RSS

Central Intelligence Agency

Nancy Pinocchio

by Bill O'Connell on May 13, 2009

Share and Recommend:
Share

I Didn't Know About any Stinkin' Waterboarding!

I heard a Democratic pundit on TV today say that calling Nancy Pelosi a liar was way out of line. It was far too strong a term to use regarding this delicate matter.  As Tony Snow used to say from the podium in the White House briefing room, “ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?”

A Flexible Lexicon

How many times did we hear the phrase, “Bush lied, {fill in the blank}”?  Bush was accused repeatedly, lustily, full throated, spittle flying, of lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  What is the definition of a lie?

“To make a statement that one knows is false, esp. with intent to deceive.” — YourDictionary.com

So, the CIA, the intelligence agencies of several allies, all provided information that indicated that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  Saddam had used weapons of mass destruction on the Kurds, and the Iranians.  So Bush reached the conclusion, which was backed by Congress, by their vote authorizing the use of force, and the UN that weapons of mass destruction existed.  Yes, they were all wrong, but how was Bush to know this information was false, when his advisors and the advisors of our allies said it was true?  So, how is this a lie?  Simple, a Republican is held to a higher standard than a Democrat.  For a Republican, a lie is whatever the Democrats say it is.  For a Democrat, a lie is whatever the Democrats say it is.

Dear Nancy

Nancy Pelosi sat in a room where she and Porter Goss were briefed on waterboarding, but she says she wasn’t briefed.  Documents prove she was there.  Porter Goss remembers her being there.  Did she have her fingers in her ears, stamping her feet, and yelling, “Nah, Nah, Nah, I can’t hear you!”?  Now let’s apply the above definition to dear Nancy.  She made several statements, all caught on video tape, vehemently denying that she knew waterboarding was actually used.  This was for one purpose only, to deceive the American people and her supporters, that she was not involved, nor did she approve in what has now been redefined as torture.

International Embarrassment

I don’t know about you, but I find it embarrassing to have such gutless people in positions of authority in government.  Say want you mean, mean what you say.  The bottom line is that these statists, have no principles.  They have no moral compass to guide their behavior.  Their only guide is how to tighten their grasp on power and how to take away as much liberty as possible from the American people.  In doing so, those same people will depend more and more on government and keep these moral midgets in power.

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (1)

The Innocent Bystander: Government

by Bill O'Connell on February 22, 2009

Share and Recommend:
Share

Don't Anyone Dare Say Government Caused This Mess

You can never solve a problem if you do not face up to the full scope of the problem.  In listening to President Obama, and reading liberal columnists like Maureen Dowd, in the description of what caused the current economic calamity, the government is always given a pass.

We are in an economic morass because of the eight years of failed Bush policies, greed on Wall Street, tax breaks for the rich, etc.  Government’s culpability which, I believe, is really the gravamen of our economic problems is never mentioned at all.  Democrats and Liberals don’t dare point to Democrats and liberal policies as having anything to do with the collapsing economy.  That is why they always say that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression, as they also said when Clinton ran for President.  They don’t dare say it is the worst economy since Jimmy Carter, since that would remind the American people that the Democrats screwed up that one as well.

Unmentionable Causes of the Current Economic Mess

  • Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out of control.  Explosive increases in debt taken on under the leadership of Franklin Raines (Democrat), and Jaime Gorelick (Democrat), remember she also gave us the firewall between the CIA and FBI that hamstrung the investigation of al Qaeda.  Raines made over $90 million while at Fannie Mae and at the same time was accused of overstating earnings by $10.6 billion.  So, where’s the demand for a clawback of Raines’s salary?
  • Barney Frank (Democrat) and Chris Dodd (Democrat) — Frank blocked every attempt to put in place greater regulation over Fannie Mae.  The Bush Administration tried to increase regulation over Fannie Mae, but Frank blocked it.  What you hear today is that the reason for the economic problems are a lack of regulation.  Chris Dodd got VIP mortgage treatment from Countrywide mortgage before they went belly-up.  Asked to come clean on the mortgages, Dodd first said sure, we’ll get around to it.  Then he made some papers available for viewing, but not copying, and has since clammed up.
  • Community Reinvestment Act — Carter (Democrat) administration program to push home ownership for low income people, by forcing banks to report how much they were offering loans in low income neighborhoods and face the consequences if it wasn’t enough.
  • Janet Reno (Democrat) — in the Clinton Administration Reno threatened action against financial institutions if they weren’t lending enough low income individuals.  What bank doesn’t want to be publicly branded a racist institution?

So we have homeowners, who should have never qualified for a mortgage, about to receive bailouts from all the responsible people who took mortgages they could afford, when they could afford them.  Do you ever hear about any of this cast of characters mentioned by President Obama or the main stream media? No.  It wasn’t the government actively pushing social policy on those people least able to handle it.  It was greedy banks and unscrupulous lenders, trying to avoid being branded racists, who took advantage of these poor ignorant people.  Perhaps if the government hadn’t destroyed our education system, these people might have read what they were about to sign.

How Do you Solve Only Half a Problem?

As these characters are never mentioned as having a role in the problem, how can you ever hope to fix the problem if these bad actors are still going about their business doing what caused the crisis and blaming everyone else.  President Obama demonstrates his inexperience more profoundly every day, seemingly making things up as he goes along.  That is not leadership and what we need now in times of crisis is leadership.  Obama has never shown the courage or willingness to take on his own party.  Without rooting out these characters and really fixing the whole problem, it will only happen again down the road.

What we need now is a leader.  Someone who actually has experience running the executive branch of a state.  Someone who is not afraid to take on the entrenched power of their own party and has succeeded in doing so.  Is there anyone out there who fits that bill?  Gee, that sounds like Sarah Palin.

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (1)

Screaming Inexperience

by Bill O'Connell on January 23, 2009

Share and Recommend:
Share

Guantanamo

In less than one week the lack of experience of Barack Obama, that the media chose to ignore, was on radiant display this week.  His two executive orders, one, to close Guantanamo Bay, and two, to only interrogate enemy combatants as per the Army Field Manual, began the process of compromising our safety.

Today’s New York Times carries a story about a Saudi, who was released by the U.S. from Guantanamo is now a deputy leader of al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch.  He was suspected of involvement in the deadly bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen.  He was released to Saudi Arabia to go through a rehabilitation program in that country before being released.  He is back on the front lines, ready to kill Americans.

So what is the president’s plan?  He doesn’t have one. Over the course of the next year, he’ll get back to us with whatever plan a commission or a committee recommends.  Maybe it was a political bone that he felt he had to throw to the left to keep them at bay.  Speaking of hope….

Interrogation

After more than seven years where President Bush kept us safe, President Obama rushed to put us at risk.  He abolished the practice of aggressive interrogation.  Now the enemy with whom we are engaged has no qualms about decapitating a prisoner (Daniel Pearl), no concern about torturing people and hanging the remains from a bridge for all to see (Blackwater contractors), and has one objective, that is, to see us all dead.  How do you negotiate with someone whose only demand is that you die?

The techniques used in very rare circumstances, were thoroughly reviewed and legal opinions issued that permitted their use.  Information was obtained that saved lives.  But now, the CIA has a much harder job to keep us safe.  In the Clinton administration the FBI was prohibited from sharing information with the CIA and vice versa.  Over 3,000 Americans died when those two agencies could not share information and connect the dots.

It was encouraging to hear President Obama in his inaugural address say that this enemy will be defeated.  But to follow it up by closing Guantanamo and taking an important tool away from the CIA.  You can almost envision Osama bin Laden, sit up in his cave and smile and say, “Just like Clinton.  The paper tiger is back.  Now is the time to strike and the dog will run with its tail between its legs just like in Somalia.”

I hope not.  This is not the change we were waiting for.

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (0)

Obama’s Unraveling

by Bill O'Connell on January 6, 2009

Share and Recommend:
Share

I was wondering how long it would take for Barack Obama’s lack of experience or a power base to manifest itself, but it appears the moment has arrived, and the problems keep coming.

His recent announcement or leak by his aides that Leon Panetta is his choice for head of the CIA is confounding, to say the least.  Panetta may be a nice man, and a good administrator, but in the midst of the War on Terror who but a rookie would put a rookie as head of the CIA?  Apparently Obama couldn’t push back those on the left who want no one who agrees with the Bush Administration in the post.  Two other potential appointees got hooted down by Obama’s supporters so he had to go with this pick.  The CIA is notorious for not liking outsiders.  Panetta has no intelligence experience, other than listening in on security briefings as Clinton’s Chief of Staff.

Bill Richardson withdraws his name from nomination as Commerce Secretary, due to a gathering scandal.

Eric Holder as Attorney General pick approved pardons for the FALN terrorists while working in the Clinton Justice Department and now he is responsible for prosecuting terrorists.

The Blagojevich scandal doesn’t want to go away and now the Democrats are battling over whether or not they will seat the man appointed to replace Obama in the Senate

We have the Coleman/Franken fiasco in Minnesota; Charlie Rangel under investigation for not paying taxes despite being chairman of the committee that writes the tax laws (Ways and Means); an item in the NY Times about a donation to the Clinton library from an individual who benefited from legislation supported by Hillary Clinton…

How long before the press decides the honeymoon is over?

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (0)

Know Your Enemies

by Bill O'Connell on November 18, 2008

Share and Recommend:
Share

For all the Bush bashing that has gone on since September 11, 2001, it is a pretty sure bet that when he leaves office on January 20, 2009, part of his legacy will be that he kept us safe for the last seven years.  The fundamental difference between the polices of the Bush administration and those of Clinton and Carter was that Bush saw it as a war, Clinton and Carter as crimes.  On a war footing, you take the battle to your enemies with the objective of destroying them.  On a law and order footing, you investigate the crime after the fact, arrest suspects, give them their Miranda rights, put them on trial, and if you are lucky, they may spend some time in jail.

Law and Order

In 1979, where it all started, Iranian “students” took over the U.S. Embassy and held it for over 400 days.  Jimmy Carter tried to negotiate a settlement, sponsored a botched rescue, and saw the hostages finally released his last hour in office.  The Iranians didn’t want to be holding American hostages when Ronald Reagan was president.  Reagan would have seen the taking of the U.S. Embassy as an invasion on U.S. soil, which is what our Embassies are.  He would not have tolerated a ragtag bunch of radical students occupying U.S. soil.

From that, and Somalia, Osama bin Laden saw the U.S. as a paper tiger that would cut and run if hit hard.  Clinton’s law and order approach can be seen in the response to the first World Trade Center bombing and the constructing of a “wall” between the CIA and the FBI.

War Footing

President Bush saw the attacks on the U.S. as a war.  He mobilized the country and struck back hard.  By going on offense rather than hanging back playing defense, he has kept the enemy pinned down in Iraq and Afghanistan, while simultaneous rooting them out aggressively wherever they went.  Those captured on the battlefield were sent to Guantanamo, where they were interrogated and held.  Lawyers in the U.S. began to complain that these prisoners were being held without being charged and that was unconstitutional.  Again, that is seeing it from a law and order perspective.  On a war footing, the enemy that is captured on the battlefield is held until the end of hostilities, like we held Japanese and German prisoners during WWII.  If it takes 50 years until the war is won and hostilities ended, then they should be held for 50 years.

Rooting Them Out

In trying to prevent another attack at home, Bush also aggressively sought to disrupt their operations.  Part of that process was to intercept their communications and learn what they were up to.  This caused an uproar over eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant.  However, the program was designed to intercept international phone calls, even if one end was in the U.S.  For example, if an Al Qaeda terrorist is captured or killed on the battlefield but their cell phone is recovered and their cell phone has an address book in it, the administration would set up all the numbers in the address book to be monitored and calls listened to. The purpose was to keep all Americans safe.

Many on the left believe that people in the Bush administration should be prosecuted for this practice.  They call this activity criminal.

Who Are Your Enemies?

President Bush tried to prevent our enemies, those who wished to kill as many of us as possible, from doing us harm.  He knew our enemies to be deadly and ruthless.

And then you have Joe Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber.  Joe the Plumber had the audacity to ask Barack Obama a question about how Obama’s policies would affect people like Joe.  Pretty dangerous stuff, no?  Since that chance encounter, Joe the Plumber has been investigated by six Ohio state agencies.  Did you see the ACLU representative on the evening news demanding what the Obama campaign knew about this and when they knew it?  Did you see Chris Matthews slamming his hand on his desk and saying, “This is AMERICA, not the Soviet Union!  We don’t investigate citizens because of their political beliefs.”?  Did you hear Senator Dick Durban rise in the senate to decry what happened to Joe the Plumber and compare it to the Nazis, the Soviet Gulags, and Pol Pot?

Neither did I.

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (1)

Next Entries →

© 2009 Liberty's Lifeline. All Rights Reserved.