About Me

Name: halthouse1
Email: exetertraining@aol.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

North Korea: Red-Headed Stepchild

<b>North Korea Wants A Little Attention Too</b> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/8/26/officialwinner128642717390990684.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="155" src="http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/8/26/officialwinner128642717390990684.jpg" width="200" /></a> </div> <b>Iran</b> is all about the nukes. Do they have them? What is their intention with them? Will they stop developing them? Will our "allies" support action against them? Diplomacy, sanctions or force? Will China go along with any of them? Will Israel be forced to take the nuclear installations out unilaterally? You get the idea. United Nations, IAEA and the Geneva Conference, it is all Iran all the time. <b>Afghanistan</b> is all about the troop surge. General McCrystal says that we need one in order to avoid mission failure. President Obama is only now arranging consensus among his non-military, more political advisiors knowing for some time this decision was coming. The liberal left wants none of a surge, while one prominent Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein from of all places California has just signed on <b>for</b> it. She recognizes the impact pulling out could have on Pakistan as well as the fact that President Obama chose McCrystal as his expert on the ground. <b>Will he, won't he and when will he?</b> Troops already in the theater need a decision one way or the other. Now we have <b>North Korea</b>. Remember them? One third of the Axis of Evil. Nuclear armed, run by an unstable dictator with one of its borders one of the most dangerous places on earth. Not that many months ago North Korea and Kim Jung-Il had the headlines. Test firing missiles and setting off an underground nuclear test. The world was focused on the Korean Peninsula just as it is now focused on Iran and Afghanistan. What is a deranged leader to do to make the world pay attention? <b>This rhetorical dance with North Korea is getting very tiresome.</b> On October 1st in a letter to the U.N. North Korea said that dismantling its nuclear arms was "unthinkable even in a dream." On October 5th, while meeting with the Chinese, North Korea said they were willing do resume nuclear dismanteling talks. October 10th there was noise out of Japan, South Korea and China about restarting the six nation talks. These problems, along with the Taliban violence in nuclear Pakistan, provide some huge challeges for the world community with few obvious solutions. Sane people negotiating with insane people is not going to provide any solution that has staying power. The diplomatic overtures are all well and good, but are only fluff to keep up the appearance of making goodfaith attempts to deal with these regimes. The actual outcome I fear will involve force, becuase diplomacy and sanctions are a joke to them. In the meantime, North Korea got itself back into the discussion.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Anonymity and Hatred

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2009

Anonymity and Hatred

Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

First, This On The Homeland Security Front

More signs out of Washington that the President does not, or will not, understand the dangers of the global war on terror, aka overseas contingency operations.

(Weekly Standard)  Cantor: Obama Still Deliberating Whether We Need to Defeat Taliban

"Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) just wrapped up a conference call with reporters following a meeting he attended with other members of Congress, the president and his advisers at the White House this afternoon. Cantor said that during the meeting President Obama made "very clear" his goal is to "dismantle al Qaeda and its extremist allies." As recently as a week ago, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that defeating al Qaeda's extremist allies means defeating the Taliban, but there have been reports that some White House advisers think the goal should be defeating just al Qaeda, not the Taliban.

Cantor recalled the president said during the meeting that "that discussion is ongoing about whether you can actually separate the two--al Qaeda and the Taliban."

Stating Opinion Is Critical, But Not Anonymously 

I have posted responses to some of my articles here in the past that were written anonymously in order to demonstrate the "courage" of some when they are able to state them from behind a curtain. No accountability for their thoughts and beliefs. These statements have typically shown the revisionist thinking of the left, the name calling of the left and the lack of tolerance of the left to ideas that differ from their own. Courage would be to make statements and back them up with an identity and personal ownership. 

The World View  

The anonymous views of the left pale when comparing them to the anti-semitic thoughts of one of the commentators to a post I wrote titled The Price of Appeasement. Remember Hitler?. The comment was posted onNewsvine with the writer using the pseudonym of Professor Dr. S. Collymore. Curious about who this professor actually is, I went to Wikipedia and found out that he is a serial anonymous poster, who uses these types of names to try and add credibility to his arguments. When he speaks however, all credibility quickly fades away. If you have something to say, say it, mean it and own it! 

A free flow of ideas and opinions is a critical part of discussion, but when parties to the discussion can hide like children behind their mother’s skirts, it allows the forum to be corrupted by ignorance and hate. If someone truly feels the hate, let them stand behind their thoughts with a name.


Professor Dr. S. Collymore
When are we going to bury the European holocaust as we've obviously and indifferently done with all the other numerous atrocities that Europeans, their governments, military and colonialist settlers have carried out worldwide and in quite a few instances rendered extinct many indigenous peoples, like Tasman Man, the Arawaks and others, in the process and stop treating it as different from all the other European inspired and executed universal holocausts?

Who says, and what makes a white European Jew any more valuable to humanity than a North American Red Indian; a Caribbean Carib; a New Zealand Maori, an Australian Aborigine or numerous other such people cruelly and callously brought to the edge of extinction by this same European barbarity practised against fellow Europeans who practised a different religion from their kith and kin?

Frankly I'm thoroughly pi*sed of by this preferential treatment show to European Jews whose current behaviour particularly towards Palestinians and Arabs is no different and in many instances far worst than what was shown to them by the Nazis of Europe. And let’s be also blunt about this. There is plenty of empirical data to show that European Jews were complicit and actively involved in the armed forces of Nazi Europe, particularly the German Armed Forces, as were many Mischlinge (mixed confessional Jews but still Europeans).

Moreover, while we head ad nauseum about the Jews few remember and most don't give a damn about the Gypsies (still persecuted in Europe) and the many millions of other innocent civilians who were also slaughtered in Europe-wide death camps. Where is the fairness? Where is the objectivity? Where is the compassion and obsession shown towards these forgotten millions? Hardly surprising that today's Jews feel and act as though they can do whatever the hell they like and do so with immunity - courtesy of the west's guilt.

Well I'm not one of those who have any guilt or sympathy to dispense to these bête noire enfants terrible. They got killed - yes. They suffered - yes. But so did many millions and hundreds of millions more around the world. And as someone whose parents and relatives fought Fascism and Nazism when the US was making money out of it; when Spain was supporting it; when Italy was doing the same; and when anti-semitic feeling and prejudices were rife not only throughout Europe but also the US, my riposte is this - GO TO HELL AND STAY THERE!

You had your day European Jew; you've made billions out of peddling your grief while others in similar straits made none and still don't; yet you're still not satisfied.

The European holocaust is a historical event; belongs to the past and has NO place in the future of mankind; any more than we should allow the British crushing of the so-called Indian Mutiny or the Boer War to have any distorted relevance on the political, social or developmental proceedings of contemporary human beings.

And from my personal perspective all I see in the excruciating, obscene, ritual observation of this obsession ghoulish pastime is a con artist’s bonanza to make yet more money for those peddling their perverse and perverted, zonist zeal. Enjoy it if you must; pay obeisance to it if you want to but don’t expect me to, as I’ve bloody well had enough of it all.

Professor Dr. Stanley Collymore.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

General McCrystal Muzzled

From The Political Commentator

If The President Can’t Speak To The General, No One Can!

“Ideally, it’s better for military advice to come up through the chain of command”, Jim Jones, National Security Advisor

Is The Chain Of Command Broken?

Now certainly President Obama could speak with him if he so desired, but that is obviously not the case. If General McCrystal, whose only axe to grind is winning the war and protecting his troops, wants to his formula for putting our best foot forward in Afghanistan heard, he has to present it himself. In public. Or see it ignored. Apparently, there are other military “experts” at the disposal of the President with even more experience and more desirable points of view then his own.

The chain of command appears to be good for a 25 minute talking to on a tarmac. Was this meeting about strategy, in which case 25 minutes seems a little light? Or was it a spanking for the general going public?

Who Are The Advisors That Have The Presidents Ear?

Well, Nancy Pelosi for one and Rahm Emanuel for another. Then you have a third, less obvious advisor that goes by the name Gallup as in Poll. This is a triumvirate of non-military experience who will try and guaranty different things to different constituencies. The President will get one thing, the military another and the American public and the world yet another.

For the President, the hemming and hawing, the indecision, stalling, pandering to the left, poll watching and desire to be the anti-Bush, will put him, at least for the time being, in a safer political position. It is decision by omission rather than by commission.  His stance does nothing for our troops or national security, but I suppose that is just politics.

Our military on the ground, as evidenced by the ambush and killing of eight soldiers in Nuristan, are up against an enemy that will do anything to advance the fortunes of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The well-documented rift between their commander on the ground and the commander in chief as well as the time it is taking to make a decision on a plan going forward, increases the danger and kills morale. The Taliban reads the papers and watches CNN. They are well aware of the Presidents lack of resolve and ties to the liberal left. They understand that ambushes and the killing of U.S. troops will serve to give the cover to the administration to pull troops out and go to surgical bombing that didn’t work in the past. The end result will be a total Taliban takeover of the country.

Finally, let’s take a look at the impact on the American public and the world community. We know the desires of A-Qaeda and the Taliban. Kill any and all non-believers wherever they are. Use any means at their disposal to accomplish this. Train those who for one reason or another can be indoctrinated into a philosophy by which suicide bombing of innocent men, women and children is not only acceptable, but a desirable way to go. They will turn Afghanistan in a training ground from which attacks will be launched all over the world. They will look to destabilize and already unstable nuclear Pakistan even further. A loss in Afghanistan will mean a much less safe world.
The Problems Are Many

The problems for achieving a good outcome in Afghanistan are many. What we do not need is for the war to be politicized and run from the standpoint of what it is the American public wants, and what decision will in the short-term lead to re-election. The stakes are far to high for that. The world for a long time to come may be defined by the outcome of this war if this war is allowed to turn into a defeat for us and a win for the terrorists.

Mr. President, take the reigns that you have been given and do what is right for the country, and not for the constituency that put you in office. Forget the left-right argument and do what is right for the country. Listen to your military advisors, and not your political ones!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"The Troop Surge" and "One Iranian Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words"

From The Political and Financial Markets Commentator

This Is A Photo Of One Of The Iranian Missile Tests, Fired Days After A Second Uranium Enrichment Plant Was Exposed. The Missile Fired On Monday Had The Capacity To Reach Israel And U.S. Interests 

The missile tests on Sunday and Monday put a clear face on our October 1st negotiations partner in Geneva. This should serve as a wake up call to President Obama as to the futility of negotiations with this type of regime.

The argument will be that Iran's purpose in conducting these tests is to gain leverage in the upcoming talks. My thinking is that it is further indication of the insanity of the Iranian leadership. 

Will The Real Robert Gates Please Stand Up

A force behind the Iraqi troop surge back in 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has apparently found the appetite for politics at the expense of our soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan as well as the security of the United States. 

Remember on September 21st when General McCrystal, the chief of operations in Afghanistan who was placed there by President Obama, had this to say regarding the prospect of not increasing troop strength: 

"Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible." 

Now you would typically put a man in place whose opinions you trust as the gospel. If not, why have him there? President Obama and Robert Gates apparently seem to feel that Nancy Pelosi and the left of the Democrat Party have a better grasp on what is needed there, and it does not include troops. 

No, it encompasses a time table for withdrawal. The idea of the Democrat leadership is to abandon the mission, admit defeat, and let the Taliban run wild taking control of the country to turn it into one large training ground for terrorist trainees. All we need to do is examine the 3 foiled terrorist plots over the past week or so to realize that giving the Taliban free reign to train and deploy its own "troops" would be an unacceptable outcome for the United States! 

Now the situation on the ground is not a simple one by any means. Violence has reached an 8 year high, and the Afghan government needs to gain the confidence of its people as well as step up the capacity for it's own soldiers to eventually take over from the United States. This, so that at some time in the future we can pull back.

(Washington Examiner) "...Gates told ABC's "This Week," Obama will decide, within weeks, "whether or not to make adjustments in the strategy" in the wake of the country's recent election, as well as a dire new assessment of the war by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan. "And that includes the question of, is McChrystal's approach, in the view of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Central Command commander, the right approach?" Gates told host George Stephanopoulos. "And if so, then what would be the additional resources required?..." 

The Conclusion 

Gentlemen, this is no time for focus groups, reading the polling data or consultation with the far left. This is the reason that you were elected. To make the critical decisions that are required for the security of the country. Not to politicize, but to strategize!

General McCrystal has made his assessment and no doubt has discussed it with the Joint Chiefs. Our men and woman on the ground face increased danger without the surge, and the mission will "result in failure" without the surge. It appears that their are two possible choices: 

1) Complete and immediate withdrawal with all of the unpleasant future outcomes this would enable; 

2) The troop surge as recommended by the Obama administration "expert" on the ground. 

As Malone said to Eliot Ness in "The Untouchables": "What are you prepared to do?" Well Mr. President, what are you prepared to do?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pakistan: Country and World in Crisis

Monday, May 4, 2009

Pakistan: Country and World in Crisis

Pakistan: Country and World in Crisis

When the crisis and danger is finally recognized by The New York Times, it becomes even more apparent that the situation is in fact dire. The articles below had been written by me back to March, when the level of the problem in Pakistan became obvious, to all except the Obama administration which continues to tell us that the situation is being monitored and the Pakistani government is on top of things. Hillary Clinton remains the invisible Secretary of State.

"The officials emphasized that there was no reason to believe that the arsenal, most of which is south of the capital, Islamabad, faced an imminent threat."(see below)

Funny, as a concerned outside observer I feel there is an iminent threat.

The problem is that we do not really know who is in charge of the government, or more to the point who do those in charge of the government (and by extension the nukes) hold allegiance to. All this as Pakistan remains our "reluctant ally"


Guest Blog: Pakistan: Time for Contingency Plannin...
Pakistan, the Taliban and Islamabad: Is Anyone Out...
Does President Obama Know About the Goings On In P...
Yesterday Pakistan, Today North Korea
Is Anyone Keeping An Eye On Pakistan?

Pakistan Strife Raises U.S. Doubts on Nuclear Arms (New York Times)

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 3, 2009
WASHINGTON — As the insurgency of the Taliban and Al Qaeda spreads in Pakistan, senior American officials say they are increasingly concerned about new vulnerabilities for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, including the potential for militants to snatch a weapon in transport or to insert sympathizers into laboratories or fuel-production facilities.

The officials emphasized that there was no reason to believe that the arsenal, most of which is south of the capital, Islamabad, faced an imminent threat. President Obama said last week that he remained confident that keeping the country’s nuclear infrastructure secure was the top priority of Pakistan’s armed forces.

But the United States does not know where all of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are located, and its concerns have intensified in the last two weeks since the Taliban entered Buner, a district 60 miles from the capital. The spread of the insurgency has left American officials less willing to accept blanket assurances from Pakistan that the weapons are safe.

Pakistani officials have continued to deflect American requests for more details about the location and security of the country’s nuclear sites, the officials said.... Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pakistan: Country and World in Crisis

The Political and Financial Markets Commentator

Monday, May 4, 2009

Pakistan: Country and World in Crisis

Pakistan: Country and World in Crisis

When the crisis and danger is finally recognized by The New York Times, it becomes even more apparent that the situation is in fact dire. The articles below had been written by me back to March, when the level of the problem in Pakistan became obvious, to all except the Obama administration which continues to tell us that the situation is being monitored and the Pakistani government is on top of things. Hillary Clinton remains the invisible Secretary of State.

"The officials emphasized that there was no reason to believe that the arsenal, most of which is south of the capital, Islamabad, faced an imminent threat."(see below)

Funny, as a concerned outside observer I feel there is an iminent threat.

The problem is that we do not really know who is in charge of the government, or more to the point who do those in charge of the government (and by extension the nukes) hold allegiance to. All this as Pakistan remains our "reluctant ally"


Guest Blog: Pakistan: Time for Contingency Plannin...
Pakistan, the Taliban and Islamabad: Is Anyone Out...
Does President Obama Know About the Goings On In P...
Yesterday Pakistan, Today North Korea
Is Anyone Keeping An Eye On Pakistan?

Pakistan Strife Raises U.S. Doubts on Nuclear Arms (New York Times)

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 3, 2009
WASHINGTON — As the insurgency of the Taliban and Al Qaeda spreads in Pakistan, senior American officials say they are increasingly concerned about new vulnerabilities for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, including the potential for militants to snatch a weapon in transport or to insert sympathizers into laboratories or fuel-production facilities.

The officials emphasized that there was no reason to believe that the arsenal, most of which is south of the capital, Islamabad, faced an imminent threat. President Obama said last week that he remained confident that keeping the country’s nuclear infrastructure secure was the top priority of Pakistan’s armed forces.

But the United States does not know where all of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are located, and its concerns have intensified in the last two weeks since the Taliban entered Buner, a district 60 miles from the capital. The spread of the insurgency has left American officials less willing to accept blanket assurances from Pakistan that the weapons are safe.

Pakistani officials have continued to deflect American requests for more details about the location and security of the country’s nuclear sites, the officials said.... Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pakistan, the Taliban and Islamabad: Is Anyone Out There?

The Political and Financial Markets Commentator (http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2009/04/pakistan-taliban-and-islamabad-is.html), Mike Haltman
 

Friday, April 24, 2009

Pakistan, the Taliban and Islamabad: Is Anyone Out There?

Beating a Dead Horse

If I am getting tired of talking about the same thing, then people must be getting tired about reading about the same thing. This situation was once a dangerous thought, then a dangerous development, and now it is seemingly an extremely dangerous reality.

Slowly but surely, as discussed in this blog ad infinitum, the Taliban is moving towards Islamabad and a de facto takeover of the government of Pakistan. Much like Hitler was appeased by France, the UK and the Soviet Union in the 1930's when he was allowed to take Czechoslovakia, the Taliban has been appeased but does not seem satisfied by what they were given either.

What will be the result if there is a full takeover of Pakistan by the Taliban, and more importantly the weapons that Pakistan controls. The world, as the saying goes, will be up a very brown creek without a paddle. There have been questions all along regarding the current government of Pakistan in terms of it's allegiances, and that is who we are counting on to put down this dangerous, dangerous situation.

What are the world leaders saying:

- After Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told lawmakers in Washington on Wednesday that the Pakistani government was "basically abdicating to the Taliban and the extremists," Islamabad has seen a flurry of diplomatic activity.

Huh? Any thoughts on how to diffuse the situation Madame Secretary, or do we just go with the flow on this one?

- German Chancellor Angela Merkel called Prime Minister Gillani to express her concern. And Western diplomats met with Pakistani lawmakers throughout the day to assess the government's likely response to the threat.

Really? Is that making anyone feel better?

- This is what the Taliban had to say:

"Taliban fighters from the nearby Swat Valley have infiltrated the area in recent days, emboldened by a government-sanctioned peace deal allowing them to enforce Sharia, or Islamic law, in the valley, a onetime tourist paradise.

Prime Minister Yusaf Raza Gillani told reporters in Islamabad on Thursday that the government would see to it that the peace agreement isn't violated. "The government will not allow anyone to challenge the government," he said in a statement.

But in Buner, the Taliban remained largely in control despite the stepped-up paramilitary presence.

"We will not leave the area," a Taliban commander, Mufti Bashir, told local journalists.

Map locates the Buner region

Since entering Buner from Swat, the Taliban has reportedly set up checkpoints, begun patrolling roads and ordered barbershops to stop shaving beards, which are favored by Islamic militants. The moves have prompted some residents to flee..." (LA Times)

President Obama, I don't want to be an alarmist here, but what are the plans besides calling the Prime Minister and voicing our concern, or going to United Nations demanding this to stop.

This is the Taliban that does not answer to any international voice, and if this development that could turn disastrous for us all is not stopped and stopped now, your health care plan and the rest of your socialist agenda could be rendered moot. Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Taliban Continued With An Iranian Spin

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Taliban Continued With An Iranian Spin




Concern Over The Spread Of The Taliban

In my blog yesterday I discussed the spread of the Taliban from tribal regions to Pakistan proper, and the danger that this presents in a country whose government is fragile at best. The thinking is that with nuclear weapons under the control of some members of government who may be sympathetic to the Taliban, this is a major concern.

Some who responded to me on this questioned whether my concern for our safety from without was warranted. Where was my proof that there was any reason to be worried? As if 9/11 and the documented attacks before it were not enough, what of the desire of Iran to go nuclear? Is this a figment of our imagination? Take a look at the map and notice where it is that Iran sits. What country's does it border?

Americans have notoriously short memories, and after all 9/11 is almost 8 years removed and we have not had any repeat performances, due in large part to the actions of the Bush administration. That in no way means that we are out of the woods. Far from it.

The Obama Administration Iran Plan

In a realization of one of the fears during the campaign season, this is what it appears that the Obama administration plans to do with Iran:

"On Wednesday — less than 24 hours after his inauguration — the Obama White House Web site announced, inter alia, that they will engage in “tough and direct” diplomacy with Iran “without preconditions” and that he intends to use “the power of American diplomacy” to deal with “Iran’s illicit nuclear program, support for terrorism and threats towards Israel.” (Fox Forum).

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Are we going to sit at a table and negotiate in good faith with Ahmadinejad? Why don't we include North Korea and Venezuela as well while we are at it. How can you negotiate with documented liars who have stated that their goal is to wipe one of the parties in the negotiation off of the face of the earth.

People can sign anything they want, but if you are fairly sure that they will not adhere to any of it, then what is the point other than a public relations victory at home.

Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gitmo, The Taliban, Nukes and You

Monday, January 26, 2009

Gitmo, The Taliban, Nukes and You


 Taliban Personified?
Originally uploaded by pav21

The Plan To Shut Gitmo Down May Run Into A Headwind While The Taliban Has Not Gone Away, Far from It

In what can only be termed as an extremely disturbing situation in Pakistan, the Taliban is becoming a stronger and stronger influence, not only in the tribal areas but now deeper into the heart of the country. In a front page article in the Sunday New York Times, this penetration and the accompanying spread of terror and brutal punishment for the "violation" of its' own interpretation of how life should be is showing no signs of abating. To the contrary it would seem to be gaining momentum.

What this means for not only the United States but for all of the world is that this spread of the Talibans power, the fear of the politicians and security forces to stand up to it as well as the uncertainty of who in government is actually sympathetic to the Taliban, all places a nuclear arsenal in unknown hands.

This is an area that the Obama administration needs to address immediately. We know that these weapons would not only be coveted, but if obtained would no doubt be attempted to be used.

A Possible Monkey Wrench In The Plans To Close Gitmo

In a story in Newsweek, a Pentagon report that is due to be declassified will reportedly show that some of the detainees that have been released from Guantanamo have gone back to their terroristic ways. If in fact this is the case, can the Obama administration take the chance that a newly released captive perpetrates an attack on us or on our allies. I don't think they can.

For the Obama administration, getting the economy back on track is critical, but let's not forget the dangers from without that have never gone away!

Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »