LIZ CHENEY Drops Out Of WYOMING U.S. Senate Race (Political Backlash From GLAAD??)

#LIZCHENEY

LIZ CHENEY is dropping out of the WYOMING U.S. Senate Race.

Was she run off the campaign trail by GLAAD & other GAY Activist Organizations??

I can imagine Senator ENZI is somewhere laughing right about now.

But I personally believe LIZ CHENEY would have been an Asset to the U.S. Senate.


ARTICLE: "Liz Cheney To Abandon Senate Bid"


Liz Cheney, whose upstart bid to unseat Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi sparked a round of warfare in the Republican Party and even within her own family, is dropping out of the Senate primary, she said in a prepared statement Monday morning.

"Serious health issues have recently arisen in our family, and under the circumstances, I have decided to discontinue my campaign," she said.

Cheney, the eldest daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, began telling associates of her decision over the weekend, CNN reported late Sunday night.

"Though this campaign stops today, my commitment to keep fighting with you and your families for the fundamental values that have made this nation and Wyoming great will never stop," she added.

Cheney's surprising decision to jump into the race, an announcement made in a YouTube video last summer, roiled Republican politics in the Wyoming, a state that Dick Cheney represented in Congress for five terms before moving up the Republican food chain in Washington.

Enzi was a low-key presence in Washington who was elected in 1996 and, with few blemishes, amassed a conservative voting record in the Senate. He expressed public annoyance at Cheney's decision to mount a primary challenge. A number of his Senate colleagues quickly rallied to his side and pledged support for his re-election bid.

There was little public polling of the race, but two partisan polls released last year showed Enzi with a wide lead, an assessment mostly shared by GOP insiders watching the race.

Cheney's campaign got off to a rocky start.

Her critics labeled her a carpetbagger, noting that she moved to Wyoming only in 2012 after relocating from Virginia. The issue flared in August after the Wyoming media reported that Cheney improperly received a fishing license despite not living in the state for at least a year, as the law requires.

Grabbing even more attention was her very public dispute with her sister, Mary, over the issue of same-sex marriage. Mary Cheney, who is a lesbian, took to Facebook in November to object to Liz Cheney's opposition to same-sex marriage, claiming that her sister has previously supported her relationship while saying something very different on the campaign trail.

The dispute prompted their parents to weigh in, saying they were "pained" to see the sisters battle over a private matter in full view of the news media.

Beyond the campaign missteps, Cheney's election effort, vigorously supported by her father and his allies, often felt out of tune with the small-government conservative sentiment that has fueled other Republican primary challengers.

Cheney, like her father, is an unapologetic neoconservative who favors muscular use of American military power overseas, a policy that does not sit well with many grassroots conservatives, particularly in the libertarian-leaning West.


Sources: AP, CheneyforWyoming, CNN,

"Damn Right!" Bush On Waterboarding Terrorists; Gave It His All

Bush On Waterboarding: "Damn Right!"


Former President George W. Bush has stayed out of politics since he left the White House and, except for his own career, he largely keeps the subject at arm's length in his new memoir, "Decision Points."

In an interview with Oprah Winfrey to air on Tuesday when the book is to be released, Bush said he is "through with politics" and refused to offer an opinion on the 2012 presidential election.

"I am not a Political Pundit. I'm really not," Bush said. "A lot is gonna happen between now and the nominating process."

He also passes on commenting on President Obama, saying he wants to treat his successor the way, "I'd like to have been treated."

"I don't think it's good for a former president to be out there opining on every darned issue," Bush told Winfrey. "He's got a plenty tough job. Trust me. And there's gonna be plenty of critics and he doesn't need me criticizing him."

In the 481-page book Bush compliments Obama's political skills during a meeting before the 2008 election as the Financial crisis was coming to a head. He also criticizes the performance of his party's nominee, John McCain, in the same meeting.

He criticizes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for the failure of his efforts to Reform Immigration laws in 2006.

Bush takes responsibility for giving the go-ahead for Waterboarding terror suspects, which has touched off a new round of criticism of Bush and calls for his prosecution. He says that he did decide not to use two more extreme interrogation methods, but did not disclose what those were.

Here are excerpts from the book, which CNN obtained on Friday:

'The choice between security and values was real'

Bush reveals the decision points that led him to choose Waterboarding as an Interrogation technique.

"CIA experts drew up a list of interrogation techniques. ... At my direction, Department of Justice and CIA lawyers conducted a careful legal review. The enhanced interrogation program complied with the Constitution and all applicable laws, including those that ban torture.

"There were two that I felt went too far, even if they were legal. I directed the CIA not to use them. Another technique was Waterboarding, a process of simulated drowning. No doubt the procedure was tough, but medical experts assured the CIA that it did no lasting harm."

Though Bush confirms that he knew the use of Waterboarding would one day become public, and acknowledges that it is "sensitive and controversial," he asserts that "the choice between security and values was real," and expresses firm confidence in his decision. "Had I not authorized Waterboarding on senior al Qaeda leaders, I would have had to accept a greater risk that the country would be attacked. In the wake of 9/11, that was a risk I was unwilling to take," he writes.

Bush further declares that the new techniques proved effective, yielding information on al Qaeda's structure and operations, and leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh, the logistical planner of the 9/11 attacks who was captured on the first anniversary of 9/11.

And if there were any lingering doubts or conflict about the use of Waterboarding, Bush discloses that he received reassurance from an unlikely source: terror suspect Abu Zubaydah.

The former president writes, "His understanding of Islam was that he had to resist Interrogation only up to a certain point. Waterboarding was the technique that allowed him to reach that threshold, fulfill his religious duty, and then cooperate." Bush elaborates that Zubaydah gave him a direct instruction, "'You must do this for all the brothers.'"

Intelligence gleaned from Interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and other suspects led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Bush writes. During a raid on Mohammed's compound, agents discovered more plans for terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

Prompted by the discoveries, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet asked if he had permission to use enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding on Mohammed.

Bush exposes his inner thoughts on what led him to reach this decision: "I thought about my meeting with Danny Pearl's widow, who was pregnant with his son when he was murdered. I thought about the 2,971 people stolen from their families by al Qaeda on 9/11. And I thought about my duty to protect my country from another act of terror.

"Damn Right" I said."

An early political lesson

The president's political education is rounded out with anecdotes from early races, including a loss to state Sen. Kent Hance in a bid for a West Texas congressional seat.

Despite warnings that he was likely to lose, Bush writes that he felt compelled to run.

"I was having my first experience with the political bug, and it was biting hard." Fighting off accusations that he was "an East Coast outsider," he tried to change the conversation by running an ad showing him jogging to emphasize his "energy and youth."

Hance quickly turned the ad against him with one simple line, "'The only time folks around here go running is when somebody's chasing them.'" The experience, he writes, taught him that he was capable of moving on after a loss, and to never let his opponent define him.

An earlier Bush-Cheney ticket

Bush writes candidly about the ups and downs of his father's presidential campaigns and the personal toll they took on him. On a fishing trip during his father's third year in the White House, Bush tells of a conversation in which President George H.W. Bush briefly toyed with the idea of not standing for re-election.

Bush writes that his father's doubts were attributed to blame he felt for the intense media scrutiny his son Neil had gone through during the savings and loan crisis. But the notion is quickly forgotten when in the next paragraph Bush describes his relief "when Dad told the family he had one last race in him."

In the summer of 1992, as the presidential race was heating up, Bush expressed concern that the campaign was languishing.

"I told Dad he ought to think about a bold move to shake up the dynamics of the race," Bush writes. "One possibility was to replace Vice President Dan Quayle, whom I liked and respected, with a new running mate." Bush's suggestion was Secretary of State Dick Cheney, and although his father dismissed the idea because it would look "desperate and embarrass Dan," Bush later admits that he "never completely gave up on my idea of a Bush-Cheney ticket."

The struggles of his father's campaign effected Bush emotionally. He confesses that he felt the media were treating his father unfairly, and on a last-minute campaign trip with his father in the days before the election, he "unleashed" an angry outburst on two reporters who asked about the mood on the campaign plane. "What the press did not understand was that my outbursts were driven by love, not politics," he writes.

After his father's loss in 1992, Bush says this love turned to "pain," and then ultimately to "the itch to run for office again," and a "sense of liberation," that he was out from under his father's shadow. "I could lay out my policies without having to defend his," Bush writes. "I wouldn't have to worry that my decisions would disrupt his presidency. I was free to run my own life."

Bush writes that the loss had a similar effect on his brother Jeb, "What had first seemed like the sad end to a great story now looked like the unlikely beginning of two new careers. Had dad won in 1992, I doubt I would have run for office in 1994, and I almost certainly would not have become president."

'Marquee event' in political theater

During the battle over passage of his 2008 "financial rescue package," Bush describes a heated White House meeting between congressional leaders and both presidential candidates. Despite warnings from several of his top advisers about the effectiveness of such a meeting, the president agreed to convene the group at John McCain's request for fear of the public message it would send if he rejected the suggestion of his party's nominee.

Bush describes the event as "the marquee event in Washington's political theater," and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as "a volcano ready to erupt" prior to entering the Cabinet Room. Following remarks by the president and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, the speaker deferred to Obama, her party's nominee, whom Bush portrays as having a "calm demeanor" while speaking about the scope of the proposal.

From a political perspective, Bush says that Obama was "smart when he informed the gathering that he was in constant contact with Hank," giving the impression that he was "aware, in touch, and prepared to get a bill passed."

In a somewhat harsher description of his party's nominee, Bush recalls that he was "puzzled" with McCain's decision to pass when it came his turn to speak next. "He had called for this meeting," Bush writes. "I assumed he would come prepared to outline a way to get the bill passed." In Bush's telling, the meeting quickly devolved into a "verbal food fight, which would have been comical except the stakes were so high."

Why Immigration Reform failed

Bush blasts Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for letting a comprehensive immigration reform bill die in the Senate.

At one point during his push to get the legislation passed, Bush reached out to the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy -- urging him to ask Reid to keep the Senate in session before the July 4 recess.

"Given the importance of this legislation, I thought it would be worthwhile to allow them a little extra for the bill to pass," Bush writes.

"Apparently, Harry Reid did not ... If Ted Kennedy couldn't persuade the majority leader of his party, my odds were not good."

And he was right. The Nevada Democrat called for a vote to end debate, which failed. The Senate then adjourned.

"Senators went home and listened to angry constituents stirred up by the loud voices on radio and TV," he writes. "By the time they came back to Washington, immigration reform was dead."

And because of that failure, Bush says "coyotes are still in business, immigrants continue to cross the border illegally, and a divisive political issue remains unsolved."





Bush Writes Of Anger, Resolve After Sept. 11 Attacks

The terrorist attacks on America on September 11, 2001, gave his administration a clear goal and him the resolve to find out who was responsible and "kick their ass," former President George W. Bush writes in his new book.

In "Decision Points," Bush describes his reaction when his then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice informed him of the crash of a third airplane into the Pentagon.

"I sat back in my seat and absorbed her words. My thoughts clarified: The first plane could have been an accident. The second was definitely an attack. The third was a declaration of war," the former president writes in his 481-page book, which goes on sale Tuesday.

"My blood was boiling. We were going to find out who did this, and kick their ass," Bush writes.

"In a single morning, the purpose of my presidency had grown clear: to protect our people and defend our freedom that had come under attack."

CNN on Friday obtained a copy of the book, being released by Crown Publishers.

In the book, Bush also recounts the government response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

He calls the response "not only flawed" but "unacceptable," and describes his own failures in this way: "As the leader of the federal government, I should have recognized the deficiencies sooner and intervened faster. I prided myself on my ability to make crisp and effective decisions. Yet in the days after Katrina, that didn't happen. The problem was not that I made the wrong decisions. It was that I took too long to decide."

Bush writes he also failed to "adequately communicate my concern for the victims of Katrina" -- a problem he calls one of "perception, not reality."

"Yet many of our citizens, particularly in the African-American community, came away convinced their president didn't care about them."

The former president recently told NBC's Matt Laurer that the "worst moment" of his administration was when rapper Kanye West declared during a Katrina celebrity telethon that "George Bush does not like black people." West this week expressed a sympathetic view of Bush's reaction to the comment.

Bush writes the Katrina had a lasting legacy on his second term.

"Just as Katrina was more than a hurricane, its impact was more than physical destruction. It eroded citizens' trust in their government. It exacerbated divisions in our society and politics. And it cast a cloud over my second term."

In "Decision Points," Bush also details how he came to utter those infamous words "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" about Michael Brown, the FEMA chief who was leading the government's response to Katrina in the days immediately following the storm.

Bush writes that he was in Mobile, Alabama, meeting with the Alabama and Mississippi governors and asked them if they were getting adequate federal support. "'That Mike Brown is doing a heck of a job,' Bob said," referring to Alabama governor Bob Riley. "I knew Mike was under pressure and I wanted to boost his morale," Bush writes, so he repeated Riley's words a few minutes later when he spoke to the press.

"I never imagined those words of encouragement would become an infamous entry in the political lexicon. As complaints about Mike Brown's performance mounted, especially in New Orleans, critics turned my words of encouragement into a club to bludgeon me."

The former FEMA head, who resigned two weeks after the compliment, told CNN in August that he winced when Bush uttered the line.

"I knew the minute he said that, the media and everybody else would see a disconnect between what he was saying and what I was witnessing on the ground," Brown said. "That's the president's style. His attitude and demeanor is always one of being a cheerleader and trying to encourage people to keep moving. It was just the wrong time and the wrong place."

Bush in recent years has talked about his past problems with alcohol abuse and his 1986 decision to give up drinking completely.

Just days before the 2000 presidential election, news broke that Bush had been arrested for driving under the influence in Maine in 1976. In his memoir, Bush writes, "Not disclosing the DUI on my terms may have been the single costliest political mistake I ever made."

He says he had decided against doing so because he didn't want to undermine his admonitions to his daughters about drinking and driving.

After the news came out -- so close to election day, Bush writes, he went to bed that night on the campaign trail thinking, "I may have just cost myself the presidency."


View Larger Map


Sources: Amazon.com, CBS News, CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, Google Maps

Dick Cheney Released From Hospital After Heart Attack

Dick Cheney Discharged From Hospital After Heart Attack


Former vice president Richard B. Cheney, who suffered a mild heart attack Monday, was discharged Wednesday from George Washington University Hospital, a spokesman said.

"Former Vice President Cheney is feeling good this morning and was discharged from GWU Hospital," spokesman Peter Long said in a statement. "He will resume his normal schedule shortly."

Lab tests at George Washington University Hospital revealed the heart attack, Cheney's fifth. Cheney, 69, has had heart trouble much of his adult life, suffering his first heart attack at 37.


Sources: CNN, Washington Post

Dick Cheney Hospitalized For Chest Pains

Dick Cheney Hospitalized


Former Vice President Dick Cheney was at George Washington University hospital Monday night after experiencing chest pains, his office said in a statement.

“He is resting comfortably and undergoing evaluation,” read the statement. It made no mention of when he was admitted.

One doctor at GWU told NBC News that Cheney may require further treatment tomorrow.

The 69-year-old has suffered four heart attacks, his first in his 30s, and had a pacemaker installed in 2001.

Recently, however, Cheney has appeared to be in good health and relishing his post-White House role as one of President Obama’s most outspoken critics. He appeared on ABC’s “This Week” earlier this month and delivered a surprise speech last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Sources: Politico

Conservatives Are Fired Up & Ready To Win Again

Conservatives, Fired Up!


A frisky, fun keynote by Beck, an encouraging straw poll that left Palin with a happily meager 7 percent—CPAC showed that for better or worse, the GOP is fired up and ready to go.

There’s a joke they used to tell in Franco’s Spain: two guys in bar. First guy says to the other, “What do you think of Generalissimo Franco?” Second guy looks around nervously to see if anyone is listening, then says to the guy, “Follow me.” They leave the bar, walk down a deserted alley. The second guy finally stops, looks around again to see if they were followed, then whispers to the first guy: “I like him.”

I thought of it Saturday while listening to—brace yourselves—Glenn Beck, giving the keynote at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

I’ve not been a fan of Beck’s. (Rather the opposite, in fact, while conceding that he is at least a very talented demagogue.) But there was something refreshing in his fundamental message, to wit, We have seen the enemy, and it is us. Or at least, Not just us.

Using a personal trope—Beck is recovering alcoholic—he likened the Republican Party’s big-spending habit to the appetite of a drinker who can’t stop himself. He also indulged in a daring bit of palimpsest, rewriting one Ronald Reagan’s most memorable lines: “It is still morning in America. It just happens to be kind of a head-pounding, hungover, vomiting-for-four-hours kind of morning in America.” Not bad. Beck may not be the first repentant Republican, but he is certainly the most operatic, a kind of comic Pavarotti of the right.

It’s perhaps worth noting that last year’s CPAC keynoter was Rush Limbaugh, who, like Beck, is in recovery. What is it, one wonders, about these two bigfoot thunderers on the right that they share this personal history? Whatever else, it is a humanizing trait, and on Saturday night, it allowed Beck to be frisky and have fun, as he taunted Republicans, urging them to come clean themselves about their own recent boozing. If the Republican Party, he noted, had given a Tiger Woods-type apologia, he’d go all out for it. (Not, really, that he already hasn’t.)

The other encouraging surprise of the conference was the concluding straw poll. Ron Paul came in first, with 31 percent, to Mitt Romney’s 22 percent and—hallelujah—happily meager Sarah Palin’s 7 percent.

Thirty-one percent is, to be sure, several bricks shy of a landslide. It may, really, amount to a “none of the above.” Aside from his borderline-kooky isolationism, there are appealing aspects to Dr. Paul. (He is, in addition to being a Texas congressman, an Air Force flight surgeon and OB-GYN who has delivered 4,000 babies over the years; some politicians kiss babies, this one brings actually them into the world.) But he is never going to be president. That at least will free him up to go on being authentic, a quality in short supply among our pols.

So what’s the takeaway from CPAC 2010? Only this: It’s going to be messy between now and November, but conservatives are, for better or worse, fired up and ready to go. Funny—the phrase sounds vaguely familiar. Where can I have heard it before?







Rep. Ron Paul Surprise Winner Of CPAC Presidential Straw Poll



U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a stalwart foe of government spending, won a blowout victory Saturday in the annual Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll.

With participants naming "reducing the size of federal government" as their top issue, the 74-year old libertarian hero captured 31 percent of the 2,400 votes cast in the annual contest, usually seen as a barometer of how the GOP's conservative wing regards their potential presidential candidates.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finished second with 22 percent of the vote, ending a three-year winning streak at CPAC. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin finished third with 7 percent of the vote, followed by Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty at 6 percent and Indiana Rep. Mike Pence at 5 percent.

They were followed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who tied at 4 percent. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, South Dakota Sen. John Thune and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour rounded out the results.

Five percent of participants voted for "Other" and 6 percent was undecided.

The announcement of Paul's win, a surprise victory unlikely to have a major impact on the 2012 presidential contest, drew a volley of loud boos from the CPAC audience.

That discontent could be seen in the poll results: A majority of participants said they wished the Republican Party had a better field of candidates to choose from.

But Paul's victory might be seen, in part, as a result of his support among anti-establishment Tea Party activists -- who turned out in force at this year's conference and expressed some frustration with the Republican Party.

Reflecting the college atmosphere of the annual event, young people dominated the voting: 54 percent of participants were between the ages of 18 and 25.

The poll also contained a bit of bad news for Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who made an under-the-radar appearance at CPAC late Friday.

Participants were asked to rate their opinions of several top political figures, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner, both of whom received a majority favorable rating.

But Steele was the only Republican to garner an upside-down rating, with 44 percent giving him an unfavorable rating and 42 percent rating him favorably.

The three-day meeting Saturday that has featured speeches by Republican leaders, training sessions for local political activists and a renewed purpose to stand firm behind their principles heading into the midterm elections.


Sources: The Daily Beast, CNN, CPAC, Politico, Youtube

Liz & Dick Cheney At CPAC: "Obama Is A One-Term President" (Videos)

Dick Cheney Surprises CPAC; Liz Cheney Attacks Obama's Terrorism Policies


Former Vice President Dick Cheney made a surprise appearance Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to pay homage to the movement and declare that Barack Obama will be a “one-term president.”

Cheney came up on stage after a speech by his daughter Liz, who hammered Obama’s policies on terrorism and laid blame on administration officials for the attempted Christmas Day bombing.

The room exploded with excitement for the former vice president, who was greeted with cheers of “run, Dick, run!”

“A welcome like that is almost enough to make me want to run for office again — but I’m not gonna do it,” he said.

Cheney made clear that he has passed the torch to his daughter, of whom he said he is “enormously proud.”

“She said I could come with her, but that I had to be arm candy,” the former vice president joked.

Cheney said that he is excited for the opportunities this November’s elections present for conservatives, especially for the younger generation to step up and take control of the movement.

“The sky is the limit here. I think 2010 will be a phenomenal year. And I think Barack Obama is a one-term president,” he said.

“The highlights of my years in public office have been my opportunities to come to CPAC,” Cheney said to the conference attendees. “Let me thank you for all the energy and time and effort you’ve dedicated to our common cause.”

“It’s a remarkable time to be an American and a remarkable time to be a conservative,” he concluded. “Good luck.”

Sources: Politico, Right Scoop

Newt Echoes Cheney: "Americans Are Less Safe"

Newt Gingrich: "We Are Not Safe"


Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Monday night that Americans are less “safe” than they were a year ago.

During an interview with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly, the former Republican congressman from Georgia blamed a federal bureaucracy that is “so lacking in focus” that even though the father of the accused Christmas Day bomber warned a U.S. embassy about his son, “we couldn’t find a way to stop him.”

“We are not safe. We are in much greater danger than we were a year ago,” Gingrich said, though adding that “it’s not just Bush vs. Obama.”

“The North Koreans had an additional year to build missiles,” he said. “Iranians had an additional year to develop their nuclear weapons and keep paying for terrorists. Al Qaeda had an additional year. And by the way, two of the top four people in Al Qaeda in Yemen were released from Guantanamo Bay.”

Gingrich also accused the administration of “very quietly” signing an executive order that removes “all American constraints” from the international police force Interpol.

“Freedom of information acts don't apply,” he said. “All the constraints that you as a citizen could use against an American police force, based on a recent Obama-signed executive order, give Interpol — which has relationships with Syria, Libya, with Iran — it gives them all sorts of extra legality in the United States in a way that has never, ever before been offered to Interpol.”

Gingrich said that the Obama administration would provide more leeway to an International force because Attorney General Eric Holder is most concerned with "Protecting the Rights of Terrorists".

“He lives in a world where somehow the United States is dangerous and the United States government is dangerous,” Gingrich said of Holder.

In his December executive order, Obama expanded on Executive Order 12425 — signed by President Ronald Reagan — granting Interpol the same exemptions provided to numerous groups under the International Organizations Immunities Act. Reagan’s order did not include provisions to block the search and seizure of property and records of Interpol employees — as the act provides for other groups — nor grant the organization exemptions on federal taxes, property


Sources: Politico

Obama Team Hit Right & Left Over Terrorist Faux Paus...Pfeiffer's Response

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(Dan Pfeiffer) The Same Old Washington Blame Game



There has been a lot of discussion online and in the mainstream media about our response to various critics of the President, specifically former Vice President Cheney, who have been coming out of the woodwork since the incident on Christmas Day. I think we all agree that there should be honest debate about these issues, but it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers. Unfortunately too many are engaged in the typical Washington game of pointing fingers and making political hay, instead of working together to find solutions to make our country safer.

First, it’s important that the substantive context be clear: for seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq – a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion – Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States. Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years.

It was President Obama who finally implemented a strategy of winding down the war in Iraq, and actually focusing our resources on the war against al Qaeda – more than doubling our troops in Afghanistan, and building partnerships to target al Qaeda’s safe-havens in Yemen and Somalia. And in less than one year, we have already seen many al Qaeda leaders taken out, our alliances strengthened, and the pressure on al Qaeda increased worldwide.

To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.

Second, the former Vice President makes the clearly untrue claim that the President – who is this nation’s Commander-in-Chief – needs to realize we are at War. I don’t think anyone realizes this very hard reality more than President Obama. In his inaugural, the President said “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.”

In a recent speech, Assistant to the President for Terrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan said “Instead, as the president has made clear, we are at war with al-Qaida, which attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al-Qaida’s murderous agenda. These are the terrorists we will destroy; these are the extremists we will defeat.” At West Point, the President told the nation why it was “in our vital national interest” to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to fight the war in Afghanistan, adding that as Commander in Chief, “I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.” And at Oslo, in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the President said, “We are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land.”

There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference is this: President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it, and – unlike the last Administration – we are not at war with a tactic (“Terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered.



Sources: Whitehouse.gov, MSNBC, The Daily Beast, TIME

Mainstream Media Returns To "The War On Terror" Alert

The Media On Terrorist Alert Once Again


It all came rushing back — the “War with Islam?” graphics, the terrorism experts, the breathless reports of a “suspicious van” parked near Times Square, and Chris Matthews mincing no words when describing the Al Qaeda threat.

"They’re the enemy. They’re going to use any means they can to get us,” he said Tuesday on “Hardball” before moving on to the next segment and what’s being done to keep “killers off our airplanes.”

Whether online or on air, many journalists and networks stars gave up their holiday vacations to participate in round-the-clock coverage of the plot to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253. And given “systemic failure” cited by President Barack Obama it’s understandable that the media would devote the majority of its resources to the unfolding drama, presenting a clearer picture of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian at the center of the story, and how intelligence agencies didn’t connect the dots before a near-catastrophe over Detroit.

One reason for the sustained coverage, according to Georgetown University professor Bruce Hoffman, who has been studying terrorism for decades, is that a link to Al Qaeda became clear quickly. That, the uptick in travel around the holidays — and the apparent symbolism of an attack planned for Christmas Day — as well as a holiday news vacuum, ensured the most sustained media focus on terrorism since British police foiled a 2006 scheme to detonate explosives aboard 10 planes.

But many of the questions being asked in the last decade’s final days go back to those posed at the beginning of the decade, in the aftermath of Sept. 11, like some twisted version of Groundhog Day.

All week, partisan pundits and terrorism experts have debated the merits of torture and racial profiling, whether the U.S. needs to intervene in a foreign country that’s providing a safe haven for terrorists — this time Yemen, not Afghanistan — and whether the government is taking the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously.

“Our enemies believe they're doing this for their God,” said Fox News strategic analyst Ralph Peters on the air Monday. “And when you face religious fanatics, who are determined to kill you, it is a zero-sum game. Court-martialing Seals is not going to impress our enemies. Killing them will impress them.”

Peters said that Islamic terrorists will take away from this event “that we're afraid to admit what our enemy's all about,” adding, “let's see if there's an attack on Easter.”

Later that night on Fox, Karl Rove took issue with Obama’s early statements and treatment of the threat while speaking with Tucker Carlson, a fill-in host for Sean Hannity. “Please, Mr. President, don't play us for suckers,” Rove said. “This is not an isolated extremist. It is part of an international conspiracy which struck us on 9/11 and has been attempting to hurt us every day since then.”

Judy Miller, the former New York Times reporter whose stories on faulty intelligence are commonly included among the biggest blunders in pre-Iraq War coverage, criticized embattled Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano as someone who “has been allergic to the idea of combating terrorism since the day that she was appointed.”

At the same time over on MSNBC, host Rachel Maddow mocked Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula for claiming that the attempted bombing Friday was a response to recent air strikes, noting that factually the dates don’t add up. “So, nice try nihilist dirtbags,” Maddow said, “but it`s back to remedial propaganda class for you.”

But there have been few voices taking the position on air — especially with a bit of humor — that the threat of Al Qaeda may be overly exaggerated. Spencer Ackerman, who covers national security for the Washington Independent has been one exception, saying on MSNBC Tuesday that “Al Qaeda is a dangerous and really important threat, but they are not a super army of supermen with, like, Muslim heat vision and so forth.” Therefore, he continued, “it’s ludicrous to think that we should inflate how dangerous they are, because that’s exactly what they want us to do.”

Pat Buchanan, however, responded with an image that brought back the specter of Sept. 11: “Look, there are 3,000 dead people who can testify to how dangerous they are,” he said.

But Peters and Buchanan haven’t been the only television commentators talking up the enemy’s desire to kill Americans and the possibility of future attacks. Indeed, the volume of reporting during the day often gives way to more heated opining at night, raising questions about whether the media’s ability to inform can be shadowed by the potential to inflame.

“You need to report in context at all times,” said Brian Ross, ABC News chief investigative correspondent, adding that there’s always a “danger that we make [Al Qaeda] seem so powerful” in describing the situation as it unfolds.

Ross, along with ABC colleagues Richard Esposito and Pierre Thomas, has been advancing the Flight 253 story since Friday night, including obtaining the first photographs of the underwear bomb — an image that will surely live on long after this botched attack recedes to the back pages.

Interviewed on Tuesday, just after finishing a “Special Report” that broke into ABC’s regularly scheduled programming, Ross said that Obama’s remarks that afternoon justified the resources and air time being devoted. “It’s as serious as anything gets,” he said.

Of course, ABC isn’t the only network with an investigative team all over the story. CBS News first reported that PETN was the explosive in question and that a syringe was being used to detonate it. CBS also followed up in connecting the dots, reporting that the CIA had been monitoring “the Nigerian” since August and that the U.S. government hadn’t found Abdulmutallab’s visa more than once after his father gave his prescient warning to Nigerian embassy officials.

NBC Washington bureau chief Mark Whitaker noted that while his network is “always sensitive to being alarmist,” it “wouldn’t be serving [our viewers] well if we didn't report aggressively how it happened, who was behind it and what lessons we need to learn from it."

And the cable ratings for Friday night indicated that there was intensive interest, Christmas or not. CNN, relying on its vast international resources to cover the story, averaged the most viewers in prime time. It was the first time in four months that the network took the 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. block. Fox News also quickly switched to Flight 253 coverage on Friday night, and came in a close second, while MSNBC — sticking with taped programming — was a distant third.

Ali Velshi, whose regular beat is the business world and not international terrorism, arrived at the CNN studio Friday night expecting to do a couple of news breaks each hour during taped programming (with plenty of time in between for some Chinese food and the chance to catch up on bills).

But Velshi’s slow news day turned into one of the biggest of his career, as he took over anchoring coverage for the next three hours with colleagues scattered around the world. “This is the best of CNN,” Velshi told POLITICO. “This is what we are actually made to do and do really well. Everybody knew what their role is.”

And Velshi said that as the network began scrambling the jets, there were discussions about what to put on the air, and whether it’s “alarmist” or “dangerous to know.” Looking at the facts at hand, though, he said it quickly became clear this was a situation that warranted wall-to-wall coverage.

“I don’t think it has been over-covered,” said veteran TV journalist Dan Rather, noting that this story is “serious at a number of levels.”

“Obviously, the U.S. government as a whole was asleep at the wheel,” Rather said. “There’s a word for what’s happened here, and the word is incompetence.”

However, Rather added that “what’s been lacking is sort of going after the innards of this story.” He said there has been some good reporting, but the media still needs to get into specifics of who is responsible — whether at the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, the Amsterdam airport or in the intelligence agencies. “So far there’s been very little accountability,” he said.

“There’s been a dearth of that kind of reporting,” Rather said. “There’s been a lot of opinionizing rather than doing the hard reportorial work of who did what and who didn’t do what. That kind of deep digging reporting is missing here.”


Sources: Politico, Wikipedia

"Obama Stop Pretending We're Not At War!", Says Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney: Barack Obama "Trying To Pretend"



Former Vice President Dick Cheney accused President Barack Obama on Tuesday of “trying to pretend we are not at war” with terrorists, pointing to the White House response to the attempted sky bombing as reflecting a pattern that includes banishing the term “war on terror” and attempting to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

“We are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe,” Cheney said in a statement to POLITICO. “Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society.”

Cheney was joining a chorus of Republicans who have criticized Obama following the Christmas Day attack, in which a Nigerian suspect is accused of trying to blow up a loaded airliner with a bomb stitched into his underwear.

A senior Democrat said in response: “It’s telling that in attacking the president and the administration, that Vice President Cheney did not condemn the attack against our nation on Christmas Day.”

Foreshadowing the party’s strategy for next year’s midterm congressional elections, GOP officeholders have eschewed the customary partisan restraint following a terrorist incident, and have baldly portrayed Democrats as weak on security.

Rep. Peter King of New York, ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee and a member of the Intelligence committee, said Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show: “I think that the administration has made a mistake by treating this terrorist as a common criminal, by putting him into the criminal-justice system. I wish they had put him into a military tribunal so we could get as much intelligence and information out of him as we could.”


Here is Cheney’s full statement:

"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war?

It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war."

Although Cheney and other Republicans have accused Obama of a muted response to the attack, President George W. Bush was quieter for much longer about the attack by shoe bomber Richard Reid in December 2001.

Obama went before cameras on Monday, the third day after the fizzled bomb attempt.

It was six days after the attack when Bush finally discussed the incident, saying as part of a response to a question at his ranch in Crawford, Tex.: “[W]e’ve got to be aware that there are still enemies to the country. And our government is responding accordingly.”

The day before, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had refused substantive comment, saying: “That’s a matter that’s in the hands of the law enforcement people.” Earlier, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had said officials were “continuing to monitor events.”

Also, Democratic officials maintain that Obama is, in fact, comfortable with the notion that the U.S. is at war with terrorists. Near the start of his inaugural address, he said: “Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.”

And John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, declared in an August speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “[A]s the president has made clear, we are at war with al-Qaida, which attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al-Qaida’s murderous agenda. These are the terrorists we will destroy; these are the extremists we will defeat.”

The senior Democrat said: “There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference from the last administration is that we are at war with that which is tangible -- al-Qaida, violent extremists, and terrorists -- rather than at war with a tactic, ‘terrorism.’”

As indicative of what they contend is Obama’s world view, conservatives passed around the recording of a statement Obama made while taking calls on New Hampshire Public Radio on Nov. 21, 2007: “I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, that not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also can understand their point of view. …

“The world will have confidence that I am listening to them, and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world. That will ultimately make us safer. And that’s something that this administration has failed to understand.”



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, National Geographic, Google Maps

Dick Cheney Checks Obama On "Dithering", Foreign Policy & Gitmo

Former VP Dick Cheney hits Obama on his recent Afghan Exit Strategy Speech, "Dithering", Foreign Policy Agenda and Gitmo. Listen to the audio below of Cheney's comments.




Did Cheney cross the line in his criticism of Pres. Obama's Afghan War Exit Strategy?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sources: Politico, MSNBC

Obama Promises "To Finish The Job" In Afghanistan...Will He Regret These Words?

Pres. Obama states his administration will "Finish the Job" in Afghanistan.

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

Barack Obama is now only days away from announcing his Afghan War Strategy decision.

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

General McChrystal states that 34,000 more U.S. Troops will add renewed energy for the US Armed Forces already serving in the Afghan theatre.

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

President Obama stuck in muck with pledge to "Finish the Job" in Afghanistan


President Obama hinted Tuesday that the cavalry is coming when he boldly stated he intends to "finish the job" in Afghanistan's eight-year war.

But he may live to regret setting such a high bar with his mystery war plan, much like his predecessor George W. Bush did by pledging to nail Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive."

It's almost impossible to imagine any Afghan strategy this President could unveil next week, short of an immediate withdrawal, that will bring peace before he faces American voters again in 2012.

It might even prove impossible to "finish the job" by 2016 if he wins reelection.

"The idea we can wave a magic wand over the place and fix it quickly is not realistic," said Afghanistan analyst Peter Bergen.

It's worrisome that Obama might be ready to spring yet another quick-fix plan.

Since 2001, the problem hasn't just been that the Afghan fight was shamefully shortchanged of resources as the Iraq war's ugly stepchild. It also has suffered from arrogant military and civilian leaders who fought every year of the war as if it was the last.

In 2003, ex-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the U.S. had "moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and reconstruction."

His top commander, Army Lt. Gen. Dan McNeill, even predicted withdrawing some of his 8,000 U.S. troops by 2004.

Instead, the Taliban rallied with cash from opium-producing poppy crops and Al Qaeda expertise - and the American body count rose.

Obama is likely to add at least 30,000 to a force that will total 100,000 in Afghanistan. An equal number will remain in Iraq, meaning last year's anti-war candidate will ironically have more soldiers in harm's way - 200,000 - than Bush did at the height of the Iraq "surge."

And don't call this boost a "surge" because insiders know that's a misnomer.

It will be an escalation without any plan on the horizon to draw down the additional forces, like in Iraq.

Bergen says the extra troops can secure more roads and pockets thick with Taliban in the next two years, but ending the war "is a long-term project."

It's not just how many boots are on the ground, it's how they're used.

That's why many strategists are embracing the idea of hiring Pashtun tribal militias or embedding Special Forces to "go native" for years and win tribal allies by spilling blood with them side by side.

But the wisest ideas all involve facing the hard truth that we will be in the fight for many more years amid polls that show the public - American and Afghan - losing patience.

That hard dose of reality required to win gives the enemy plenty of ammo in the meantime for their propaganda denouncing Americans as occupiers who refuse to leave.



View Larger Map


Sources: NY Daily News, MSNBC, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Google Maps