Tag Archives: military

Bozell Column: Medal of Dishonor

In today’s world, video war games are all the rage. The military knows that video games make young men more interested in military service, and can even make them better soldiers. As is so often the case, some of the producers of these games have taken the simulation too far. For the latest version of its wildly popular shooter game “Medal of Honor,” Electronic Arts chose to set the game in post-9/11 Afghanistan. But now it also allows players to fight as the Taliban and kill American troops. This was too much for the military. Army, Air Force, and Navy bases have announced they will refuse to sell the game out of respect to our troops who have been killed by the Taliban. “You know how many of my friends have been killed by the Taliban?” Staff Sgt. William Schober, a fan of the earlier “Medal” games, asked the New York Times. “One of my friends was sniped in the head by them. That’s something you want to have fun with?” It’s another American popular-culture embarrassment. In the international community, defense ministers in countries that have lost troops to the Taliban have also experienced outrage. Britain’s Liam Fox said he was “disgusted and angry” and “would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product.” Canada’s Peter MacKay added  “I find it wrong to have anyone, children in particular, playing the role of the Taliban.” The lifelike simulations of combat are manufactured out of a close working relationship between game producers and the military. EA made “Medal of Honor” with the consent and assistance of the Army, which gave them access to a replica of an Iraqi village used for training at Fort Irwin in California. But an Army spokesman insisted the Army wasn’t aware that users would have the capability of fighting against U.S. troops and underlined the review process would be more thorough in the future. But why continue a partnership when you’ve been conned? An EA spokesman stressed that the game was intended to celebrate American soldiers. But with the popularity of online multi-player showdowns (where one guy in Virginia can play against another guy in Idaho), game makers have increasingly offered users the options of embracing the role of bad guy. EA’s last version of the game, set in World War II, allowed players to fight against the Allied forces. As tasteless as that is, it’s history. Right now, American boys are dying every day. They deserve this nation’s highest respect, not this final insult. The amorality of these professional war-gamers can be astonishing. Last year, hundreds of parents protested Activision’s game “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2” for a scene in which players could take part in a terrorist group’s machine-gun massacre of civilians at a Russian airport. The player acts as a special-ops agent infiltrating the terrorist cell that can either choose to join in the civilian-shooting to remain “credible,” or refrain from the bloodbath. EA’s Frank Gibeau complained to the media that video games are unfairly singled out: “At EA we passionately believe games are an art form, and I don’t know why films and books set in Afghanistan don’t get flak, yet [games] do. Whether it’s ‘Red Badge Of Courage’ or ‘The Hurt Locker,’ the media of its time can be a platform for the people who wish to tell their stories.” Here we go again, the scoundrel’s final defense: It’s “art.” Video games are amazing technological products, but they are not “stories” like a book or a movie. Parents don’t worry about their kids reading Taliban books. I don’t know of any movies where the Taliban are the heroes. It’s only video games where children enter an imaginary (but most realistic and therefore, dangerous) world in which they are the main characters. In a video game, every player is the author and the movie director. The game maker only sets the parameters, and lets the player finish the story. In this case, EA has created a plot in which children can be absorbed for hours in the virtual reality of killing American solders, the best and most honorable product our nation has to offer. The idea that game makers just can’t comprehend why this would be singled out for condemnation is ludicrous. They know exactly what they’re doing as the thirty pieces of silver jingle in their pockets.

Harry Reids Dream Act – Cap and Gown Amnesty for Votes

The so-called DREAM Act would create an official path to Democratic voter registration for an estimated two million college-age illegal aliens. Look past the public relations-savvy stories of “undocumented” valedictorians left out in the cold. This is not about protecting “children.” It's about preserving electoral power through cap-and-gown amnesty. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced this week that he's attaching the DREAM Act to the defense authorization bill. With ethnic activists breathing down his neck and President Obama pushing to fulfill his campaign promise to Hispanics, Reid wants his queasy colleagues to vote on the legislation next week. Open-borders lawmakers have tried and failed to pass the DREAM Act through regular channels for the past decade. That's because informed voters know giving green cards to illegal alien students undermines the rule of law, creates more illegal immigration incentives and grants preferential treatment to illegal alien students over law-abiding native and naturalized American students struggling to get an education in tough economic times. This bad idea is compounded by a companion proposal to recruit more illegal aliens into the military with the lure of citizenship (a fraud-ridden and reckless practice countenanced under the Bush administration). DREAM Act lobbyists are spotlighting heart-wrenching stories of high-achieving teens brought to this country when they were toddlers. But instead of arguing for case-by-case dispensations, the protesters want blanket pardons. The broadly drafted Senate bill would confer benefits on applicants up to age 35, and the House bill contains no age ceiling at all. The academic achievement requirements are minimal. Moreover, illegal aliens who didn't arrive in the country until they turned 15 — after they laid down significant roots in their home country — would be eligible for DREAM Act benefits and eventual U.S. citizenship. And like past amnesty packages, the Democratic plan is devoid of any concrete eligibility and enforcement mechanisms to deter already-rampant immigration benefit fraud. The DREAM Act sponsors have long fought to sabotage a clearly worded provision in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) that states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.” Ten states defied that federal law and offered DREAM Act-style tuition preference to illegal aliens: California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington. The last time DREAM Act champions tried to tack their scheme onto a larger immigration proposal, they snuck in language that would absolve those 10 states of their law-breaking by repealing the 1996 law retroactively — and also offering the special path to green cards and citizenship for illegal alien students. Despite the obvious electoral advantage this plan would give Democrats, several pro-illegal alien amnesty Republicans crossed the aisle to support the DREAM Act, including double-talking Sens. John McCain, Richard Lugar, Bob Bennett, Sam Brownback, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, Larry Craig, Chuck Hagel, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Mel Martinez and Olympia Snowe, as well as presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (who champions even greater illegal alien student benefits than those proposed by Democrats). After paying lip service to securing the borders, McCain promised DREAM Act demonstrators this week that he supported the bill and would work to “resolve their issues.” Out-of-touch polls might want to pay attention to the world outside their bubble. A recent Quinnipiac University poll shows that Americans across the political spectrum favor tougher enforcement of existing immigration laws over rolling out the amnesty welcome wagon. When asked, “Do you think immigration reform should primarily move in the direction of integrating illegal immigrants into American society or in the direction of stricter enforcement of laws against illegal immigration?” solid majorities of registered Republicans, Democrats and independents chose stricter enforcement over greater integration of the illegal alien population. Democrats outside the Beltway have grown increasingly averse to signing on to illegal alien incentives — especially as the Obama jobs death toll mounts and economic confidence plummets. Here in Colorado, a handful of Democrats joined Republican lawyers to kill a state-level DREAM Act amid massive higher education budget cuts and a bipartisan voter backlash. Asked why she opposed the illegal alien student bailout, one Democratic lawmaker said quite simply: “I listened to my constituents.” An alien concept in Washington, to be sure. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1170564 added by: ReverandG

Lady Gaga Posts Anti-‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Video

‘I am here to be a voice for my generation,’ Gaga says before attempting to call her senators. By James Montgomery Lady Gaga Photo: Ian Gavan/ Getty Images In the days since Lady Gaga appeared at the MTV Video Music Awards with four members of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network — an organization opposed to the U.S. Armed Forces’ “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy — she has been on a mission: to speak out against what she sees as a “wrong … sick and … immoral” injustice, and to urge the U.S. Senate to vote on a measure that would repeal it. She’s traded messages with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , castigated Arizona Senator John McCain over his attempted filibuster to block the measure and instructed her more than 6 million Twitter followers to contact their senators in support of the vote, which is scheduled to take place next week. And on Friday morning (September 17) she called her own senator during a seven-and-a-half minute video posted on her website . In the clip, Gaga addresses several senators by name — including Republicans McCain, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell and Oklahoma’s James Inhofe — and asks them to vote in favor of the Defense Authorization Bill, which includes language that would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” ” ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ is a law that was created in 1993 that prevents gays from serving openly in the military. Since then 14,000 Americans have been discharged from the armed forces, refused the right to serve their country and sent home, regardless of honorable service or how valuable they were to their units,” Gaga says in the message. “[The] SLDN’s advocacy proves that these soldiers are being searched; superiors are going through their e-mails and private belongings, calling family members and operating based on assumptions. Ultimately, the law is being enforced using gay profiling. … In short, not only is the law unconstitutional, but it’s not even being properly enforced by the government. “I am here to be a voice for my generation, not the generation of the senators who are voting, but for the youth of this country, the generation that is affected by this law and whose children will be affected,” she continued. “We are not asking you to agree with or approve the moral implications of homosexuality; we’re asking you to do your job, to protect the constitution.” Gaga then provides her fans with information on how they can contact their senators about the Defense Authorization Bill and calls the offices of her senators, New York Democrats Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. Unfortunately, no one picks up in Schumer’s office and Gillibrand’s voicemail is full, but Gaga will not be discouraged. And she hopes her fans won’t be, either. “I have called both of the senators that operate in my district,” she says at the end of the video. “I will not stop calling until I reach them and I can leave them this message: ‘I am a constituent of the senator, my name is Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, also known as Lady Gaga. I’m calling to ask the senator to vote with Senators Reid and Levin to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and oppose John McCain’s shameless filibuster. We need to do this for our gay and lesbian soldiers, and finally repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ ” Related Photos VMA 2010: Lady Gaga Lookbook Related Artists Lady Gaga

Visit link:
Lady Gaga Posts Anti-‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Video

CNN’s Chetry to Koran Burning Pastor: You’ll Have Blood on Your Hands

On Tuesday’s American Morning, CNN’s Kiran Chetry used General David Petraeus’s denunciation of a planned Koran burning by a church to blast the church’s pastor for any subsequent deaths of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan: ” Are you willing to have the blood of soldiers on your hands by this demonstration? ” Chetry also lectured Pastor Terry Jones over his apparent lack of “refined” Christianity. Chetry interviewed Pastor Jones 41 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour. After asking him why he and his church were planning to burn Korans, the anchor launched into her critique of the minister: “I wanted to let you say your piece, because when I first read this story, I thought there’s no way that this could be as bad as it sounds. It appears that it is . You’re saying that you’re going to burn the holy book of another religion to send a message to the radical elements of that religion, with no thought to the fact that you’d obviously be highly offending everyone in that religion. How do you justify that?” Later in the segment, Chetry turned theologian and quoted Scripture to Pastor Jones as she continued to question his planned action: ” What about turn thy cheek? I mean, this is- you know, Christianity at its most- you know, refined. It’s that you just don’t act out in violence. You don’t act out in any manner of hate, that you turn thy cheek, that you don’t rise to the nastiness or the level of payback that your perceived enemies do. I mean, isn’t this the exact opposite of what Christ taught all of us to be and to do? ” The CNN anchor’s “blood on your hands” remark came moments later: CHETRY: I just want to ask you this: does it bother you that the military and the military leaders believe that by doing this, you are very likely putting the risk- the lives of U.S. soldiers at risk in Muslim countries? David Petraeus, the general- this is what he said: ‘Their actions will in fact jeopardize the safety of young men and women who are serving in uniform over here, and also undermine the very mission that they’re trying to accomplish.’ Are you willing to have the blood of soldiers on your hands by this demonstration? As she wrapped up the interview, Chetry again questioned Pastor Jones’s Christianity. After the minister emphasized that Islamists “must be shown a certain amount of force, a certain amount of determination,” the anchor replied, ” That doesn’t sound like the Christianity most of us were taught .” Earlier in the segment, Chetry stated how “freedom of religion is…one aspect of what makes our country so great and different from many countries around the world,” in the context of Muslims’ right to worship and build mosques, such as the Ground Zero mosque, but didn’t once raise how Pastor Jones and his church have the First Amendment right to burn Korans. This isn’t surprising, given how CNN has been using their coverage to press how “Islamophobia” is apparently sweeping the nation. The full transcript of Kiran Chetry’s interview of Pastor Terry Jones on Tuesday’s American Morning: CHETRY: This morning, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan says that a Florida church’s plan to burn the Koran on 9/11 could put the U.S. mission there and our troops at risk. Hundreds of Muslims in Afghanistan are protesting the decision, chanting, ‘Long Live Islam;’ ‘Death to America,’ we saw. That’s the latest video of the Kabul protests. There’s been others in Indonesia, as well as other places. Joining us now from the Dove Outreach World Center in Gainesville, Florida, is Terry Jones, a reverend of the church, senior pastor and the man behind the event. Thanks for joining us this morning to talk more about this, Terry. One of the things I’m wondering is- PASTOR TERRY JONES: Thank you. CHETRY: This rally is set to take place Saturday- of course, that’s September 11th. It’s also the last day of the Ramadan fast, the holiest day known as Eid in the Muslim religion. Why are you going to burn Korans? JONES: Yeah, we first declared September 11th, ‘International Burn a Koran Day’- actually, for two reasons. Number one, we wanted to remember those who were brutally murdered on September 11th. And actually, we wanted to send a very clear message to the radical element of Islam. We wanted to send a very clear message to them that we are not interested in their Sharia law. We do not tolerate their threats, their fear, their radicalness. We live in the United States of America. We want to send a clear message to the peaceful Muslims. We have freedom of speech. We have freedom of religion. They are more than welcome to be here- more than welcome to worship- more than welcome to build mosques. But our 9/11 demonstration- our 9/11 protest is to send a clear message to the radical element of Islam that we will not tolerate that in America. CHETRY: Well, I wanted to let you say your piece, because when I first read this story, I thought there’s no way that this could be as bad as it sounds. It appears that it is. You’re saying that you’re going to burn the holy book of another religion to send a message to the radical elements of that religion, with no thought to the fact that you’d obviously be highly offending everyone in that religion. How do you justify that? JONES: Well, we realized that this action would indeed offend people- offend the Muslims. I am offended when they burn the flag. I am offended when they burn the Bible. But we feel that the message that we are trying to send is much more important than people being offended. We believe that we cannot back off of the truth of the dangers of Islam- of the dangers of radical Islam just because people are going to be offended. Overseas, we see they have no problem burning our flag. They have no problem calling for the death of America- the death of our president- CHETRY: Right, but this isn’t overseas, this is America. I mean, part of- JONES: So we feel it’s time to stand up. CHETRY: But this isn’t overseas, I mean, this is America, and you just said that you welcome peaceful Muslims and you welcome people who build Korans [sic]. I mean- you know, freedom of religion is what- is one aspect of what makes our country so great and different from many countries around the world. So why would you want to play into that? JONES: We’re not playing into it at all. I just made a very clear statement. Muslims are welcome here. They are welcome to worship, as long as they submit to- obey the Constitution of the United States- do not, sooner or later, try to institute Sharia law in America. Our message is very clear- it is not to the moderate Muslim. Our message is not a message of hate. Our message is a message of warning to the radical element of Islam, and I think what we see right now, around the globe, proves exactly what we’re talking about. CHETRY: What about turn thy cheek? I mean, this is- you know, Christianity at its most- you know, refined. It’s that you just don’t act out in violence. You don’t act out in any manner of hate, that you turn thy cheek, that you don’t rise to the nastiness or the level of payback that your perceived enemies do. I mean, isn’t this the exact opposite of what Christ taught all of us to be and to do? JONES: I agree with you exactly. I think, most of the time, we as Christians are indeed called to turn the other cheek. I believe that, most of the time, talk and diplomacy is the correct way. But I also think that once in a while- I think you see that in the Bible- there are incidents where enough is enough and you stand up. Jesus went into the temple and he threw all of the money-changers out. He did not ask them to leave. He was not peaceful. He was at that time very, very upset. Even when this very close friend and disciple, Peter- even when he tried to stop Jesus from fulfilling his will- from fulfilling the father’s will, Jesus called him the devil. Jesus called the religious leaders of that time serpents and snakes. So I agree that, most of the time, diplomacy and turning the other cheek is the proper way, but sometimes not. CHETRY: Are you- you don’t care- I mean, yes or no- you don’t really care if you’re offending Muslims by burning the Koran, right? That doesn’t bother you if they’re offended? JONES: We realize that we are definitely offending them, yes. CHETRY: Okay. So I want to ask you this: does it bother you though- JONES: But we actually think that Muslims should- CHETRY: I just want to ask you this: does it bother you that the military and the military leaders believe that by doing this, you are very likely putting the risk- the lives of U.S. soldiers at risk in Muslim countries? David Petraeus, the general- this is what he said: ‘Their actions will in fact jeopardize the safety of young men and women who are serving in uniform over here, and also undermine the very mission that they’re trying to accomplish.’ Are you willing to have the blood of soldiers on your hands by this demonstration? JONES: Yeah, we are actually very, very concerned, of course, and we are taking the general’s words very serious. We are continuing to pray about the action on September 11th. We are indeed very concerned about it. It’s just that we don’t know- I mean, how long do we back down? When do we stop backing down? CHETRY: So you’re saying that you very might- you’re saying that you might well go through with this? You’re saying that you’re praying about it, you may not burn the Koran on September 11th? JONES: I’m saying that we are definitely praying about it. We have firmly made up our mind, but at the same time, we are definitely praying about it. But like I said, I mean, how long- I mean, when does America stand for truth? I mean, instead of us being blamed for what other people will do or might do, why don’t we send a warning to them? Why don’t we send a warning to radical Islam and say- look, don’t do it. CHETRY: Well, I’m not questioning- JONES: If you attack us- if you attack us, we will attack you. CHETRY: I am not questioning your intelligence, but I am wondering if you thought through the consequences of doing this, of what may happen, and whether or not you’ll end up doing far more harm than good? JONES: We are definitely doing that. We are definitely weighing the situation. We are weighing the thing that we’re about to do, what it possibly could cause, what is our actual message, what are we trying to get across, how important is that to us right now- that is very, very important that America wakes up. It’s very important that our president wakes up. It’s very important that we see the real danger of radical Islam. That’s what we’re talking about. Actually, everyone should be in agreement with us. CHETRY: All right. We have to go. JONES: There should be no disagreement there. We are not against Muslims. We’re not against the mosque. We’re against the radical element of Islam. Even moderate Muslims should be on our side. CHETRY: No moderate Muslim is going to be on your side when you’re burning their holy book. I mean, that just sounds silly. JONES: Of course, it’s not silly. You can separate yourself from that- CHETRY: You’re burning their holy book. They’re supposed to be on their side. I don’t get that part. Listen- JONES: You can say- we are not for the burning of the book, but we are for what this man is saying. What he is doing, we’re not for that. We don’t believe in burning our holy book, we don’t believe in burning the Koran- CHETRY: Just reasoning this through, don’t you think you could possibly reach out to more people by not burning the Koran on September 11th? JONES: But what he is saying- we are actually for that. We are against radical Islam. Excuse me? CHETRY: I said, don’t you think you could possibly do more good about bringing attention to your concerns about radical Islam by not burning the Koran on September 11th, by saying, you know what? We’re going to take the higher road here- we’re not going to do this? JONES: At this time, no. CHETRY: All right. JONES: I believe that we are dealing with an element that you cannot talk to. We are dealing with an element- they must be shown a certain amount of force, a certain amount of determination, and putting a stop to it. CHETRY: That doesn’t sound like the Christianity most of us were taught, but, you know what? I thank you for your time and your perspective this morning. Dr. Terry Jones, thanks for being with us. JONES: Thank you.

See the rest here:
CNN’s Chetry to Koran Burning Pastor: You’ll Have Blood on Your Hands

Islamist leader Burhan Hanif tells Aussie Muslims to ‘shun democracy’

LEADERS of the global Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir have called on Australian Muslims to spurn secular democracy and Western notions of moderate Islam and join the struggle for a transnational Islamic state. British Hizb ut-Tahrir leader Burhan Hanif told participants at a conference in western Sydney yesterday that democracy is “haram” (forbidden) for Muslims, whose political engagement should be be based purely on Islamic law. “We must adhere to Islam and Islam alone,” Mr Hanif told about 500 participants attending the convention in Lidcombe. “We should not be conned or succumb to the disingenuous and flawed narrative that the only way to engage politically is through the secular democratic process. It is prohibited and haram.” He said democracy was incompatible with Islam because the Koran insisted Allah was the sole lawmaker, and Muslim political involvement could not be based on “secular and erroneous concepts such as democracy and freedom”. His view was echoed by an Australian HT official, Wassim Dourehi, who told the conference Muslims should not support “any kafir (non-believer) political party”, because humans have no right to make laws. Mr Dourehi also urged Muslims to spurn the concept of moderate Islam promoted by governments in the West, including in “this godforsaken country” of Australia. “We need to reject this new secular version of Islam,” he said. “It is a perverted concoction of Western governments. “It is a perversion that seeks to wipe away the political aspects of Islam and localise our concerns. We must reject it and challenge the proponents of this aberration of Islam.” The conference, which followed the theme The struggle for Islam in the West' was the first major event held by the Australian branch of HT since a seminar in 2007 which coincided with calls for the group to be banned. HT is outlawed in much of the Middle East but operates legally in more than 40 countries, campaigning for the establishment of a caliphate or Islamic state. HT's platform rejects the use of violence in its quest for an Islamic state, but supports the military destruction of Israel. But the group's presence sparked angry protests outside as members of the Australian Protectionist Party (APP) yelled anti-Islam chants. The APP met in a small park to express their need to “protect” the Australian way of life. Conflict between the APP and HT amounted to an exchange of words, anti-Islam chants and the occasional drive-by of young Muslim men yelling obscenities from their car at the APP protesters. One passer-by, a young Muslim man, yelled at the APP group: “You people have absolutely no idea”, sparking a fiery exchange of accusations and finger-pointing. Nick Folkes, the Sydney organiser for the APP, believes that the HT should be banned in Australia and thinks that practising sharia law should be illegal in Australia. “Sharia law is an archaic legal system that treats woman as second-class citizens,” he said. “We're not asking them to change their skin colour or religion. But if they come here, they must reject sharia law.” added by: eden49

CBS’s Smith Excuses Obama For Not Crediting Bush With Iraq Troop Surge

On Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith served as an apologist for President Obama, who failed to credit President George W. Bush with the Iraq troop surge in an Oval Office address Tuesday night: “…while he [Obama] did not acknowledge…President Bush’s support for the surge….he at least gave it tacit agreement – approval. And he has certainly approved a surge in Afghanistan.” Smith made the defense during an interview with Arizona Senator John McCain, who took the President to task for opposing the 2007 troop surge: “…it was President Bush who made the decision – over the vociferous option of the President of the United States, then Senator Obama – to do the surge. And if we had done what President Obama wanted, we would have failed in Iraq because he even voted against the funding for it.” After Smith claimed that Obama “had a year and a half to rescind” his opposition to the surge and eventually gave “tacit agreement” to it, McCain replied: “…if we had done what he wanted to do, we would have left and we would have lost and had a horrendous setback to America’s national security.” Smith moved on to Afghanistan, still skeptical of the success of the Iraq surge strategy: “If, in fact, the surge was successful in Iraq , is that – is there a lesson from that to be applied to Afghanistan now that we’ve – there are more than 320 kids have been killed in Afghanistan this year. Are the lessons of Iraq applicable to Afghanistan?” Prior to Smith’s interview with McCain, fill-in co-host Erica Hill interviewed Vice President Joe Biden. She wondered about Obama changing focus to the economy during the prime time address: “This was, though, supposed to be a speech about ending combat operations in Iraq, about the men and women currently fighting, those who have fought. Was this really the appropriate place and time to make that transition?” On Iraq, Hill questioned the stability of the security situation: “There has been increased violence, we’re hearing more and more about the sectarian divisions. Is there any concern on the part of the administration that there could be the creation of a vacuum of sorts at this point?” Hill failed to question the Vice President about his and President Obama’s opposition to the troop surge. Hill wrapped up the interview with Biden by lobbing a softball about the economy: “…you noted the fact that Democrats and Republicans should be cooperating, should be working together on the economy. As the administration does move forward, this is, of course, a major concern for the American people. What do you have in terms of planning, looking out now, to help stimulate the economy today?” Here is a full transcript of Smith’s September 1 interview with McCain: 7:10AM ET SEGMENT: HARRY SMITH: And joining us now from Phoenix is Senator John McCain. Senator, good morning. JOHN MCCAIN: Good morning. SMITH: What did you think of the speech last night? [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Taking On Obama; McCain’s Reaction to Presidential Address] MCCAIN: Well, I was – I was pleased that the President gave such well-deserved praise to the men and women who have served and those who have sacrificed. It certainly was not generous of him when he mentioned former President George Bush as one who also appreciates the military, but the fact is, that it was President Bush who made the decision – over the vociferous option of the President of the United States, then Senator Obama – to do the surge. And if we had done what President Obama wanted, we would have failed in Iraq because he even voted against the funding for it. But the thing that disturbed me the most about it is this continued repetition that we are leaving at a date certain. You don’t win conflicts when you tell the enemy you’re leaving. Our friends are accommodating, our enemies are encouraged. A Taliban captive says ‘you’ve got the watches, we’ve got the time.’ It should be conditions-based. And when those conditions are met, then we can do exactly what we’re now doing in Iraq. SMITH: You’re referring to Afghanistan now. MCCAIN: Afghanistan, yes. I’m sorry. SMITH: One of the things – but one of the things he did say in the speech last night, the pace of reductions in Afghanistan will be determined by conditions on the ground. MCCAIN: If he had stopped there, we’d be in great shape. And then he had to repeat what was purely a political decision, no military person recommended it, that we were going to go ahead and continue – or begin our, quote, ‘withdrawal,’ the middle of next year. Look, that accounts for the behavior, to some degree, of Karzai, the –  many of the things that are happening in the region, because they believe that we are leaving. Look, Harry, I was even – I talked to a police chief outside Kandahar who said, ‘yeah, we think you’re leaving and the Taliban are telling us  they’re going to cut off our heads when you do.’ All he had to do was say it’s conditions-based. SMITH: The – I think part of the subtext of the message last night was, while he did not acknowledge the President’s – prior president, President Bush’s support for the surge, I think that- MCCAIN: Or his opposition – or his vociferous opposition and his opposition throughout- SMITH: Well he also had a year and a half to rescind it. So, he at least gave it tacit agreement –  approval and he has certainly approved a surge in Afghanistan. My question is, if – is, are there- MCCAIN: Harry, if he had had his way and he won the nomination of his party opposing Hillary Clinton, who had voted for it, that was the whole basis of his campaign. And if we had done what he wanted to do, we would have left and we would have lost and had a horrendous setback to America’s national security. SMITH: Let me ask this question, then. If, in fact, the surge was successful in Iraq, is that – is there a lesson from that to be applied to Afghanistan now that we’ve – there are more than 320 kids have been killed in Afghanistan this year. Are the lessons of Iraq applicable to Afghanistan? MCCAIN: The fundamentals are. The same general who made it succeed the last time in Iraq is in charge in Afghanistan. I think he’s the finest general that I’ve had the opportunity – ever had the opportunity of being in the company of. He believes that we can succeed. But I can tell you, the commandant of the Marine Corps said recently that the announcement of beginning a withdrawal, it gives sustenance to the Taliban. I mean, you cannot win conflicts when you say that you are leaving. And again, no military person – no military person with any military background would recommend what the President did. It was a political decision. He made it to please his political base. And he should change it. And it’s wrong to put young Americans in harm’s way when you’re telling your enemies and your friends alike in the region that you’re going to be leaving. SMITH: Alright. Senator John McCain, thank you very much for your time this morning. Do appreciate it. MCCAIN: Thank you. Thank you. SMITH: Alright, good to see you. Here is a full transcript of Hill’s interview with Biden: 7:06AM SEGMENT ERICA HILL: And joining us now from Baghdad is Vice President Joe Biden. Mr. Vice President, good morning. JOE BIDEN: Good morning, Erica. HILL: The President last night, of course, said this was time to turn the page and then took that opportunity to say, and I’m quoting here, ‘our most urgent task is to restore our economy.’ This was, though, supposed to be a speech about ending combat operations in Iraq, about the men and women currently fighting, those who have fought. Was this really the appropriate place and time to make that transition? BIDEN: Yes. It was at the end of his speech. He did speak exactly about turning the page here as well. He didn’t use that phrase. He talked about ‘change the mission.’ I’m about to go to a ceremony literally in the next hour where that is taking place. And he did speak at length about the bravery and the sacrifice made by the men and women of this country. But the truth of the matter is, at the end of the day, our ability to maintain our national security is, in fact, dependent  upon the economy. And it’s time to focus on that as well. Lastly, Erica, what he was really talking about was, just as we turn the page and are cooperating as Democrats and Republicans on the issue of Iraq, we should be doing the same thing on the economy, cooperating. HILL: When it comes to Iraq, you are there – you are there right now on the ground, of course. As people look at the Iraq that we’re seeing today, the government still in flux six months after an election. There has been increased violence, we’re hearing more and more about the sectarian divisions. Is there any concern on the part of the administration that there could be the creation of a vacuum of sorts at this point? BIDEN: Well, there’s always the possibility, long term, if this goes on, creating a vacuum. But the truth of the matter is, violence is the lowest level it’s been since we arrived in 2003. Number one. Number two, the fact of the matter is, that I have been speaking with every one of the major leaders. I’ve met with every one of the groups that are – that won portions of the vote in the election. And I’m absolutely convinced that they are nearing the ability of forming a government that will be a government representing the outcome of the election, which was very much divided. There’s 325-plus members of their parliament, the largest party got 91 votes. So, it takes a while to put together this coalition. But I believe they’re close to doing that. HILL: I do want to bring you back to the economy for one second because, as you said after that first question, you noted the fact that Democrats and Republicans should be cooperating, should be working together on the economy. As the administration does move forward, this is, of course, a major concern for the American people. What do you have in terms of planning, looking out now, to help stimulate the economy today? BIDEN: Well, a continuation of what we’re doing now, which is to stimulate the economy by continuing to focus on infrastructure by giving taxes and more tax breaks to small businesses. They’re the job creators, they’re the incubators of job creation. They need the help. And by continuing the middle class tax cut so that middle class people have disposable income in order to meet their needs and, in turn, that stimulates the economy. And I hope the Republicans, when we get back, will, in fact, lift their hold on us being able to vote on a tax cut for small businesses that is tied up in the Senate. So, I just hope we begin to focus more on job creation than on – as the leader of the Republican Party, Mr. Sessions, in charge of the election – re-election of the Congress – said that what we have to do is return to exactly what we were doing before. That’s not much of an alternative. HILL: Vice President Joe Biden, thanks for joining us this morning. BIDEN: Thank you very much, Erica. Pleasure to be with you.

See more here:
CBS’s Smith Excuses Obama For Not Crediting Bush With Iraq Troop Surge

NBC’s Matt Lauer Repeatedly Presses Joe Biden on Iraq War: Was It Worth It?

NBC’s Matt Lauer wanted one question to stick in the minds of his Today show viewers, as from the top of Wednesday’s show, to his interview with Vice President Joe Biden, the Today co-anchor repeatedly asked was the Iraq war “worth it?” As part of the analysis of the President’s Oval Office speech last night, in which Barack Obama announced an end to U.S. combat operations in Iraq, Lauer invited on Biden, in the 7am half hour, to press him about the costs of the war as he asked: “There is a question being asked in homes all across the country this morning, after seven years and 4,400 lives and tens of thousands of U.S. servicemen and women wounded, some of them horrifically, and of course billions and billions of dollars spent, was Iraq worth it?” [ audio available here ] For his part Biden responded that since he had a son who served in Iraq for a year, “I could never say to any of those parents it’s not worth it” but that didn’t dissuade Lauer from pursuing his line of questioning, from the left, as he cited a New York Times editorial to the Vice President: I want to read you something from an editorial in this morning’s New York Times. Quote: “In many ways the war has made Americans less safe, creating a new organization of terrorists and diverting the nation’s military resources and political will from Afghanistan. Deprived of its main adversary, a strong Iraq, Iran was left freer to pursue its nuclear program to direct and finance extremist groups and meddle in Iraq.” Do you agree with that assessment? The following intro and full interview with Biden were aired on the September 1 Today show: [7:00am] BARACK OBAMA: Now it’s time to turn the page. MATT LAUER: Page turner. In a primetime Oval address President Obama announces the end of combat operations in Iraq. Was it worth it? Especially for the families who lost loved ones. This morning Vice President Joe Biden tackles that question. … [7:11am] MATT LAUER: Savannah Guthrie, thank you very much. Vice President Joe Biden is in Baghdad this morning. Mr. Vice President, good morning to you. JOE BIDEN: Good morning, Matt, how are you? LAUER: I’m fine, sir, thank you very much. There is a question being asked in homes all across the country this morning, after seven years and 4,400 lives and tens of thousands of U.S. servicemen and women wounded, some of them horrifically, and of course billions and billions of dollars spent, was Iraq worth it? How do you answer that question? BIDEN: My answer, Matt, is that all the sacrifices made by the American people, but particularly by our troops, we have to, in fact, make sure that this transition to the Iraqis works. We have to make sure that when we leave here, there is a stable government that is secure within its own borders, not a threat to its neighbors, in order to, to justify all that sacrifice that, that is taking place because the sacrifice is real. LAUER: Well so you’re saying if we don’t ensure the future, it may not have been worth it? In other words, at this stage, is it still unclear whether it’s worth it? BIDEN: Matt, having a son who served here for a year and feeling lucky he came home and thinking about all those parents who didn’t have their child come home, I could never say to any of those parents it’s not worth it. What I have to say is we are committed to making sure that the sacrifices they made bear fruit and the fruit will ultimately be in a stable Iraqi government that is able to stand on their own and, in fact, is not a threat to its neighbors nor threatened by its neighbors. LAUER: You said recently that Iraq now is safe. And you know there were some 50 people killed in insurgent attacks, in the days prior to your visit there. From my understanding, since you been there, on at least three occasions, alarms have sounded warning of incoming mortars. So to, to the families of the 50,000 U.S. troops that remain, now that combat troops are gone, are their loved ones safe? BIDEN: Look Matt, the level of violence is the lowest it’s been since 2003 when we got here. There are traffic jams in the street, there are people walking around and the vast majority of the country, there are, been no attacks. The fact of the matter is that there was an uptick in violence, 12 simultaneous attacks that, in fact took place a week or so ago, creating significantly less damage than any kind of coordinated attack has in the past. It’s still dangerous. But the fact of the matter is those 50,000 troops are well equipped, well protected and they’re in a position where they’re much, much, much safer than troops were a year ago, two years ago, and three years ago. As a matter of fact safer than any time since 2003. But there’s still, there’s still danger that exists in this country. LAUER: In his speech from the Oval Office last night, Mr. Vice President, the President referred to former President Bush and he said that while the two of them were at odds on this war from the very beginning, he said that no one could doubt Mr. Bush’s quote, “support for our troops or his love of country and commitment to our security.” I want to read you something from an editorial in this morning’s New York Times. Quote: “In many ways the war has made Americans less safe, creating a new organization of terrorists and diverting the nation’s military resources and political will from Afghanistan. Deprived of its main adversary, a strong Iraq, Iran was left freer to pursue its nuclear program to direct and finance extremist groups and meddle in Iraq.” Do you agree with that assessment? BIDEN: Well look all I’m gonna focus on today, Matt, is Iraq. The fact of the matter is, that, we are moving in a direction where the Iraqis are better positioned to be able to be successful, free and not a destabilizing force in the world but a positive force. And the question about whether or not credit is deserved, who deserves the credit for this beginning of a fundamental transition, I don’t think is worth arguing about. The truth of the matter is there were a lot of mistakes. There’s no doubt that the President and I both disagreed with the way in which the war had begun, how it was conducted, etc. But, but the truth of the matter is, that at, by the end of the last administration, a transition was in place, there was a political movement that was afoot. We kept on Secretary Gates, our present, we kept on General Petraeus, we kept on a continuity here to finish the job and that’s what we’re in the process of doing. LAUER: Vice President Joe Biden joining us from Baghdad, this morning. Mr. Vice President, I thank you for your time. BIDEN: Thanks an awful lot, Matt. I appreciate it.

Read more:
NBC’s Matt Lauer Repeatedly Presses Joe Biden on Iraq War: Was It Worth It?

YouTube Jihad: American Terror Imam Radicalizing Muslim Youth Online

He may be playing hide-and-seek from drone missiles in the caves of Yemen, but Al Qaeda cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki is still attempting to poison the minds of young Muslim Americans through the use of YouTube and other social media. The extent of Al-Awlaki’s reach on the internet is outlined in a new report released by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) on Aug. 28. The report describes the millions of views garnered by Al-Awlaki’s YouTube video clips and the online networking of his rabid fan base. A former imam at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Virginia, the American-born Al-Awlaki has increasingly been using social media as a recruiting method for would-be jihadists, leading terrorist watchers to dub him the “[Osama] bin Laden of the internet” and the “sheikh of YouTube.” Al-Awlaki has been tied to the Sept. 11 hijackers, the Christmas Day bomber and the Fort Hood shooter. This past spring, President Obama ordered that the cleric be killed on sight, but the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on Aug. 30 to prevent the military from targeting the U.S. citizen without a trial. According to MEMRI, after Al-Awlaki’s personal website was shuttered in 2009, YouTube became the “largest clearinghouse of his online videos.” “A quick tabulation of viewings of Al-Awlaki’s 2,500-plus clips – comprising lectures, sermons, and compilation videos supporting his jihadist philosophy – now indicates well over three million views, and counting,” MEMRI reported. “These clips include Al-Awlaki calling Muslims to jihad, expressions of support for martyrdom attacks, and encouragement to kill American soldiers.” Al-Awlaki has even begun posting his recruitment videos directly to YouTube, as opposed to the radical Islamist websites that normally host those types of clips. A search for “Al Awlaki” on YouTube turns up 4,600 results, These videos are publicly accessible, and can easily be viewed by children. In one extreme case, a young American Muslim follower of Al-Awlaki created a “Jihadi Fan Club” page on YouTube, which MEMRI called “a clear example of a young American convert radicalized by YouTube.” “Anwar Al-Awlaki is NOT a terrorist. He simply wants America to change its unjust foreign policy,” wrote Jihadi Fan Club on his YouTube page. “He does NOT call for fighting out of hatred for America, he call for fighting in the name of self defense. Anwar Al-Awlaki tells the sincere Muslims to fight against the U.S. troops and all the oppressors of the Muslims.” Underneath one video in support of the Ground Zero mosque, Jihadi Fan Club posted a shout-out to Al-Awlaki and Abu Monsour Al-Amriki – an American-born member of terror group Al-Shabab who posts his own rap videos endorsing jihad on YouTube – thanking the terrorists for their “inspiration.” In another post, Jihad Fan Club argued that the Americans murdered on Sept. 11 were not innocent civilians, and that they deserved the attack because they supported the U.S. economic and foreign policies. “[P]eople want to say, ‘Well, the people who did 9/11, they attacked innocent people.’ Well not necessarily; you pretend like the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was a daycare center or a maternity ward. No. The World Trade Center was the epicenter of American economy that funds so much death and destruction in the Muslim world,” wrote Jihad Fan Club under a video expressing support for the Sept. 11 attacks. “If the people who did 9/11 wanted to kill innocent people, they would have bombed a school, they would have bombed a church, they would have bombed a daycare center, they would have bombed a grocery store.” Underneath a video of a CNN news program, Jihad Fan Club wrote that “Muslim lap dogs” are trying to trick other Muslims into condemning terrorism and being kind to non-Muslims. “Killing the innocent is WORNG [sic], but CNN has an EVIL agenda which is to trick you into thinking that terrorism is caused by misguided Muslims instead of U.S. foreign policy,” wrote Jihad Fan Club. “They also want you to spend your time condemning terrorist attacks instead of using your power to fight against the American government, its puppet regimes and its allies which is the cause of all the violence in the Muslim world and the terror attacks in the US & Canada. Oh Muslims please do not be fooled by these evil disbelievers and their Muslim lap dogs. A real Muslim is always harsh towards the non Muslims and lenient towards the Muslims.” Jihad Fan Club’s page also features videos by the American-born Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn, and praise for terror leader Osama bin Laden. Al-Awlaki’s use of the internet as a recruiting tool is noteworthy, especially because of the success the cleric has had at recruiting and inspiring American-grown terrorists in the past. MEMRI lists more than a dozen terrorist suspects that were radicalized through Al-Awlaki’s online presence, including Paul and Nadia Rockwood (an Alaskan couple who made a “hit-list” of U.S. officials who “desecrated Islam”), Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, Time Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, and Sharif Mobley (a 24-year old American who is charged with killing a Yemeni soldier). Al-Awlaki was also a spiritual adviser to two of the Sept. 11 hijackers and Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. But MEMRI noted that the jihadist infiltration of YouTube is unlikely to end soon. “[A]s Western governments increasingly take down and interfere with traditional terrorist websites, Al-Qaeda and other jihadists have grown more dependent upon on YouTube and other social media outlets, including Facebook and Twitter. To date, these outlets seem unprepared to effectively address this problem,” the group reported. According to YouTube’s “Community Guidelines,” hate speech is not permitted on the website. “We encourage free speech and defend everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view. But we don’t permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity),” reads the Community Guidelines. A spokeswoman for YouTube told the Media Research Center that “Because it is difficult to verify the identity of users who post videos…an individual who claims to be a member of a terrorist organization (a claim we may not be able to verify) but who posts videos and comments that comply with the rules, may not be suspended from the site.” However, she said that users who “encourage others to commit specific, serious acts of violence, with or without claiming membership in a terrorist group, would be in violation of our policies.” One of the reasons why YouTube has difficult time addressing the problem of terrorist videos on the site may be because the enormous number of videos uploaded each day makes it nearly impossible to review and approve each one individually. “Every minute, 24 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube, totaling hundreds of thousands of videos every day.  To be able to offer YouTube at this scale, we cannot review content before it goes live,” said the spokeswoman. This isn’t the first time that YouTube has been cited for having controversial content on its site. A Media Research Center special report found that the website features thousands of sexually explicit videos, including soft-core porn, and is often used by porn producers to drive traffic to their X-rated websites.

Read more:
YouTube Jihad: American Terror Imam Radicalizing Muslim Youth Online

Imam to FBI (2003): ‘U.S. Response to 9/11 Could Be Considered Jihad’

Defenders of controversial imam Feisal Abdul Rauf have been touting his past efforts in offering counterterrorism advice to the FBI as a way to illustrate his bridge-building intentions.  Much like other reports, they tend to gloss over the more controversial aspects of Rauf’s statements.  But, as is typical with the Ground Zero mosque imam, it can be demonstrated that he is frequently speaking with a forked tongue. There is no doubt that Rauf has made some questionable and incendiary comments regarding America and her role in the Muslim world.  Perhaps these statements fit the imam’s overall rhetoric involving U.S. complicity in the attacks of 9/11.  As does the following statement to the FBI , which is conveniently omitted from media reports defending Rauf. Bridge-building imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was giving a crash course in Islam for FBI agents in March of 2003 .  When asked to clarify such terminology as ‘jihad’ and ‘fatwa’, Rauf stated (emphasis mine throughout): “Jihad can mean holy war to extremists, but it means struggle to the average Muslim. Fatwah has been interpreted to mean a religious mandate approving violence, but is merely a recommendation by a religious leader.  Rauf noted that the U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks could be considered a jihad , and pointed out that a renowned Islamic scholar had issued a fatwah advising Muslims in the U.S. military it was okay to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan.” Well, wait a minute.  Which version of the word jihad is he referring to when he speaks of the U.S. response itself?  Is it the struggle he speaks of for the average Muslim, or is it the holy war?  Getting very little run in the media is an analysis of Rauf’s FBI days in the New York Post .  Contained within Paul Sperry’s column is a question of whether Rauf actually knows the definition of jihad, or if he simply presents things ambiguously to make things more difficult on the agents he is trying to teach.  While Rauf passes jihad off as nothing more than a struggle, Koranic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali disagrees, insisting that jihad ‘means advancing Islam, including by physically fighting Islam’s enemies.’ Sperry then questions, ‘If he (Rauf) believes jihad is really just an internal struggle, then why does he refuse to condemn Hamas? (Why, for that matter, did he in late 2001 suggest that “US policies were an accessory to the crime” of 9/11?).’ And speaking of the fatwa advising Muslims in the U.S. military that it was okay to fight the Taliban … The renowned Islamic scholar that Rauf is referring to is Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi.  In a New York Times article one month after 9/11, Rauf was quoted as saying: “This fatwa is very significant. Yusuf Qaradawi is probably the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.” Question is, was that hollow fatwa (a hotwa as it were) more significant than Qaradawi’s proclamation on Al Jazeera two weeks earlier?  Qaradawi stated: “A Muslim is forbidden from entering into an alliance with a non-Muslim against another Muslim.”  He called on Muslims to “fight the American military if we can, and if we cannot, we should fight the U.S. economically and politically.” Qaradawi elaborated on that non-fatwa fatwa in 2004 when he said of American troops : “…all of the Americans in Iraq are combatants, there is no difference between civilians and soldiers , and one should fight them, since the American civilians came to Iraq in order to serve the occupation. The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is a [religious] obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately. The mutilation of corpses [however] is forbidden in Islam.” Abduction and killing is an obligation, but he draws the line at corpse mutilation.  Very classy. Perhaps the media should not be relying so heavily on the imam’s efforts within the FBI anyway.  Lest we forget, the FBI doesn’t exactly have a great track record in spotting red flags being raised by a radical imam.  Families of the victims at Fort Hood can attest to that.  In their defense, the FBI was constantly compromised by over-sensitivity training when it came to Muslims.  But when Nidal Hasan was chatting it up with Anwar al-Awlaki, they suspected it was nothing more than a simple case of psychiatric research. Is all this nothing more than parsing the double talk of a ‘moderate’ imam, or is it something more alarming? Rusty can be contacted through his website:  The Mental Recession .

Original post:
Imam to FBI (2003): ‘U.S. Response to 9/11 Could Be Considered Jihad’

Amanpour Offers Bitter-Clinger Variation To Explain Beck Rally Success

Christiane Amanpour just sealed her victory as recipient of my Obama Parrot of the Week Award . .   That’s the dubious prize I give out to on my local TV show to the media member most ardently echoing the Obama party line.  The moderator of This Week sewed up the win with her remarks on GMA this morning, as she sought to explain the big turnout at Glenn Beck’s rally yesterday. Readers will recall that at that ritzy fund-raiser in San Francisco, candidate Obama explained the attitudes of poor rural Pennsylvanians in terms of “bitter” people who “cling” to their religion and values.  Check out Amanpour’s analysis of those attending the Beck rally and other similar events, and see if it doesn’t sound eerily similar. CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR:  Most of the speeches, which were about religion , about God, about the title of the march, which was Restoring Honor, which meant about the military, and every time that the speakers spoke about members of the military at war in Iraq and Afghanistan there were huge cheers. And it was about—as speaker after speaker kept saying—restoring patriotism and proud-to-be-an-American .  I point that out because I think that it was gets such a big cheer from people. And perhaps when we try to figure out why there’s such a huge number of people coming to these rallies, in a period of time when people feel such anxiety, such anger, such sort of worry about what’s going on around them—the economy and the rest—they come here and they hear a feel-good message, and that they respond to. Sounds like Amanpour sees religion and patriotism as . . . the opiate of the masses.

See the rest here:
Amanpour Offers Bitter-Clinger Variation To Explain Beck Rally Success