Governors arm National Guard after Chattanooga murders

This week’s attack by an alleged Islamic extremist on a military recruiting office in Chattanooga was not the first such attack on soldier on American soil. In spite of a string of attacks on military bases and recruiting offices in the past several years, the Obama Administration several has not taken steps to allow military personnel to carry weapons for self-defense. Today a growing number of state governors are taking action to protect their state National Guardsmen from similar attacks.

According to CNN, there have been at least three successful attacks on military targets in the United States in recent years. In 2009, Carlos Bledsoe killed one soldier and wounded another outside an army recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark. Bledsoe was a convert to Islam who had been arrested in Yemen the year before in possession of a fake ID card, bomb making manuals and a phone that contained contacts with Islamic militants.

Also in 2009, Nidal Hasan, an army major and Muslim who opposed the war in Afghanistan, killed 13 soldiers and wounded 32 at Fort Hood, Tex.

In 2013, Aaron Alexis, a civilian contractor and former navy sailor, killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard. Alexis had a history of mental health problems.

In at least two other cases, plots to attack US military bases were disrupted by authorities. In 2008, five Muslim immigrants were found guilty of plotting to attack Fort Dix, N.J. "to kill as many American soldiers as possible" according to the Washington Post. Earlier this year, an Illinois National Guardsman and his cousin were accused of plotting to join ISIS and attack a National Guard base in Joliet, Ill. reported the Chicago Sun Times.

In spite of this pattern of attacks, military leaders and the Obama Administration still prohibit the carrying of firearms on military bases, a policy that dates back to March 1993. While the perimeter of many military bases can be easily secured, military recruiting offices cannot. As Maj. Hasan and Alexis demonstrated, a person with access to the interior of a military base can do serious damage before defenders can respond.

Army chief of staff Gen. Ray Odierno told Fox News yesterday that he would conduct a review of security procedures at recruiting offices, but thought that allowing recruiters to be armed might "cause more problems than it solves."

In a tweet, ABC News correspondent Luis Martinez said that “Marine Corps Recruiting Command has instructed Marine recruiters not to wear uniforms at work, part of force protection since Chattanooga.” This was unverified by other sources.

Some states are taking a stronger tack. The governors of Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas have issued orders to their state National Guard troops to take action to prevent a Chattanooga-style terrorist attack.

At least six state governors have announced plans to allow National Guard troops to carry weapons. Houston’s ABC 13 said today that Greg Abbott (R-Tex.) will arm Texas National Guard soldiers at their bases to “not only serve as a deterrent to anyone wishing to do harm to our service men and women, but will enable them to protect those living and working on the base.”

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) issued an Executive Order yesterday directing the state’s Adjutant General to arm “selected Guard personnel… to preserve the lives, property, and security” of Louisiana Guardsmen. Jindal is a Republican presidential candidate.

In Florida, Rick Scott (R) issued an Executive Order temporarily moving National Guard recruiting offices from commercial stores to armories until state officials can assess and enhance the security of the stores according to the Florida Times-Union. Scott’s order also armed the state’s Guardsmen.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) also ordered full-time Guardsmen to be armed as deemed necessary by the Arkansas National Guard’s commanding officer according to a press release.

The Hill reports that Mary Fallin (R-Okla.) also issued an order allowing full-time Guardsmen in Oklahoma to be armed.

This afternoon, Mike Pence (R-Ind.) became the most recent governor to issue such an order according to Fox 59.

Individual governors can arm their state’s National Guard because the Guard is under state control in normal circumstances with the governor as the commander-in-chief. The National Guard can also be federalized by the president for use with the regular army in combat operations or disasters.

As the death toll from attacks on military installations mounts, it seems likely that more governors will take steps to protect their state soldiers from attack. As Greg Abbott said, “After the recent shooting in Chattanooga, it has become clear that our military personnel must have the ability to defend themselves against these type of attacks on our own soil.”

 Read the full article on Examiner.com

Leftist con men hijack conservative Facebook pages

In the early morning hours of January 11, a group of leftist con men launched a sneak attack on an undetermined number of conservative Facebook pages. The perpetrators, calling themselves the “Goatz Alliance,” gained access to the conservative pages, deleted the page administrators, and began posting anti-conservative propaganda and memes depicting goats.

Jason Doolin, owner of the conservative Citizens’ Post page on Facebook, said that Patrick Blair, allegedly a representative of The Freedom Alliance contacted him several months ago about helping him to expand his page. Blair gained his trust over a period of months. There is a real Freedom Alliance as well, a Virginia based charity organized as 501(c)(3) organization that educates young Americans in civic responsibility and provides scholarships to the children of American soldiers.

Blair apparently operated several fake conservative Facebook pages and websites as a cover. In some cases, he seems to have even recruited conservative activists to administer and work on these pages, only to delete their work and revert the pages to goats later. Blair used the fake conservative pages to make conservative friends and seem more credible to his targets.

Doolin said that after gaining his trust Blair proposed an “admin exchange” in which the various pages in his Freedom Alliance would grant each other administrator status and exchange ideas. The plan was also promoted as a way to increase awareness of smaller pages like Doolin’s Citizens’ Post.

Blair allegedly put his plan in to action on January 10. He asked Doolin to grant administrator status to himself and a friend, Lyman Briggs. Late that night, Blair and his comrade deleted Doolin and his other page administrators and vandalized the page with anti-conservative and anti-Republican hate.

Doolin attempted to contact Facebook to report the abuse and theft of his page, but it is almost impossible to get in touch with Facebook’s customer service and security personnel. Although Facebook says on its legal page that the company “respects the intellectual property rights of others and is committed to helping third parties protect their rights,” the company makes it very difficult to report problems.

Emily Garman on the blog, The Social Animal, posted a video that describes the process to recover control of a hijacked Facebook organizational page. The process is essentially to report the abuse via dropdown menus on the page and hope that a Facebook representative deigns to contact you. A search of the internet did turn up a Facebook page with a procedure for reclaiming business pages. Depending on how the page was set up, this procedure may allow users to regain control of hijacked sites.

Patrick Blair was traced to a Facebook page in Buxton, Maine. On his timeline, he admitted to duping conservatives and “goating” their pages. Blair appears to also be involved with pages called “Busta Troll” and “Busta’s Army.” These pages are dedicated to “trolling,” visiting opposing sites and trying to provoke arguments. A post on Busta’s Army from January 10 claims responsibility for hijacking Doolin’s Citizens’ Post.

Various posts on the three pages refer to “paid liberal trolls.” It is unknown whether these internet denizens are actually paid and, if so, by whom. On his Facebook page, Blair claims to be paid by George Soros, but this is doubtful.

Examiner’s investigation turned up an several earlier attacks by the Goatz Alliance. Miss Lilly (name changed to protect her identity) was an administrator on a conservative page called, “America, the Next Generation.” One of the other administrators on the page posted a picture of President Obama in a noose, a picture that Miss Lilly agrees was “in bad taste.” The page’s owner removed the picture, but not before it was noticed by leftist bloggers.

Orlando Liberal Examiner Robert Sobel was apparently the first to notice the picture on December 31, 2013. The next day, Addicting Info, a far left-wing blog picked up the story and credited Steve Marmel, “a TV writer and producer with a left-wing Facebook page,” for pointing it out.

As the story hit the liberal blogs, Miss Lilly said their page was inundated with liberal trolls. “These were the nastiest, vilest [people],” she says. “I have never encountered such utter hatred and contempt. This goes way beyond racism. They called us racists, but what they said and did to us was beyond the scope and definition of racism. They are truly sick people.”

She continued, “We must have banned hundreds and hundreds of them. Facebook did nothing to help.”

Eventually, the site’s owners were contacted by James M. Ritchie, a.k.a. “Ranger,” who claimed to be a “troll killer.” Ritchie offered to help the site’s owners fight off the liberal attacks if they granted him administrator status on the page.

About the same time, the goats first appeared on the page, posted by a user calling himself “Vlad the Emailer.” Vlad claimed that goats were “an international peace sign” and offered his help as well. Another user who offered help, “Irwin Jr.,” may also be one of the goats.

There are several levels of administrators on Facebook pages. Content creators can post content, moderators can delete comments and messages, and managers have the ability to delete other administrators. Ritchie quickly persuaded the site’s owner to grant him manager access. Almost immediately, the page was hijacked and the legitimate administrators were deleted.

At this point, Patrick Blair enters the story. Miss Lilly says that he contacted the owners and told them that he had seen what happened to their page and that he wanted to help as well. He said that he had several pages that were “abandoned” by other administrators and offered to give one to the owners of America, The Next Generation. Where Blair got these pages is uncertain, but they may have been hijacked as well. Miss Lilly worked on one of these pages until Blair changed it back to goat pictures again over the weekend. “All they got from me the second time,” she says, “was the pleasure of calling me a dummy.”

Miss Lilly also said, “We took the goats for what they are, symbols of Satanism.”

While there is no evidence that Blair and his band are Satanists, they have made anti-Christian and anti-religious postings on their pages. It is likely that they have the same anti-religious beliefs that many members of the modern left seem to share.

At this point, Examiner has identified at least seven pages that have been hijacked by the goats. Owners of conservative Facebook pages should be aware that Patrick Blair and Busta’s Army may try to target them as well. While it might be difficult to stop a horde of liberal trolls like the one that assaulted Miss Lilly’s page, owners can prevent their pages from being hijacked by not elevating anyone to administrator status that they do not know personally. In most cases, the page owner should keep manager status for himself or closely trusted associates.

Abuse or harassment should be reported to Facebook. This can be done by clicking the gear symbol at the top of the offending page or user’s timeline and selecting “report page.” Individual posts can be reported as well. Click the “v” symbol in the upper right corner of the post. This will open a menu with an option to “report post.” Any threats should definitely be reported to Facebook as well as to the police.

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Keep eye on Iran during Korean crisis

Over the past few weeks, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has engaged in increasingly serious saber rattling. Over the past few weeks, North Korea has severed communications avenues with the South, renounced the 1953 armistice that ended combat operations in the Korean War, and placed its armed forces on standby for war.

War rumblings are nothing new on the Korean peninsula. Since the 1950s, the “hermit kingdom” of the North has been involved in literally dozens of incidents against South Korean and American forces. What makes the current situation more serious than those of the past is North Korea’s newfound strategic nuclear capability. The current situation is so serious that President Obama deployed missile interceptors to protect the American West Coast and sent two B-2 Stealth bombers on mission to South Korea to show force.

The North Korean nuclear program was discovered in 1992, six years after the country signed the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) according to the Arms Control Association. The years following gave saw a now familiar pattern of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, subterfuge by the North Koreans, and an “Agreed Framework,” negotiated in part by Jimmy Carter, which the former president might well have hailed as the key to “peace in our time.”

The Agreed Framework was followed by 12 years of diplomatic maneuvering in which the U.S. repeatedly imposed sanctions on North Korea and the North Koreans repeatedly assured the world at several rounds of Six Party Talks that they were willing to stop working toward nuclear weapons. In 2006, the North Koreans finally exploded their first nuclear weapon. A second nuclear weapon was tested in 2009 and a third on February 12, 2013.

While working on nuclear weapons, the North Koreans were also developing their ability to deliver their nuclear payloads to South Korea and beyond. One of North Korea’s newest missiles, the Unha-3, potentially has the ability to carry a nuclear payload to the American West Coast.

While the danger presented by the North Koreans is real (the North Koreans have routinely fired upon and killed South Korean and American soldiers and sailors and have even kidnapped Japanese citizens from their homes), many foreign policy experts believe that Kim Jong Un is merely making a show of force either to get concessions from the international community or to consolidate power at home. The North Korean dictator must realize that if he provokes a nuclear war with South Korea, and by extension the United States, he and his nation will cease to exist. A materialistic leader like Kim is unlikely to be suicidal.

As the crisis is resolved or fades away, the world should learn a lesson from the Korean nuclear proliferation. North Korea’s path to nuclear status is strikingly similar to Iran’s recent nuclear history. Since Iran’s nuclear program was unveiled to the world in 2002, the country has engaged in the same pattern of engaging in diplomatic talks to delay and mitigate sanctions that was so successful for the North Koreans.

Iran’s nuclear program was delayed on several occasions by sabotage ranging from the Stuxnet computer virus to the assassinations of prominent Iranian nuclear scientists. Nevertheless the Iranian government is drawing ever closer to becoming a nuclear power.

The danger of a nuclear Iran can be seen in North Korea’s war rumblings and threats toward its neighbors. Likewise, as a conventional power, Iran has long waged covert wars and operations against its neighbors. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards prop up Hezbollah in Lebanon, aid President Assad’s struggle against rebels in Syria, and have engaged in combat with American soldiers in Iraq.

Iranian proxies have engaged in terror attacks around the world. In 1983, Iran was linked to the Beirut car bomb that killed 241 American soldiers. Iranian agents were responsible for the murder of four dissidents in Germany in 1992. More recently, Iran was implicated in a plot to use Mexican drug gangs to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States by blowing up a Washington, D.C. restaurant in 2011.

Iran is an avowed enemy of both Israel and the United States. Although Iran has not joined directly in the previous Arab-Israeli Wars (Iranians are Persians, not Arabs), Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made no secret of Iran’s goal of destroying Israel. As previously documented by Examiner, Ahmadinejad has said that his goal is “to have a world without the United States and Zionism.”

Unlike North Korea, Iran cannot be reliably assumed to not be suicidal. In recent years, the Iranian government has become more and more apocalyptic. When giving speeches, President Ahmadinejad routinely invokes the Mahdi, a messianic figure in Shia Muslim theology, who many believe will return in the latter days to usher in a worldwide Islamic caliphate. It is quite possible that Ahmadinejad believes that it would be worth risking his entire nation to destroy Israel and to summon the Mahdi.

In fact, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, one time president of Iran and still a highly placed Iranian official said as quoted in Examiner “… application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.” In other words, a nuclear strike that did not destroy the entire Muslim world would be an acceptable sacrifice to destroy Israel.

Iran’s links to terrorism also mean that it would be dangerous as a nuclear power. North Korea, also a state sponsor of terrorism, began trying to export its nuclear technology as soon as it acquired it. Less than a year after North Korea’s first nuclear test, Israeli warplanes destroyed a secret North Korean nuclear facility in Syria. The Syrian civil war might present an entirely different and more serious threat to the region if this site had not been attacked prior to the Arab Spring.

There is every reason to believe that Iran would also be an active proliferator of nuclear technology. Iran might be able to avoid national destruction by transferring a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group that would detonate it anonymously. Without a visible missile launch to point to the origin of the attack, the world might never know who was responsible for the nuclear terrorism.

Iran has worked hard in recent years to expand its sphere of influence in the Middle East, working with both sympathetic Muslim governments and terrorist proxies. With the U.S. role in the region fading as President Obama retreats from Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran’s stature in the region is growing. Even without actually using a nuclear weapon, Iran could exert its influence on the Persian Gulf to threaten vital oil supplies to the rest of the world. An Iranian nuclear weapon would necessarily spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East as other powers such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey struggle to defend themselves from Iranian pressure.

It is becomingly increasingly apparent that Iran and North Korea may actually be working together. The World Tribune notes that since the 1980s, when Iran faced a threat, North Korea would rattle its sabers to distract the world. According to Reuters, collaboration between Iran and North Korea may go even further. A United Nations report from 2010 suggested that North Korea may have aided Iran and Myanmar with nuclear technology in addition to Syria.

In the best case scenario, the current North Korean threat will soon fade away, leaving the world to deal with the rapidly maturing Iranian threat. In the worst case scenario, the current North Korean threat may be purposely distracting from an Iranian threat that is more advanced that believed. In either case, President Obama and the United States should watch Iran closely while dealing with North Korea.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/keep-eye-on-iran-during-korean-crisis?cid=rss

Voters need truth about Benghazi cover-up before election

An emerging aspect to the Benghazi attack story is the Obama Administration’s cover-up of the truth. From the beginning, President Obama and members of his administration have claimed that the attack was the spontaneous work of a mob protesting an anti-Islamic film. It is now apparent that the Administration knew even as the attacks were going on that it was a preplanned terrorist attack.

For over a week after the attack, President Obama and other government officials clung to the fiction that the attack was a reaction to “Innocence of the Muslims,” a film ridiculing Mohammed that had already been on Youtube for months. Charles Woods, the father of Ty Woods, one of the Americans killed in the attack, told radio host Lars Larson that Secretary of State Clinton vowed to have the filmmaker “arrested” and “prosecuted” in apparent disregard for the First Amendment.

In a timeline of the attacks and their aftermath posted on Oct. 26, Factcheck.org points out some of the flaws in the Administration’s claims. There was no mob at the Benghazi consulate in spite of President Obama’s claims to the contrary. State Department reports say that everything was calm until the attack started at approximately 3:40 p.m. At 6:07 p.m., while the attack was still in process, the State Department Operations Center emailed the White House and the Pentagon as well as several other agencies to tell them that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack. The attack continued until about 8:30 p.m. when Libyan security forces drove off the surviving attackers. The attack continued for approximately four to five hours.

Even though there were reports of al Qaeda involvement even while the attack was still in progress, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, and other Administration officials persisted in blaming the film for over a week after the attack. There is no reasonable reason to deny al Qaeda’s involvement for national security reasons since the fact that there was no mob was common knowledge in Libya. The only logical reason to shift the blame to Youtube and away from al Qaeda is for President Obama’s political benefit.

Examiner previously described reports that the Obama Administration denied requests to increase security before the attack. Now there are reports that requests for assistance during the attack were denied as well. Fox News reports that CIA operators were denied permission to assist the Americans under attack inside the consulate. The unnamed sources “on the ground in Benghazi” said that a small team heard the shots from a safe house and requested permission to help. They were ordered to “stand down,” but several members of the team, including former Navy SEAL Ty Woods, ignored the order and were able to evacuate survivors from the consulate, possibly preventing even greater loss of life.

When they returned, the safe house itself came under attack. The CIA team again called for help and were again denied. The Fox News report indicates that a team member on the roof with a laser target designator asked for an airstrike by an AC-130 Spectre gunship. More than seven hours after the initial attack began, a mortar attack on the CIA safe house killed Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, another former SEAL.

The Fox report notes that the CIA denied the report. “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," said spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

The Fox report also states that two American surveillance drones were on the scene during the attack. In spite of the fact that these drones could send real time information and video to Washington, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters that officials had no clear idea of what was going on and could not provide assistance.

As yet unconfirmed are reports that General Carter Ham, commanding officer of the U.S. Africa Command, was relieved of his command because he was about to ignore orders not to help the Americans in Benghazi. Rumors are swirling that the general had a rapid response unit ready to go when he was ordered to stand down. The general responded that he was going to aid the consulate anyway. Less than thirty seconds later, the general’s executive officer relieved him and assumed command. The rescue mission did not take place. Defense Secretary Panetta previously claimed that Ham advised against a rescue mission.

Coverage of the rumor in the Washington Times notes that the Pentagon claims that Ham’s removal was planned in advance. Nevertheless, the article also states that Ham was in his post for only a year and a half. The normal tour length for such a command post is three years.

The reports of the circumstances surrounding General Ham’s dismissal are unconfirmed at this point, but given the other untruths coming from President Obama and his Administration they are plausible. In contrast to Obama’s claims that a Libyan mob killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, it now appears that the only Libyan mob was the one that found Stevens, at that point still alive, in the ruins of the consulate and took him to the hospital according to the Associated Press. At that point, U.S. and Libyan relief forces were still not on the scene.

Mark Thiessen of the Washington Post reported on Sept. 13 that the president’s public schedule showed that the last “daily” intelligence briefing that the president received was on Sept.5, more than a week before the attack. A spokesman for the National Security Council did point out that a printed copy of the President’s Daily Briefing is delivered to the president every day.

Additionally, the Long War Journal reports that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee and al Qaeda member was involved in the attack. Sufyan ben Qumu was transferred to Libyan custody in 2007. He was released by Qaddafi’s government in 2010.

On Friday, in response to repeated questions about the allegations, the president answered as quoted by USA Today, “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”

The FBI team dispatched to investigate the attack did not arrive in Libya until Oct. 4, three weeks after the attack. According to the New York Times, the Obama Administration blamed the delay on the Libyan government.

The investigation of the entire Benghazi matter is ongoing, but will not be complete until after the election. This is unacceptable. Voters deserve to know the truth about the attack in Benghazi and they should know before the election.

Originally published on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/article/voters-deserve-truth-about-benghazi-cover-up-before-election?cid=db_articles

Benghazi security scandal may sink Obama campaign

On Wednesday, October 10, Congress began hearings on the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. In the aftermath of the attack, Obama Administration officials claimed that the attack was the spontaneous response to “The Innocence of the Muslims,” an internet video that also allegedly sparked protests in other Muslim countries.
Doubts were cast upon the administration’s story almost immediately. According to timelines compiled by CNN and USA Today, the president of Libya contradicted Obama’s movie claim on September 16. It was not until September 18 that an administration official, Director of National Intelligence Matthew Olsen, acknowledged publicly that the attack was a terrorist attack. It was not until September 26, more than two weeks after the attack, that the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda. The Obama Administration also denied that there was any intelligence that the attack was imminent and that officials had no knowledge of the impending danger.
Now State Department officials are testifying before congress that both claims were not true. According to CNN coverage of the hearings, Eric Nordstrom, the former regional security officer, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that he had made repeated requests for more manpower at the Benghazi facility. At the time of the attack, there were five security officers, three who were assigned to the consulate and two who had traveled with Ambassador Stevens. Nordstrom had requested a total of twelve agents.
According to Wall Street Journal coverage of the hearings, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood of the Utah National Guard and former commander of the Site Security Team, security was actually cut at the consulate prior to the attacks. The 16 member team was replaced by Libyans trained by the State Department.
The State Department disputed Nordstrom and Wood’s testimony. House Democrats noted as well that budget cuts by Republicans had led to diplomatic security funding below what the White House had requested.
The congressional testimony is supported by Ambassador Stevens own journal, which was discovered by CNN. According a Huffington Post report, the journal showed that Stevens was concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism and Al Qaeda in Libya. Stevens noted that there were constant threats to security and even believed himself to be on an Al Qaeda hit list.
The reports of the Obama Administration’s failure to take Al Qaeda seriously and protect American diplomats are explosive. This is especially true considering that they come only a month before the presidential election. President Obama is already slipping in the polls after his lackluster debate performance last week and the new revelations about the Libya attacks present a new obstacle to his recovery.
If the matter is not pursued in the press, it almost certainly will be by Mitt Romney and the Republicans. The unfolding story of the Benghazi attacks and how they occurred will certainly be an issue in the upcoming presidential debates. The third debate between President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney is dedicated to foreign policy and will be held on Oct. 22. The subject will probably also be raised at tonight’s vice presidential debate between Vice President Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan as well the town hall debate between Obama and Romney on Oct. 16.
President Obama has largely avoided fallout from several other administration scandals. He was elected in spite of his ties to Rev. Jeremiah Wright and ‘60s radical Bill Ayres. The Solyndra scandal never totally captured the attention of the press and media. The president was able to maintain his distance from the Fast and Furious program, in which the federal government allowed illegal guns to cross the border into Mexico. One of those guns resulted in the death of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. The publicity surrounding the Benghazi security scandal may mean that President Obama is unable to avoid damage to his reelection campaign.
Originally published on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/article/benghazi-fallout-threatens-obama-campaign

The Obama convention bounce is a myth

The supposed post-convention bounce in the polls that President Obama enjoyed briefly seems to have evaporated. Of the three most recent polls, all of likely voters, two show the race as a statistical dead heat. The outlier poll shows Obama with a six point lead.

Rasmussen’s daily presidential tracking poll now shows Obama leading Romney 46-45 percent. Five percent are still undecided while four percent prefer another candidate. Rasmussen notes that when “leaners” are included, Romney leads 48-47. A Washington Post/ABC News poll found similar results. President Obama led Mitt Romney 49-48 among likely voters in that poll. The outlier was the CNN/ORC poll in which 52 percent preferred Obama to Romney’s 46 percent.

In all cases the polls do not reflect the disturbing events of the past few days. On September 11, rioters stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo, an event which first prompted the Obama Administration to condemn “those who abuse the universal right of free speech” according to Politico. Yesterday, the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Domestically, the September jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was disappointing even though the unemployment rate edged down slightly to 8.1 percent as many people stopped looking for work. The 96,000 jobs added in August were below the average for the year and below the number needed to account for population growth. The BLS also revised downward the job estimates for July.

The president may also be potentially embarrassed the teacher strike in Chicago, part of which he represented in the Illinois state senate. Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama’s former chief of staff, is now the mayor of Chicago. The strike returns the issue of public employee unions to the forefront. The Chicago teachers are demanding pay raises even though Chicago Public Schools are currently operating at a $665 million deficit. If the raises are granted, the school system deficit would rise to $1 billion according to the Chicago Sun Times. Pay raises would likely mean that tax increases in a city that already has some of the highest taxes in the nation.

It was also revealed last week that the Department of Justice is suing Gallup, a prominent polling organization. According to the DOJ, the suit relates to whistleblower claims that Gallup overcharged the government for federal contracts. Critics point out that the federal government joined the suit after Obama campaign advisor David Axelrod criticized Gallup’s polling methodology in the wake of a poll unfavorable to Obama. Emails published by the Daily Caller suggest that Axelrod pressured Gallup to change its methodology.

The biggest problem for President Obama in the polls may be one that is totally unseen. In an article on The Hill, Dick Morris points out that pollsters are using a flawed sample. According to Morris, all pollsters are using models based on 2008 turnout. The problem is that the electorate has changed dramatically in the past four years.

For example, in Gallup’s party affiliation poll, Democrats outnumbered Republicans in November 2008 by a margin of 51-40 percent when leaners were included. Since then, however, Democratic Party identification has dropped precipitously. The most current poll shows the two parties almost tied at 49-46 percent favoring the Democrats. This is almost identical to the numbers in November 2010 (44-47 percent favoring Democrats) when the GOP won a landslide congressional victory.

Similarly, the demographic groups that propelled President Obama to power in 2008 do not support him nearly as strongly now. A Gallup poll from 2008 showed that 99 percent of black voters favored Obama. According to Examiner, it is likely that his support among blacks is now far lower due to high unemployment among blacks and the president’s “evolution” on same-sex marriage. Likewise, other polling data suggests that the president’s support among Latinos and young voters may be much lower than it was in 2008. While these groups still support the president, it is by smaller margins and with less enthusiasm than 2008.

In his Hill article, Morris also points out that voters favor the Republican idea that government should “leave me alone” over the Democratic idea that it should “lend me a hand” by a margin of 54 to 35 percent. Most also believe that the country is worse off today than in 2008. Together with President Obama’s low job approval rating, which was recently as low as 29 percent among independents according to Rasmussen, these factors indicate trouble for the president that is not accurately reflected in the polls.

Israeli attack on Iran may be imminent

As Iran inches toward production of nuclear weapons, speculation is growing that Israel may be preparing to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Middle East observer Joel Rosenberg notes on his Flash Traffic blog that recent comments by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before the Knesset, the Israeli legislature, may hint that Israel’s patience with diplomacy is coming to an end.

As quoted on Flash Traffic, Netanyahu said, ““If I had to summarize what will happen in our region, I would use two terms: instability and uncertainty.” He continued, “The collapse of Gaddafi’s regime in Libya, the bloody incidents in Syria, the American forces leaving Iraq, the new government in Tunisia, the upcoming elections in Egypt and many other events – these are all expressions of the immense changes occurring around us. These changes can increase the instability within these countries, and the instability between countries….A nuclear Iran would pose a terrible threat on the Middle East and on the entire world. And of course, it poses a great, direct threat on us too….A security philosophy cannot rely on defense alone. It must also include offensive capabilities, which is the very foundation of deterrence. We operate and will continue to operate intensely and determinately against those who threaten the security of the State of Israel and its citizens. Our policy is guided by two main principles: the first is ‘if someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first,’ and the second is ‘if anyone harms us, his blood is on his own hands.’”

Rosenberg also cites an October 31 article on the Israeli news site Ynetnews.com which reports that the Obama Administration is pressuring the U.N. for new sanctions on Iran in order to preclude an Israeli strike. The U.S. diplomatic effort was prompted by an IAEA report that showed significant progress in the Iranian nuclear program.

Israel has ample reason to believe that Iran would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons to attack the Jewish state if it is able to produce them. Iran’s rhetoric has long stated its intention to wipe Israel off the map. Iranian surrogates such as Hezbollah and Hamas have been launching rocket attacks on Israeli cities with conventional warheads for years. These attacks led to the recent wars in Lebanon and Gaza as Israel sought to stop these launches.

Israel is widely believed to be responsible for covert attacks against the Iranian nuclear program over the past few years. These attacks include assassinations of leading Iranian nuclear scientists and a cyber attack on Iranian computer systems using the Stuxnet virus.

Israel successfully destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 that was the heart of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program. The attack involved an airstrike on the Osirak reactor outside Baghdad using F-16 Falcon fighter-bombers. The attacking Israeli force did not lose a single plane.

A similar attack on Iran would be much more difficult. Where Iraq’s nuclear facilities were concentrated around Baghdad, the Iranian facilities are dispersed around the country in at least nine separate locations according to a Congressional Research Service report. An attack on Iran would also require attacking planes to travel much farther, refueling from tankers in the air, and traversing several hostile countries, which would increase the risk of detection.

Israel reportedly tested a new long-range missile on November 2, 2011 that is capable of striking targets in Iran with a nuclear warhead. Using the new “Jericho” missile would eliminate many of the risks that a strike with manned aircraft would entail. A nuclear strike would be most likely to destroy the Iranian facilities, but would open Israel to world condemnation. A conventional missile strike would be far less certain, but might be coupled with a strike by manned aircraft.

A nuclear-armed Iran could conceivably threaten the southeastern United States as well as Israel. Iran has experimented with launching SCUD missiles from cargo ships. With a range of almost 450 miles according to the Federation of American Scientists, if SCUDs were launched from ships in international waters most of the large cities on the east coast would be within range and warning time would be minimal. A missile launched hundreds of miles off the Georgia coast could target Atlanta.

Iran also has a close relationship with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. In a move reminiscent of the Cuban missile crisis, Iran might base longer range ballistic missiles in Venezuela. Iran’s long range Shahab-5 and -6 ICBMs have a range in excess of 4,000 miles according to the FAS which would put most of the continental U.S, from Boston to Seattle with their range. The Shahab could be used for direct attacks on American cities or an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack that could destroy much of the electrical grid across the United States, plunging the country into chaos.

Because of the secrecy surrounding the Iranian nuclear program, it is impossible to know with any certainty just how long it will be before Iran produces an operational nuclear weapon. The one certainty is that time is running out. If the Iranians are to be prevented from becoming a nuclear power, someone, most likely Israel or the United States, must take action soon. The choice may be between a conventional Middle East war in the short term or a nuclear war in the long term.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/israeli-attack-on-iran-may-be-imminent

9/11: The good, the bad and the evil

September 11 marks the dividing line between the carefree prosperity of the ‘90s and the 2000’s, a decade plagued by war, fear, and financial hardship. While the date, September 11, 2001, will be remembered as a day of infamy, there were many aspects and reactions to the attacks.

When most Americans think of the good of 9/11, they think of the courageous police and firefighters and their self sacrifice. In all, 343 firefighters and 72 police officers from across New York died in the World Trade Center collapse. Many of them were helping injured and frightened people escape the towers and died when the towers collapsed around them. One of the first casualties of the attack was FDNY Chaplain Mychal Judge. Father Mike was hit by falling debris and killed while administering last rites to victim. The picture of four firefighters carrying Father Mike’s body is an iconic image of 9/11. John wrote in the Bible, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends” (John 15:13).

More good was done in the days after the attacks. Americans across the country turned out to give blood to help the survivors of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. Volunteers and fire crews from all across America came to New York to help in the recovery operation at Ground Zero. For a few brief moments, America was more united in the wake of the attacks than it had been since World War II. The story of the heroic resistance of the passengers on United Flight 93 inspired the whole country.

There was no shortage of badness on 9/11. Indeed, that is why the day is remembered. The hijackers subscribed a religious belief that it is more honorable to kill, destroy, and die than to live and create. To the hijackers and their murderous leaders in al Qaeda, killing thousands of innocent people without provocation or warning was as acceptable as killing animals.

Osama bin Laden railed against America, largely without being noticed, for years before 9/11. He likened the U.S. military to latter day “crusaders” in a 1996 fatwa. Bin Laden believed that the American withdrawals in the wake of terror attacks in Beirut, Yemen, and Somalia meant that “the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear.” Bin Laden believed that his hijackers could exploit that weakness on American home soil and drive westerners from Muslim countries. To that end, he indoctrinated his followers with promises of paradise as a reward for killing Americans: “Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting someone else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you.”

When the hijackers took control of the four airliners, it was with the belief that murder was their path to heaven. When they slit the throat of the flight attendants to gain access to the cockpits, it was in a vain attempt to save their own souls. When they crashed the planes into their targets, shouting “Allahu Akbar,” it was an attempt to secure their own salvation. In a sense, the 2,996 victims of Osama bin Laden and his men were paying for the sins of the hijackers. Their deaths were celebrated by much of the Muslim world. In the Quran, Surat al Maideh 32 says, “if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind.”

The victims included six Georgians. Maynard Spence of Douglasville, Harshad Thatte of Norcross, Adam White of Atlanta, and Claude Michael Gann of Roswell died in the World Trade Center.  Leslie Whittington of Atlanta died when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.  U.S. Army Maj. Steve Long of Georgia died in the Pentagon.

The 9/11 attacks are symbolic of the evil in the hearts of men. They remind us that even though mankind is civilized, we are still a savage, cruel and brutal race. They erase any doubt about the existence of pure, unadulterated evil. The presence of a demonic figure in smoke billowing from the World Trade Center may or may not have been a literal demon, but it was certainly symbolic of the evil act just committed.

Why is man so evil? It isn’t because God willed it. It was never God’s intention for the world to be this way.

Man is evil because we choose to be that way. Paul wrote that the truth of God is plain to everyone and that truth is only suppressed by the

wickedness of our hearts (Romans 1:18-23). The fundamental truth that it is wrong to murder your fellow human beings was suppressed by bin Laden’s promises of paradise. While most of us don’t go out and murder thousands of people, we do suppress God’s fundamental moral truths in order to lie, cheat, and steal on a regular basis.

What hope do we have? Spiritually, our hope is in Christ, who died for us. Even though our sins seem to pale in comparison to those of bin Laden and the terrorists, we still fall short of the requirement (Romans 3:10, Romans 6:23). Our only hope for salvation and forgiveness is to accept Christ’s sacrifice (Romans 10:9-10). There is no need to wage a holy war.

Physically, our hope is that “we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). This doesn’t mean that only good things happen to believers. It does mean that God has the ability to turn evil into blessings. Notably, this hope is not given to those who do not love God. The cross-shaped debris found in the rubble of the World Trade Center is symbolic of God’s presence, even in the fiery hell of the collapsing towers.

What blessings have come from the 9/11 attacks? We may never know fully. We do know that the attacks resulted in the liberation of two countries. The uprisings of the Arab Spring that are toppling dictators across the Muslim world may be the result of events set in motion by the attacks. Thanks to increased American involvement in the Arab world, Muslims have gotten a glimpse of compassion and forgiveness as American military doctors save the lives of their former enemies, people who would happily torture them to death if the situation were reversed. Two of the most heartwarming stories of the war on terror are those of Hannan and Razia, girls from Iraq and Afghanistan who were horribly burned during combat. Americans cared for the girls and provided them with much more assistance than they would have gotten at home.

Less visible, but no less important are the spiritual results. We will never know how many hearts were opened to God by the events on 9/11. God’s comfort and strength were all that enabled the families of some survivors to go on. Perhaps some of the victims would tell us how God comforted them in their final moments as “I was there” suggests. God calls us all, as evidenced by the reports of supernatural dreams and visions directing thousands of Muslims to Christ.

The 9/11 attacks can be viewed as a warning. They remind us that nothing is assured. Our comfortable lives can be snuffed out at a moment’s notice, whether by a terrorist attack, a car accident, or some natural cause. We are reminded to pay attention to what is important, to serve God, to love our families, and to help others. We know what we’re supposed to do.

Let’s roll.

[Thanks to Debi Thornton for the inspiring for this article.]

 

Read the rest of this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/9-11-the-good-the-bad-and-the-evil

Ten years after 9/11, US is winning war on terror

Ten years after the September 11 attacks, the U.S. is winning the war on terror. In the fevered days after the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, most Americans were holding their breath, waiting for the next explosions. They never came.

It was not because al Qaeda did not try. Al Qaeda was successful in launching attacks in other countries. The 2002 bombing of a nightclub in Bali killed 180 people. In 2003, al Qaeda bombs killed 58 and wounded 750 in Istanbul. In 2004, a series of bombs on commuter trains in Madrid killed 190 and wounded 2,000. The 2005 attack on the London subway killed 56.

There have been numerous terror plots disrupted by U.S. and allied intelligence agencies. By one count, 39 al Qaeda plots have been foiled in the United States since September 11. Some of these plots were high profile such as the “shoe bomber,” Richard Reid, in December 2001 or the “underwear bomber,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in December 2009. Most frequent fliers will recall the liquid bomb plot against airliners from August 2006 since it marked the beginning of the ban on all but the smallest liquids for airline travelers.

Fewer will remember the cargo bomb plot disrupted less than a year ago in October 2010 in which terrorists tried to ship bomb-laden packages on cargo planes. There were also plots to attack soldiers at Fort Dix, N.J. in May 2007, to blow up fuel tanks at Kennedy airport in June 2007, and attempted car bombings in Times Square in May 2010 and at a Portland, Ore. Christmas tree lighting in November 2010. Miraculously all of these attempted terror attacks were thwarted.

The fact that the terrorists have not struck America again is largely due the valor and sacrifice of American and allied soldiers, sailors, airmen, and intelligence officers. In addition to freeing two countries, they have decimated al Qaeda’s leadership beginning with beginning with Mohammed Atef, an al Qaeda lieutenant killed in Afghanistan in November 2001. September 11 plotters Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were captured in Pakistan. Attacks on al Qaeda’s command and control culminated in the death of Osama bin Laden himself in Pakistan on May 1, 2011.

All of this was accomplished without the loss of civil liberties that many feared. The much maligned PATRIOT Act was reauthorized in 2005 and 2011 with bipartisan votes. The act was amended to assuage concerns about civil liberties. There have been no pogroms or harassment of American Muslims. The omnipresent and rabid criticism of President Bush is evidence that dissent was not crushed. Newspaper coverage of classified programs shows the lack of censorship. Unlike during the Civil War, habeas corpus was not suspended. With the exception of increased screenings at airports, there has been little change for most Americans. Even the soldiers armed with automatic weapons that were present at airports after the September 11 attacks are long gone.

President Bush deserves credit for bringing the nation together in the days after September 11. President Bush’s steadfastness in the darkest days of the war, when even members of his own party were calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, eventually led to the surge that pacified the country. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq removed Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer and sponsor of terrorism, and may have ultimately helped to fuel the Arab Spring uprisings.

President Obama also deserves credit for his part in the war on terror. Obama ordered the attack on Osama bin Laden and ordered his own surge in Afghanistan and stepped up drone attacks on fighters in Pakistan. Obama also deserves credit for reneging on his campaign promise for a precipitous pullout from Iraq.

The new face of terror is the homegrown terrorist. Several recent terror attacks have been carried out or attempted by local Muslims who became radicalized over the internet without planning or direction by al Qaeda leaders. Although several al Qaeda agents and cells had been discovered earlier, Abu Nidal Hasan’s Fort Hood rampage in November 2009 was the first high-profile terror attack by a homegrown radical. Earlier that year, members of a terror cell in North Carolina were accused of plotting attacks.

Georgia is not without radicals. In 2009, two Georgia Tech students, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee were convicted of making videos to scout locations for terror attacks. Sadequee had been previously arrested in Sarajevo in 2005 with plastic explosives and bomb making materials as part of “al Qaeda in Europe.” Earlier this year, a Marietta woman admitted mailing a bloody pig foot and anti-Semitic ramblings to New York congressman Peter King.

The Augusta Chronicle recently reported that in the ten years since September 11, $460 million has been spent protecting Georgia from terrorists. Half of this money has been spent in Atlanta where the state capitol and the international airport make inviting targets. This amount, spent over ten years, represents less than six percent of the amount that President Obama and the Democrats spent in one year on their stimulus bill. It was only 42 percent of Georgia’s $1.08 billion share of the stimulus money. The homeland security money was arguably a much better investment.

Although the war on terror will likely continue for the foreseeable future, it is evident that the United States is winning. In spite of numerous attempts, al Qaeda has not been able to attack America in ten years and most of al Qaeda’s senior leadership is either dead or imprisoned. American freedoms and civil liberties have been preserved.

The constantly changing face of terrorism means that there are constant new threats, from car bombs to sniper attacks to nuclear weapons. Threats come of lone wolves hiding in American society as well as state sponsored terror groups. Perhaps the biggest danger – and irony - is that the war on terror has been so successful that most Americans no longer feel threatened.

 

Read the rest of this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/ten-years-after-9-11-us-is-winning-war-on-terror

The truth about the September 11 attacks

As the U.S. approaches the tenth anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001, it is time to put to rest the myriad of conspiracy theories that have surrounded both the attacks and the U.S. response. Radicals from both the extreme right and left have sought to propagate these theories in order to further their own aims. Not coincidentally, many of these conpiricists have also made handsome profits from books and films that purport to dispel the lies about 9/11.

The attacks, which were the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor, resulted in the deaths of 2,996 people. Several Georgians were also killed in the attacks. Maynard Spence of Douglasville, Harshad Thatte of Norcross, Adam White of Atlanta, and Claude Michael Gann of Roswell died in the World Trade Center. Leslie Whittington of Atlanta died when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. U.S. Army Maj. Steve Long of Georgia died in the Pentagon.

Five years after the attacks, Popular Mechanics released a definitive analysis of many of the conspiracy claims. Much of the information in the book “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up To Hard Facts” is now available for free online at PopularMechanics.com. The website 911myths.com also debunks many of the conspiracy theories around the attacks.

The Popular Mechanics report notes that only 14 American fighter planes were on alert in the 48 contiguous states on the morning of September 11. Further, intercepts of civilian aircraft were not common for air defense fighters. In the decade before the attacks, the one and only civilian aircraft intercepted by fighters in U.S. airspace was the Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart, which flew uncontrolled from Florida to South Dakota before crashing after the cabin depressurized. PM reports that it took an F-16 one hour and 22 minutes to make the intercept.

In answer to the skeptics’ claim that the damage to the World Trade Center buildings was too widespread to be caused by a single aircraft strike on each tower, PM responds that thousands of pounds of jet fuel atomized on impact and traveled throughout the buildings. The burning fuel spread flames through elevator and utility shafts. Flames reportedly exploded through the elevator doors in the lobby moments after impact. The 1500 degree flames from burning jet fuel was not strong enough melt steel, but it did reduce the steel frames of the towers to about ten percent of their normal strength.

PM notes that at least one conspiracy site cropped seismology charts to support the notion that controlled demolitions toppled the towers. The full charts clearly show the impacts of both aircraft followed by the collapse of the towers. Extensive damage to surrounding buildings also lends credence to the fact that the collapse of the towers was a chaotic, catastrophic event.

Conspiracy theorists have charged that the Pentagon was hit by a missile rather than an airplane, citing the small size of the hole in the wall. PM points out that both wings of the aircraft were sheared off by the impact and that the 75 foot wide hole that is consistent with the size of the airliner’s fuselage. A separate 12 foot hole was likely made by the landing gear.

In contrast with conspiracy claims that no aircraft wreckage was recovered at the Pentagon, there are both photos and eyewitness accounts of

aircraft wreckage. Allyn Kilsheimer, a structural engineer and blast expert who arrived on scene shortly after the crash, is quoted in the PM article, “I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box. I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

In Pennsylvania, where United Flight 93 crashed, a white jet reported in the area is revealed to be a business jet that was descending into nearby Johnstown. Air traffic control asked the jet’s pilots to investigate Flight 93 and they subsequently orbited the crash site at 1500 feet.

PM reports that the debris pattern of the Flight 93 crash site is consistent with a surface impact given the flight path and wind direction at the time of the crash. Lighter debris was thrown up and carried downwind for several miles. Similarly, an engine was found 300 yards downrange. This is consistent with the mass and velocity of the engine at impact.

Reports on a conspiracy radio show that claimed an F-16 pilot shot the airliner down were revealed to be lies. Ed Jacoby, director of the New York State Emergency Management Office, was with the pilot reported to have fired the missiles at Flight 93. The F-16 and pilot were tasked to return Jacoby from a meeting in Montana to Albany, N.Y. where he could coordinate the emergency services response to the attacks. Jacoby categorically denies that the pilot, Lt. Col. Rick Gibney, shot down Flight 93.

An examination of the timing of the attacks backs up Jacoby’s story. The North Dakota Air National Guard operated F-16Bs. The straight-line distance between Bozeman, Mt. and Albany, N.Y. is 1,857 miles. Using the fighter’s top speed listed on the plane’s Air Force fact sheet, 1,345 mph, the trip would take less than an hour and a half, which would barely give Gibney time to get in position to shoot down Flight 93 at 10:03 a.m. if he took off from Bozeman immediately after American Flight 11 crashed into the WTC at 8:46 a.m. Eastern Time. But, according to the Air Force, the F-16B’s range is only 1,407 miles and that range could only be achieved by flying at slower speeds. It is likely that Gibney had to rendezvous with an aerial tanker, which would further slow down the flight to Albany. It is also highly unlikely that Gibney was ready to launch immediately after the first WTC attack. In fact, Gibney first had to fly from his base at Fargo, N.D. to Bozeman to pick up Jacoby. There is simply no way he could have been over Pennsylvania in time to shoot down Flight 93.

Logically, the conspiracy theories do not add up. An obvious reason is that the government and the military were clearly caught by surprise. According to the official timeline on National911Memorial.org, President Bush, who was visiting students at a Florida elementary school, was notified that a plane had crashed into the WTC at 8:50 a.m., four minutes after American Flight 11, the first hijacked airliner, had crashed. United Flight 175 crashed at 9:03 a.m. and the president was notified two minutes later.

The Secret Service did not evacuate Vice President Cheney from the White House to a secure bunker until 9:30, one minute before American Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. The nationwide ground stop for all flights was issued at 9:42 a.m. and the White House and Capitol were evacuated at 9:45, an hour after the attacks began. The last commercial flight in U.S. airspace did not land until 12:16 p.m.

In the years after the attacks, President Bush faced much criticism for his slow reaction to the attacks. If the U.S. government were complicit in the attacks, the reaction of all levels of government, including President Bush, would have been much more swift and certain. When the president left Florida aboard Air Force One, he was taken to Offutt AFB in Nebraska after a stop in Louisiana. The president’s location was kept secret for much of the day due to an anonymous phone call that was interpreted as a threat against Air Force One. President Bush did not make his memorable address to the nation until later that night.

Equally illogical is the culprit behind the 9/11 attacks. If, as some charge, the attacks were a smokescreen to justify an invasion of Iraq, then why implicate Osama bin Laden, a Saudi exile that few had ever heard of, and the Afghan Taliban? If Iraq were truly the target of the conspirators, it seems that the evidence would have pointed toward Saddam Hussein, a known supporter of terrorists. As it was, the invasion of Iraq did not take place until March 19, 2003, a year and a half after September 11.

Finally, 9/11 conspiracy theories can be compared to a real government conspiracy, Operation Fast and Furious. Fast and Furious was an operation carried out by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, ostensibly to track the smuggling of weapons to Mexico. In reality, ATF allowed criminals to make “straw purchases” of thousands of weapons, which were then taken to Mexico where ATF lost the trail. Weapons from the program were used to murder a U.S. Border Patrol agent in December 2010.

In contrast with 9/11 conspiracies, there is ample evidence of the government’s culpability in Fast and Furious. Whistleblowers came forward almost immediately and a congressional investigation was begun. If government workers objected to the cover-up of one death in Fast and Furious enough to risk their jobs to bring out the truth, it is likely that a conspiracy large enough to cover-up the hijackings of four airliners and that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians would also generate a large number of whistleblowers seeking justice. No whistleblowers have come forward and investigations are limited to members of the political fringe such as professional conspiracy monger Alex Jones and Cynthia McKinney, a former Georgia congresswoman turned Green Party presidential candidate who is perhaps best remembered for striking a U.S. Capitol police officer.

In truth, there was a conspiracy around the September 11 attacks. It was conspiracy between Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorists. The

very date of the attacks, September 11, is prominent in Muslim history as the anniversary of a catastrophic defeat of the Turks outside the gates of Vienna, Austria in 1683. The defeat ended Turkish dreams of controlling Europe and marked the beginning of the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Bin Laden and his zealots hoped that September 11, 2001 would be the beginning of an Islamic jihad to throw Americans and other westerners out of Muslim lands as a first step in establishing a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

 

Note:  With the exception of the 9/11 memorial engraving, the photos are from the September 11, 2001 Attacks collection on Wikimedia.org.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/the-truth-about-the-september-11-attacks

 

 

Whatever happened to Saddam's WMD?

Kurdish victims at Halabja

It has been almost eight years since The US-led Coalition invaded Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.  There were several reasons presented to the American public to justify the war.  There was the Iraqi regime’s support for terrorism, its violations of human rights against Iraqi citizens, and, last but not least, Saddam Hussein’s efforts to amass an arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction which, it was argued, might one day be turned over to terrorist groups. 

Since the antebellum political discussions much has happened.  Saddam’s terror ties are confirmed and were thoroughly documented in a 2008 report, Saddam and Terrorism:  Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents.  Likewise, Saddam’s record of torture and mass murder is now a matter of historical record.  These facts have been overshadowed by the failure of Coalition forces to find the expected stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, as well as indications of Saddam’s nuclear weapons program.  This, in turn, has led to charges that the Bush Administration lied about the WMD in order to sell the war to Congress and public.

Halabja (Sayeed Janbozorgi)

It is important to note that Saddam’s WMD programs were established as fact long before President Bush was elected.  During the latter half of the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam’s regime had used chemical weapons against Iranian troop concentrations.  In 1987-1988, Saddam ordered chemical attacks against Kurds living in northern Iraq.  On March 16, 1988, an attack on Halabja killed an estimated 5,000 people by Iraqi forces using some combination of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and VX. Whole families and villages were murdered.  You can view actual video of the attack and its aftermath here (Warning:  This is not recommended for children or sensitive viewers).  Many thousands more were injured and suffered permanent injuries from the poison gas.  In all, an estimated 100,000 people were killed by Saddam’s government during the Anfal campaign, many of them by chemical weapons.  Saddam also had an active biological weapons program, although these may not have been used in combat.

Saddam never obtained nuclear weapons, but he had long sought them.  In 2004, Mahdi Obeidi, one of Saddam’s chief nuclear scientists, detailed in the book The Bomb in My Garden how Saddam’s nuclear quest began shortly after he assumed the presidency in 1979.  The program was set back by the Israeli raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.  By 1991, Saddam was very close to a nuclear weapon, but the program was set back again by Operation Desert Storm.  After 1991, the Iraqis concentrated on hiding or destroying nuclear materials to keep them out of the hands of UN inspectors.  Obeidi hid plans and key equipment for nuclear material in his garden until Saddam’s government was finally toppled and he felt confident enough to bring the cache to US forces.

Saddam in happier days

After the fall of Saddam, the Iraq Survey Group scoured the country for traces of the nuclear program, as well as Saddam’s chemical and biological stockpiles.  The Duelfer Report, released in 2004, concluded that after the Persian Gulf War Saddam’s goal was to have the sanctions on Iraq lifted.  To that end, he hid or destroyed much of his WMD capability.  With the introduction of the Oil for Food program in 1996, was used to enrich the regime and undermine the UN sanctions.  Saddam’s stated intent was to revive the WMD programs after he evaded the sanctions.

Nevertheless, the belief that Saddam possessed no WMD or banned weapons by the time of the 2003 invasion is not true.  For example, prior to the invasion UN inspectors found that Iraq’s al-Samoud 2 and  al-Fatah ballistic missiles had ranges that exceeded the UN’s 150 kilometer limit.  Both missiles also exceeded the size limit of 600 mm in diameter imposed by the UN on Iraq.  Iraq also illegally imported banned missile engines and fuel. 

In 2004, insurgents used several artillery shells containing the nerve agent sarin as IEDs to attack US troops.  The shells were likely from small stockpiles that were not destroyed by Coalition aircraft or Saddam’s soldiers attempting to deceive UN inspectors.  The stockpiles were probably raided by insurgents before they were discovered by Coalition forces in the aftermath of the regime’s fall.

One of the claims that Bush had lied about Iraq’s WMD centers on the claim made by Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.  The story begins with Italian intelligence passing documents (that turned out to be forgeries) to the US.  The documents reportedly showed that Iraq was attempting to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.  The Italians gave the same reports to the British.  In response to debate over the Italian reports, Plame suggested that the CIA send her husband, Joe Wilson, to Niger to investigate the claims.  Wilson visits Niger and is convinced that the Italian reports are false.  Nevertheless, there is doubt about Wilson’s conclusions.

In the end, there was much other evidence pointing to a reconstitution of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.  Saddam’s regime was reported to be in the market for aluminum tubes, magnets, and other equipment needed for such a program.  Additionally, there are numerous reports from other foreign intelligence services that Iraq is trying to obtain uranium from Africa.

American soldiers on patrol in Iraq

After the fall of Saddam, the US captured more than 500 tons of uranium in Iraq.  Ironically, this may be the final proof that the Italian reports of uranium purchases from Niger were wrong.  After all, why would Saddam be frantically trying to obtain uranium abroad when he already had a stockpile in Baghdad?  (The answer may be that this material was already known to UN inspectors.  Saddam may have indeed wanted uranium that the UN inspectors would not miss when they returned.)

Further, it was CIA Director George Tenet who asserted that the case for Iraqi WMD was a “slam dunk.”  Tenet later claimed that his comment was taken out of context, but before the war he publicly supported the Bush Administration’s claims.  If he believed that the president was distorting his position, then Tenet had a duty to confront him.  Tenet was a Clinton appointee.

In 2006, former Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada published Saddam’s Secrets.  Sada claimed that Saddam had ordered moved much of his WMD material to Syria under the cover of relief flights prior to the 2003 invasion.  This is a plausible claim because both Iraq and Syria were Baathist regimes at the time.  The Duelfer Report could not corroborate Sada’s claim, but neither could it disprove it.  It is known that the two countries engaged in legal and illegal trade during the years leading up to the war. 

In 2004, the Senate Committee on Intelligence issued its report on prewar intelligence.  The report found flaws in the intelligence and analysis, but failed to note any pattern of deception pressure (except in partisan additional views).  Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss was party to an additional view that decried the lack of human intelligence inside Iraq and the US reliance on foreign liaisons.  Chambliss also rebutted allegations of administration pressure on intelligence analysts. 

George W. Bush

The claim that Bush knowingly lied about Saddam’s WMD does not pass the logic test.  If President Bush fabricated claims about WMD, then he would have known in advance that the WMD stockpiles would not be found.  If Bush was so unethical and unscrupulous as to lie to start the war in the first place, the logical course of action would be to import WMD along with Coalition military supplies being shipped to Iraq.  Bush could have planted fake WMD and arranged to have the UN inspectors and the ISG find them.  He would have been vindicated in the eyes of the world.  Instead, Bush was as surprised as the rest of the world when Saddam’s stockpiles were not found.  The egg on Bush’s face is the strongest argument in favor of his honesty.  Being wrong is not lying.  Lying requires an intent to deceive that is absent from Bush’s Iraq claims.

So what did happen to Saddam’s WMD?  The evidence suggests that some was destroyed.  Some of this was by Coalition warplanes in 1991.  Some was by Saddam’s men in an attempt to deceive UN inspectors.  It is likely that some was sent to Syria and other friendly nations.  Some was also likely hidden inside of Iraq.  For someone as callous as Saddam, with the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands, it would be simple to have laborers build underground storage facilities, move in the materials, and then have everyone involved killed.  Dead men tell no tales.  Some of these caches may yet be discovered underneath the shifting sands of the Iraqi desert.

What is certain is that had the US and its Coalition allies not toppled Saddam’s government, the Iraqi dictator would have soon escaped sanctions and restarted his programs for nuclear, as well as chemical and biological weapons.  The failure to find WMD stockpiles in Iraq was unexpected, but other US claims about Saddam and Iraq were substantially correct. 

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/whatever-happened-to-saddam-s-wmd#ixzz1EA72OhMe">