Oh, you just know.....

....That this will not end well.


George W. Bush Secretly Visits Fort Hood Victims

A decent President, and for that matter, a decent man would have made mention of the event at Ft. Hood before giving a "shout-out" to cousin Pookie, or Dr. Joe Medicine Crow, a "Congressional Medal-of-Honor winner" (who, in fact, does not have a MOH, but rather was awarded a Congressional Medal of Freedom), not to mention knowing that the Congressional Medal of Honor is not "won", but rather "awarded".

But Zero has not, now a year after he was elected, found his feet as our Commander-in-Chief, but still acts as our Community-Organizer-in-Chief. A man who was a real C-in-C would have canceled his golf game this weekend, and asked his allies in the Congress to postpone their debate and vote on his key domestic agenda item until next week while he went to Ft. Hood to be the Commander-in-Chief that he was elected to be. As it is, Bush gave Zero ample opportunity to do this, and when he had not, made the proper effort to attend to the troops.

I have to believe that somewhere at Camp David,
Michelle is flinging the crockery.

Every now and then.....

....I get reminded that a place one would consider to be one of the safest places on the planet can, in a moment, turn quite dangerous.

I don't carry my CCW often, and when I do, WifeofAzlib often thinks I'm crazy for doing so. But this event can happen any time in any grocery store, mall or movie theater in America (and frankly, I'm surprised that it hasn't happened more frequently). WifeofAzlib, SonofAzlib, and Dau#1ofAzlib are all old enough to CCW, yet each for their own reasons have chosen to not get their permits. I'm hoping that they each reconsider. SonofAzlib has a nice CCW weapon, a Walther PPS, but he rarely shoots it. Dau#1- and WifeofAzlib each have .380 handguns, but they get to the range even less frequently, and frankly the .380 is a sub-standard caliber anyway. They don't know this yet, but they may be getting something in a 9mm sometime before Christmas.

And I will be carrying my Glock23c more frequently.

BTW, the media are now wondering how a shooter with two handguns could get off so many shots. Its not hard at all. A Glock17 has a standard magazine capacity of 17 rounds, and third-party magazines are available up to 33 rounds. Do this with two handguns and you're at 68 rounds without having to reload....more than enough to kill 11 and injure 31.

You simply must....

Read both these accounts courtesy of Sean Linnane.

Twin Towers 9/11: A First Hand Account Part 1.

Twin Towers 9/11: A First Hand Account Part 2.

Sean promises more to come, and I'll update this when it appears.

Update: And here is the conclusion.

Twin Towers 9/11: A First Hand Account (Conclusion).

Go. Click. Read. Now.

Geez....

This Andy McCarthy fella is one smart dude.

Here, he highlights the problems with Zero bringing to America, for any reason, any of the Gitmo terrorists/detainees/choirboys we abducted from the battlefield. I once called Zero "President Strawman", but Andy expands on this and points out the straw men that Zero does not erect because they cannot be knocked down.

"...Some of my outstanding Cabinet Members and Advisors..."

Courtesy of Allah, I see this....



As you will note in the upper right, I am an airline pilot. This may not be obvious, but this means that I fly with a number of different First Officers all the time. Occasionally, I will fly with a different F/O on each leg. I cannot tell you how many times I've looked over to my right to a guy who I have been sitting next to for the past two days, and silently asked myself: "What is his name?". With Flight Attendants, it is even worse. I have only a cursory exposure to them...frequently not even meeting some of them at all.

That said, I've always believed it is important for "The Boss" to at least know his subordinate's names. And, since I know this is a weakness of mine, I know I have to work to make sure I do. I don't always succeed (especially with the F/As), but I do try.

And as myrenovations notes, for the President of the United States, in an address on National Security, to mis-identify the Secretary of Defense is "awkward", in the very least. For him to make this mistake in the presence of his famous teleprompters is doubly awkward and unforgivable.

Oh, Snap....

Closing Guantanamo was "a hasty decision".

It was a light blogging week, but....

I just noticed that it has been a week since I put something up here. Its not that I haven't been active on the intertubes...I have. I'm on vacation now, which means I've been catching up on things around the house (a pool repair project, a new door, fixing the lawnmower [again--groan]), preparing for our 25th Anniversary Vacation (Yeah!), studying for recurrent (Boo!), and spending more time on That-Forum-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named than I should.

All that said, the topic of the week was, still, "torture". It came in many incarnations...from Zero's decision to not release the photos of the "torture", to Nancy Pelosi's continuing down the bizarre path that They-Only-Told-Me-They-Were-Gonna-"Torture"/I-Was-Only-Briefed-That-There-Was-A-Briefing/The-CIA-Lied-"Mislead"-Congress/No-Make-That-"The-Bush-Administration-Lied". Leon Panetta has now found himself involved.

The "Torturous" video here....

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And on That-Forum-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named "torture" was still the topic. I posted the following over there (de-identified, of course) to one of my die-hard "torture-is-immoral" oppponents (is that an oxymoron?).

Posted By [Me] on 13 May 2009 07:38 PM

Posted By [A guy with similar views] on 13 May 2009 10:07 AM
...[My first name], help me here.

Maybe this is what you're looking for....

Regarding "torture", [My opponent] and his fellow travelers will say...

Posted By [My opponent] on 12 May 2009 10:05 PM

No, what we do to them defines us....

As they gaze at their navels in the search for every one of our imperfections, they fail to wonder:

If we are defined by what we do to them, is our enemy similarly defined by what they do to us?

While, just as in every religious sect, in Islam there are different interpretations of the meaning of religious texts, the Sura 9:29 says...

"You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly."

...and I have seen this alternative translation...

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are people of the book (i.e. Christians or Jews) until they pay the Jiyza with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."

Also relevant is Sura 9:30...

"They have set up their religious leaders and scholars as lords, instead of GOD. Others deified the Messiah, son of Mary. They were all commanded to worship only one god. There is no god except He. Be He glorified, high above having any partners."

When a Christian or Jew listens to a preacher or a Pope, the Islamists believe that they are blaspheming God/Allah. They call us "polytheists" for employing these intermediaries between ourselves and God. Moreover, whenever we elect people to represent us in a democracy, they believe that we are elevating a man to a place that God ought to occupy.

Christians and Jews share the Old Testament, and therefore the Book of Genesis. In Genesis, we see the story that God created the Heavens and Earth in six days, and on the seventh day He rested. He created a day free of work so that He could stop and appreciate--love--all that He had created. And, of course, one of the things that He created was man. Moreover, man was created in His image. [This idea itself is enough for the Islamists to believe that we are heretics.] But given that we are in His image, one of the things we accept is that we too have a day free of work in which we set aside time to worship Him and appreciate the wider world. But, because God also gave us freedom....we are also free not to worship. That choice may generate some consequences in this life or the next, but the point being that we are free to make that choice in our religious life.

The Islamists don't believe in this freedom, either in the choice of whether to worship or to whom. They believe that Allah determines and controls everything. They believe that the reason that the very molecules in our bodies do not fly apart into a random oblivion is only due to Allah's will. To deny Allah's will, either directly or by maintaining another faith, is blasphemy.

The Islamists also believe that any lands which were ever Islamic are always to be Islamic. The "Israel Problem" is a combination of their quest to reclaim territory and a fight against freedom-loving non-believers.

And speaking of freedom-loving non-believers, the Islamists are almost as unhappy with democratic Muslim states and Muslim states who cooperate with the West as they are with the West itself. They believe that any Muslim who casts a vote is denigrating that which is due to Allah. They were especially incensed at Saudi Arabia for allowing the infidel West to defile their lands in Desert Storm. They remain unhappy that SA does business with the West.

What this all adds up to is that the Islamists believe they have a duty--a religious duty--to fight anyone who denies Allah or Muslims who cooperate with these infidels.

I imagine you're wondering: Why did I take you down this path?

Well, I did this to again make the case that we are in an existential fight against a measurable portion of Islam. Like it or not, we are in the worst sort of war: A religious war. Beyond the lands that the Islamists seek to retake and rule under Sharia, they are also after our religious hearts. They seek to take everything we have: Our lands; our freedoms; and our religions. It is a telling omen that when Steve Centani and Olaf Wiig were kidnapped by the Palistinians in Gaza, one of the conditions of their release was that they were made to convert to Islam at gunpoint. You can pooh-pooh this by reasoning that a forced conversion is not a valid conversion, but how can you be sure? Does not God have the power to recognize conversions? Moreover, this is entirely consistent with how the Islamists view the world. We believe we have the freedom to make our own religious choices; They believe in no such thing. They are completely intolerant.

And when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed sawed off the head of the Jewish Daniel Pearl, he too was being completely consistent. They believe they have the right, and the duty, to rid the world of those who do not believe as they do.

So after we captured Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, we found him to be resistant to all our efforts at getting what he knew. So then we gnashed our teeth and asked the OLC to give a legal opinion on just how enhanced our Enhanced Interrogation Techniques could be. So after we decided how and whether we could waterboard him, he gave up Abu Zubaydah after the EIT. When we captured Zubaydah and found him also resistant to our questioning, we waterboarded him and then Zubaydah gave up KSM. KSM also resisted until waterboarded, and through all these EITs, we learned information that saved American lives.

[My opponent] says: So what? We could have learned what they knew without resorting to these EITs--this "torture". He can't possibly know this. You can never know the conditions on the path that you chose not to take. Moreover, he cannot know the fourth dimension here--the time required to yield the same results if we chose to take some less "torturous" techniques. This is why Zero retains his Jack Bauer exception to the ticking time-bomb scenario. And this also makes those who decried the previous administration over "torture", yet continue to support Zero, hypocrites on this matter.

Christians are commanded to turn the other cheek. Yet we are also allowed to defend our beliefs.

FWIW, if you've reached this far and are interested in more of I've come across here, this post speaks to the Recent Statements of Islamic Ideology as heard through bin Laden and Zarqawi and this post speaks to Islam vs Free Democracy and Free Enterprise. I read all of the first and can recommend it, and the introduction of the second and can recommend it to that point.

On Obama and Pirates....

Jon over at Exurban League has a wickedly cutting take on Obama and the current crisis with Pirates. The fellas over there are getting all sorts of attention for this, from a mention on Hugh Hewitt's show to another mention on Rush's show to a hit on HotAir's headlines. It is quite a funny bit, and you ought to take some time to read it.

However, I'd like to take the question a bit more seriously.

There are all sorts of comments here and there in the 'sphere to the effect that we can't take action to free Capt. Phillips without unnecessarily endangering him. Apparently, he has tried to escape, only to be recaptured.

I think we are missing a crucial point: Shipping in the area is already in danger. There are reports of as many as 200 hostages being held from as many as a dozen ships. Each one of these hostages is being held in as real a threat to life as Capt. Phillips is enduring.

The Somali pirates are Muslim, but the point of their piracy seems to be financial rather than the political aims of the al Qaeda terrorists. This, I think, is a distinction without a difference.

As I admit to in the sidebar, I am an airline pilot. And here is what I know.....

Federal Air Marshals and Federal Flight Deck Officers (armed pilots) are on commercial flights today because aviation remains in danger from terrorists. These law enforcement officers are there to keep someone from taking control of another airplane. If there is no FAM or FFDO onboard, the American passenger should know that the government of the United States will send fighters up to keep a hijacked airplane from another 9/11 attack. The government, in one capacity or another, will act to keep that from happening. Allowing another airplane to be hijacked is unacceptable.

In the not-so-distant past, we had a religious group resist a search by the BATF and barricade themselves inside their compound. There was a whole host of things the government did wrong leading up to the search. I've always believed that because the Branch Davidians were harming no one with their peculiar apocolyptic views, that they should have been left alone. That said, the government should expect, once shots have been exchanged, that everyone involved should respect the law enforcement and legal system, and the Davidians clearly did not do this. At some point, the government decided to send in the tanks.

Whenever I fly, I know that a law enforcement officer might have to shoot someone. And as a shooter, I know that sometimes bullets overpenetrate or completely miss their targets. Further, as I have said, if there are no government shooters on a hijacked flight, everyone should know that it is likely that an Air Force fighter will shoot that plane down rather than allow it to impact another American target. In the interests of the larger good, we have to know that the passengers are expendable.

Captain Phillips, having already demonstrated his honor by exchanging himself for some of his men, and his bravery with his escape attempt, will also know that he is expendable.

This piracy cannot continue. That the failed state of Somalia has created the incentive for these criminals to enter into their piracy is no excuse for us to tolerate it. The French (!) have already been more bold than we have been, and the Chinese are flexing their muscles in the Indian Ocean. We must end this thing, even if it means that some innocents are hurt or killed. Allowing skinny Somalians to standoff against the US Navy is unacceptable.

Teleprompter Jesus....

...A richly-deserved term for Zero's habit of relying on his teleprompter to tell him what is on his mind, is now morphing into....

President Strawman. Once again, Zero erects the strawman with the implication that "the Bush administration was fighting Islam", and now President Strawman will reverse course and knock that strawman down.

[OK. OK. OK. It's only 8am and I see I've already used up my daily quota of mixed metaphors. Gotta work on that.]

What...

...Bush said in front of the Israeli Knesset...



Obama's response...

"...George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel...."

However, Obama also said...



What Obama wants us to believe here is that he thinks there is a difference between a state that supports terrorists and the terrorists themselves. He would talk to the former, while denying he would talk to the later.

On this count I can't help but wonder: Would Obama talk to the Afghan Taliban while attacking the al Qaeda in Afghanistan?