Good thoughts for Boston...

Don't have enough info yet to write much of value just yet, so we're just going to use a musical form to pass on some good vibes for those effected by today's bombings...

Hang in there, Boston...

Netanyahu 1992: "Iran will Have the Bomb by 1997."

 Via a friend, this piece was brought to my attention. Its not really a traditional blog work, but a very short collection of quotes from Israeli leaders through the last twenty years predicting the imminent acquisition of a nuclear weapon by Iran.

These were public comments made by Israeli leaders as far back as 1992.

From the Informed Consent Blog, who references a piece by the Christian Science Monitor:

Netanyahu 1992: Iran will Have the Bomb by 1997

Posted on 03/06/2012 by Juan

Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor did a useful timeline for dire Israeli and US predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning 20 years ago.

1992: Israeli member of parliament Binyamin Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years” from having a nuclear weapon.

1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV.

1995: The New York Times quotes US and Israeli officials saying that Iran would have the bomb by 2000.

1998: Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress that Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003.

For clarity's sake, here's the link to the original work from the Christian Science Monitor: 

Christian Science Monitor: Imminent Iran Nuclear Threat

*******************************************************************************************************

To suggest that anyone sharing this info could be, in any way, in favor of Iran obtaining or developing a nuclear weapon, is laughable. That said...I think this information should at the very least give people a moment's pause before we take any steps toward military action against Iran. Netenyahu, Peres and Rumsfield weren't kidding, and likely believed those thoughts when they expressed them. Just as Netenyahu believes them now as tensions seemingly are on a slow burn toward military aggression. 

It is a problem. For all the well enunciated reasons why, I'm not in favor of Iran developing nuclear weapons. That said, I'm not comfortable with the United States having nuclear weapons. Reality tells us many nations have nukes and so far there has not been an occasion where one was used. (The bombs dropped during World War II were Atomic weapons, a fraction as powerful as nuclear weapons.) Is the world safer because of them? The argument goes that if everyone has one, then no one will use one. Really? Ok, if you say so. 

Aside from the whole "right to do what they please" argument, it does seem that the religious factions are pulling power from Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Who knows? If the powers that be reach the point where military actions are chosen as a path forward, I sure hope there's more meat on the bone than apparently there was back in 1992, 1995 and 1998. If lives are at stake, American, Israeli or Iranian, let's make sure our information is of a better caliber than it appears to have been over the last twenty years. 

Source:

http://www.juancole.com/2012/03/netanyahu-1992-iran-will-have-the-bomb-by-1997.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1108/Imminent-Iran-nuclear-threat-A-timeline-of-warnings-since-1979/Israel-paints-Iran-as-Enemy-No.-1-1992

U.S. Ties Iran To Assassination Plot Against Saudi Diplomat On U.S. Soil | Fox News

U.S. Ties Iran To Assassination Plot Against Saudi Diplomat On U.S. Soil | Fox News:

Additional stories here:

Huffington Post

Politico

Washington Times

USA Today

Catching up on the Al-Alawahi killing, Niggerhead and Gov. Christie...

Catching up on the Al-Alawahi killing, Niggerhead and Gov. Christie...






Its been a few days since I was able to do much writing. Time to catch up...

1) Anwar Al-Alawaki was ended last week. The United States literally dropped a 100 lb. Hellfire drone on him and his associates as they walked across a parking lot to their cars in Yemen last Friday. You might say they all went to pieces. There's been some comments from all sides of the political spectrum that suggest President Obama has taken us down a very dark lane by authorizing this killing of a US citizen. The concerns from progressives like Dennis Kucinich and Rachel Maddow. Even Libertarian and candidate for the GOP nomination Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is distressed by this. Kucinich and Maddow are apparently worried about a lack of due process, as is Mr. Paul. Mr. Paul, however, goes on to suggest that Obama may have subjected himself to impeachment proceedings with his decision.

There's virtually no debate that Al - Alawaki was a known terrorist. If you believe he wasn't, then stop reading now. If you believe he was, then let's move on. This was a bad guy, a radical guy who loved to recruit new members to Al-Qaeda for the purpose of doing harm to the US and her allies.

The Obama administration loves the drones and has used them more than five times ALREADY than President Bush did during his time in office. That's not a shot at Mr. Bush, just a comparison. There's already been at least 225 drone missions, resulting in the deaths of over 1500 people. Very safe for the military to use these. yes, there's been a few tragic mistakes, but all in all...they work, they work well and they go along way to keeping our servicemen out of harm's way.

When President Obama wanted to try terrorists in US Courts, he was widely criticized for providing foreign terrorist suspects the same rights as US citizens. How the tables have turned. Now, he's getting heat from all sides for NOT giving this terrorist due process and a day in court. For all intents and purposes, Al-Alawaki had already forfeited his US citizenship by fighting with Al-Qaeda against US interests.

I say President Obama handled it exactly as he should have. Kept the risk to US soldiers to a minimum, and still got rid of a bad guy. Not a lot of endzone dancing, its not Obama's style. This won't produce much if any bump in his polling numbers, but at least this time I didn't hear of any one obsessing about the number of "I's" of "me's" in his remarks about the killing.

We have nothing to worry about when it comes to Obama dropping bombs on any other US citizens here in the US. Unless they behave really, really badly and threaten the rest of us. I haven't sunk to the point just yet where I have such little faith in this man's moral fiber and believe he's capable of attacking us right here in the States.


2) Niggerhead is a rock. An old rock on a hunting ranch that was leased by Texas Governor Rick Perry's family almost thirty years ago. A rock near the entrance to the camp that had the word "niggerhead" on it. At some point in time, the word was painted over, in an effort to remove the offensive term. As the years passed by, it seems the paint faded a bit and the word became more legible. Some people commented from time to time that this could be a problem for Gov. Perry someday. Some day came earlier this week.

The word Nigger was at one point in our history, a common term. That doesn't make it right, of course, and times have changed. Most of the former locations around the Country with Nigger in the name have been changed to "Negro." An example would be Nigger Skull Mountain in North Carolina, which was changed to Negro Skull Mountain back in the early 1960's.

I think anyone trying to make the case that Governor Perry is a racist because of this rock is making a mountain out of a mole hill and insulting the real issues of racism where they once existed and to a lessor degree, still exist today. Mr. Perry named the first African American Chief Justice of the Texas State Supreme Court, Wallace Jefferson, which is an odd thing to do if you don't like black people.

Should the rock still be there? Of course not. Its a clumsy detail thing that should've been removed long, long ago. Call Perry on his insensitivity I guess, but to me its pretty weak sauce to build that old rock into a case for him being a racist.

I think some of this zeal with which the left ran around in circles earlier this week is shameful. I've hated it when those on the right gin up some fake controversy when Obama or so Democratic leader does something stupid but benign. I can't ignore it when I see the left doing the same thing to a figure on the right. It's absolutely no better and an insulting diversion to the real issues of the day.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Governor Chris Christie finally put the rumors/hopes to rest yesterday by announcing he will not be seeking the GOP nomination for President this go round. "Now is not my time" he said in an afternoon press conference. If he says its not time, then that's good enough for me. He's mid way through his term, and upside of quitting your job as Governor isn't so high politically. Financially, he may have done well ala book tours, bus tours, etc, but its clear to me that Christie likes his job and doesn't want to leave it.

I like Chris Christie. He sounds real to me. While I'm sure he doesn't just say anything that comes in his head, he does speak with a certain freshness, that the other GOP leaders of the day seem not to have. Maybe Congressman Thaddeus Mccotter (MIC-R) speaks in the same way. Its easy on the ears and sounds, to me, more real, more credible.

I also like him for his ability to occasionally embrace a non Republican talking point like when he defended his appointment of Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim, to the NJ state court earlier this year. He blasted those as "crazies" who suggested that he was basically enabling Sharia Law to creep into the NJ courts. That took some guts and the ease and irritation with which he had to defend Mohammed, impressed me. I have a hard time seeing some of our other GOP candidates doing something like that.

I like his character, and I like his realness. I'm not so wild about his politics, but some day I may be looking for a moderate conservative to consider and Mr. Christie may very well be worth a look.



Sources:

http://www.politico.com/rogersimon/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/us/politics/for-obama-success-battling-terrorists-seems-to-mean-little.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_three_ways_to_lose_your_citizenship

----------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/opinion/gov-perrys-rock.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_B._Jefferson

----------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/us/politics/opting-out-of-race-christie-says-now-is-not-my-time.html?ref=politics

http://www.christianpost.com/news/gov-chris-christie-defends-muslim-appointee-against-crazies-53461/

(Ed. Note: Time is limited for me this morning due to an early performance schedule. I felt this was one of the most compelling segments of the debate last night. I've included a slightly longer segment than originally provided by Mediaite. The supply of credible information backing up Congressman Paul is substantial. Its a losing hand to play, unfortunately and it was sickening to listen to Senator Santorum pander to the crowd... Which is all he was doing. Neither will be our next President but I think Paul is a good man. I think Santorum is a weasel.)

From Mediaite:

Rick Santorum Tells Rep. Ron Paul To Stop ‘Parroting Osama Bin Laden’ At CNN Debate

VIDEO

by Frances Martel | 10:16 pm, September 12th, 2011

The ideological rivalry between Rick Santorum and Rep. Ron Paul, arguably the most conservative and libertarian members of the 2012 race that are allowed on debate stages, has become a fascinating subplot of the 2012 debates, and tonight sparks flew as Santorum challenged Rep. Paul’s foreign policy, comparing his opinions to Osama Bin Laden and putting him on a defensive that earned him boos.

“We are under threat because we occupy so many countries,” Rep. Paul began, explaining that the “purpose of al-Qaeda in attacking us” was to “invite us” to invade. Noting the difference between military and defense spending, Rep. Paul argued that America needed “a foreign policy that takes care of our national defense” but is “willing to get along with trade with people.” “There is no authority in the Constitution to be the police of the world,” Rep. Paul concluded.

Santorum, obviously disgusted with that answer, turned to Rep. Paul. “On your website, on 9/11, you had a blog post that basically blamed the United States for 9/11– on your website yesterday,” Santorum noted, “You said that it was our actions that brought about the actions of 9/11.” Calling this “irresponsible,” he demanded of Rep. Paul that a presidential candidate “should not be parroting what Osama Bin Laden said on 9/11,” as the attacks are not a result of our behavior, but because “we have a civilization that is antithetical to the civilization of the jihadists.”

Rep. Paul responded with an attempt to explain what he believed was the motive pushing al-Qaeda, an explanation met with boos– a rare sound in debates, where heavy Paul contingents are typically in attendance. The biggest boo line? The suggesting that America is being unfair to Palestinians.

The segment via CNN below:

Thoughts?

Some thoughts on our Wars...

This isn't going to be a long essay on how I feel about the wars we find ourselves in. I'll have something more formal over the next few weeks. Today, I want to share three things that I feel resonate with me about our military involvement in Afghanistan and to a lessor degree, Iraq.

This is a recent comment from a US Army Captain, who currently commands a company in Afghanistan: 

"Although American citizens should definitely be more interested in what their military is involved in, they should not think that their military is somehow "standing watch" to protect the citizens' freedom just because the politicians say it is so.

But standing watch in Iraq, Afg, etc, etc is not protecting Americans freedom IMO. This just seems like some sort of romanticized feeling about loving one's own military no matter what. While that is not necessarilly bad, it sometimes misleads people into thinking their military is actually defending freedom (the military's real job) instead of just being grossly misused by ineffective political leaders (the military's current job).

A draft or mandatory public service (military or civil option) would do much to bring normal citizens into the fold on caring about public policy.

Remember your military on Memorial Day, yes. But don't say we are doing something that we are not. As I'm standing in the TSA security area of a major airport right now listening to a detachment from the local police play The National Anthem, it strikes me ironic that we are "the land of the free" but also the land that strip-searches old women and relies on big brother to ensure we fly safe.

Some might take these comments as un-patriotic, but you'd be sorely mistaken."

Matthew Hoh's resignation letter: 


"I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."   Matthew Hoh


Great article on his resignation and the effects it had...


His actual resignation letter:

http://www.vvaw.org/commentary/Hoh_ResignationLetter.pdf

The video the US Military doesn't want you to see:

Take a few minutes and digest the content of each. They are examples of other people's opinions of our involvement in these wars. I give the most credence to Hoh's resignation letter. The Captain's comments are on one level anecdotal yet a very common theme reported by our returning servicemen. The video I thought was a bit over the top. Its too sensational as it comes across to me as "let's find the worst clips possible and edit them together and make a video." 

There is no evidence that our military presence is really making us safer. We have hundreds of thousands troops chasing hundreds of Al Qaeda terrorists. All indications suggest they aren't even in Afghanistan any more and have departed for Pakistan, Yemen and other countries. We're not at war with the Taliban. The Taliban didn't blow up the World Trade Center, fly a plane into the Pentagon nor attempt to crash one into the Capitol. 

What are we doing there?

At a time when elected officials are saying we don't have enough money to help the victims of the Joplin, MO tornado, we need to ask ourselves is this military action worth two billion dollars a week to continue? If you feel we should remain in Afghanistan indefinitely, I'd love to understand why. 

Sources: 

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/31/yesterdays_comment_of_the_day_an_army_captain_says_the_military_is_not_protecting_y

http://www.vvaw.org/commentary/Hoh_ResignationLetter.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

Bush Declines Obama's Ground Zero Invite

Bush Declines Obama's Ground Zero Invite

Is President Bush correct to decline the invitation? Was the invitation inappropriate from President Obama?

President Obama deserves more than just a little credit for the Bin Laden killing

  Amidst the aftermath of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, there are those who have taken issue with the idea that President Obama is getting too much credit for this. Actually, the charge seems to be that Obama is "taking" too much credit for this. Some of the claims: 

"Let's be clear on this: OBAMA DID NOT KILL BIN LADEN. An American soldier, who OBAMA just a few weeks ago was debating on whether or not to pay, did. OBAMA just happened to be in office when our soldiers finally found the POS and took him out. This is not a OBAMA victory, but an AMERICAN victory!!!!!! REPOST IF YOU AGREE!!! If it's true give credit where credit is due."  (Various Facebook posts)


"For the record, ladies and gentlemen, in his brief announcement last night President Obama used the word 'I' ten times, the word 'me' three times, the word 'mine' five times, and the word 'my' three times."  (Rush Limbaugh, Washington Times)


"Obama's speech Sunday night was the worst EVER." (Conservative Talk show host Mark Levine)


Last Thursday afternoon, in a meeting with his Senior Intelligence, Military and Diplomatic teams, Obama had three options presented to him:


1) Bomb the compound from above-The safest for the US military personnel, but wouldn't provide any evidence of Bin Laden actually being there. Plus, anyone in that area would be killed, including innocent bystanders. 


2) Continue to gather more intelligence-Maintain the status quo. Politically, the safest route to go. 


3) Go in with a ground strike- Special Ops forces would gain access to the compound, make their way into Bin Laden house, capture and or kill him, but take possession of the body. By far, the riskiest plan for all parties involved. 


  The advisors were split among the three choices. Obama said he wanted time to think through the options. Early the next morning, he authorized ground forces to act. He indeed said yes, but he also said no to two of the options. This notion that he basically "just got out of the way" is foolish. He worked with his experts, he listened to the suggestions, and then took some time to consider the ramifications and then announced his decision the next morning. You and I take a night, a few days, a few weeks to decide any number of things. None of which have as many consequences as his decision that morning involved. That Obama should be criticized for taking that extra few hours is difficult to justify. 


  Consider the things that could've gone wrong. Perhaps Bin Laden wasn't there after all. Think of the embarrassment and explaining that would've been required to the Pakistani Gov't. Or, what if it failed for some other reason and soldiers were injured, killed or captured? The blame would've fallen directly on Obama. This choice of a ground attack carried grave risks if anything went wrong. Fortunately, it didn't. Other than the helo crashing, with no injuries, the operation seems to have gone off without a hitch. 


  This is a classic example of leadership. Choosing the safest path, may have been the most politically prudent. It was not chosen because Obama wasn't shaping the operation to fit his political needs. 


  Seal team six performed admirably. The mission was a success. They are not the guys you want dropping in to see you in the middle of the night. 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  I, me, we, etc...


  I've reviewed the text of the speech several times and counted the actual uses of the various words above. 


"I" was used 7 times...


"my" was used 7 times...


"we" was used 40 times...


 What was he supposed to say when "I" or "me" were the right words to say?  This is a perfect example of noise. When someone resorts to auditing the number of times various words are being used, its basically an epic fail. Its a disgrace. Its a shame when people we know to sincerely love this Country resort to spreading these kind of silly claims. It happens over and over again, regardless of who's President. Regardless of party. Its petty. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  I fail to find where in the speech from Sunday that President Obama pats himself on the back. He thanked the intelligence community, the soldiers who carried out the mission, and offered acknowledgements to the families of the 9/11 victims. 


  If someone can show me where he took a personal victory lap, I'd appreciate it. 


  Our President supported the continued pursuit of OBL. He could've called off the dogs anytime, but in fact, it was one of the earliest things he ordered upon taking office. It was a "top priority." When presented with recommendations, he considered each and made a decision within a day.    Had he chosen a different path, the outcomes could've been different. Hindsight being 20/20, it does appear he made precisely the correct call. To say President Obama deserves zero credit for his part in the operation is unfair. He played an important part in sustaining the hunt for OBL, and apparently making the correct choice when it came to deciding how it all should go down. 


EDIT: A friend reminds me this morning about the veritable "treasure trove" of intelligence via computers, hard drives, thumb drives etc. that the Seals were able to acquire by taking the approach Obama wound up choosing. Another reason to applaud the time Obama took to make  the best decision possible. Thanks, Joe...



Sources:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/02/remarks-president-osama-bin-laden
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54162.html
www.cspan.org
http://in.news.yahoo.com/pakistan-bin-laden-wife-children-custody-142448820.html
http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/02/inside-the-situation-room-weve-idd-geronimo/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54177.html