 The Defense Department released its report Friday on the jihad massacre at Fort Hood, and it is hard to imagine a document more full of denial and deception. Above all, the Pentagon seems intent on ignoring and obfuscating the reasons why Nidal Hasan murdered thirteen people at Fort Hood in November. Although there were numerous signs that Nidal Hasan was an Islamic jihadist who believed it part of his religious responsibility as a Muslim to wage war against Infidels, the words “jihad,” “Muslim,” “Islam” and even “Islamist” never appear in the 86-page mélange of droning bureaucratese. Echoing hapless Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s reaction to the Christmas Day attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253, the report claims that, despite the thirteen murders, the system worked well at Fort Hood: “Leaders at Fort Hood had anticipated mass casualty events in their emergency response plans and exercises. Base personnel were prepared and trained to take appropriate and decisive action to secure the situation. The prompt and courageous acts of Soldiers, first responders, local law enforcement personnel, DoD civilians, and health care providers prevented greater losses.” The only negative note in the report is the delicately stated idea that the military could be better prepared for the next jihad attack -- uh, that is, the next “tragedy”: “The tragedy, however, raised questions about the degree to which the entire Department is prepared for similar incidents in the future -- especially multiple, simultaneous incidents.” And how does the report propose to make sure that the military is prepared for “similar incidents in the future”? By acting upon a series of empty, platitudinous recommendations: “identifying and monitoring potential threats;” “providing time-critical information to the right people;” “employing force protection measures;” and “planning for and responding to incidents.” That’s right: the Pentagon is recommending that the military could be more prepared for the next terror attack by “planning for” it. And the irony is thick when the report recommends that the military improve its ability to identify and monitor “potential threats” -- this from a report that steadfastly refuses even to acknowledge the existence of the Islamic jihad doctrine that motivated Nidal Hasan to murder in the first place. Could belief in that doctrine be a “potential threat”? Of course not. At least not in a military which permits the Chief of Staff of the Army -- Gen. George Casey -- to say that as bad as the Fort Hood shootings were, it would be an even greater tragedy if the Army’s diversity were damaged. A glimmer of reality threatens to break through when the report suggests that “DoD standards for denying requests for recognition as an ecclesiastical endorser of chaplains may be inadequate” -- in other words, the Pentagon has no efficient way to screen the groups that endorse chaplains for the military. And that is certainly true: for a considerable period only two Islamic groups, both Saudi-funded, had the authority to train and approve Muslim chaplains for the military: the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences and the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council. Both of these were linked to the Islamic activist Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who is now serving a 23-year prison sentence for financing jihad terrorism. If the Pentagon increased scrutiny of such “moderate” organizations, well and good. But by what criteria will it do so, since it doesn’t seem to have noticed that there is any problem of supremacism or violence in Islam in the first place? Political correctness was responsible for the murders of thirteen people at Fort Hood. If it had not held the political and military establishments in a stranglehold, Nidal Hasan would never have remained in the U.S. military, much less risen to the rank of major. He would have been removed from the ranks long before he had had a chance to murder anyone at Fort Hood. Political correctness was responsible for the fear among his superior officers -- they knew that if they disciplined or removed Hasan, they would have faced charges of “discrimination” and “bigotry.” And such charges can ruin careers these days. But that same political correctness is still very much in place, as the Fort Hood report abundantly indicates. And so for all its bluster about preventing the next attack, it will stand -- after the next jihad attack, and the one after that -- as a monument to the cowardice and myopia that held sway at the highest levels in Washington during the first year of the Obama Administration. 
 Shortly after the attacks on September 11, 2001; back when such attacks were almost universally considered to be acts of war and not just crimes committed by “alleged suspects”, there was a lot of talk of the terrorists winning or losing. It was often said that if people in the West did this or did that, the terrorists would win. Those days are long gone. Although there have been a few such comments since the Christmas Day attempt to bring down Flight 253, they have been few and far between. Perhaps this is recognition of the fact that the current administration and congress in Washington do not treat terrorists as enemies with whom a war is ongoing. It could also be that this “war” is easy to forget; although the militaries of the United States and its allies are engaged in fighting, it is easy for everyone else to simply ignore what is taking place. In the above context it was somewhat surprising to see David McCaig, the head of the Association of Canadian Travel Agents, being quoted in the media as saying last week that the terrorists were winning.
McCaig was particularly referring to the use of full body scanners and searches where passengers are patted down all over their bodies except in the crotch area where Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab kept his explosives. It will be years until this war ends, if in fact it ever ends, but looking at its progress during the last 12 months in terms of winning and losing battles, it is easy to conclude that the Islamic fundamentalists had a hell of a good year. The terrorists won when Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States. While John McCain seemed more concerned with reaching across the aisle to Democrats than enacting policies that would appeal to more conservative voters there is no doubt that he would have prosecuted the war more seriously than the Obama administration is doing. Obama ran on a platform of hope and change. Once elected, he “hoped” that the Islamic fundamentalists would “change” and not attack a country who was led by a nice guy like him. Obama was of course wrong. The terrorists won when Obama’s first announcement as president was that he was going to close Guantanamo Bay within a year. The terrorists, as everyone else did, realized that he made the decision without deciding what to do with the detainees that were being housed in Cuba. The terrorists won when the administration stopped using the term “war on terror” and began to refer to it with cutesy phrases such as “man made disasters”. The terrorists won when Janet Napolitano, who had no expertise in security, was made Secretary of Homeland Security. The terrorists won when Eric Holder was appointed as Attorney General. Holder had practiced law with a firm that defended some of the Guantanamo detainees. The terrorists won when Obama travelled around the world and apologized for all the problems that were caused by the United States. This was especially true of his Cairo speech where he made it clear that Muslims, who are not a threat to the West, were much more worthy of priority than the jihadists who seek destruction. The terrorists won when Barack Obama dithered and dawdled and seemed not to care about how many, if any, more troops should be sent to Afghanistan. The terrorists won after Adulmatallab’s attempt to blow up Flight 253 when Barack Obama decided to stay on vacation in Hawaii. Even though the president could do everything from Hawaii that he could have done from Washington, it gave the perception that Obama is a weak leader who didn’t take terrorist attacks seriously. The terrorists won when Obama’s first comment from his sunny vacation paradise was that the carefully planned attack was “an isolated incident”. The terrorists won when Secretary Napolitano went on television the following Sunday and stated that “the system works”. The terrorists won when the TSA came up with comical solutions to protect airline passengers. They could not be told or shown where the plane was during their trip and for the last hour would have to remain in their seats during the last hour with nothing on their laps, save their neatly folded hands. The terrorists won when the American media heaped praise upon the president for being so brave as to actually use the word “war” in public. One thing was clear; when Barack Obama returned from his Hawaiian vacation, he was scared. Unlike some U.S. senators he can’t bribe the Islamic fundamentalists with stimulus slush funds. Nor can he bully the attackers like he tries to do with Israel; nor can he simply ignore the terrorists as he does with the student uprisings in Iran. Obama may have finally realized that the fundamentalists are a threat not just to the United States but to his legacy. All he could do was blame everyone else while throwing out the line that “the buck stops here”, knowing that the sycophantic media would praise his leadership skills. Like it or not, the terrorists are winning. And they probably had a few good laughs along the way. CFP
 From Southern California Public Radio: The Obama administration has tapped Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Arif Alikhan for a top job at the federal Department of Homeland Security.
KPCC’s Frank Stoltze says Alikhan immediately becomes one of the administration’s highest-profile Muslims. Frank Stoltze: Arif Alikhan downplays his Sunni Muslim roots. That’s not always been easy. Not growing up in the San Gabriel Valley with a name like Alikhan. … Alikhan rose to chief of the Cyber and Intellectual Crimes Section and worked as a senior adviser to then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez in Washington. Now, after two years as L.A.’s deputy mayor for public safety, the 40-year-old returns to the nation’s capital as assistant secretary for the Office of Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security. Alikhan: This is the main sort of think tank and policy analysis shop that provides advice to the secretary, the deputy secretary, and spans over all of the different component departments of the Department of Homeland Security. Stoltze: His first briefing book was a 90-page list of acronyms he’ll use on his job. He says a big part of his job will be fostering communication between agencies. Alikhan also wants to help improve America’s image with Muslims around the world. Alikhan: I think a lot of people have learned from me about being Muslim, how diverse it is, how there is no real monolithic Islam out there, how Islam clearly, clearly prohibits any type of extremism or violence and absolutely condemns that. Stoltze: He may get that opportunity to teach again at some of the highest levels of the federal government. Wow. Is that the kind of blatant untruths we want taught at the highest levels of federal government, particularly DHS – a group created to protect us from terrorism – borne out of attacks on the U.S. by Muslims? Outright lies? More on Alikhan from Discover the Networks: During his years in Los Angeles, Alikhan was responsible for derailing the Police Department’s plan to monitor activities within the Los Angeles Muslim community, where numerous radical mosques and madrassas existed, and where some of the 9/11 hijackers had received support from local residents. Strongly anti-Israel, Alikhan has referred to the terrorist organization Hezbollah as a “liberation movement.” An affiliate of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Alikhan opposed President George W. Bush’s prosecution of the war on Islamic terror. More from Atlas Shrugs: Back in 2007, Alikhan was instrumental in removing the Muslim terror tracking plan in LA. The controversial Muslim ‘Mapping’ Plan of the Los Angeles Police Department is now “dead on arrival” according to Chief William Bratton. “It is over and not just put on the side,” said Chief Bratton in a meeting with the Muslim leadership of Southern California on Thursday, November 15th. The meeting was moderated by Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles, Arif Alikhan and attended by Deputy Chief Mike Downing. Chief Bratton acknowledged the hurt and offense caused to Muslims and agreed to send a letter to the Muslim community announcing the official termination of the ‘mapping’ plan. A major reason for the termination of the ‘mapping’ plan was the Muslim community’s vociferous opposition and active civic engagement in making themselves heard beyond Los Angeles. Muslim organizations demonstrated a strong unity of purpose and message on the issue of ‘mapping’ that led to a position of strength for Muslims in the meeting. Those involved in the initial phases of this controversy were the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and Muslim Advocates. … Muslim Democrats welcome Alikhan’s appointment At a banquet/fundraiser for the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California last weekend, the first speaker was Arif Alikhan (Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles – in charge of public safety for the city). He bid farewell, as he is going to take a post asAssistant Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security. Arif Alikhan is a devout Sunni and the son of Pakistani immigrants (here). ….speakers included Arif Ali Khan, the former Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles. He bid the attendees farewell as he prepared to leave the Los Angeles area for Washington, D. C. There he will serve as Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Professor Agha Saeed of the American Muslim Task Force (AMT) spoke of the aftermath of 9/11 and the struggle of the Muslim Community against the pervasive atmosphere of Islamophobia and hatred. It was a struggle against the tide – a very strong tide – to prevent Muslims in America from being marginalized and silenced. Professor Saeed ….issued five demands from Muslims to the Department of Justice. These demands included a cessation to the infiltration by spies of mosques and an end to the introduction of agents provocateur. In addition there was to be a cessation of attempts to undermine Muslim groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). This is where Alikhan spoke? He was comfortable with this terror talk? Why Alikhan? DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano noted Alikhan’s “broad and impressive array of experience in national security, emergency preparedness and counterterrorism.” I am not sure what she is talking about (neither is she, I am sure.) Arif Alikhan was appointed Deputy Mayor of LA - picked from relative obscurity. He began his career seven years ago, when he took a job with the Department of Justice hunting down computer hackers, crooks who were selling merchandise on Ebay at rock-bottom prices. In his former position as an assistant US attorney, Alikhan consistently did his work accurately and silently, never producing any headlines. But then he suddenly became one of the most important men in Los Angeles, America’s second-largest city after New York. He took the position of Deputy Mayor in November 2006. The year that the Congress went Democrat and history and America took a disastrous turn. How does an obscure bureaucrat and a devout Muslim come to the position of Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles – in charge of public safety for the city? And now Assistant Secretary to DHS? Un-indicted co-conspirator CAIR was thrilled at the appointment: CAIR-LA Congratulates Calif. Muslim Appointed to DHS Post , Arif Alikhan will serve as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development Related: Another Jihad Nominee at Dept of Homeland Security – Napolitano adds adviser with ties to terror backers Last week, Napolitano swore in Damascus-born Kareem Shora, the ADC’s national executive director, to a position on the Homeland Security Advisory Council, an outside-the-department group of national security experts that advises the secretary. Shora is the first Arab rights advocate on the panel. With thanks to Creeping Sharia
 Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Ralph Peters, a retired U.S. Army officer, a controversial strategist and world traveler, and the author of 25 books, including the recent bestselling thriller, The War After Armageddon, and the forthcoming Endless War (March, 2010), which examines the history–and future–of conflict between Islam and the West. An opinion columnist for the New York Post and popular media commentator, he became Fox News Network’s first Strategic Analyst in 2009. FP: Ralph Peters, welcome to Frontpage Interview. Peters: Great to reconnect with you, Jamie. FP: What are your thoughts regarding the recent botched terrorist attack on Christmas Day on Flight 253? Peters: Well, I have to separate my thoughts and my feelings. First, the feelings: Outrage.
Not so much at the bomber, who was just fulfilling his duty to commit jihad against Christians on their most important holiday (with any dead Jews as a bonus), but at the stunning lack of interest or concern on the part of our partying president and his paladins. Hey, why interrupt your holiday just because an Islamist terrorist (well, they don’t exist, right?) tried to kill 300 innocents and almost pulled it off?
And, of course, we were all instantly reassured when Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano (whose real interest seems to be harassing law-abiding citizens at airports, while preparing to push through citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants) told us that the system worked. I mean, God help us, you and I don’t live in the same universe as our “leaders.” On the thoughts side: President Obama, sooner or later, has to take responsibility for something. His call for yet another review in the wake of the failed attack had the primary purpose of deflecting blame from the administration.
Well, the military maxim applies: A leader is responsible for everything his subordinates do, or fail to do. All his adult life, Obama wanted to be president. Now it’s time for him to actually be a president. That means taking responsibility. FP: How much confidence, exactly, do you have in this administration providing safety to Americans against our enemies? Peters: Unfortunately, I have no faith–none–in the administration’s seriousness, when it comes to protecting Americans. A president who insists, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that every next terrorist is just an “isolated extremist” with no connection to Islam isn’t interested in solving the problem. FP: How about our intelligence system in this case? Peters: It failed. But, to be fair, many things that seem obvious in retrospect weren’t necessarily obvious in advance.
Our intelligence system has two pertinent problems (among many others): It’s dealing with a literally unmanageable volume of data, and (according to my friends still inside the system), the post 9-11 “reforms,” such as creating a Director of National Intelligence and the National Counter Terrorism Center, simply created additional layers of bureaucracy.
We’re fighting a lean, mean, fast, ruthless enemy. Our response? Bring more of yesterday’s senior officials out of retirement and hire more lawyers. Maybe we should just sue al Qaeda and see how splendidly our civilian-justice approach to terror works. FP: Your view of Janet Napolitano? Why is she still heading Homeland Security? Peters: I’d rather not view Janet Napolitano at all. This woman is so far out of her depth that it can’t be measured with Newtonian metrics. She was a politically correct appointment, period. On the positive side, word is that she’ll be gone in the next few months–Obama’s too vain to fire her right now, while the administration’s under fire over the Christmas terror attempt, but he realizes what a political liability she’s become. There’s another, unfortunate, side to this. When representing our country, especially on security matters, appearance and physical presence matter. It would be great if that were not so, but facts are facts.
Even if Napolitano were a security genius, she doesn’t project a forceful, capable image to our deadly enemies (or to our allies). Again, every one of Obama’s cabinet-level appointments has been about domestic politics, not about their effectiveness on the world stage. Well, at least he can’t blame Bush for Napolitano. Read more at FPM
 US Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has announced she will postpone her visit to Israel, which was slated for this week, due to public pressure on the government following the thwarted attempt to blow up an American airplane during Christmas and President Barack Obama's demand to hold an extensive investigation into aviation security measures and submit recommendations ahead of a White House hearing on the subject scheduled for Tuesday. Napolitano's deputy, Jane Lute and Assistant Secretary for Policy David Heyman will arrive in her place. The visit, slated for Wednesday, was planned as part of a round of meetings in several world capitals. The American delegation will leave to Europe on Monday and arrive in Israel Wednesday for coordination and educational meetings between professional echelons. Recently, Republican sources have been pressuring Napolitano to resign her post, following her slip of the tongue during an interview, in which she said that authorities managed security measures well following the attempted attack on the US-bound plane. A day after the interview, Napolitano retracted her statement and admitted that many breeches in the security establishment allowed for the Nigerian terrorist to board the flight. The goal of the American delegation that was to be headed by Napolitano was to coordinate security measures of US-bound flights around the world. Despite her absence from the upcoming meeting, Napolitano is slated to visit Israel in a few weeks to take part in a round of meetings between ministerial echelons. In accordance with increased American aviation security measures, the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced it began conducting Monday new passenger screening procedures for passengers flying to the US. The new procedures include physical searches of passengers and their baggage, metal detectors and x-raying luggage. According to the TSA announcement, passengers holding Cuban passports as well as passports from 13 Arab countries including Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen and Saudi Arabia will be subject to physical searches. YNet
 US intelligence agencies did not miss a "smoking gun" that could have prevented an alleged attempt to blow up a US airliner on Christmas Day, President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser said Sunday. White House aide John Brennan cited "lapses" and errors in the sharing of intelligence and clues about the Nigerian man accused in the foiled attempt. "There is no smoking gun," Brennan said. "There was no single piece of intelligence that said, 'this guy is going to get on a plane.'" Brennan is leading a White House review of the incident. Obama has said there was a systemic failure to prevent the attack, which he said was instigated by an affiliate in Yemen of the al-Qaeda terrorist network. Obama ordered a thorough look at the shortcomings that permitted the plot, which failed not because of US actions but because the would-be attacker was unable to ignite an explosive device. The president has summoned homeland security officials to meet with him in the White House Situation Room on Tuesday. Brennan cited "a number of streams of information" - the 23-year-old suspect's name was known to intelligence officials, his father had passed along his concern about the son's increasing radicalization - and "little snippets" from intelligence channels. "But there was nothing that brought it all together." "In this one instance, the system didn't work. There were some human errors. There were some lapses. We need to strengthen it. But day in and day out, the successes are there." Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab apparently assembled an explosive device, including 80 grams of Pentrite, or PETN, in the aircraft toilet of a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight, then planned to detonate it with a syringe of chemicals. Passengers intervened, and the plan failed. "What we need to do as an intelligence community, as a government, is be able to bring those disparate bits and pieces of information together so we prevent Mr. Abdulmutallab from getting on the plane." Brennan didn't say whether anyone is in line to be fired because of the oversights. He stood by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, although he acknowledged she has "taken some hits" for saying that the airline security system had worked. It didn't, and she clarified her remarks to show she meant that the system worked only after the attack was foiled, Brennan said. He said the situation was not like before the attacks of September 11, 2001, when intelligence agencies failed to share tips and information that might have uncovered the plot. He said there "were no turf battles" between agencies. "There's no evidence whatsoever that any agency or department was reluctant to share" information. Brennan appeared on "Fox News Sunday," CNN's "State of the Union," ABC's "This Week," and NBC's "Meet the Press." Meanwhile, a senior British official said Sunday that British intelligence officials knew that Abdulmutallab had ties to UK extremists but did not consider him enough of a high risk to alert American authorities. Officials realized about a year after Abdulmutallab came to London to study in 2005 that he was in contact with Islamic extremists whose communications were being monitored, a senior government official told The Associated Press. But there were no signs that Abdulmutallab wanted to target the United States or was considering turning toward violence, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of his work. "It was clear he was reaching out to radical extremists in the UK but there was nothing to indicate he was violent," the official said. "There is a very large number of people in the UK who express interest in radical extremism but never turn to violence. He only pinged up on our radar because of other people we were interested in." YNet
 Janet Napolitano -- former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security -- will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The system worked." The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.
Heck of a job, Brownie.
The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension.
From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters."
Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness and image management.
And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over -- that is, if it ever existed.
Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare."
And produces linguistic -- and logical -- oddities that littered Obama's public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Ford Hood shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions" -- code for daring to associate Nidal Hasan's mass murder with his Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the bomber acted alone.
More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."
Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians -- and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.
Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point -- surprise! -- he stops talking.
This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will not rest until we find all who were involved." Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.
This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.
The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator -- no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.
The president said that this incident highlights "the nature of those who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as "extremist(s)."
A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist.
Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.
Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy -- jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into a governing philosophy.
 by Frank Gaffney The Center For Security Policy Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano came in for some well-deserved criticism for declaring over the weekend that "the system worked" with respect to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's effort to blow up the plane he was flying from Amsterdam to Detroit.
By Monday, she was backpedalling, acknowledging that "our system did not work in this instance." In truth, for a lot of Americans, Ms. Napolitano has not had much credibility since she tried to ban "terrorism" from the official lexicon of her department. But arguably the most serious indication that she is wholly ill-equipped to carry out her present responsibilities can be found in another - as yet uncorrected - statement she made on Sunday.
She told CNN's "State of the Union" that, "Right now, we have no indication [that Abdulmutallab's actions were] part of anything larger." Not "part of anything larger"? Is she serious? Does she take us for fools? Read my lips, Secretary Napolitano: Abdulmutallab's actions were absolutely, positively part of something larger. What they were part of is the comprehensive theo-political-legal program that authoritative Islam calls Shariah. This supremacist program requires its adherents to engage in jihad, or holy war, to bring about the triumph of Islam under a global theocracy, one that will impose Shariah on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Pursuant to Shariah, jihad should - wherever practicable - be pursued through the terrifying use of violence. Where violent jihad is impractical or would be counterproductive, Shariah directs faithful Muslims to use other means to advance the same goal. Koran expert Robert Spencer calls the latter "stealth jihad." The question must be asked: Are we seeing a dramatic increase in violent jihadism in America - National Public Radio reported on Saturday that there had been fourteen attempts in 2009 (compared to two or three in recent years) and that they had been increasingly "operational" in character, not just "aspirational" - because violence is now seen to be practicable here? Specifically, could it be that jihadists have been emboldened by what they see as weakness and/or fecklessness on the part of the U.S. administration?
Could steps Team Obama has taken - such as the closure of Guantanamo Bay, the release of some hardened terrorists held there to Yemen (where Abdulmuttalab claims he got his plastic explosive device), granting others access to civilian courts and constitutional rights, etc. - actually be emboldening them to believe that murder and mayhem will accelerate the defeat and conquest of the infidel West? The U.S. government was warned by Abdulmutallab's father at least two months ago that his son had been "radicalized" - in other words, that he had embraced Shariah. That being the case, he was transformed from being one of the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world who are not a problem into one of those who are. In the wake of the latest, narrowly averted massacre at the hands of jihadists, we are being promised executive branch reviews of the practice that, in the wake of his father's warning, put Abdulmuttalab on the improbably named Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) database - but did not revoke his multiple entry U.S. visa or otherwise keep him from flying. Multiple congressional investigations will be launched, as well. Such reviews will, however, amount to little more than a waste of time and taxpayer resources - and possibly a serious distraction - if they do not address, and henceforth require screening for, the motivation for such attacks. It is absurd to think that "the system" is going to do anything other than exponentially increase the amount of discomfort for airline passengers as long as it does not weed out those who embrace as an article of faith their duty to destroy us. We need to be equally clear about the menace posed by those who adhere to Shariah but profess to seek to "Islamicize" America through non-violent means. In the wake of the recent actual and averted attacks, the press has, for example, trumpeted the views of parents of five jihadists from Northern Virginia, imams at mosques where they worshipped and prominent fixtures in the various Muslim Brotherhood front organizations. Unsurprisingly, all of them profess shock - shock! - that these young people would want to do as they have been taught to, pursuant to Shariah: namely, follow the way of jihad against the Dar al-Harb (the "House of War" that is the non-Muslim world). Nowhere in these disinformation operations is any mention made of the Muslim Brotherhood's self-declared mission in America. According to an internal Brotherhood strategic plan dating from 1991, that mission is: "A kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions." As long as Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder, the intelligence community, law enforcement, the military, the media and most especially President Obama refuse to acknowledge what animates our enemies, we will never develop an effective strategy for defeating them, let alone successfully implement it. Part and parcel of achieving such an understanding is to stop allowing the stealth jihadists in our midst to blind us to this reality. With thanks to Radical Islam
 Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and historian at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is a columnist for National Review and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal. FP: Victor Davis Hanson, welcome to Frontpage Interview. First things first, let me ask you this. If our government was serious about fighting Islamic terrorism and saving lives, wouldn’t Abdul Mutallab be getting water-boarded just about now? We know that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed – which included waterboarding – forced KSM to give up crucial information that ended up preventing countless terrorist attacks and saving an infinite amount of innocent lives. It allowed, for instance, the U.S. to capture key al- Qaeda terrorists and to thwart a planned 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles. But now, thanks to the Obama administration and its approach to the terror war, Abdul Mutallab will probably be getting a lawyer and not have to say anything. This, naturally, drastically increases, rather than minimizes, the possibilities of a future terror attack on our soil and against our citizens. Your thoughts? Hanson: I don’t think right now the question is over interrogation techniques, but rather not giving this foreign national would-be mass murderer full rights, as if he were a common criminal rather than a non-uniformed soldier at war. Mutallab apparently, has been happy to tell all he knows without even being interrogated formally, which makes the entire foiled attack even more absurd: a Nigerian radical Muslim buys with cash a one-way ticket, carries no check-in luggage, was previously reported by his own father as a threat to America, and boards a plane to America after previous stays in Yemen? Before we even get to questions of interrogation, how about first some sanity? And in reaction to all this, Secretary Napolitano nonchalantly talks about the system working like “clockwork”? I think very soon we will hear of no more “overseas contingency operations” and “man-made disasters”—and no more Janet Napolitano as head of our homeland security. And when the next official struts and says “Bush did it”, the public will sigh “Thank God, he did”, since in comparison with the seriousness with which the prior administration dealt with terrorism, the Obama team seems to consider radical Islam an interesting catalyst for a civil liberties debate. “Reset” button probably won’t be used any more either—the phrase is too ironic now, and would mean going back to our anti-terrorism policies from 2001-9, which are preferable to the present mess. In political terms, one cannot ask millions of Americans to take off their belts and shoes, and then not put someone like Mutallab on a no-fly list. FP: The fate of Gitmo? Hanson: With over 100 Yemenis in Guantanamo, I doubt the facility will be closed; perhaps it will be virtually closed like the Iranian deadlines to stop building a bomb, or the health-care deadlines. I doubt too that Khalid Sheik Mohammed is ever tried in New York; that partisan gambit will be quietly Guatanamoized. More at FPM
 President Obama yesterday pulled his head out of the sand long enough to promise a thorough review of US se curity practices after the near-suicide bombing of a commercial airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day. Then he stuck it right back in. Obama, in a brief address from Hawaii, did manage to utter the "T" word: "A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism." But he refused to define the nature of the threat. Nor did he fire Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano -- a pity, because if any government official ever earned the boot, it's her. Sunday, she claimed "the system" she allegedly oversees "worked" on Christmas Day -- even though Nigerian jihadist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab brought a bomb aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 and almost detonated it. The claim was nonsensical, as she finally noted yesterday -- "the system didn't work" -- but not before destroying the credibility she needs to hold the job. Yet Obama is short on credibility, too. Why can't he bring himself to describe the threat for what it is: an Islamist holy war against America? Yesterday, Obama termed Abdulmutallab "an isolated extremist." Really? Is that all? The bomber's own father warned US officials in October that his son had fallen in with Islamic radicals. Abdulmutallab himself reportedly told federal officials he trained with al Qaeda in Yemen -- and, for what it's worth, al Qaeda in Yemen confirms that. And ABC News reported yesterday that two of Abdulmutallab's Yemeni trainers had been released from Guantanamo Bay to the Saudis in 2007 -- and then set free after (no joke) "art therapy rehabilitation." Meanwhile, Brian Jenkins of the Rand Corporation reports 12 incidents of Islamist terror either in the United States or involving Americans abroad in 2009, the most in any year since 9/11. (These include the Fort Hood massacre.) See the trend line? Obama refuses to. "Those who would attack our country" is how he described the jihadis -- a formulation he used four times in his brief address. But if the president refuses to define the enemy, how can he expect America to defend against that enemy? No wonder Napolitano is so confused. No reasonable person believes that terror screening can ever be foolproof. But Americans need full confidence that their government is addressing the problem as vigorously as possible. This would require Obama to order two basic changes in anti-terror policy: * Captured terrorists need to be treated as such -- and not as common criminals. Abdulmutallab needs to disappear down a black hole somewhere, and stay there until the war on terror is over. No criminal trials for terrorists. * Homeland Security needs to quit pretending little old ladies from the heartland pose a security threat and institute an intelligent traveler-profiling policy that targets Middle Eastern males. Certainly, Abdulmutallab's attack was instructive: Who knew it was so easy to waltz through security with high explosives stuffed down one's pants? But while odds are that some equally imaginative jihadist will someday succeed, a comprehensive, focused anti-terror policy will make that much less likely.
 It is sad that President Obama and his team are still going through on-the-job training a year into their administration. Despite the fact that Janet Napolitano, our homeland-security secretary, bizarrely tried to nix the use of the term terrorism and despite the fact that his own White House dubiously dubbed this global conflict "an overseas contingency operation," the president has finally learned to use the most obvious term — terror— this week. Mr. President, if you are listening, here are a few more thoughts from a concerned Muslim. You cannot just stay hunkered down at your "beachhead" in Hawaii after another virulent byproduct of global political Islam attacked on our homeland. While no one was really hurt, you don't exactly look like you are taking the issue seriously when your photo of the day captures a romp on the beach.
It was not a coincidence that this was attempted on Christmas day, yet you ignore the religious struggles in this conflict. It is time that our commander-in-chief and the leader of the free world come to terms with the reality that this is the greatest conflict of the century and a battle of ideas between western liberal secular democracies and political Islam. While you and your colleagues are stymied by the question of whether to even use the term "terror," the ideology of al-Qaeda (violent political Islam) is spreading exponentially. Your systematic failure to advance American security against ideologies that threaten us may turn catastrophic. In fact the Christmas bomber said so himself, telling an investigator that "there are more just like me who will strike soon." By all means, Mr. President, fix the holes in our security that we know are there — but terrorists who are suicidal religious zealots and very creative will sadly very likely strike again soon. This year certainly proves that. Our nation is clearly becoming more and more anxious and concerned over the rash of radicalized Muslims. Is it not time for you to acknowledge that terror is a simply a symptom of a more profound deeper underlying disease? That disease is political Islam. Hopefully you will realize that we can only defeat an enemy we can name, describe, and understand. As Thomas Friedman and others have recently reminded us, the only answer to jihadists, Salafists, and Islamists is a narrative from within America, and most important from within Islam, that counters the global supremacism of political Islam. Until you say exactly that, we will continue to flail in this conflict. I hope after Nidal Hasan, after the American jihadis in Pakistan, and now after the Christmas bomber radicalized in London, that you see our need for clear leadership against political Islam and its ubiquitous permeating militant manifestations.
We need a leader who recognizes that this conflict is most significantly within Muslim communities as we Muslims struggle with the conflict between theocracy and democracy, sharia and liberty, Islamism and freedom, and salafism and modernity.
The longer you squander your leadership and stay silent on this, the more vulnerable we will be. M.Zudhi Jasser
 The near-success of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, to set off an explosive on Christmas Day should open the American public's eyes to the sad state of counterterrorism eight years after 9/11. The incident involved a Nigerian national in Seat 19A – ideally placed over the fuel tanks, atop the wing, and next to the exterior of the aircraft – of Northwest flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit.
As summarized by the Wall Street Journal, it happened as the Airbus 330-300 carrying 289 people was approaching Detroit. Mr. Abdulmutallab went to the plane's restroom for about 20 minutes, and upon returning to his seat he stated that his stomach was upset, and he pulled a blanket over himself, according to the Justice Department complaint. As the flight was heading for a landing at Detroit Metropolitan Airport before noon, the complaint alleges, Mr. Abdulmutallab set off the device. Passengers heard popping noises similar to firecrackers, smelled an odor, and some observed Mr. Abdulmutallab's pants leg and the wall of the airplane on fire. Subsequent investigations learned that the plot was organized and launched by Al-Qaeda leaders in Yemen, who arranged for 80 grams of PETN (pentaerythritol) to be sewn in Abdulmutallab's underwear. Investigators concluded that only a chance malfunction prevented the explosives from bringing down the Northwest plane. Umar Farouk's father, Umaru Abdulmutallab, former chairman of the First Bank of Nigeria and one of his country's most prominent businessmen, recently went to the U.S. embassy in Abuja to warn about his son's "radicalization and associations," prompting American officialdom to place the son on a terror watch list of about 550,000 names, the Terrorist Screening Data Base. But they did not place him on the list of about 15,000 individuals who must go through additional screening, much less the list of about 4,000 people on the "no-fly" list, who are not allowed to fly to or in the United States. Nor did they revoke Abdulmutallab's two-year, multi-entry tourist visa. Nor did an air marshal accompany his flight. Despite these multiple failures, Janet Napolitano, the Department of Homeland Security secretary, astonishingly claimed that the system "worked really very, very smoothly" in Detroit.
This institutional myopia increases my worries about U.S. law enforcement. Of course, had the system worked, Abdulmutallab would never have entered the airplane, much less set off an explosive device. Looking ahead, the Transportation Security Administration has issued an emergency order requiring travelers headed for the United States to undergo a "thorough pat-down" at the boarding gate, with a focus on the upper legs and torso and a secondary inspection of carry-on baggage. During the final hour on all U.S. flights, passengers must remain seated, may not access carry-on baggage or keep personal items on their laps. More delights may follow, reports the New York Times: "Overseas passengers will be restricted to only one carry-on item aboard the plane. … On one flight, from Newark Airport, flight attendants kept cabin lights on for the entire trip instead of dimming them for takeoff and landing. … In effect, the restrictions mean that passengers on flights of 90 minutes or less would most likely not be able to leave their seats at all." As Phyllis Chesler plaintively asks, "Are we all going to be subjected to underwear checks before boarding our flights? If so, Al-Qaeda will soon secrete explosives in body cavities. Will we all be searched there as well?" In other words, because U.S. security agencies refuse to take the sensible precaution of concentrating their resources on the small target pool of suspects, namely Muslims, about 1 percent of the population, hundreds of millions of passengers must bear the burden of extra cost, inconvenience, and loss of privacy. The Detroit episode renders invalid several aphorisms I honed over recent years: - Had U.S. law enforcement devoted the attention to the 9/11 plotters that it has since given to counterterrorism, 9/11 would never have taken place.
- While Sudden Jihad Syndrome by isolated individuals remains beyond the abilities of American institutions to stop (viz., the Ft. Hood shooter last month), terrorists linked to Al-Qaeda are well under surveillance.
- Government authorities have terrorism under control, so we private analysts can focus instead on the non-violent forms of radical Islam known variously as "stealth jihad," "creeping Shari'a," "lawful Islamism," or "Islamism 2.0."
The Northwest incident takes me back to 9/11 itself, when I wrote a bitter analysis how the U.S. government had "grievously failed in its topmost duty to protect American citizens from harm." That failure continues. What size disaster must occur to inspire a serious approach to counterterrorism? Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum, Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, and a columnist for the Jerusalem Post. Dec. 28, 2009 update:
Janet Napolitano reversed her inane comment under withering criticism, saying on NBC's "Today" program this morning that "Our system did not work in this instance.
No one is happy or satisfied with that." But her original statement still indicates an alarmingly self-satisfied mentality at the upper reaches of the Obama administration. Daniel Pipes
 An attempted jihad attack on Christmas Day has revealed that Americans are much more vulnerable to such attacks than most have believed – while government officials whistle in the dark. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old son of a wealthy Nigerian banker, tried to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 just before it landed in Detroit. In response, Barack Obama chose not to cut short his golfing vacation in Hawaii; the White House announced that he would “likely” have something to say about this latest attempted jihad attack on U.S. soil “in the next few days.” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was ebullient, maintaining that “the system worked” and “everything happened that should have.” Unless the “system” was consisted of relying on passengers to tackle jihadists (as Jasper Schuringa, the Dutch passenger on Flight 253, subdued Abdulmutallab), and trusting that jihadis’ detonators will malfunction (as did Abdulmutallab’s), Napolitano’s statement couldn’t possibly be farther from the truth.
In reality, nothing worked. Nothing at all, both in terms of security procedures for individual air passengers, and in terms of the larger strategy for dealing with jihad terrorism. All the stupid and humiliating airport security procedures, all the little baggies for toothpaste and shampoo, all the padding through the security scanner in stocking feet, didn’t work.
Abdulmutallab was able to board the plane with the makings of a bomb that would have destroyed the aircraft and killed everyone in it. The Transportation Security Administration has scrambled since Christmas Day to stiffen security procedures, but its effort is foredoomed: jihadis study these procedures carefully, always searching for ways to circumvent them. And such ways exist, even if every passenger were subjected to a full body cavity search – bomb ingredients can be separated and combined mid-flight, or spirited onboard in ways as yet unimagined by the most visionary TSA official. Abdulmutallib was also on a terror watch list, although that fact, and the fact that he had been known to anti-terror officials for several years, did not prevent him from boarding Flight 253 – showing that such lists and even official scrutiny are as useless as taking off your shoes in the airport security line.
What’s more, the jihadi’s father warned American officials about his son, who was being watched already. And still nothing was done to keep him from boarding the plane. Abdulmutallab likewise demonstrates the failure of long-term anti-terror strategies. Educated at the British International School in Lome, Togo, he was a classic recipient of Western largesse designed to win over the loyalties of Muslims. Yet his encounter with kindly non-Muslim Westerners spending their lives to educate him and his peers did not blunt the fervor of his jihadist fanaticism. And as a rich man’s son, he once again gives the lie to the firmly and widely held assumption that poverty causes terrorism. All the aid programs based on the assumption that poverty does cause terrorism and that money for schools and roads and hospitals would win over Muslim hearts and minds have not worked, and will not work. All the concerted efforts by the State Department and DHS to ignore the jihad doctrine and reach out to people they deemed to be “moderate Muslims” have likewise not worked. According to the Nigerian newspaper This Day, when Abdulmutallab was at the British International School, “he was known for preaching about Islam to his schoolmates and he was popularly called ‘Alfa,’ a local coinage for Islamic scholar.”
This illustrates yet again that, contrary to the popular view, Islamic jihadists present themselves among their fellow Muslims as the exponents of authentic Islam, making their case from the Qur’an and Sunnah — and those Muslims who oppose jihadist violence and Islamic supremacism have never successfully refuted their arguments. Outreach to moderate Muslims has not aided in this effort, and has deceived the general public into thinking that the influence of peaceful Muslims over jihadists is much larger than it actually is. As far as the DHS and Janet Napolitano are concerned, the Flight 253 incident is a massive and unmitigated disaster, showing the complete and abject failure of their anti-terror policies across the board.
The Flight 253 attempted jihad attack shows that the American response to jihad terrorism has failed not just in one detail or a single area. Rather, the failure is massive, comprehensive, all-encompassing.
The anti-terror approach adopted since 9/11 is not working, and is never going to work. Until it is scrapped, there will be many, many more incidents like the one on Flight 253. But rather than have the decency to admit the truth, the DHS chief is putting on a brave face and pretending that up is down and down is up. And the President keeps golfing. Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of ten books, eleven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, is available now from Regnery Publishing, and he is coauthor (with Pamela Geller) of the forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Simon and Schuster). FPM
 You’ve heard the narrative from the Beltway punditry: Our Muslims are better assimilated than Muslims in Europe. Our Muslims are more Westernized, less radicalized. Well, it’s a false narrative. We are seeing the horns of a Muslim insurgency in this country. We are being Europeanized. And we need a counterinsurgency plan not just in Afghanistan but right here at home. While our leaders are too politically correct to even think about such a thing, they are starting to at least recognize the problem. Even President Obama, who still won’t utter the M word, notes the rise in “extremists within our borders.” So does his Homeland Security chief, who just months earlier fixated on white militia groups as the main domestic terror threat. “We are seeing young Americans who are inspired by al-Qaida and radical ideology,” echoed DHS secretary Janet Napolitano, while still failing to name the source of that ideology. “Home-based terrorism is here.” And for the first time, a senior Justice Department official has gone on record saying the U.S. is turning into Europe, with Muslim citizens becoming more and more hostile toward the government, and plotting and carrying out more acts of homegrown terrorism. “If there was ever a subconscious belief in the counterterrorism community that our society is different from Europe and therefore we don’t have to worry about problems like they’ve had, the activities in Minneapolis demonstrate we can’t think that way,” said Patrick Rowan, who led Justice’s national-security division when the government first started investigating the case of the 20 young Somali-American men who quit college and gave up promising careers in Minneapolis to join al-Qaida’s jihad in Somalia. The FBI fears the recruits — who have U.S. passports — may use their terror training to come back and attack their own country. One of them already carried out a suicide bombing, becoming the first American to do so. “We should all be on guard,” said Ralph Boelter who heads the FBI’s Minneapolis field office. As we dig in deeper in Afghanistan, hostility among our own Muslim population will only grow deeper. And as we import more refugees from Muslim countries, demands for Shariah (think: Taliban) law will only grow shriller. Consider that: * A new Gallup poll finds American Muslims are most likely to report feeling anger compared with the overall population — making even more of them ripe for radicalization. More at FPM
 Those of you planning on visiting loved ones during the upcoming holidays may want to be extra vigilant at the airport, as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the very agency which has been in charge of protecting America’s airports since the September 11th terror attacks, has given terrorists worldwide all of the information they need in order to breach security measures currently in place. Reports of this generous act surfaced yesterday from nearly all media outlets, which described the TSA’s posting of an extremely sensitive document (on the eve of a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on terrorist travel, no less), which detailed the nation’s airport screening procedures. The 94-page document provides any potential Jihadist taking the time to read it a how-to manual for bypassing those very same procedures.
They would learn about the limitations of x-ray machines and may be pleasantly surprised to find that only 20% of all bags checked in are hand searched for explosives.
They would learn how flying in from countries such as Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, and Sudan, would subject them to extra scrutiny, or that during peak travel times, TSA screeners who check identification can reduce from 100 percent to 25 percent the times they use black lights to authenticate documents. And to round out TSA’s largesse, as an added bonus Jihadists downloading the document were also provided with sample CIA, Congressional and law enforcement credentials, which they could then duplicate at leisure to be used later! Speaking of leisure, our enemies had 9 months to study the document, as it was posted in March before being removed this week. Not only that, it was actually posted on the Federal Business Opportunity website, a resource for those seeking federal jobs. How did this happen? That’s what Senator Susan Collins (R-Me), wants Janet Napolitano, head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to explain: Senator Susan Collins: This shocking breach undercuts the public’s confidence in the security procedures at our airports. On the day before the Senate Homeland Security Committee’s hearing on terrorist travel, it is alarming to learn that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) inadvertently posted its own security manual on the Internet. [DHS needs to explain] how it will remedy the damage that has already been done. Napolitano, who has shown time and again that she is the wrong person for the job of protecting the nation’s borders from those intent on doing us harm, minimized the damage caused by the posting of the document by claiming it was an “out-of-date” document that had been superseded: Janet Napolitano: The security of the traveling public has never been put at risk. The document that was posted was an out of date document. I’ve directed that we do a review department-wide of all of our components to make sure that we are being rigorous and very disciplined on what is posted and what is not. Well, thank goodness for that. We’re all resting much easier now. The full texts of the unredacted document, together with a sample CIA credential can be downloaded here: CLICK HERE TO READ THE SCREENING MANUAL and HERE TO SEE THE SAMPLE CIA CREDENTIAL Happy travelling! NewsReal Blog
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
The Defense Department released its report Friday on the jihad massacre at Fort Hood, and it is hard to imagine a document more full of denial and deception. 
Posts
