-
Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment
May 22, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Obama’s Far Left Hand
May 15, 2013 | 133 comments
-
The Left’s Captive Mind
May 8, 2013 | 85 comments
-
A Sportscaster Comes Out As Christian
May 1, 2013 | 291 comments
-
The Price of Obama’s Islamophilia
April 24, 2013 | 196 comments
Another Perspective
Chasing Faisal
Close enough for government work.
The struggle between Islam and the West is presented as a “clash of civilizations.” But at this point it looks more like a clash of incompetents: not terribly bright jihadists advance upon an increasingly imbecilic West, which, if it escapes harm, does so more through dumb luck than vigilance.
Once again, the “system worked,” as Janet Napolitano memorably put it after a plane almost blew up over Detroit last Christmas. Like that “underwear bomber,” Faisal Shahzad has paid Americans the small courtesy of being incompetent. Sure, he managed to get past security and board a flight to Dubai after trying to kill Times Square tourists, but not to worry: Attorney General Eric Holder has everything under control; he says he “was never in any fear that we were in danger of losing him.” What a relief.
At any rate, the effort was certainly close enough for government work. Besides, this administration has many important matters to engage its attention, such as boxing “Islamophobe” Franklin Graham out of a Pentagon prayer service and lecturing Arizonans on the value of porous borders.
The underwear bomber was tackled by a Scandinavian and Shahzad’s smoking vehicle was spotted by a hot dog vendor. But let’s not nitpick; the Obama-led federal government can’t be expected to do everything. After all, it is “not at war with Islam” but with Christianity.
New York City Mayor Michal Bloomberg, speaking for a PC political class, first thought that the Times Square bomber was “somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill.” Janet Napolitano evidently still has her eyes peeled for pro-lifers and embittered military veterans, while MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer says a “part” of her, evidently not the head, “was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country,” lest that justify “really outdated bigotry.”
Yes, America is past all that outdated anxiety about Islam. As the Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan discovered, America is so enlightened it will even finds jobs in its military for Muslims who conduct PowerPoint presentations in defense of suicide bombings. As Army chief of staff George Casey said, maintaining “diversity” is a greater priority for Obama’s America than stopping militant Islam: “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”
That’s worse. This mindset, pervasive throughout the federal government, explains how Faisal Shahzad could trundle off to Pakistan, train to be a terrorist, then come back to the U.S. as a naturalized citizen before trying to kill tourists in Times Square. The only thing that stood between Faisal and those tourists was his ineptitude.
It would appear that Islam’s centuries-long indifference to science and technology makes even its terrorism unscientific and shoddy. This has to explain at least in part the rather high percentage of clumsy terrorists like Shahzad. While very motivated, they find themselves having to rely on Western weaponry and products to defeat the West without quite knowing how to use them.
As Robert R. Reilly points out in The Closing of the Muslim Mind, “Those involved in training Middle Eastern military forces have encountered a lackadaisical attitude to weapons maintenance and sharp-shooting. If God wants the bullet to hit the target, it will, and if He does not, it will not. It has little to do with human agency or skills obtained by discipline and practice.”
The Islamic conception of God as pure will, unbound by reason and unknowable through the visible world, rendered any search for cause and effect in nature irrelevant to Muslim societies over centuries, resulting in slipshod, dependent cultures. Reilly notes, for example, that Pakistan, a nation which views science as automatically impious given its view that an arbitrary God did not imprint upon nature a rational order worth investigating, produces almost no patents.
Writes Reilly: “Less than a decade ago, an imam in Pakistan instructed physicists there that they could not consider the principle of cause and effect in their work. Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani physicist and professor at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, said that it was not Islamic to say that combining hydrogen and oxygen makes water. ‘You were supposed to say that when you bring hydrogen and oxygen together then by the will of Allah water was created.’”
The “clash of civilizations” is a clash of irrationalities, which now revolves around a kind of inertia: “reason” without faith makes the West too soulless to stop Islamic encroachment while the jihadists’ faith without reason makes them too stupid to pull it off.
About the Author
George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (146) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George Neumayr
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/06/chasing-faisal
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Vast and the Tiny
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 5.6.10 @ 6:29AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Chasing Faisal [spectator.org] on To links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
CB| 5.6.10 @ 6:33AM
I still just don't get it. We have absolute morons running this country. Common sense is dead and buried. When is somebody...anybody...going to stand up a make a stink about the idiots like Bloomberg, Casey, etc and what comes out of their mouths. The Islamics don't just want it their way, they want you DEAD, and then have it their way.
Beam me up.....please!
Alan Brooks| 5.6.10 @ 3:56PM
Quick, Drew, find this guy the most expensive attorneys in Manhattan.
stephanie| 5.6.10 @ 7:22AM
That's their objective CB. To beam you up, in a huge blast.
R Martin| 5.6.10 @ 7:48AM
Why in the world the celebration of "diversity" must include acceptance of vile, evil people whose intent is to kill others for their own twisted purposes is beyond me. I'd say it's an open question as to who is more incompetent--the jihadists or the PC police who welcome them.
Alan Brooks| 5.6.10 @ 3:57PM
We don't want to hurt his SELF ESTEEM
Tony in Central PA| 5.6.10 @ 8:49AM
According to the NYT, a friend of the Times Square bomber described him as " ...handsome, liberal, an active person...". Just imagine how incensed the government and media would be if the bomber hadn't been a liberal.
Its been mentioned here that one reason the liberal elite don't criticize Islam is because their ideologies share a similar irrationality. I'd say that reality is on full display in this case.
1FreeMan| 5.6.10 @ 9:07AM
When the "free press", now the lap-dog of liberals, fail to report but instead act as activist agents of a politic we all pay a price. The corrupt politicians get a free pass if liberal or their corruption gos unreported because the press is too busy "selling" healthcare, Obama, anti imigration controls, fighting against baby-food standards... you name it.
The public at large isn't informed and the media is the culpret.
Bill| 5.6.10 @ 9:11AM
I find it nearly imp0ssible that Faisal Shahzad was as inept as all sources want to make him. He had a university degree and had training on being a terrorist. It may be that his training was bad and he didn't get the information he needed to make a workable bomb that would detonate reliably. But he wasn't stupid.
And neither are the terrorists we're fighting. They will eventually give good and effective training to terrorists (helped by the media, who tell them what fertilizer will actually work in their articles about Shahzad). The terrorist cause will be helped by those of our leaders who want pathetically to believe that the attempts to destroy our people are insane, right-wing, homegrown acts of lunacy and not organized attempts by Muslim extremists to cause us damage. The ability of those who try to kill our people to buy an airline ticket, get to the airport and board an airplane that then leaves the gate on its way to sanctuary for the terrorist is also deeply disturbing and bespeaks an unforgiveable level of laxity and incompetence on the part of our leaders and those charged with protecting us from exactly this kind of harm.
Nick| 5.6.10 @ 1:54PM
Bill,
"He had a university degree [...]."
You still equate a university degree with intelligence? Do you know how many idiots graduate from college each year? And I'm not referring to just affirmative action.
The left ruined the university system a long time ago. A Masters and BS aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
I'd rather hire a kid who is self-taught and is willing to break a sweat, than someone who went to college for four years.
Pingback| 5.6.10 @ 9:42AM
‘American Idol’ recap: Connick’d Four – Entertainment Weekly - Most hotest, Most lat links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Nate | 5.6.10 @ 10:24AM
This article demonstrates considerable ignorance about the nature of the terrorist threat.
I'm not exactly sure where the the writer has been for the past few decades, but terrorism is extremely difficult to prevent.
There seems to be a fantasy on the right that terrorism preventable by a commitment to sheer force alone. This fantasy is dangerous and on its face absurd.
A free society cannot build a wall around itself to prevent terrorism. For that, you need to go live in N. Korea.
A free society can develop a system of overlapping screens or filters that prevent the most serious threats from hitting their targets.
The "incompetence" of the two most recent attempted attacks demonstrates that the kinds of screens and filters we've set up are working pretty well. The fact that they need to be improved should be no surprise. No system -- and this is the nature of the threat -- could be perfect, and it will have to be in a constant state of change in order to keep up with the evolving tactics of terrorists.
In short, I'd advise people to read articles on this topic written by people who know what they're talking about.
This quack is just talking out of his ass.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.6.10 @ 10:56AM
Nate,
You made some good points.
I think the grumble from Mr. Neumeyr was that our "leadership" seems to have taken its eye off the ball.
Second, if I read correctly, he is grumbling about the seeming refusal of this regime to simply "face" the threat, rather than ducking it and mis-directing efforts for political purposes.
Nate| 5.6.10 @ 1:06PM
I know Limbaugh has been using the term "regime" to describe the Obama administration.
Of course it is an error.
The word "regime," taken from the Latin word meaning "king," is properly used to describe authoritarian governments. We talked about "regime change" with respect to Iraq.
Obama was elected by the people of the United States.
To suggest otherwise is a lie. It is obnoxious and dishonorable. It is goddamn un-AMERICAN.
If you want your guy in office, you got to get the votes.
That's how we DO things here. In this country we VOTE, and the people who get the most votes, win.
So don't dishonor yourself and don't insult your fellow citizens by talking in this way.
Otherwise, I suppose you make reasonable points. If you agree not to talk like a jackass, I'll agree to show you some measure of respect.
Nick| 5.6.10 @ 2:18PM
Nate,
"To suggest otherwise is a lie. It is obnoxious and dishonorable. It is [expletive deleted] un-AMERICAN."
I'm sure your bleeding heart cried out in rage against all the liberal/progressive/marxist commentators who called President Bush's administration a "regime" for eight years, right?
I love how liberals constantly complain about having their patriotism questioned, and then have no problem calling others "un-American." Can you say "hypocrite?" I knew you could.
"In this country we VOTE, and the people who get the most votes, win."
Bzzzzzzz! Wrong!
Better brush up on the U.S. Constitution, Nate. What you have described is a "democracy." We live in a Republic.
You seem not to remember the presidential election from 10 years ago. President Bush didn't get the majority of the popular vote. He won the vote that matters, the electoral college. A brilliant system set up by the Founders in 1787 and perfected in 1804.
Finally, we have free speech in this country. So, anyone can refer to President Dither's administration as a "regime."
Margie| 5.6.10 @ 10:33PM
Nick, Bravo! Well said.
Regime IS the correct word. Obama is acting like a King. You have to be a blind boot-licker to not see it.
Nick| 5.6.10 @ 11:41PM
Margie,
Thanks!
I appreciate it.
May the O'Bama and O'Biden Regime go the way of all failed banana republics, thrown out on their backsides!
We can start this November.
Jon B| 5.7.10 @ 7:51PM
Forget about Nick. He's a troll who lies about people he disagrees with and can;t provide a source to back up his lies.
Nick| 5.7.10 @ 8:08PM
You're projecting again, Jon Boy.
Now, where's that source, dope?
Gr0w1er| 5.6.10 @ 2:56PM
Guess we'll have to toss your 'Kenyan' and all of his socialist friends out in 2012. That good enough for you?
Bydand76| 5.6.10 @ 9:17PM
Wow I have seen some dipstick comments in this forum but Nate you have shot right over purple guy and Lib reader with this stupid, inane, SPECIOUS male bovine fecal matter!
IF for one minute you had taken the time to listen to what Rush was saying in referring to calling the Obama administration the "Regime" waas that he was being critical of Bush Haters ( Like your silly ass) caliing the PRESIDENT BUSH Administration a "regime" THEN turning around and complaining about people calling the PRESIDENT OBAMA administration a "regime"
You know what?
YOU JUST PROVED HIS POINT!!!
The joke is on you now you little brat!
I am laughing at your complete ineptness and how you more than likely STOLE your weak ass talking point from the "View"
Walk on home bitch before you get hurt!
The only Jackass I see here is your little George Soros wanna-be poseur whiny butt!
Where were you when all of your and the other little Obama sycophants when the media was blasting PRESIDENT BUSH's Administration?
Hmmmmm? Chicken Hawk!
You want Un-American?
Look at President Obama!
Respect is EARNED!....NOT given!
F. YOU Nate! Do not presume to lecture me on what is or is not American!
You pathetic little Weasel!
Pro Libertate
Jon B| 5.6.10 @ 9:35PM
^100% pure talking points from a Rush disciple.
Bydand76| 5.7.10 @ 1:27PM
Ok.
I listen to Rush. Sue me.
Try to refute the facts. Jon B.
Its ok for liberal butt heads to do whatever they want or feel but if a conservative does it well hold the phone because its racism or whater you want to call it. (in Nates case he was trying to say it was un American. Riiiiiight).
Say what you want against a President or what not, I really dont care.
However when you get offended because someone calls your guy the same name that is called hypocrisy. You both have the stink of it on you!
I bet you and Nate go bowling together don't you. Well everything I said to him applies to you as well. Douchebag!
Pro Libertate!
Jon B| 5.7.10 @ 2:04PM
It's not about "Liberals Vs Conservatives." It's about truth Vs fiction. I'm tired of the fiction. You're sort of into the fiction yet.
vctor| 5.6.10 @ 10:41PM
Nate:
"The word "regime," taken from the Latin word meaning "king," is properly used to describe authoritarian governments."
Yes, "King" is appropriate, but "Pharaoh" is more so: as the immortal Yul Brynner intoned: "So let it be written; so let it be done."
Lord Obama has that air about him.
"I have commanded you, now go and do it!"
You have too much money, give it to the person in back of you.
Jon B| 5.6.10 @ 10:46PM
I seem to recall a certain President who sued 10's of thousands of Americans to throw out their legal votes, and a corrupt court violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to install him as President after he lost the election. Only trouble is that this King's name is BU$H, not Obama. Plaese try again.
victor| 5.6.10 @ 11:11PM
Yo Jon Boy, your boy AlGoroni threw the first punch.
Get your facts straight.
Jon B| 5.7.10 @ 1:17PM
Sorry, but ONLY Bush sued Americans to throw out their votes. And the US SC violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to install him by calling off the election when he was in the lead.
Nick| 5.7.10 @ 1:43PM
Jon B,
Still haven't learned that it is SCOTUS, i.e. Supreme Court of the United States, huh? Not the United States Supreme Court.
Where's that source, Jon Boy?
Jon B| 5.7.10 @ 2:05PM
The US SC calls itself the US SC. lol, funny attempt at a dodge. Your concession is accepted. Thanks :)
Nick| 5.7.10 @ 2:12PM
No it doesn't.
Where's that source, Jon boy?
Jon B| 5.7.10 @ 2:24PM
You're weird, razor-Nick. Type in US SC and what pops up, Razor-Nick??
If you prefer to call them "SCROTUS," fine by me.
Nick| 5.7.10 @ 2:29PM
Why can't you answer a simple question?
Where's the source for your lie that President Reagan gave the Soviets $450 million, moron?
It's SCOTUS, dope.
Jon B| 5.7.10 @ 6:51PM
You LIED! I said $425 million, where's your source that I said $450 Million? LIAR!
Are you unaware that it's the United States Supreme Court? Or possibly are you about as intellectually honest as the pile of dogshit squirting between the gap in your teeth when you come om this site?
Nick| 5.7.10 @ 8:11PM
It took you long enough to catch that, moron.
It doesn't matter if it was $425 or $450 million, because it never happened. You made it up, liar.
Nick| 5.7.10 @ 8:14PM
Also, it is the Supreme Court of the United States, twit.
Just like it is the President of the United States, or POTUS.
But, please, keep on showing everyone your ignorance, brainiac.
JP| 5.6.10 @ 11:15AM
Nate,
On the day that the Time Square Bomber almost got away (The FBI lost his him), over 100,000 people at our nation's airports were searched, had thier luggage checked, and went through all manner of indignities to comply with federal guidelines. Yet, this one man was able to do what he did and almost got away. This nation spends over $60 billion a year on intelligence gathering and operations; yet, this man was able to travel to and from Pakistan; travel to terrorist infested Warsistan, spend up to 5 months there and return to the US. Not once was he ever picked up by our intelligence agencies for questioning. Not once was he put on a watch list.
On 9/11 our our federal government failed spectacularly; and it got rewarded with increased budgets, manpower, and more authority. Our Homeland Security Chief now focuses on white male GIs returning from the Middle East, but is blissfully unaware of of the Pakistanis who seemed to travel at will to and from terrorist camps in East Asia.
The incompetence of the federal government is so obvious it went right over your head.
Siegfried X| 5.6.10 @ 11:52AM
Actually Shahzad WAS on watch lists for years. The thing is that most of what he did, up until the last moment, wasn't illegal. His car was loaded with common household objects which are used legally every day by millions of people (like gasoline).
We just can't prevent all crime.
JP| 5.6.10 @ 12:18PM
According to some in the FBI he was removed years ago. But, for the sake of arguement, so what? The FBI did nothing. Which leads one to assume that after almost 10 years, the CIA has no real human assets in Pakistan that can do covert ops. This is what $60 billion gets you in America.
Attending terrorist training camps is a felony that get you life in prison. Homeland Security knew he spent 5 months in Pakistan, but hadn't a clue what he was doing there. It was only after tha fact, that the Pakistani government let us know.
Again, we lucked out. The FBI seemed to not to care in the least bit what he was up to. No, our huge, expensive intelligence services are busy stalking teaparties, testing breast milk, looking up the background of retired Iraqi war vets to be bothered to worry about young men traveling to Pakistan.
Nate| 5.6.10 @ 1:08PM
re: "On 9/11 our federal government failed us spectacularly"
Was this Obama's fault too?
At any rate, your point is dull and like the article above completely fails to understand the complexity of the terrorist threat.
JP| 5.6.10 @ 1:54PM
"At any rate, your point is dull and like the article above completely fails to understand the complexity of the terrorist threat. "
And as usual, you libs fail to answer any points that have been made that you don't agree with. Namely, in both the Christmas Bomber and Times Square Bomber cases, our security services had the goods, but for various reasons failed to act.
Nate| 5.6.10 @ 2:39PM
JP
You should read up a little on terrorism and what it takes to prevent it.
I strongly recommend The Looming Tower. This book tells two stories, the history of Al Quaeda and the history of efforts by federal agents to call attention to them in the 90s and in the first year of the Bush administration.
We "had the goods" on the 9.11 terrorists too. But it's still fantastically difficult to coordinate intelligence and act on it prudently.
I'm not saying that everyone can relax and everything's fine. I just think people should criticize the government fairly and have some basic understanding of the problem they're talking about.
Talking about "libs" and all the rest is just stupid radio talk. It's meaningless and boring.
If you want to talk about grown up stuff, you're going to have to know more about the world than you can learn listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Nick| 5.6.10 @ 3:33PM
Nate,
"But it's still fantastically difficult to coordinate intelligence and act on it prudently."
Especially when Jamie Gorelick erects a "wall" between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A, forbidding them from sharing information.
I wonder how many walls Eric "The Corrupt' Holder has erected?
JP| 5.6.10 @ 4:55PM
"If you want to talk about grown up stuff, you're going to have to know more about the world than you can learn listening to Rush Limbaugh. "
Mmm... rarely listen to the guy. But, as usual, you will not respond to the fact that despite enjoying huge increases in staffing, budgets, technology, not to mention several favorable laws, our intelligence agencies fail to do thier jobs.
The Christmas bomber's father went to the CIA station chief's office in our embassy and warned them; they had proof that he visited Yeman and conducted training there. Sharhzad went to Pakistan on 4 seperate occaisons and spent over 5 months in Warzistan. Yet, our Homeland Security people were clueless to his intentions. According to both the Post and CNN, the only interest the FBI took in his background was to interview the person who bought his condo in 2006.
You seem not have a problem with any of this. Like a good liberal you are content with TSA harrassements of legitimate travelers, but discount the bureaucratic incompetence of our security services. Instead you lecture people to read books authored by the very same people who are failing to protect this nation. You seem to have a smug attitude in the face of continuous security failures by Homeland Security. It's not like they have been given $670 billion over the last decade; it's not like they haven't gotten 10 years to get thier act together.
Of course, part of your non-chalance could be attributed to who is currently in the White House. I have a suspiscion that if a Republican was there we wouldn't be having this conversation.
JimE| 5.6.10 @ 7:31PM
Nate,
I knew it was only a matter of time until you came back to the "it's Bush's fault" scam. BTW it is a regime and you are a willing useful idiot. While you read about terrorism, I have ve actually had to fight it.
Alan Brooks| 5.6.10 @ 8:33PM
"I knew it was only a matter of time until you came back to the "it's Bush's fault" scam."
Then no blaming of Clinton, either.
Bydand76| 5.6.10 @ 9:21PM
Or Reagan, or Nixon or Carter DUH DUH DUH!
Shut up Alan. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck Then I am calling it a Duck.
Clinton bore a lot of responsibility, AS did President Bush.
They are human and are allowed mistakes.
That does not inhibit people from pointing out the various failures OR successes.
Some intellectual honesty on your part perhaps?
Pro Libertate!
victor| 5.6.10 @ 10:49PM
Alan:
"Then no blaming of Clinton, either."
Really?
Considering that BJ had EIGHT opportunities to smoke Bin laden, that is, to cause him to assume room temperature, you have no cause to be defending that bum. Yet you do, as you defend Obama.
Jon B| 5.7.10 @ 1:20PM
Reagan's anti terror czar, Robert Oakley said in January 2001 while on Bush’s transition team, "Overall, I give him high marks on counter-terrorism. The only major complaint I have against Clinton is his obsession with getting Osama."
"Under Clinton, anti-terror was a high priority; under Bush it was ignored." hired by Reagan, worked for both Bush’s, Richard Clarke-R.
Lawrence Korb, Reagan’s former assistant Sec. Of Defense, said, “most of the credit for the initial successful military operation (in Iraq) should go to the Clinton administration.”
Clinton signed an executive order that Osama could be killed after it was proven that he was involved in the Cole bombing. When the CIA visited Osama in a US hospital in Dubai (summer of 2001), Bush let him go.
Clinton had 2 attacks submarines aimed at Osama's camps 24/7. He sent missiles twice attempting to get him. Republican's called it "wagging the dog." Bush called the subs off within a week after seizing power in 2001.
Clinton banned trade w/the Taliban. Bush lifted the ban in February 2001 and gave the Taliban $53 million on May 24, 2001 in effort to allow Unocal to build a pipeline there.
Clinton admin thwarted these terrorist attacks: plan to blow up 12 jet liners, blow up UN headquarters, FBI building, Israeli embassy, LA & Boston airports, Lincoln & Holland Tunnels, George Washington bridge.
Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani American w/huge stakes in Sudanese oil, who wanted the US to lift sanctions on Sudan, made the offer to hand over Bin Laden. When the US talked to Sudan, there was no such offer: Ijaz was not connected to the Govt of Sudan. Ijaz now works as a foreign affairs analyst at FOX news.
More on request...
Nick| 5.7.10 @ 1:45PM
Where's that source, Jon Boy?
GW| 5.6.10 @ 4:23PM
Well I'm sure you are quite an anti-terrorist expert though... [roll]...
All the warning signs were there with this guy (much like the Crotch bomber and Hassan), yet he was granted citizenship. What we need is profiling, yes, racial/religious profiling. Until white Mormons or Hispanic Catholics start trying to blow up Times Square or go on a murderous rampage through a military base, I'd argue we should focus on Muslim men of Middle Eastern origin.
Marc Jeric| 5.7.10 @ 12:08AM
You touched on it. In view of the following facts:
1) All terrorists (100%) are Muslims, with most of them being Arabs;
2) 3% of population, i.e., young blacks 18-30 years of age, commit 70% of murders or about 14,000/year, and also that most of their victims are other blacks, some 12,000/year;
3) 90% os all illegal aliens are Mexican Indians and mestizos;
then it follows that not performing racial profiling amounts to a conspiracy in assisting crimes, and should be treated as such.
Drew | 5.6.10 @ 7:16PM
Worse than that: He's actually making the problem worse.
By perpetuating the myth that America and the west are "at war" with Islam, crackpots and religious zealots like Neumyr only encourage disaffected young Muslims to try stupid schemes like the Times Square bombing.
The fact of the matter is that the "incompetent" terrorist is ALWAYS going to be harder to catch than the highly-skilled trained one. For example, had the times Square bomber purchased the sort of fertilizer that is explosive rather than merely combsustible, his purchase would have triggered an inquiry. Likewise, had he shown up in intelligence intercepts as being in communication with terror cells, he would have shown up on a watch-list.
The fact of the matter is, anyone can decide to become a terrorist. And when they do, there are certain steps they go through: looking up bomb-making instructions on the internet; reaching out to extremist leaders, and acquiring and stockpiling materials. Our counter-terrorism agencies are highly experienced at identifying people who've taken those steps. Its hard enough to identify the person who is collecting the right sort of bomb-making fertilizer. Its pretty well impossible to identify people who are stockpiling the wrong stuff.
Keeping religious nutcases like Franklin Graham out of the Pentagon is a step in the right direction. But until people like Neumayr get it through their thick skulls that loudly announcing America is at war with "Islamofascism" (an ideology that somehow doesn't actually seem to exist) only encourages terrorism - we are going to have to endure a series of stupid, incompetent, attacks like happened in Times square. One can only hope that the next one isn't succesful.
Alan Brooks| 5.6.10 @ 8:37PM
Drew should sign the terrorist (pardon, "freedom fighter") up as his law client-- for then Weasel-- I mean Faisal-- is sure to beat the rap.
Marc Jeric| 5.7.10 @ 12:11AM
Typical reaction from an "intellectual" of far-left persuasion. Before I escaped from a communist hell, I witnessed the treatment given to such "intellectuals" by our communist masters - they were all executed, just in case.
Dai Alanye | 5.6.10 @ 8:03PM
--"The 'incompetence' of the two most recent attempted attacks demonstrates that the kinds of screens and filters we've set up are working pretty well."--
Evidently this Nate person feels our "screens and filters" remove all competent terrorists, leaving only the incompetent to be handled by ordinary citizens. This is one of the stupidest flights of logic I've ever encountered.
Come join the Obama security forces where dumb luck beats the best the Islamists can throw at us.
Jon B| 5.6.10 @ 10:58PM
I suspect that "talking out of his ass" is actually an upgrade.
Richard| 5.6.10 @ 10:28AM
Let's not get complacent. Just because the last 2 terrorists were retards. Remember some of those terrorists planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks on our county. The US has a reputation for training some of the worlds best terrorists. What this shows is that with this administration even incompetent terrorists can get in and almost kill, maim people.
blarset| 5.6.10 @ 10:29AM
This is an issue we have faced several times in the last severals of years. Now we need to confront it in the next election. The right never went far enough explaining the Idealism associated with AMERICANISM- I think its time they celebrate us and our nations values of rule together and peace thru strength.
Tony in Central PA| 5.6.10 @ 10:36AM
We're seeing the same kind of mentality with this case and the underwear bomber we saw with the 1993 WTC bombing. " Whew ! The system worked. Glad that'll never happen again ! "
But it will happen again. The object of terrorists is to terrorize. They will not go back to their flower gardens and softball leagues, they'll keep trying to terrorize and kill until they succeed.
This President, by virtue of appointing people like Holder and Napolitano, as well as having the attitude that we have more to fear from our own citizenry than anybody else, has placed his future in the hands of the terrorists.
Appleby| 5.6.10 @ 11:29AM
The stupid terrorists are all 30 and under; they are the ones whose experience of life is shaped solely by TeeVee -- and the two inch screen between their thumbs. Mythbusters had a segment recemtly about a movie where someone blew up a microwave with C4; the way this nimrod rigged his bomb reminded me of the way that C4 was rigged in the movies.
Successful terrorists are those old enough to have worked with their hands and been taught to read and follow instructions. That is, they know that you just dont stick wires in that C4 at random; they actually have to perform some task.
Siegfried X| 5.6.10 @ 11:43AM
Violent crime is the problem, not a particular religion or whether a group calls itself a "militia". (Conservatives used to proudly say they stood for "law and order".)
Sadly, we can't prevent all violent crime. Beyond a certain point increasing preventative measures means giving more power to governments like Obama's.
JP| 5.6.10 @ 12:27PM
"Sadly, we can't prevent all violent crime."
That sentence indicates why we can lose this war. Terrorism isn't a crime. And to treat these groups like the Crips or Costra Nostra is why someday the terrorists will get lucky and thousands more will die. As one intel expert said, "They only have to get it right once."
We had the capability to know what Shahzad was doing in Pakistan, but failed to use the tools we possess. He should have been put behind bars years ago.
Siegfried X| 5.6.10 @ 2:18PM
It's just a crime. All violent crime is bad. No reason to make a big deal out of this rather small incident. Crimes of that magnitude happen every day in the US, done by US citizens. Drive by shootings, some spoiled brat cuts loose with rapid fire weapons at shopping malls or colleges, someone loses their job so they come back to work shooting, a disgruntled US scientist bombs his own country with a weapon of mass destruction (anthrax), ...
Shahzad is an evil spoiled brat, not anybody's soldier.
GW| 5.6.10 @ 4:31PM
Crime is something done for an advantage to the person involved. Terrorism comes w/ political or religious motivation. Shahzad was not trying to kill in order to make money or for revenge. He tried to kill because he feels it is religiously justified to kill innocent people who don't worship Allah. This is terrorism; this is an act of war.
And unlike many of the other isolated incidents you mention, most Islamoterrorists CAN be stopped before they act. But what we need is profiling and immigration reform where WE LET IN ZERO MUSLIMS. They are at war with us. What it will take to get the bullshit ideas of "diversity" and "tolerance" out American culture and government? A nuke that takes out 1 million in L.A.? A biological attack on Manhattan? We won't be safe until we rid the nation of these 7th century throwbacks.
Siegfried X| 5.6.10 @ 4:43PM
That's exactly what bin Laden wants, a religious war. He has said that many times.
What a victory for bin Laden if we tore up our constitution, freedom of religion.
The good news is that it won't happen. We'll fight all of our enemies, enemies of all religions and the godless communists, and we'll do it without tearing up our constitution. Some of those fighting to protect us, sacrificing their lives for our country, will be US muslims.
iknownothing| 5.6.10 @ 6:54PM
Seigfried X - you speak to "shredding the Constitution", which is typical of the alarmist language that liberals always spout at the sound of common sense, like Pavlovian dogs.
But could you explain to me which of GW's sensible suggestions would constitute "shredding the Constitution?" Which line in the Constitution obligates or compels our nation to allow the unlimited importation of muslims? Is the Constitution just a suicide pact to you?
Jenny| 5.6.10 @ 11:57AM
Siegried - if a particular religion is not to blame for terrorism, how can you explain the fact that all the recent terrorist attacks and attempted attacks were all carried out by adherents to a particular religion - Islam? Coincidence?
Take off your PC left-wing blinders, man.
Nate| 5.6.10 @ 1:54PM
Jenny --
Your response is completely illogical and ahistorical.
The worst terrorist attack against the US was certainly carried out by radical Islamists.
But the SECOND worst terrorist attack was carried out by white, Christian right wing wackos. Remember the bombing in Oklahoma City?
"Adherents" to Islam -- otherwise known as Muslims -- number over a billion in the world today. The number of radical Islamists in terrorist organizations has been estimated -- during the Bush years -- at around 60,000.
But say even that figure was mistaken. Say it was 600,000 or even 6,000,000. It would still be a stretch to make any direct, causal link between Islam and terrorism.
Oversimplifying the issue isn't going to make us safer.
Gr0w1er| 5.6.10 @ 3:06PM
There you go again being the useful idiot. There is no such beast as 'radical Islamist'. According to the Qur'an, there is no god but Allah, no true religion but Islam. I hope when the Muslims start shooting, they get your 'Infidel' ass first so I can take them down with my M4. Sort of killing two birds with one stone. Dumbass punk.
JP| 5.6.10 @ 3:14PM
" The number of radical Islamists in terrorist organizations has been estimated -- during the Bush years -- at around 60,000."
And it took only 19 to bring down the Twin Towers and partially destroy a wing of the Pentagon (50 if you include KSM and support and training personnel).
At the time when Nero burnt Rome Christians comprised only 1-2% of the population of the Empire; three centuries later it became the dominant religion.
In the 6th Century, Islam comprised of only a few tribes in the Arabian Penninsula. One hundred years later, it stretched from Arabia to Madrid.
In 1925, Wanabahism was just a cult of 3 nomadic tribes in Arabia. Today, it is practiced from Berlin to Jakharta and Cairo to Toronto.
Numbers do not always tell the entire story. This isn't about crime anymore. It never has been.
Nate| 5.6.10 @ 6:48PM
True. But numbers can tell some of the story some of the time, and when 1 billion Muslims go about their lives peacefully and decently some 60,000 cannot justify an accusation that Islam is somehow causally linked to terrorism.
Look. I realize what I'm saying isn't endlessly squawked on Fox News, and I realize that for this reason reading what I'm writing makes you uncomfortable. I'm willing to be patient and reasonable, up to a point, but at some point you guys need to grow up and start thinking, behaving, and speaking like men. Stop all this weak and foolish pissing around.
Tony in Central PA| 5.7.10 @ 8:38AM
The Times Square bomber was by all accounts going about his life peacefully and decently until he decided to try to blow up a few hundred people.
Liberals apparently aren't interested in why a person might decide to act in this way. I believe its because they possess such a deeply ingrained concept of relativism that they are unable or unwilling to differentiate religions on the basis of their ideas.
The assertion that Islam is somehow unconnected to terrorism is laughable. Simply look at the global statistics on the people and groups committing acts of terrorism. Certainly not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is also clear that one can readily interpret the Koran as a justification to commit acts of terror and not face any kind of sanction from theological authorities.
Tony in Central PA| 5.6.10 @ 3:45PM
" Ahistorical " ? I think the second worst attack would've been Pearl Harbor, at least in terms of civilian deaths from a single day event.
As long as we're bringing up history, contrary to the current liberal orthodoxy, Islamic conflict with the West did not begin with the George W. Bush Presidency. I recently read a book about the Middle Ages, and as Shakespeare famously said, " there's nothing new under the sun ". In 1200, the Christian West was beset by Saracens from without ( Islamists today ) and the Albigensians ( modern liberals ) from within. What I found most fascinating about this period of history is that modern liberal culture and its values is so shockingly similar to the Albigensians, or Cathari. There are even people today trying to revive Catharism. We can only hope that both modern liberalism and modern Cathrism will go the self - extinguishing route of the old Catharism.
Nick| 5.6.10 @ 4:18PM
Tony,
I agree, it is bleeding heart liberals who want to turn the clock back.
"Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it has already gone before in the ages that were before us."
-Ecclesiastes 1:10
Nate| 5.6.10 @ 6:49PM
Pearl Harbor was terrible but it was an attack on a military installation. It was terrible, but not terrorism. At some point we have to start using the word "terrorism" with some kind of restraint. It can't just be any bad thing.
GW| 5.6.10 @ 4:34PM
OKC bombing was carried out by an agnostic pissed off with the government over perhaps the worse act of genocide ever carried out by the American government. But, if you were really concerned w/ radical Islamists you would demand profiling and stricter immigration policies. But neither are being done, and we are relying on luck to keep us safe.
Nate| 5.6.10 @ 6:50PM
The worst genocide ever carried out by the government? You mean Waco?
GW, you need to reacquaint yourself with American history, my friend. Did you sleep through grade school?
Margie| 5.6.10 @ 10:58PM
That you, Liberal Reader? So typical of the twisted spouting that you do. I don't feel like bothering with all of it. Just this~ it's a lie that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. Even if he did call himself a Christian, genuine Christians do not commit murder.
Twisted Sister that you are~tell me, are you related to Nancy Pelosi by any chance?
Mike| 5.7.10 @ 8:25AM
Just for the record, Tim McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber wasn't even religious. Regardless of what his birth certificates show. In fact, he was an atheist with no religious motivations at all. In fact, where are the Christian terrorists that killed people regularly like the Muslims did? Face it, while the worst thing Islam can do is violence, the worse thing an "extremist Christian" can do is being annoying with their beliefs, even the most bigoted one.
Mike| 5.6.10 @ 12:05PM
Okay, Neumayr. Do you think the previous administration would have done better? Do you think the Coot and the Cutie, had they been elected, would have done better? Do you think you could have done better?
Its easy to sit on your butt at a computer and criticize. Maybe you can go to work in the next Republican administration. Then, I can sit on my butt at a computer and criticize you for everything you do, good, bad or indifferent 24/7.
Nick| 5.6.10 @ 2:23PM
I know you are, but what am I?
Pingback| 5.6.10 @ 12:07PM
AG: Faisal Shahzad's cooperation is 'ongoing' links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Nick| 5.6.10 @ 2:33PM
The day after President Dither was elected, all terrorists (and would-be terrorists) concluded, correctly, that the war was over. At least for four years, anyways.
They knew they could commit war crimes, and if they failed, they would get lawyers, instead of harsh interrogation techniques.
Why does the left embrace evil?
Because, that's what happens when you reject God.
Nate| 5.6.10 @ 2:42PM
On what do you base these claims?
What reason do you have to believe any of this?
How do you know what "all terrorists concluded" on the day Obama was elected?
What a jackass.
Nick| 5.6.10 @ 2:57PM
Nate,
"On what do you base these claims?"
The FOUR domestic terrorist attacks and the 15 people killed on U.S. soil since President Dither took the oath of office, Einstein.
Compared to the ZERO domestic terrorist attacks and the ZERO people killed during the remainder of President Bush's administration, after the attacks of September 11th, 2oo1. Which occured because Bubba the pervert destroyed our defense and intelligence capabilities.
Nate| 5.6.10 @ 6:44PM
You'd have to establish some kind of criteria to make this sort of judgment.
The shooting in Texas was essentially a workplace shooting. Granted it was a shooting by a psycho who had sympathies with Islamism, but who cares what his sympathies were? He went to work (the Army base) and he opened fire on unarmed people. This is terrible but not unprecedented in American life. Are you saying that no workplace shootings took place while Bush was in office?
I guess I'm not so easily blown around on the winds of passion and fear as you.
Troll Watch| 5.6.10 @ 7:28PM
Nate has been a wimp his whole life and doesn't want to think that there is a downside. Every four months or so some Muslim related event happens and the politically correct progressives try to look the other direction. They are cowards trying to take us back to 9/10. I don't want my country ending up like the hopeless English, French or Dutch. Remember in November.
Nick| 5.7.10 @ 12:04AM
Nate,
"The shooting in Texas was essentially a workplace shooting."
Are you really this obtuse?
Major Nidal Malik Hasan "[...] told a radical cleric considered by authorities to be an al-Qaeda recruiter, "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife [...]." Hasan was a Wahabi jihadist, who should swing.
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/.....id=9130339
Try keeping up with CURRENT events, Nate.
And, since you had no argument against the 3 other terrorist attacks, I assume you have been convinced by my razor sharp logic that terrorists around the world would prefer a liberal democrat, like President Dither, as C-in-C, rather than a somewhat conservative Republican.
Glad I could change your mind.
Jon B| 5.6.10 @ 7:45PM
Must be why al Qaeda preferred McCain to win as he would continue Bush's policies in Iraq that fit right in with Osama's "Bleed America to death" economically strategy.
Odd, no one here mentioned Bush's cut-n-run from al Qaeda when he lied to enter Iraq, or the fact that the war is back on since Obama is actually going after the terrorists at their base now instead of leaving them alone to train and regroup at their leisure, like Bush did after his cut-n-run in 2002/3.
Nate| 5.6.10 @ 8:29PM
Jon B
I don't think it is fair to hold an American politician -- Republican or Democrat -- responsible for what foreigners claim to support. This line of reasoning is very popular on the kooky right and the kooky left, and it just doesn't hold water.
Who cares what Al Quaeda says it supports? The notion that Al Quaeda can engage in good faith in American public discourse is crazy.
Bush and McCain aren't perfect, but I don't much care for foreign criticisms or praises of them.
Jon B| 5.6.10 @ 9:39PM
Perhaps in some cases it isn't fair, but obviously in this one it is since the example correlates to Bush's cut-n-run from al Qaeda, and McCain's posturing in agreement. My criticism was in direct response to the allegation made by Nick that Obama is "Al Qaeda's/Muslim's friend" because they've stepped up attacks in America recently. In other words, the absurdity of Nate's statement is exposed by the simple fact that we are actually going after al Qaeda now, instead of dodging them by focusing on the oil wells in Iraq. But thanks for using me as a sort of veiled way to remain credible with whomever you are actually talking too :)
Liberal Reader| 5.6.10 @ 10:03PM
After a long stint in Troll rehab I have learned that I should never have put my party and an unqualified crook from Chicago before my country. Jon B and Nate can get help and give up on their delusional path. Until they do they should be pitied.
Jon B| 5.6.10 @ 10:47PM
Bush is from Connecticut, not Chicago, silly!
Mike| 5.7.10 @ 10:04PM
I think Liberal Reader is talking about Obama smart guy!
Pingback| 5.6.10 @ 5:34PM
VIDEO: Inside Faisal Shahzad’s Hideout | Car Video Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jon B| 5.6.10 @ 6:11PM
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/
Sorry, but we have to be intellectually honest here. Shahzad’s visas and various applications for citizenship were approved, nearly every step of the way by President Bush–the man who pushed through rubber-stamping of many Islamic immigration requests and increased the number of Muslim immigrants and visas to Muslim entrants into this country. ... President Bush deliberately quadrupled the number of Muslim student visas Clinton gave out, a promise to Bush’s Saudi buddies. When Shahzad was no longer in school–during the Bush Administration–Bush made no effort to deport Shahzad, as his student visa was no longer valid and he was here illegally....
After he was no longer a student, Shahzad applied in April 2002 for an H1-B visa, and was granted this. After all, the Bush Administration was big on the baloney that there aren’t enough skilled workers and we need to bring them here (to take American jobs).
And as I’ve noted on this site many times, top former Citizenship and Immigration Services officials repeatedly protested Bush’s policies of pressuring benefits adjudicators to spend less than five minutes per immigration and green card application... Those who spoke out–like CIS Director of Security Mike Maxwell and adjudicator Sultan Farrakhan–were fired by Bush and his political appointees.
Troll Watch| 5.6.10 @ 7:17PM
Bush made Obama incompetent. Very amusing. Bush is gone and that is where Obama needs to go too. The sooner the better. We need a President who cares more about Americans and less about the sensibilities of foreigners of various types. By the way Debbie is a big and liar and has no credibility here. I would look for another source.
Jon B| 5.6.10 @ 7:50PM
Of course you have some proof that uber conservative Schlussel lied in her article? Or perhaps maybe you lied about her? I've noticed that honest conservatives are not very welcome in today's GOP.
Troll Watch| 5.6.10 @ 9:47PM
Of course liars shouldn't be trusted. Schlussel blew her credibility on her Hannity charges. I don't trust Jon B either.
Jon B| 5.6.10 @ 10:06PM
Schlussel got her info directly from Freedom Alliance tax forms: http://www.debbieschlussel.com.....es2006.pdf
"According to its 2006 tax returns, Freedom Alliance reported revenue of $10, 822, 785, but only $397,900–or a beyond-measly 3.68%–of that was given to the children of fallen troops as scholarships or as aid to severely injured soldiers."
Yet you faithfully subscribe to outlandish theories of your own making, so what are you actually saying?
Jon B| 5.6.10 @ 7:46PM
Obama's inability to correct Bush's capitulation to his Muslim friends does not make Obama responsible for Bush's mistakes, except in the right wing alternative universe you must live in, I suppose.
Troll Watch| 5.6.10 @ 9:58PM
Obama has managed an inconsistent operation. First he sucks up to every Muslim he can find while creating a bunch of confusing language (overseas contingency operations, man caused disasters, etc.). He looks the other way as Iran brutalizes its own people hoping to get a cheap piece of paper from them. Then he loses the war language while conducting an assassination campaign in Pakistan. The enemy is confused as well as his fellow countrymen. In the end he looks weak and all the poppycock from his lackeys won't make him look better. Remember in November.
Jon B| 5.6.10 @ 10:08PM
You're deliberately obfuscating the issue by confusing Obama's words towards peaceful Muslims and hoping everyone forgets that Obama is actually going after the terrorists Bush conveniently forgot about while he screwed around in Iraq. What kind of a person would do that? One with an emotion driven agenda, perhaps.
WAKE UP| 5.6.10 @ 11:06PM
"The next war will not be limited by national boundaries. Fronts will be formed within each people, because it will not be a war of nations, but of conflicting views of the world".
(Paul Schmidt, German interpreter, 1949
Nick| 5.7.10 @ 12:11AM
Jon B,
Where's the source for your lie that President Reagan gave the Soviets $45o million? Still waiting, moron.
This was after you spent days claiming it was $45o BILLION and that you remembered it clearly. As you wrote, "It was on all the networks."
JmsA| 5.7.10 @ 12:29PM
The only thing Ronald Reagan gave the tyrannical Soviets was fits and a good tongue lashing. And it worked.
Unabridged| 5.7.10 @ 12:15AM
Has anyone noticed, that no matter how trivial, or no matter how grave the situation , our lily-white, first Black President effectively removes himself from any direct connection with anything by saying "I have instructed my Administration. . ." and shoves his presidential chin in the air and compresses his lips emphatically, to make his pointless point.
"Lily-white", for those who think that is a racial slur, means "blameless". Black is what our mulatto president prefers to be called (dishonoring his white mother). So, my description is really a compliment he doesn't deserve.
Marc Jeric| 5.7.10 @ 12:19AM
Clinton record: destroyer attack, tower attack, embassy attacks, 9/11 attack - all left to happen;
Bush record: no terrorist attacks;
Abu Hussein al-Nairobi record: Ford Hood attack; underwerar bomber attack; Times Square attack.
La Napolitan says "the system worked"; Holder is worried of terrorists' rights; Obama says "let us not jump to conclusions".
Enough said - but more terrorist attacks are coming, while we give tax advantages to the new $100 million mosque close to the former World Trade Center.
Jon B| 5.7.10 @ 7:53PM
I disagree for the Daily Double, Alex...
The Hart/Rudman report, issued February 15, 2001, warned, “mass casualty terrorism against the US is of a serious & growing concern” and recommended that a National Homeland Security Agency be created to prevent catastrophic attacks. Bush ignored it.
Bush told the FBI and CIA to “Back off” of the Osama Bin Laden investigation/efforts to stop Saudi-funding of al Qaeda (#1 financial backer) in February 2001. John O’Neil, FBI counter-terrorism, resigned under protest over this. O’Neil became head of security for the WTC buildings and was killed on 9/11.
George Tenet worked himself “nearly frantic” with concern over getting numerous chatter of a major attack coming in the fall of 2001. He briefed Condi in mid-July that “there is going to be a major attack.” The CIA gave Bush 33 separate warnings of the coming attacks. Bush did nothing.
13 countries warned Bush of a forthcoming attack, and some were specific such as Russia's warning "in the strongest possible terms" that "25 al Qaeda were training as pilots in America," and Israel's warning of a "fall offensive attacking important symbols of American culture."
On August 6th, the CIA gave Bush the report entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” It warned that al Qaeda had planned to hijack planes based on earlier FBI concerns of al Qaeda operatives trying to infiltrate the US civil aviation system. There were 33 specific warnings of the coming attacks from the CIA alone.
On August 16, the INS reported that Zacharias Moussaoui seemed to be interested in hijacking a plane. The arresting agent wrote that he “seemed like the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center.”
Thomas Pickard, acting director of the FBI, grew so concerned w/the mounting terrorist threat that he requested $58 million to hire new field agents, translators & intel analysts. Ashcroft turned him down flat on Sept. 10, 2001.
Ashcroft sent his Justice Dept budget request to Bush on Sept. 10 w/spending increases proposed in 68 programs. None involved counter terrorism
Bush spent 42% of his 1st 7 months at either Camp David in Kennebunkport, or at his ranch, so Richard Clarke’s war plan against al Qaeda was delayed until Sept. 4 when he returned.
Bush protected the Bin Laden family, who funded the 9/11 attacks, since they bailed him out of 3 failed oil businesses in the 80’s, including Arbusto oil (Bush in Spanish) w/his business partner, Salem Bin Laden, Osama’s brother. Bush flew the Bin Ladens illegally out of the US w/o letting the FBI even question them.
Bush blocked all US police agencies/FBI from using federal gun records to see if any of the al Qaeda detainees attempted to buy weapons in the US.
The Pentagon, under orders from the White House refused to allow the US Army to go in & get Osama when he was trapped at Tora Bora in December 2001. 2 US Army field officers have written books about this. The CIA has been checking the books to see if any classified information is in them for over 5 years now.
When the 9/11 families of the victims investigated and sued for $1 trillion, Bush blocked the lawsuit against the Saudis, who were the chief financial backers of the 9/11 attacks.
Bush blocked checking carry-on passenger luggage for 6 months, as he wanted to privatize it, and has never required cargo checks to this day.
Bush cut-n-ran from al Qaeda/Osama in Pakistan and Afghanistan instead lying hundreds of times opposing all 16 US intelligence agencies, who by consensus said that Saddam was not a threat in the 2002 NIE, instead lying his way into Iraq for the oil.
Bush remained friends with Pakistani President Musharef, who made a peace treaty with Osama/al Qaeda in September 2006 returning weapons & prisoners & harbored Osama in peace as reported by ABC news.
Nick| 5.7.10 @ 8:19PM
Pay no attention to Jon B, folks.
He peddles lies and marxist propaganda. Oops! Redundant.
Like the lie that President Reagan gave the Soviets $425 billion.
After 3 days of trying to belittle those of us who called him out on his lie, he finally admitted his fabrication.
Although, he then claimed it was a mistake That it was actually $425 million, but he offered no source. Just his deeply flawed memories.
He also doesn't know that, in America, we refer to it as the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS), not US SC, or United States' Supreme Court.
What a moron.
Jon B| 5.8.10 @ 6:20PM
I have yet to see you debate anybody about anything. All you do is make personal attacks on people here. How old are you, BTW?
Nick| 5.9.10 @ 11:35AM
That is because you are a drive-by poster and don't know what you're talking about, on any subject.
I debate stinking liberals all the time. I try to restrict it to the bleeding hearts who aren't completely ignorant or just flat out lie all the time.
Like you Jon Boy.
Nick| 5.9.10 @ 11:39AM
Also, how did you miss my debate with Nate, from above?
A debate from which Nate ran away. Which is what most of the liberals I debate end up doing.
Now, where's that source for your lie about President Reagan?
Unabridged| 5.7.10 @ 12:19AM
"lily-white" also means "untouched by corruption" which, considering Obama's wading around in the sewer of Chicago politics and his Acorn connections is damn near conferring sainthood on him.
WAKE UP| 5.8.10 @ 12:31AM
Another subtletly that many miss (Jon B, lissen up) is that Bush INHERITED 9/11 from Clinton. Anyone who thinks it could be planned and executed from the get-go in only the few weeks Bush had been in office is in deep denial.
Pingback| 5.8.10 @ 9:24AM
Russell Brand threatens to leak photos of Katy Perry | News | Russell Brand Celebrity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
MS office 2007 | 5.8.10 @ 10:55AM
Obama does NOT have an ostrich strategy. His actions are purposful, deliberate and intentional, consistent with the neo-communist, Marxist ,hate America-firster he is.
Jon B| 5.8.10 @ 6:19PM
There is no Marxism in America. Most of you are certified delusional. Really, yes really.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.9.10 @ 12:38PM
Jon B
We would simply rather trust our lying eyes than to trust your words.
Yes really.
Jacob| 5.9.10 @ 7:33AM
Really though.. leaving mean comments about him is worse than him blowing you up.
Pingback| 5.9.10 @ 10:32AM
About American Spectator | Worldwide News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 5.9.10 @ 6:06PM
Yet another spoiled and pampered Moslem who is radicalized by the murder guide which is the Koran. Who'd a thunk it?
Pingback| 5.10.10 @ 8:08PM
. o O ( Man Boobs | Lose Man Boobs | Get Rid of Moobs | Loose Male Boobs Review: Sca links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
fsjdk| 7.1.10 @ 2:23AM
beijing massage
shanghai escorts