of Saudi nationals at checkpoints on their way to the United States is not the result of this incident; in fact, it has been in force for years, but the announcement that Saudi travelers are part of the list of the nationals of 14 states who will be subject to enhanced security searches will further complicate the situation. Al-Kaabi added: "During our trips to the United States we notice that we are treated differently by the security agents as soon as they see the green passport," which is a sign of Saudi identity. In the same context, Osama al-Naqli, director of the information desk at the Saudi Foreign Ministry, said in a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat that the ministry, through the Saudi Embassy in Washington, has asked for clarifications about the enhanced security checks that will be imposed on Saudi nationals traveling to the United States.
Asked about the details of this clarification request and the measures that will be taken to follow up the situation of Saudi scholarship students, Al-Naqli said that an answer to this question will be given later. For his part, Dr Muhammad al-Isa, cultural attaché at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, said that these measures will not affect the situation of Saudi students who are sent to study in the United States. This will not affect students and should not frighten them, and the measures in question are quite normal, he said.... Thanks to JihadWatch
 YEMEN'S President yesterday said he was willing to strike a deal with al-Qa'ida if militants laid down their weapons, amid warnings that dozens of foreign fighters were streaming into the country. Ali Abdullah Saleh's offer to negotiate with members of the terror network came as officials said that several al-Qa'ida operatives, including Saudis and Egyptians, were travelling from Afghanistan to join fighters in the lawless tribal lands in central and southern Yemen. It came as US President Barack Obama said in a magazine interview that he would not be sending troops to Yemen, which is quickly emerging as a new front in the war on terror, nor Somalia. Among those said to be in hiding in South Yemen is influential Yemeni preacher Anwar al-Awlaki. The US-born imam preached to two of the September 11 bombers in California and had links to the US army psychiatrist charged with the Fort Hood gun rampage and the Nigerian man who allegedly tried to blow up a Christmas Day flight to Detroit. Some Yemeni officials believe that Mr al-Awlaki, a member of a powerful clan who claims not to be a direct member of al-Qa'ida, may be willing to enter talks. A slim, bearded and bespectacled 38-year-old former civil engineer who was born in New Mexico to a Yemeni father, Mr al-Awlaki is an imam whose fluency in English and command of internet communications have made him a top recruiter for disfranchised young Muslims in the West. Dozens of Mr al-Awlaki's speeches can be found on the YouTube website, referring to everything from Koranic parables to the rapper Snoop Dogg and zombies. While serving as a preacher in San Diego in 2000, his sermons were attended by two of the men who participated in the September 11 attacks - Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar - and he became a spiritual adviser to the hijackers. He later exchanged emails with Nidal Hasan Malik, the US army major accused of killing 13 soldiers in a shooting spree on the military base of Fort Hood in November last year. Yemeni officials believe that he met Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, the Nigerian accused of trying last month to bring down a flight with explosives hidden in his underwear. Mr Saleh told Arabic television news that he was willing to offer al-Qa'ida militants a last chance to put down their weapons and come to an accommodation, even as US special forces instructors put troops through intensive anti-terrorist training. Mr Saleh said: "If al-Qa'ida lay down their arms, renounce terrorism and return to wisdom, we are prepared to deal with them. "They are a threat not only to Yemen but also to international peace and security." Mr Obama said he had "no intention" of sending US troops to fight militants in Yemen and Somalia. The Australian
 The recent Christmas terror attempt by the Nigerian Muslim Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab raised several concerns about failure of the system in the U.S. to connect the dots.
There is no single doubt that this event among many others such as the Fort Hood massacre point to a serious problem in connecting the data.
The question that must be raised is, "Have we only failed to connect the dots or have we failed to see them to begin with?"
Since Sept. 11 and in fact before it, we failed miserably to see several clear dots and threats that could have changed our approach to the problem of radical Islam and enhanced our capabilities in fighting it.
Some of the dots that we failed to see include the following: - We failed to see that in most approved Islamic Shariah books, jihad is predominantly taught in a violent manner. We believed in our dreams and imaginations that jihad is a peaceful concept instead of doing our homework to learn how it is defined by mainstream Islamic books and media. We obviously failed to confront the reality until the reality confronted us.
- We could not see that the problem of terrorism is clearly linked to a religious ideology. Our political correctness made us unable to see the most apparent thing, which is, when thousands of terror attacks and suicide bombings are conducted predominantly by dedicated and devout Muslims who belong to several economical and educational levels, it is imperative to think of the ideology as the number one cause for the problem.
- We did not recognize that Shariah, still today, allows stoning of women until death for adultery, kills people for converting from Islam, and promotes wars against non-Muslims to spread Islam. It is a violent and inhumane law that carries major threat to the future of our civilizations.
- We were unable to see the clear link between teaching violence and barbarism in Islamic jurisprudence books and the development of a violent mind that can ultimately lead to terrorism and barbarism.
- We kept talking about moderate and radical Islam without setting parameters to define them. This made us support some radical Islamic groups, organizations, and individuals thinking that they are “moderates.”
- We failed to comprehend that the lack of a strong reaction in the Muslim street against the terrorists is indicative of a serious cultural problem that encourages and supports radical Islam.
- We failed to see that allowing radicals in our military who clearly express sympathy and support for our enemy — such as the case of Nidal Hasan who committed the Fort Hood massacre — is a form of insanity.
- We could not realize that carrying a U.S. passport or having U.S. citizenship does not grant immunity from becoming radicalized.
- We could not figure out that Muslims killing one another in extremely barbaric manners in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be due to or explained by the presence of an Arab-Israeli conflict or by U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. We failed to ask the basic question: Why do Muslims kill one another?
- We failed to see that disrespect for the life of non-Muslims, as currently taught in main stream Islamic jurisprudence books, is a — if not the — main underlying factor behind terrorism. We simply could not see that the barbarism practiced by radical Islam has its roots in what we call “moderate Islam,” or Shariah.
In brief, our failure to defeat radical Islam is not simply a failure in connecting dots. It is primarily a failure to see these dots.
 Islam is in trouble at the heart of its birthplace, Saudi Arabia, and consequently in other Muslim countries. Muslim leaders and media are desperately trying to regain control both internally and externally. Muslims are starting to openly and defiantly question; while the international image of Islam is being tarnished daily with every act of terror, hate speech and calls for jihad from the pulpits of mosques. The traditional open calls for violence and jihad Islam got away with for centuries is now under scrutiny especially after 9/11. Islam is now under the microscope. That is the quagmire of Muslims today. How can they continue teaching their basic religious jihad education but still save face and Islam’s reputation in a culture where image and honor is everything. The West is not fully aware of what is happening in the Muslim world today where taboo topics are being discussed by brave Muslim reformists and former Muslims.
There are ground breaking Arabic TV and internet shows aired inside homes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, etc, discussing what ordinary Muslims were never allowed to heard before.
The brilliant Rachid Hmami, a Former Muslim turned Christian and originally from Morocco, has a show, Suaal Garii ‘Daring Question,’ that is making shock waves across the Middle East.
Another equally effective show, is that of the brave Coptic priest, Father Zakareya Botros, who was imprisoned in Egypt for proselytizing to Muslims. Father Botros’s show is a huge success in exposing tyranny, contradictions and weaknesses in Islam. Muslims who call in, are often in shocked by what they hear for the first time about their own religion, yet another proof that Muslim establishment intentionally spreads misinformation and ignorance of basic Muslim doctrines to Muslims. Many Muslims, even from Saudi Arabia, call in to renounce Islam. Unprecedented defiance is happening in the heart of the Muslim world. Recently a prominent Egyptian female attorney and human rights advocate, Nagla Al Imam, announced she left Islam and became a Christian and insists that she will remain in Egypt, in defiance of Islamic law condemning her to death. She is now under intense 24-hour security. Islam is in trouble from within. Both, King Abdullah, custodian of the two Holy Mosques of Islam in Mecca and Medina, and the Islamic establishment everywhere, are extremely alarmed by the status of Islam today. Their power to control Muslims, trained for centuries to blind submission, is slipping away. Huge sums of oil money dedicated to rescue Islam’s image, is not enough to do the job. That is where Obama’s services come to the rescue of King Abdulla. Obama’s bow to the king was no small matter, but of great significance in Muslim culture. It is a Muslim symbol of subjugation and inferiority. It was said that Obama decision to hold a trial in New York of the confessed mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, and the rest of the Guantanamo detainees, is proof of the US’s just legal system. But the Muslim world already knows that. Not one Muslim country demanded such a trial or claimed the KSM was innocent. To the contrary, the Muslim public, in general, think that Americans are stupid for opening their country to such terrorists and giving visas to terrorists while often denying it to legitimate travelers. Recently, my daughter innocently asked, why is America trying to tame untamable terrorists, it is like “having a pet shark”. The claims that such a trial will give an opportunity to the terrorists to justify their actions and hate propaganda, is true, but it is much more than that. Such a trial will vindicate and justify mainstream Islamic education of hatred and will help Muslim establishment tighten their screws. It will greatly boost to the status quo in Muslim counties and an opportunity for Arab media and Muslim clerics to justify 9/11, their hate propaganda, incitement to violence and outright lies. This trial will be a set back to Muslim reformers, human rights activists and Arab feminists. It is telling them there is a good reason for Islamic violence dictated by Sharia law. This trial will create unnecessary sympathy among the many uninformed Western citizens to Islamist fictitious ‘causes’ and finger-pointing Muslims have been taught and believed in since birth. Like the OJ Simpson trial, a good portion of Americans will be confused over glaring truths which will cause a huge set back to America’s war on terror. Knowingly or unknowingly, Obama has given a great gift for the New Year to the custodian of Islam, King Abdullah; a self-imposed trial by the victim nation of 9/11, a free televised propaganda machine from ground zero, to rescue mainstream Islam’s reputation. Protecting the image of Islam is one of the basic duties of Muslim leaders and the utmost obligation of every Muslim who is obliged by Islamic law to lie, cheat and kill for its sake. By holding such a trial in New York, America, intentionally or unintentionally, will be contributing to reforming Islam’s image, supporting its old ways of doing business and suppressing the brave reformation movements across the Muslim world, a true New Year’s gift to King Abdullah. Nonie Darwish FormerMuslimsUnited.org Author of ‘Cruel and Usual Punishment’ Thanks to Atlas for this exclusive.
 How courageous is Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, the father of terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? If, as it is argued, the Islamic world sees the War on Terror as a War on Islam, it must have been quite intimidating to walk into the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria. It must have been terrifying to walk to the front desk and ask to see the man in charge. It must have been a father's worst nightmare: not only to turn his son over to the authorities, but also to know that Guantanamo may have been in the boy's future. Did Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, though a wealthy and respected banker, fear that he, too, might find himself on the business end of an American rifle? One does not casually discuss actionable information on terrorism with American officials and not expect a hard look and maybe a little roughing-up. The White House Review of the Christmas Day terrorist attack reads like a game of Clue, in reverse. From the start, we knew the killer, we knew his location, and after sixty years of aircraft hijackings and Al Qaida's record, we had a pretty good idea of the weapon of choice. We even had a motive and a witness.
The White House blames Abdulmutallab's success on a failure to "connect the dots," but, in fact, the dots were already connected. There were no dots. We already had all the information necessary to shut down Abdulmutallab. No secret missions were in order. No covert bribes in cash-stuffed briefcases needed to change hands at disused bus stops. Delta operatives didn't have to to kick down doors, and there was no need to dust off the waterboard to draw out a name.
We knew everything.
In a press conference, President Obama said that our failure to stop the terrorist incident was "not the fault of a single individual or organization."
But that's not true. The minute Abdulmutallab's father walked into a U.S. Embassy with news that his son was a potential terrorist, the official in charge was duty-bound to see this through. Every scrap of paper and every byte of data on the suspect should have been called up and frozen. That's why we have embassies. When the information was passed to the first special agent at the CIA, he or she was duty bound to see it through. When the information was passed to the first administrator at the National Counterterrorism Center, he or she, too, was duty bound to see it to the end.
Everyone who read the name "Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab" prior to December 25, 2009 should be reprimanded and fired.
The White House findings state that, "Mr. Abdulmutallab possessed a U.S. visa, but this fact was not correlated with the concerns of Mr. Abdulmutallab's father about Mr. Abdulmutallab's potential radicalization." It's an embarrassing sentence of bureaucratese in its own right, but more so when considered in context. The State Department didn't revoke Abdulmutallab's visa because an office clerk misspelled his name in a database.
Has no one in the intelligence community ever used Google? When "Abdulmutalab" was typed in, did the computer not ask, "Did you mean 'Abdulmutallab'?"
Another admission that crosses the threshold of bewildering into the realm of criminally negligent: the National Counterterrorism Center has a database of all known and suspected international terrorists. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was added to that database.
But that database does not feed directly into the TSA No-Fly List.
Who more than known terrorists belong on the No-Fly List? There should be no human involvement required here. One line of SQL database code could have averted disaster.
According to the White House, when the CIA and NCTC got the name of a radicalized militant from the militant's own father, and a warning that he was planning an attack, they did not search "all available databases to uncover additional derogatory information." How many databases are there? And how many terrorist databases must one appear in before he or she is considered a threat to U.S. national security?
This wasn't a ticking time bomb situation involving a lone wolf under the radar. Such a terrorist will succeed, and there's nothing we can do about it, aside from remaining vigilant. But the United States already knew about Abdulmutallab, and learned of his intentions on November 18th -- a month before he struck.
Most grating in the White House report is the repeated notion that Abdulmutallab's plot failed. It didn't. Nine years after 9/11, and after billions of spent dollars in needless security, confiscated fingernail clippers, and dumped breast milk, he succeeded in smuggling explosives onto an airliner destined for American soil. He succeeded in igniting the explosive. If not for dumb luck involving bad chemistry and a brave Dutch film director, there might today be a smoldering crater in Detroit.
After the attack, President Obama remained in Hawaii and enjoyed a Christmas vacation on the golf course. After the attack, National Counterterrorism Center director Michael Leiter took a six-day skiing holiday. After the attack, CIA director Leon Panetta remained in beautiful Monterey, California. The nation, the administration claims, can be governed from afar, and that's probably true. But when terrorists attempt a major strike on U.S. soil, isn't it a good idea to have someone in the White House situation room above the rank of janitor?
When National Security Advisor James Jones warned that the White House review of the Christmas Day terrorist attack would bring "a certain shock," one expected to learn of political intrigue and a mishandling of delicate scraps of questionable intelligence. But rather, Mr. Jones must have been referring to the Obama administration's hubris in this matter, which is the most shocking revelation of all.
D.B. Grady is the author of Red Planet Noir. The Atlantic 
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
This Jew-hating, terrorist-excusing conspiracy theorist was actually the elected leader of Malaysia - and spoke at a Muslim gathering where he expected his views to win support: 
Posts
