Conffederate
Confederate

November 10, 2008

Hope and Change al Qaeda Can Believe In

He has apparently learned nothing.

President Elect Barack Obama is looking at Jamie Gorelick as a possibly candidate for Attorney General. Gorelick is best know for her role in Bill Clinton's Justice Department creating a "wall" that kept American intelligence and law enforcement agencies from communicating with each other, which contributed significantly to security lapses that led to al Qaeda's success on 9/11.

But even without that taint of corruption, Gorelick would signal a return to incompetence and infighting. Gorelick played a major role in keeping counterterrorist and law-enforcement agents from sharing information and "connecting the dots" before 9/11. In a series of judgments at the DoD and at Justice during her tenure in the Clinton administration, Gorelick hamstrung our efforts to find and disarm terrorist infiltrators by discouraging any cooperation between intelligence and enforcement efforts by making "the wall" much more significant than Congress ever intended.

Gorelick wound up serving as a panelist on the 9/11 Commission, but she should have been served a subpoena instead. Two memos from Clinton-appointed US Attorney Mary Jo White made this point crystal clear, as did an explanation from someone involved for years in the counterterrorist effort. Gorelick imposed an unrealistic standard on intelligence gathering that led directly to the 9/11 attacks. As AG, she would have even more power to reimpose those same limitations, and leave us just as blind as we were before those attacks.

Gorelick's fundamental incompetence played a role in the deaths of thousands of Americans, and that Obama is even considering her for such a position merely serves to highlight his own lack of judgment.

Obama is also secretly planning U.S. trials for terrorist prisoners of war. Like Bush's military tribunals, such trials fly in the face of the Geneva conventions and established historical customs, which stands firmly against the trial of POWs during a conflict for fear of unfair show trials. As I understand it, the proper method of dealing with POWs is to hold them in confinement until the conflict is over or until a prisoner exchange is implemented. Look for an Obama Justice Department unfettered by reality to set many, many terrorists free because soldiers fighting a war aren't equipped to collect evidence and play CSI-Tora Bora the way unreasonable ideologues prefer.

We learn all of this after finding out that al Qaeda, with all of their usual bluster, is once again claiming to have plans afoot for new wave of terror strikes on the West that will dwarf 9/11.

After 9/11, President Bush did everything within his power to keep another wave of terror attacks from claiming lives on U.S. soil. Obama's obvious contempt for President Bush seems to be detrimentally impacting his decisions, as he seems to imagining he can somehow return to a 9/10 world.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at November 10, 2008 12:11 PM
Comments

Rahm Emanuel and Jamie Gorelick - two Clinton retreads right off the bat. This is change?

Posted by: Tim at November 10, 2008 01:44 PM

It's simply astonishing how many Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac people Obama has working for him - or is looking at.

Yes, Jamie Gorelick had her fingers all over that pie too.

Posted by: Jeff Shultz at November 10, 2008 01:45 PM

"Like Bush's military tribunals, such trials fly in the face of the Geneva conventions and established historical customs, which stands firmly against the trial of POWs during a conflict for fear of unfair show trials."

You have misread the Geneva Conventions, CY. The prisoners at Guantanamo are not POWs. Prisoners of War are uniformed members of the military of an enemy nation who are captured in combat. The Guantanamo prisoners were not part of any national military, and they carried out attacks against U.S. personnel while disguised as civilians. Under the Geneva Conventions, their status is that of spies or saboteurs, and they are not entitled to any trial. It would have been legal and legitimate to summarily execute them.

Posted by: Pat at November 10, 2008 03:04 PM

If this happens, the unofficial policy in the field will become, "no prisoners."

Posted by: VC at November 10, 2008 03:23 PM

You are wrong about both POWs and trials. First, POWs can and were tried for crimes they committed both as combatants and for cimres they committed as POWs. During WWII, the U.S. tried numerous POWs for crimes they committed while imprisoned. We also tried POWs during WWII for war crimes, as we also tried unlawful combatants, such as spies, sabateurs, and enemy soldiers in American uniforms (as in the Battle of the Bulge). However, they were tried before special courts martial, or in the case of the Bulge combatants who were sumarily executed, consisting of three officers and, while they had appointed attorneys and were not forced into self-incrimination, they had few other rights, as was recognized at the time. It is disappointing that your are repeating the ahistorical nonsense of the radical left.

Posted by: Federale at November 10, 2008 03:53 PM

We're in some deep trouble....
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2008/11/al-qaeda-planning-huge-attack-for-obama.html

Posted by: Matthew Avitabile at November 10, 2008 04:46 PM

You are missing the obvious. Obama, Gorelick, et al, do not support a weak policy toward terrorists because they are weak. THEY SUPPORT IT BECAUSE THEY WANT A TERRORIST ATTACK, WHICH WOULD BE FOLLOWED BY MARTIAL LAW AND CONFISCATION OF ALL FIREARMS IN AMERICA.

Posted by: Ken at November 10, 2008 04:47 PM

Ken, I think you're a over-excited, my friend.

Even his mentor Bill Ayers isn't delusional enough to believe that the citizens of the United States would stand for nationwide martial law and firearms confiscation, even if a nuclear attack on an American metropolitan area were to take place.

100 9/11s could not be used to justify such acts, and he knows he would face a justified open revolt were he to try to attempt such naked rape of the Constitution.

Obama's gun control agenda is quite real, but I don't think he's that full of himself.

Not yet, anyway.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 10, 2008 05:08 PM

Are you kidding? Half the country loves and worships this man with blind emotion. They will allow him to do many things in his own name without as much as a sideways glance. As long as conservatives are in the minority, Obama has free reign...I truly believe he is psychopathic enough to try anything once. These worshippers could even accept martial law "for our own good," all the time proclaiming it is Bush's fault that caused Obama to "have" to do it. He has little regard for the Constitution anyway.

Posted by: Mainah at November 10, 2008 07:17 PM

And I think we now understand the purpose of Obama's domestic army. When I read the comment about how Americans wouldn't stand for the confiscation of their guns, I concurred, thinking there just wasn't anyone large enough to enforce such unpopular directives. If Obama tried that, we'd have farmers setting their fields afire like they recently did in Argentina.

But a national Hope and Change Schutzstaffel that counterbalances the Acorn SA is a serious threat to civilian protest. And ask yourself, how unlikely is it that high school and college student "volunteers" would be asked to go conduct community safety campaigns, intimidating registered gun owners with leaflet campaigns promoting new safety campaigns? I've already listened to an Obama campaigner at work talk about how us rural hunters will be allowed to check our guns out of the community repository where they're kept for safekeeping outside of hunting season.

The SA and SS were fundamental to the Reich's rise, silencing all opposition until it was too late. I know first hand from affluent families I stayed with in Germany how they were caught off guard by Hitler's rise, and the safeguards Obama is now disabling are the very same ones Hitler manipulated.

Posted by: redherkey at November 10, 2008 07:56 PM

redherkey, you are correct. Hussein O is proposing the exact model used by Hitler. The only thing he hasn't considered. Hitler died a violent death and had no know off spring/wives left or they would have joined Hitler in the fires of hell. Attempting such nonsense is like volunteering your family for the slaughter house.

Posted by: Scrapiron at November 10, 2008 10:50 PM

I often wonder how much Hitler was an accidental consequence. As someone who has both Czech and German ancestry, with many Czechs buried in Jewish cemeteries (which was quite the shock to us), it's always been a puzzle how such remarkably intelligent, scientifically advanced people gave rise to such relativistic nonsense. I spent time with several affluent German families in my youth who shared treasured books on the dangers of Hitler (printed ~1931-33 from my recollection) and claimed they warned of his rise, but nobody took their warnings seriously.

A few years ago, I experienced the same rationalization in Caracas, working with telecom peers at CANTV, the Venezuelan monopoly phone company. They had just elected Chavez and felt his populist message was just marketing necessary to attract the common voter. "He's smarter than that," they'd observe and claim he certainly didn't believe all that radical talk. I commented that I had heard the exact language from the elder German generation that had experienced Hitler. Today, we know the outcome of dismantled Democratic controls in Venezuela. It also led to tyranny and dictatorial control.

We now begin this path in the United States. If we are to have any chance, we all must realize that the only traction we will have is early. We must punish the media severely for selling us out. Banish all MSM channels, publications, and advertisers in your household. And we must fight Obama's efforts to create a domestic army. He already has a million-man ACORN brownshirt army, but he's seeking legitimacy in the eyes of the middle class and dirty street thugs and inner city agitators don't accomplish that.

Posted by: redherkey at November 10, 2008 11:21 PM

Jamie Gorelick was the author of Clinton's brilliant "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Also, as a member of the 9/11 commission, she covered up the Clinton failures to strike Bin Laden. Very bad choice.

Re: gun control. Expect Obama to issue gun bans, steep excise taxes on guns and ammo and prohibit concealed carry by executive order day one. I'm standardizing on 45 ACP and 30-06 reloads, with the capability to reload 5,000 rounds of each. Looks like I'll be buying two field grade garands by January 19th.

Posted by: arch at November 11, 2008 04:50 AM

A couple of others have already said it, but, although I'm no lawyer, my reading of the GC I did back when Gitmo was such a hot topic also led me to believe that ---- the conventions specially spell out who is a lawful combatant (or civilian), and these types of combatant like we have at Gitmo were specifically left out of the convention rights.

Posted by: usinkorea at November 11, 2008 01:28 PM

I think we need to rally around Palin now. She is able to speak above the MSM and reach and mobilize real Republicans. Palin 2012!

Posted by: Stick at November 11, 2008 08:23 PM

Gorlick is more responsible for the death of 3,000 Americans than any single person not part of the 19 hijackers. She should have been tried, convicted and shot in 2001, not made into a left wing hero.

Posted by: Scrapiron at November 11, 2008 09:21 PM

I'm curious why Obama would even consider such a controversial choice for AG. Why pick a fight that even if you win, will leave you damaged? It isn't like there's a shortage of attorneys on the left...

And any number of those leftist attorneys would have such a record that confirmation as AG would be guaranteed and with little controversy. Why give Republicans a rallying point?

Posted by: xbradtc at November 12, 2008 01:18 PM

xbradtc, it's simple... Obama has lived and worked his entire adult life in a protected lefty bubble, so he doesn't comprehend the possibility of handing the GOP a good weapon to attack him with.

Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 12, 2008 05:43 PM