Obama: "It Will Never Happen Again"; Apologies, Sorrow, Regret Ad Nauseam

"It was a mistake. It will never happen again."
Obama on Wednesday apologizing for the recent Air Force One flyover debacle

"Well, you know, I think this was a mistake. I think I screwed up..., and we're going to make sure we fix it so it doesn't happen again."
Obama in an interview with CNN, admitting he had made a mistake in tapping Tom Daschle as Secretary of Health and Human Services - Feb. 3, 2009

In another interview with Fox News Obama says about the Daschle appointment: "I consider this a mistake on my part and one that I intend to fix and correct and make sure that we're not screwing up again."

"In retrospect if you had asked me I think we probably wouldn't have done it then and we probably wouldn't do it again."
Obama expressing remorse for allowing his daughters to be interviewed on "Access Hollywood" - July 9, 2008

"This is obviously an anomaly, but we have apologized and are going to indeed work to ensure that this situation doesn’t happen again"
Obama campaign spokesman, Bill Burton after two Muslim women were prohibited from sitting behind the podium at an Obama campaign rally in Detroit, apparently so their headscarves would not appear in photographs with him.

In April of 2008, while touring a textile factory in Allentown, Pennsylvania, Obama called a female employee "sweetie". About a month after that incident, Obama addressed a female reporter from WXYZ News as "sweetie". He eventually left a voicemail message on her answering machine, apologizing to her and promising to "make up for it". There's no indication that he redressed the first woman's grievance, but after his heartfelt apology to the second woman, I'm sure "it will never happen again". - YouTube recording of voicemail apology

More Apologies:

Obama apologizes to Nancy Reagan for seance quip

Obama Apologizes to Special Olympics for Bowling Joke

Regret:

It would have been impossible for Obama to apologize to a deceased woman whose life had been cruelly nabbed away from her. He could only express regret - a strange regret, but regret, nevertheless!: "Obama Regrets Intervening to Save Terri Schiavo's Life!"

Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, lambastes Obama for expressing such morbid regret, and says "I wish I could ask Terri about her biggest regret, because as things turned out I’m certain that hers would have been that she was born in an America where life is no longer viewed as precious and worthy of protection." Yep! Were Schiavo still alive today, she probably would have said, "this is the first time in my adult lifetime that I am not proud of my country." Ahem.....

”Obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that."
No real apology here, only regret. Obama expresses regret for his bitter, gun-clinging remarks

And, last but not least, several doses of sorriness here. Heh!

Obama Repeating the Tax Myth Again!

Speaking at Fox High School in Arnold Missouri on Wednesday, President Obama stated as follows:

"We are going to have to tighten our belts, but we're going to have to do it in an intelligent way, and we gotta make sure that the people who are helped are working American families and we're not suddenly saying that the -- the way to do this is to eliminate programs that help ordinary people and give more tax cuts to the wealthy. We tried that formula for eight years. It did not work, and I don't intend to go back to it."

This is not the first time that Obama has faulted President Bush's tax cuts for the country's economic woes. But in truth, the economy was doing just fine until the last couple of years of Bush's presidency. The average unemployment rate for Bush’s first 6 years was 5.29%. Compare that with Bill Clinton's first 6 years in office, where the unemployment rate was 5.58%.

If the economy went sour, it was due to both the mortgage crisis and the problems on Wall Street. It had nothing to do with tax cuts or eliminating government programs. Everyone knows this, but Obama is simply being disingenuous in order to justify his ridiculous tax hikes and exorbitant spending sprees.

Oh well, par for the course, I guess.

Congratulations Michelle Obama!

Congratulations to Michelle Obama on being named to People Magazine's annual list of the world's 100 most beautiful people on Wednesday.

Now, I'm not sure if any gentlemen from Texas made it on the list. But of course, that would all depend on just how much sway Joe Biden holds over the Magazine.

The Eric Holder Transformation - "Change you can Believe in"

From Earth Rights International:

[Eric Holder Holder [was] the lead attorney [who defended] Chiquita Brands International against five lawsuits seeking redress for the banana company's abetting of murder and terrorism in financing Colombia's notorious paramilitary death squads, the United Self-Defense Committee (AUC). Chiquita has admitted funding the AUC for a period of at least seven years, from 1997 until 2004, which helped to enable the AUC to carry out hundreds or thousands of assassinations of banana union leaders, politicians, indigenous peoples' advocates, and other "undesirables" and to generally exercise control over Colombia's banana-growing region...

In defending Chiquita, Mr. Holder has written briefs questioning basic tenets of international human rights and anti-terrorism law... Mr. Holder argued that there is no 'rule of international law establishing civil liability for providing material support to terrorism,' which would exonerate those who finance terrorist organizations such as the AUC despite knowing that these groups have no legitimate activities and exist only to commit illegal acts of violence... [ed note: Fox News reported on this several months ago - Video]

But apparently, Colombian terrorists are no longer endeared by Mr. Holder.

From the UPI:

Luz Mery Gutierrez Vergara, 32, appeared in a federal court in Washington for her arraignment on charges she attempted to "procure weapons, ammunition, high technology devices, money, and other materials and supplies" to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, U.S. Justice Department [now headed by Attorney General Eric Holder] said in a news release...

And, from Attorney General Eric Holder's US Dept. of Justice website:

...a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia indicted Gutierrez Vergara... on two counts: conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization and providing material support or resources to a terrorist organization.

The FARC, an armed and violent organization in Colombia, has been designated by the United States as a foreign terrorist organization since 1997...

[ed. note: There is a distinction between these two cases, but nevertheless, I think you catch my drift...]

Eric Holder in 2002 discussing the international rights of captured terrorists:

From AL.COM:

In 2002, a prominent Washington attorney and former Justice Department official gave CNN his views on the interrogation of captured terrorists.

"One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Conventions that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people," the attorney said. "It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions. They are not prisoners of war."

With these remarks, Eric Holder — yes, Eric Holder, President Obama's attorney general — outlined what amounts to a legal framework for the interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration to obtain information from captured terrorists.

Mr. Holder clearly spelled out his position, namely, that captured terrorists are not entitled to same protections as prisoners of war. However, it seems Mr. Holder has rehabilitated himself since then and now believes terrorists are indeed protected by international law. What's more, he also believes the US should work together with foreign governments to prosecute US officials who allegedly did not comply with international law when they permitted harsh interrogation techniques to be used against captured terrorists.

Speaking before it had been announced that a Spanish magistrate had opened an investigation of Bush officials on harsh interrogation methods, Holder didn't rule out cooperating in such a probe.

"Obviously, we would look at any request that would come from a court in any country and see how and whether we should comply with it," Holder said.

"This is an administration that is determined to conduct itself by the rule of law and to the extent that we receive lawful requests from an appropriately created court, we would obviously respond to it," he said. [ed. note: This is also an administration that is determined to work with foreign governments to conduct witch hunts against both former and current US government officials.]

Conclusion: A chameleon couldn't possibly change its colors as often as Holder changes his views!

Eric Holder, "change you can Believe in"!

Related post: Why does Eric Holder support Terrorists?

Also read what Joseph F. Connor had to say about Eric Holder, referring to him as "the man partly responsible for pardoning terrorists who proudly claimed responsibility" for his father’s murder. Click here for that story.

'Sensitivity Training' for the Obama Administration?

CNN - A White House official apologized Monday after a low-flying Boeing 747 spotted above the Manhattan skyline frightened workers and residents into evacuating buildings.

The aircraft was a White House plane taking part in a classified, government-sanctioned photo shoot, the Federal Aviation Administration said...

Building evacuations also took place across the Hudson River in Jersey City, New Jersey...

Read full article.



How about a little 'Sensitivity Training' for the Obama administration?

On second thought, how about a little bit of common sense from the Obama administration?

Sheesh!

Obama "Completely Confident" of Saberi's Innocence?

From VOA News:

The health of U.S.-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi, condemned to eight years in prison by Iran for allegedly spying for the United States, is deteriorating, according to her father. He says she has been on a hunger strike since last week...

Saberi says his daughter is so weak from the hunger strike she began last Tuesday that she can "hardly stand up."...

Jean-Francois Julliard, of Paris-based Reporters Without Borders, says both journalists and the world community need to put pressure on Iran to release Roxana: "We should put more pressure on Iranian authorities, because she is really in danger. She is in a very bad health and she cannot pursue her hunger strike for many days," said Julliard. "So, we have to do something from Europe, from [the] United States, from everywhere to ensure that she is released soon."

I wonder what kind of approval rating Roxana and the two American journalists, who are being detained by North Korea, would give the president: Excellent? Stellar? Or Maginificent? Hmmm?

The North Koreans would probably rate the president's job performance as excellent. They reportedly are in the midst of reprocessing nuclear fuel rods. Reprocessing nuclear fuel rods is a necessary step in building radioactive material used in nuclear weapons. Obama doesn't seem to be challenging them on this issue, so, they've got to be satisfied with his job performance.

Ironically, Obama recently stated about Saberi:

“She is an American citizen, and I have complete confidence that she was not engaging in any sort of espionage.”

It seems somewhat bizarre that Obama would need to express "confidence" that Saberi was not engaged in espionage, rather than coming out openly and stating unequivocally that she is not a spy and that she is being detained on trumped up charges. Obama, after all, is the President, and he has full access to this kind of classified information. He knows darn well that Saberi was not spying on Iran. Is Obama fearful of offending and contradicting the Iranians with such unequivocal statements? Is he concerned that openly challenging the Iranians, belittling their allegations against Saberi and mocking their justice system would hinder his so called peace overtures to Iran?

Sure seems like it. As a matter of fact, I have "complete confidence" that this is indeed the case. But of course, there's a big difference between having "complete confidence" and knowing for certain that my conjecture is correct. So, I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was merely misspeaking.

And while I'm at it, I think I'll give the Iranians the benefit of the doubt with regards to Saberi too. For while I may be confident of her innocence, can I really be certain of her innocence? After all, I am not the president of the United States, and only the president and the CIA [and perhaps Obama's Iranian allies] who have access to this kind of classified information can be absolutely certain she's not a spy. Ahem........

Rasmussen: Obama's approval ratings at 54%

According to the latest Rasmussen polls, 54% of respondents say they approve of the President's job performance. 45% disapprove.

However, there seems to be some contradictory poll numbers with regards to George W. Bush's approval ratings after his first 100 days in office. The mainstream media has been quoting the Pew Research center which claims Gallup had Mr. Bush at 56% in April of 2001. However, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll had Mr. Bush at 62% at the time.

Will the real Gallup please stand up?!

Obama's NAFTA Flip Flop

From NRO's Campaign Spot:

OBAMA'S STATEMENT [ON RENEGOTIATING NAFTA]:

TIM RUSSERT: Senator Obama . . . Simple question: Will you, as president, say to Canada and Mexico, "This has not worked for us; we are out"?

OBAMA: “I will make sure that we renegotiate...to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.” February 23, 2008

FINAL EXPIRATION DATE: "The Obama administration said on Monday that it had no plans to reopen negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement to revise its labor and environmental provisions, as then-Senator Barack Obama promised to do during his presidential campaign. 'The president has said we will look at all of our options, but I think they can be addressed without having to reopen the agreement,' said Ronald Kirk, the United States trade representative." April 20, 2009

Obama's Chickens are Coming Home to Roost!

Do you recall when Barack Obama said that the troop surge in Iraq would never work? Remember when he said that the US should set a timetable to pull its troops out of Iraq? How about when Obama voted against funding the war in Iraq unless there was a set timetable for withdrawal? Or when he said that "there is no military solution in Iraq and there never was"? Or when he said that we need to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq to "send a clear message to the Iraqi's that we won't be there forever"?

Well, on Thursday the president got a little taste of his own medicine; from his own Democratic colleague in congress, mind you!

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey threw a bucket of cold water on the Obama administration’s foreign policy agenda Thursday, admitting serious doubt about success in Afghanistan and Pakistan...

The Wisconsin Democrat, who has been largely silent to date, made his remarks as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared before his panel on the White House’s $83.4 billion request to fund continued military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as beefed-up spending to forge a closer partnership with Pakistan along the Afghan border.

Now, let's read the rest of this article and compare some of Rep. Obey's remarks about the war in Afghanistan to Obama's statements concerning the war in Iraq:

“I frankly don’t know what I am going to do on your supplemental request because I’m very concerned that it is going to wind up with us being stuck in a problem that nobody knows how to get out of,” Obey said [to Hillary Clinton] of the increased U.S. commitment to the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. ["increased commitment" - in other words, he's opposed to Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan]

Obama on the troop surge in Iraq: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

And apparently, Obey is disinclined to fund the war in Afghanistan just like Obama refused to fund the Iraq war, unless there was a set timetable for withdrawal. However, Obey later follows Obama's position on the war in Iraq and calls for a timetable for US troops to withdraw from Afghanistan.

After nearly eight years of war, largely in Iraq, he said he feared that the United States would find itself consumed by another eight years of conflict. "I don’t want to see all of the other goals of this administration, both foreign and domestic, be devoured by this insoluble problem.”

...He hinted broadly that the administration must set some 'time limits' — perhaps a year — on the U.S. commitment, after which some judgment could be made on the chances of success.

Obama on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq: "Increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind ... includes a 'timetable' for withdrawal."

“We have got to look at reality,” Obey said. “I don’t want to see all of the other goals of this administration, both foreign and domestic, be devoured by this 'insoluble' problem.”...

“I am convinced that this is one of those problems that we can’t 'solve'; we can at best manage,” Obey told Clinton.

Obama: "There is no military 'solution' in Iraq and there never was."

And to get cooperation from Pakistan’s government and intelligence services, “they need to know we’re not going to be stuck there backing them up 'forever'.” Obey said...

Obama: "We should send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won't be there 'forever'."

Look's like the president's getting a little taste of his own medicine, or maybe his chickens are simply coming home to rooooost! Hmmm..............

Obama legal team wants to limit defendants' rights

From the AP:

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights...

Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.

The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one, unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers...

The protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.

"Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University...

Hypocrisy?

Me think so........

58% Say Release of CIA Memos Endangers National Security - Obama ignores NSA's Warnings on releasing Uighurs inside US

Rasmussen Poll results:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) [of Americans polled] believe the Obama administration’s recent release of CIA memos about the harsh interrogation methods used on terrorism suspects endangers the national security of the United States... 28% believe the release of the memos helps America’s image abroad...

Only 28% of U.S. voters think the Obama administration should do any further investigating of how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects. Fifty-eight percent (58%) are opposed...

Forty-six percent (46%) of voters disagree with Obama’s decision to close the prison camp for terrorism suspects at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba, while 36% agree with the president’s action. Support for the decision has fallen since the president announced it in January...

Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters now rate Obama as good or excellent on national security issues.

Read full report here.

And from Jihad Watch via Jed Babbin, in Human Events:

White House lawyers are refusing to accept the findings of an inter-agency committee that the Uighur Chinese Muslims held at Guantanamo Bay are too dangerous to release inside the U.S., according to Pentagon sources familiar with the action.

This action -- coupled with the release of previously top secret legal opinions on harsh interrogation methods -- demonstrates the Obama administration’s willingness to ignore reality....

After Obama’s promise to close Gitmo, the White House ordered an inter-agency review of the status of all the detainees, apparently believing that many of those held would be quickly determined releasable. The committee -- comprised of all the national security agencies -- was tasked to start with what the Obama administration believed to be the easiest case: that of the seventeen Uighurs, Chinese Muslims who were captured at an al-Queda training camp....

Reviewing the Uighurs detention, the inter-agency panel found that they weren’t the ignorant, innocent goatherds the White House believed them to be. The committee determined they were too dangerous to release because they were members of the ETIM terrorist group, the “East Turkistan Islamic Movement,” and because their presence at the al-Qaeda training camp was no accident. There is now no ETIM terrorist cell in the United States: there will be one if these Uighurs are released into the United States....

H/T Atlas Shrugs for all of the above.

And the Weekly Standard, in a March 26 article entitled "Welfare for Freed Gitmo Detainees?", reports that Obama's intelligence director, Dennis Blair - formerly the 'East Timor Massacre' abettor - said that the US may even offer some sort of assistance to the Uighurs after they are released inside the US.

Blair said the former prisoners would have [to] get some sort of assistance to start their new lives in the United States.

“We can't put them out on the street,” he said.

He's right, putting terrorists out on the street, is not the kind of "change he can believe in"!

More on the Uighurs' terrorist connections here.

Investigate Dennis Blair!

The Obama administration has issued contradictory statements regarding its plans to prosecute Bush Administration officials over the use of harsh interrogation techniques of terrorism suspects.

However, if President Obama is going to probe the Bush administration over its interrogation methods, it would behoove him to first investigate his own intelligence director, namely, Dennis Blair, over a terrorist massacre that occurred before a pivotal meeting in which Mr. Blair, then-commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Command, offered support and US aid to the commander of the massacre forces:

The massacre took place at the Liquica Catholic church in Indonesian-occupied East Timor two days before Blair met face-to-face with the Indonesian armed forces commander, Gen. Wiranto (the massacre occurred on April 6, 1999; Blair and Wiranto met April 8.

A classified US cable shows that rather than telling Wiranto to stop the killing, Blair invited Wiranto to be his guest in Hawaii, offered him new US military aid, and told the Indonesian general that he was "working hard" on his behalf, lobbying the US government to restore US military training aid for Indonesia. (That training had been cut off by Congress after the 1991 Dili, Timor massacre...)

Blair's support at that crucial April 8 meeting buoyed Wiranto, and his forces increased the Timor killings, which came to include new attacks on churches and clergy, mass arsons, and political rapes...

I cited this news item in my previous post, including Mr. Blair's prevarications on the matter. Mr. Blair is not as innocent as he maintains. Read the full story here.

But aside from investigating his own intelligence director's callous disregard for the innocent victims of East Timor, the president must also come clean and tell us about his vetting of Mr. Blair's apparent support and abetment of the East Timor killing spree at the time he appointed him intelligence director.

There's no need for the president to probe the actions and deeds of previous administrations, when there's plenty of stuff on his plate and in his own administration to probe.

Mr. Obama, the victims of East Timor and the American people would greatly appreciate your quick resolve of this matter. From the aforementioned news item, it would seem to me that Adm. Blair is guilty as hell and should be prosecuted accordingly, but ultimately, the final judgment should be left to the judicial system. Whatever information you can tell us about your own knowledge pertaining to Mr. Blair's involvement in the East Timor massacres would also be greatly appreciated. For indeed, you must have vetted this man before you appointed him intelligence director.

In any case, the vetting process was clearly flawed. The proof is here.

Hence, I hereby call on the president and congress to begin a thorough investigation of Mr. Blair and his abetment of the East Timor killing spree.

Mr. President, members of congress, let the investigations begin!

Blair & Obama, Hypocrites and Prevaricators of the Highest Order

From the New York Times:

President Obama's national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"...I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture... Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday...

So why was this information deleted from the memo before it was released to the press? Well, obviously, the Obama administration didn't want this information released to the media.

However, Admiral Blair, being the loyal Obama chrony that he is, wasn't about to betray his boss anytime soon:

A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past...

"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

WHAT?!!! Let's read that last line one more time!

"The damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

WOW! The audacity of these people to lie to the American people like that!

Here's an excerpt from the CNS article I posted earlier today, which clearly illustrates what kind of liars these people really are:

The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles...

After KSM was captured by the United States, he was not initially cooperative with CIA interrogators...

Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, ‘Soon you will know.’”... After he was subjected to the “waterboard” technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles...

And as I wrote earlier today: "Had Obama been president in 2003 and instituted his new guidelines for CIA interrogations, thousands of additional Americans would have likely been killed in another 9/11 style attack..."

Admiral Blair and President Obama, would you please stop lying! Enough is enough already!

And, Admiral Blair: If you really empathize with your predecessors like you claim, then why are you contradicting their own statements on the matter [as quoted in the CNS article], statements which clearly indicate that these harsh interrogations saved thousands of lives? Hmmm?

And, another thing, Adm. Blair. before you start pointing fingers at the very people who kept this country safe, perhaps you could explain the following news item to me, dated Jan 22, 2009:

On the eve of his Senate confirmation hearing, new information has emerged showing that Adm. Dennis Blair -- President Obama's nominee for US Director of National Intelligence -- lied about his knowledge of a terrorist massacre that occured before a pivotal meeting in which Blair offered support and US aid to the commander of the massacre forces.

The massacre took place at the Liquica Catholic church in Indonesian-occupied East Timor two days before Blair met face-to-face with the Indonesian armed forces commander, Gen. Wiranto (the massacre occurred on April 6, 1999; Blair and Wiranto met April 8).

A classified US cable shows that rather than telling Wiranto to stop the killing, Blair invited Wiranto to be his guest in Hawaii, offered him new US military aid, and told the Indonesian general that he was "working hard" on his behalf, lobbying the US government to restore US military training aid for Indonesia. (That training had been cut off by Congress after the 1991 Dili, Timor massacre...)

Blair's support at that crucial April 8 meeting buoyed Wiranto, and his forces increased the Timor killings, which came to include new attacks on churches and clergy, mass arsons, and political rapes...

Since I disclosed the contents of that Blair-Wiranto meeting in a report filed in 1999..., Blair has defended himself by claiming that he went into the meeting with Wiranto not yet knowing of the Liquica massacre.

The Associated Press reported this month, in a January 9 dispatch: "Blair has said he only learned of the massacre a few days after the meeting."...

But now, contemporaneous records have emerged -- from the US Embassy in Jakarta, and from the Catholic Church -- showing that the massacre was publicly described by Timor's Bishop one day before the Blair-Wiranto meeting, and that while Blair was in Jakarta preparing for the meeting, US officials who were there with him were discussing the massacre in graphic detail...

One written message from a US official even noted: "In the face of the scores of horrible slash wounds at Liquica, there are no surgeons to treat them." The US official was referring to the fact that, as had been disclosed at the Timor Bishop's April 7 press conference, dozens of refugees sheltering in the church had been hacked to death with machetes, but as Blair and Wiranto prepared to meet, some of those slashed were still alive.

Another Jakarta dispatch by senior US personnel written prior to the Blair-Wiranto sitdown refers explicitly to Blair's presence, to his impending meeting with Wiranto, and, crucially, to the detail and rough death toll of the already-known Liquica massacre."[W]e have the CINCPAC here today (Command[e]r in Chief of the Pacific]," the message said, referring to Blair by title; and it stated, in regard to what Wiranto's men had done: "Now we may have 40 people -- who were cowering in a church -- dead."...

Read in full.

Considering all of the crimes against humanity perpetrated by you, Mr. Blair, how do you and your Commander in Chief [the person who appointed you as his intelligence director] have the nerve to criticize the harsh interrogations of terrorists - terrorists, who murdered 3000 Americans?!!!

And what about you, President Obama? Where do you get the moral authority to criticize the Bush administration's interrogation techniques when you appoint this cold and heartless fiend to be your intelligence director? Hmmm?

Just asking.

But I know the answer already.......

Also read "ETAN opposes Adm. Blair as Director of National Intelligence"

P.S. I plan on referencing this last news item over and over again, for it truly sheds light on the true nature of our president.

Chavez: Venezuelan Socialism Has Begun to Reach U.S. under Obama

From CNS News - h/t - Atlas Shrugs:

Inspired by his meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama at the Americas Summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared on Sunday that Venezuelan socialism has begun to reach the United States under the Obama administration.

“I am coming back from Trinidad and Tobago, from the Americas Summit where, without a doubt, the position that Venezuela and its government has always defended, especially starting 10 years ago, of resistance, dignity, sovereignty and independence has obtained in Port of Spain, one of the biggest victories of our history,” Chavez said.

“It would seem that the changes that started in Venezuela in the last decade of the 20th century have begun to reach North America,” he added.

Chavez made the comments Sunday to a crowd gathered for the 199th Commemoration of the Independence Declaration of Venezuela.

“In one year we will be celebrating 200 years of ‘April 19,’ the day that ... initiated this revolution that is underway 200 years later at the forefront of the people of our America, at the forefront of change, [Ah yes, "Change"] at the forefront of a new world, at the forefront of a new century that will construct Bolivarian socialism,” said Chavez...

Read the rest.

It's a good thing Obama wasn't president in 2003

From CNS News - h/t Ace:

The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles. [I'm assuming this was in 2003 based on an 2003 article in Time Magazine]

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”...

After KSM was captured by the United States, he was not initially cooperative with CIA interrogators. Nor was another top al Qaeda leader named Zubaydah. KSM, Zubaydah, and a third terrorist named Nashiri were the only three persons ever subjected to waterboarding by the CIA...

This was because the CIA imposed very tight restrictions on the use of waterboarding. “The ‘waterboard,’ which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits,” explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. “It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has ‘credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent’; ‘substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack’; and ‘[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.’”

Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, ‘Soon you will know.’”... After he was subjected to the “waterboard” technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles...

Indeed, had Obama been president in 2003 and instituted his new guidelines for CIA interrogations, thousands of additional Americans would have likely been killed in another 9/11 style attack.

I doubt that even the media and all of Obama's die-hard fans would still be fawning over him after an attack of such magnitude occurred as a result of his inept policies.

Which is why I say, it's a good thing Obama wasn't president in '03. It's good for us, and good for him too!

But what happens if Obama is faced with a similar dilemma in the future? Will he sacrifice thousands of American lives to protect "his core values"? Or will he sacrifice "his core values" - and allow harsh interrogation techniques to be used - to protect his Presidency and his "rock star" status?

I'm not sure, but I suspect the latter....

Vote for Esam Omeish in 2009!

The Northern Virginiastan blogger was recently shocked upon learning that Dr. Esam Omeish, a fervent supporter of the Jihadist movement, is running for political office in the state of Virginia [for the 35th District of the House of Delegates].

Speaking at a demonstration against the Iraq war in March of 2007, Esam Omeish demanded that the White House withdraw US troops from Iraq. He then went on to say as follows:

"Muslims of the Washington Metropolitan area are here today in sub-freezing temperatures to tell our brothers and sisters... that you have learned the way, that you have known that the Jihad way is the way to liberate your lands and we by standing here today... we are telling them that we are with you...."

Front Page Magazine reported back in 2007 that Mr. Omeish runs the Muslim American Society, "which the FBI believes is the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement."

His [Omeish's] office is right next door to the old office of one of Al-Qaida's top fund raisers in America, Abdurahman Alamoudi, before he was jailed a few years ago...

Mohamed Omeish [Esam's brother] headed the U.S. branch of one of bin Laden's favorite Saudi charities, the International Islamic Relief Organization, which was raided after 9/11. Tax records I've obtained show Omeish shared an office with Alamoudi, the convicted al-Qaida-tied terrorist and godfather of the Muslim mafia in America. This is the same "moderate" Muslim leader who federal prosecutors caught on tape complaining bin Laden hadn't killed enough Americans.

It gets worse. Esam S. Omeish also sits on the board of the 9/11-tied mosque in Washington that helped the hijackers get licenses and housing, and whose imam prepared them for martyrdom operations in private closed-door sessions. Omeish personally hired the imam, Anwar Aulaqi, who fled the country on a Saudi jet about a year after 9/11 (the FBI now wants another crack at questioning him)...

What's more, the phone number to the mosque was found in the German apartment of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, roommate of 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta...Court records I've obtained show he [Esam Omeish] put his home up for bond collateral in 2004 to help spring from jail a terrorist suspect who was caught allegedly casing the Chesapeake bridge for attack...

Read more of Esam Omeish's profile at Front Page Magazine. - h/t - Pamela Geller.

However, in spite of both Pamela Geller's concerns and the aforementioned Front Page Magazine article, I would like to reassure the Northern Virginiastan blogger that he has absolutely nothing to worry about.

The reason being, that according to the FEC's records, Barack Obama received $250 in campaign contributions from Mr. Omeish in 2008.

Now, if Barack Obama was willing to accept a campaign contribution from Esam Omeish - despite the fact that Mr. Omeish had previously been forced to resign [in 2007] from former Governor Tim Kaine's Minorities commission after videos of him advocating Jihad were circulated on the Internet - well, then Mr. Omeish MUST be a "Good Samaritan"!

Bear in mind: Hillary Clinton recently confirmed to reporters that the Obama administration had dropped the phrase "war against terror" from its lexicon - ostensibly because the US is not, and can not be at war with terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda since terrorism is a legitimate response to [what Obama refered to, shortly after 9/11 as] the state of hopelessness and despair which terrorists are forced to live in. Thus, even if Mr. Omeish supports terrorism, he's still an outstanding and upright individual - and worthy of being a financial contributor to Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

Hence, if Barack Obama was willing to accept Esam Omeish's campaign contribution, then Mr. Omeish should certainly be deemed as an outstanding candidate by the people of Virginia, and the Northern Virginiastan blogger too! PERIOD!

Consequently, I would like to urge all Virginians who reside in the 35th District to vote for "Change" - and to vote for "Jihad"!

Vote for Esam Omeish in 2009!