media lizzy & friends

This morning on CNN’s Reliable Sources, the last real reporter on any of the Cable news channels, Howard Kurtz, hosted a fiery segment regarding the HuffPo receiving a heads up from the Obama Administration that the President would be calling on Pitney at his big presser. 

Rarely do I find myself defending the honor of Dana Milbank (just look him up on this blog, he is abysmally uninformed with regard to military protocol) but, this week I was in total agreement.  Plus, he just outguns Nico Pitney – who came off as hysterical and ill-equipped to play with the big boys. 

If you insist on dancing the Potomac Two-Step, wear the right shoes. Punk.

—Media Lizzy

Governance is a funny thing.  All campaign promises fade into the history books – to be replaced by new, slightly more realistic promises after the oath of office is administered.  Rare exceptions occur – and they become the “obstacles” on which many a politican has stumbled, bumbled, and flipped over.

President Barack Obama is no different.  He promised to close the detention facility for enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  He made many a speech – spoke with great conviction and made his case.  Just hours after his inauguration as America’s 44th president, he ordered Gitmo closed within a year.

And then, the fun began.  Many of us Bushies – from the campaign, from the administration, from the PR & Donor classes – shook our heads.  Some mocked hope-n-change openly.  Others bid Obama “good luck with that.”  Still others explained that no matter the approach – Gitmo was far more complicated than anyone knew.

Now…six months later… Obama is finding out that his presdecessor George W. Bush has been straight with the American people.  There are no good answers.  The difference?  W knew that bad things happen during war.  Obama believed he could obviate nature – from legal opinion to PR counsel – he thought he knew better.

From The Washington Post, White House Considers Executive Order on Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects:

Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

Not to mention serious problems with the Democratic-led Congress:

After months of internal debate over how to close the military facility in Cuba, White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the prison by the president’s January deadline.

Just to be clear:

“These issues haven’t morphed simply because the administration changed,” said Juan Zarate, who served as Bush’s deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“The challenge for the new administration is how to solve these legal questions of preventive detention in a way that is consistent with the Constitution, legitimate in the eyes of the world and doesn’t create security loopholes that cause Congress to worry,” Zarate said.

Being President isn’t about anything other than the oath.  Not hope.  Not change. Not empathy. Nor Compassionate Conservatism.  It is about the oath.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

—Media Lizzy

From Republican Whip Eric Cantor comes a strong statement regarding fiscal sanity, and American culture — both under assault from the Obama Administration.  While I absolutely recognize the passionate differences between average Americans and the political elite with regard to spending, war, abortion, education, etc… some things are indecent. 

Thank you, Eric for your steadfast leadership.

Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) today issued the following statement as the House began consideration of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 2410):

“This authorization bill, which includes a thirty-five percent increase in the State Department’s basic operations account, is the latest to be larded up with unnecessary spending.  As Republicans work to eliminate wasteful Washington spending, Congressional Democrats and the Administration have taken the opposite approach of imposing massive spending increases upon the American taxpayer – all under the cloud of unprecedented deficits.

“This bill is full of troubling initiatives, including a massive spending increase to fund abortion in foreign countries through the Office of Global Women’s Issues – which Secretary Clinton acknowledged is a tool to promote abortion worldwide.  It makes no sense for American taxpayers to pay for abortions overseas when they disapprove of the procedure here at home. As recently as February, nearly 7 of 10 Americans do not support President Obama’s decision to reverse the prohibition on funding overseas abortion providers. The inclusion of taxpayer funding within this current bill is a blatant dismissal of the will of a majority of Americans.”

—Media Lizzy

follow me on FACEBOOK, or @Twitter!

Well folks, General Motors has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  As a taxpayer, I would just like the $50 Billion the American taxpayer fronted to GM to be accounted for.  What bank is it in? What account is it in? Who are the signatories?   And why does the President keep saying he doesn’t want to run GM, when he is doing just that? 

Ugh.  I don’t get it… thankfully, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor does:

“While it is a sad day when an American icon like General Motors declares bankruptcy, I am concerned that thousands of hard working Americans who chose to invest their savings in the company had their rights trampled by this agreement. These working families and retirees had their voices silenced and their savings erased.

“The nature of this bankruptcy agreement raises serious questions about the ultimate cost to millions of Americans. While the government has now subsidized GM to the tune of $50 billion, the Administration has not demonstrated the ability to account for this enormous taxpayer expenditure. That must change – taxpayers deserve far better oversight and accountability.

“In order to make the tough choices required in bankruptcy, the Administration must explain how taxpayer money is being spent, ensure proper oversight, and demonstrate the ability to turn off the taxpayer spigot once and for all.”

Or, more to the point:

Show me the money, indeed.

—Media Lizzy

follow me on FACEBOOK, or @Twitter!

While I cook up columns on Gay Marriage and the brewing storm between ODNI Blair & DCI Panetta over CIA Station Chiefs… I just want to say this:

Being in love, finding the other half to self — it is such a blessing.  I am grateful every day.  And I hope you are too… remember why you fell in love, it is important.  It will make you smile.  In a world as complicated and fraught with complications, and real threats, we have to take time to breathe in… remembering beauty exists within us all.

This is my new favorite song.   And its for you, BOGO.

—Media Lizzy

Last year, Obama supporters and generic anti-war protesters wreaked havoc during the Republican National Convention.  They used smoke bombs, poured bleach on elderly delegates, broke plate glass windows, and disrupted convention floor proceedings.  It was worse than when we gathered in New York – and to my mind it was a reflection of the zeal that Obama inspired.  Sure, it is an unintended consequence by then-Candidate Obama and his campaign staff – but consider for a moment if a “young Texan man” had been indicted, then convicted, of manufacturing molotov cocktails with the intent to harm folks during the Democratic National COnvention in Denver.  There would have been a firestorm.  “Racist” would have been in every paragraph written about the story.  And today - upon being sentenced for his crimes - it would have garnered a big “breaking news” dong.

Double standard intact, here is an interesting bit of information from the US Department of Justice:

A 23-year-old man from Austin, Texas, who was connected to a group that planned to disrupt the Republican National Convention in September 2008, was sentenced today in federal court on three firearms charges.

On May 21 in Minneapolis, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Michael Davis sentenced David Guy McKay to 48 months in prison and three years of supervised release on one count of possession of an unregistered firearm, one count of illegal manufacture of a firearm and one count of possession of a firearm with no serial number.  McKay pleaded guilty on March 17.

Today’s sentence included a finding by Judge Davis that McKay obstructed justice at his January trial by falsely accusing a government informant, Brandon Darby, of inducing him to manufacture the Molotov cocktails.

Judge Davis told McKay that while it was acceptable for people to peacefully protest, McKay’s activities took him down a different path, one of anarchy.  “I saw you on the videotape,” Judge Davis added, referring to evidence shown of McKay during a recording of a violent protest. “You were leading the charge.  You and Crowder were coming up here (to Minnesota) to do anarchy against the system.”

“This milestone today is another result of two years of diligent preparation for the 2008 Republican National Convention,” said Ralph Boelter, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Minneapolis Field Office.  “The successful outcome in this case is due in no small part to our strong working relationships with partner agencies like U.S. Secret Service, St. Paul Police Department, Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office and the ATF.”

McKay was indicted on Sept. 22, 2008, along with a second defendant, Bradley Neal Crowder, 24, Austin, Texas.  Crowder was sentenced to 24 months in prison last week on one count of possession of an unregistered firearm.  McKay was tried for the crimes in January, but the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict.

During McKay’s guilty plea hearing, he admitted that from Aug. 31 through Sept. 3, 2008, he knowingly possessed firearms, namely destructive devices, not registered to anyone in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.  McKay also admitted that he made the devices, as well as knowingly received and possessed destructive devices not identified by serial number as required by law.

Following a FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force investigation, McKay was arrested by the St. Paul Police Department during the execution of a search warrant on Sept. 3 at a residence on Dayton Avenue.  Police found eight assembled Molotov cocktails in the basement.  They consisted of bottles filled with gasoline with an attached wick made from tampons.

According to trial testimony, the FBI in Texas began investigating the group, labeled by law enforcement as the Austin Affinity Group, in February 2008.  McKay and Crowder were members of the group.

McKay admitted that on Aug. 28, 2008, he, Crowder and other members of the Austin Affinity Group traveled from Austin, Texas, to Minnesota.  The group brought a rental trailer with them that contained 35 riot shields, made from stolen traffic barrels.  The intended use of the shields was to help demonstrators block streets near the Xcel Energy Center in order to prevent convention delegates from safely reaching the convention.  St. Paul Police seized these shields on Aug. 31.

According to trial testimony, McKay and Crowder, angered by the loss of the shields, purchased supplies for constructing Molotov cocktails at a St. Paul Wal-Mart on Aug. 31, including a gas can, motor oil and tampons.  They also purchased gasoline at a gas station.  They then manufactured the eight Molotov cocktails at an apartment on Dayton Avenue where they were staying.

Law enforcement learned through an informant that McKay and Crowder had manufactured the Molotov cocktails.

During a conversation overheard by law enforcement through electronic surveillance on Sept. 2, McKay told an informant that he intended to throw the Molotov cocktails at police vehicles parked in a lot near the Dayton Avenue apartment.  The parking lot was used as a checkpoint area for vehicles entering the security perimeter around the convention site.  It was visibly patrolled by the U.S. Secret Service, various police agencies and the military.

During the execution of a search warrant by the St. Paul Police Department at the Dayton Avenue residence where McKay was staying when he was arrested, officers seized a variety of items, including gas masks, slingshots, helmets and knee pads.  Under the kitchen sink, officers discovered a two-gallon gasoline container identical to the one purchased by McKay at the Wal-Mart on Aug. 31.  In the basement of the residence, officers found eight assembled Molotov cocktails.

This case was the result of an investigation by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, which includes in addition to the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office, the Secret Service and the St. Paul Police Department.  It was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jeffrey S. Paulsen and W. Anders Folk.

—Media Lizzy

follow me on FACEBOOK, or @Twitter!

This morning at the American Enterprise Institute, former Vice President Cheney gave the speech of his life. If you did not see it, please read it in full below.  It was truth. He spoke of justice.  And he is right.

H/T to Bill Kristol

—Media Lizzy

Thank you all very much, and Arthur, thank you for that introduction. It’s good to be back at AEI, where we have many friends. Lynne is one of your longtime scholars, and I’m looking forward to spending more time here myself as a returning trustee. What happened was, they were looking for a new member of the board of trustees, and they asked me to head up the search committee.

I first came to AEI after serving at the Pentagon, and departed only after a very interesting job offer came along. I had no expectation of returning to public life, but my career worked out a little differently. Those eight years as vice president were quite a journey, and during a time of big events and great decisions, I don’t think I missed much.

Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I’m an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen – a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.

The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I’m not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. We understand the complexities of national security decisions. We understand the pressures that confront a president and his advisers. Above all, we know what is at stake. And though administrations and policies have changed, the stakes for America have not changed.

Right now there is considerable debate in this city about the measures our administration took to defend the American people. Today I want to set forth the strategic thinking behind our policies. I do so as one who was there every day of the Bush Administration –who supported the policies when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993, they bombed the World Trade Center, hoping to bring down the towers with a blast from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.

Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact – crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.

That’s how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least – but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat – what the Congress called “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.

We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We’d just been hit by a foreign enemy – leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn’t know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.

These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass – a 9/11 with nuclear weapons.

For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.

There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day – word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I’ve heard occasional speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that. But I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.

To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.

We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations … the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear program. It’s required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.

The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.

In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations.

In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.

Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.

By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they’re after would be heard before a so-called “Truth Commission.” Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It’s hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.

Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.

One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see – including the enemy – let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.

It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You’ve heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed – the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.

We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn’t know about al-Qaeda’s plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

Maybe you’ve heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.

In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America’s cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Those personnel were carefully chosen from within the CIA, and were specially prepared to apply techniques within the boundaries of their training and the limits of the law. Torture was never permitted, and the methods were given careful legal review before they were approved. Interrogators had authoritative guidance on the line between toughness and torture, and they knew to stay on the right side of it.

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.” Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term “war” where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we’re advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, “Overseas contingency operations.” In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, “man-made disaster” – never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, “enemy combatants,” as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn’t change what they are – or what they would do if we let them loose.

On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Their idea now, as stated by Attorney General Holder and others, is apparently to bring some of these hardened terrorists into the United States. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President’s own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.

The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, it turns out that many were treated too leniently, because they cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

It’s one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we’re no longer engaged in a war. These are just words, and in the end it’s the policies that matter most. You don’t want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you want – just don’t bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war? Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.”

It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.

The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.

This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.

As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.

I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.” End of quote.

If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it’ll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs – on the continuing threat of terrorist violence, and on stopping the men who are planning it.

For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history – not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them. And when I think about all that was to come during our administration and afterward – the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of “hubris” – my mind always goes back to that moment.

To put things in perspective, suppose that on the evening of 9/11, President Bush and I had promised that for as long as we held office – which was to be another 2,689 days – there would never be another terrorist attack inside this country. Talk about hubris – it would have seemed a rash and irresponsible thing to say. People would have doubted that we even understood the enormity of what had just happened. Everyone had a very bad feeling about all of this, and felt certain that the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville were only the beginning of the violence.

Of course, we made no such promise. Instead, we promised an all-out effort to protect this country. We said we would marshal all elements of our nation’s power to fight this war and to win it. We said we would never forget what had happened on 9/11, even if the day came when many others did forget. We spoke of a war that would “include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.” We followed through on all of this, and we stayed true to our word.

To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.

Along the way there were some hard calls. No decision of national security was ever made lightly, and certainly never made in haste. As in all warfare, there have been costs – none higher than the sacrifices of those killed and wounded in our country’s service. And even the most decisive victories can never take away the sorrow of losing so many of our own – all those innocent victims of 9/11, and the heroic souls who died trying to save them.

For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted.

Thank you very much.

“If she were not a great beauty…” 

“Because of her great beauty…” 

“She is very beautiful…”

“If Carrie weren’t so beautiful, this never would have come up,” he said. “Carrie is totally beautiful.  And her answer, because of that, took on more importance.  Unfortunately, that’s the way the press works. You should be ashamed of yourselves.”

The above quotes are from Donald Trump, the owner of the Miss Universe and Miss USA organization, and primary defender of Miss California USA Carrie Prejean.  Three weeks ago she answered a question at the Miss USA pageant regarding Gay Marriage and a firestorm ensued.  The content of her answer was fair – she notes that in the United States, people may choose same-sex marriage or traditional (“opposite”) marriage – but for her, she believes in one man, one woman.  

Mr. Trump and Miss Prejean noted President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and many – many – other people in high profile positions share Miss Prejean’s interpretation of what defines, or constitutes, marriage.   Including her fellow Californians.

I believe the Federal Government (since I actually believe in limited government) should not interfere in legal contracts between two adults – per the 10th Amendment, and its enumeration of state sovereignty.  I also believe only a church has the authority, to determine what is Holy Matrimony – not the government.   Which differentiates me from Miss Prejean, as she does not appear to support Civil Unions – and I absolutely do.  If it is a civil ceremony – then it is a civil marriage, just like the millions of others who have chosen to get married at the local courthouse or by a justice of the peace.  On the Right & Left of the marriage debate – there is a battle about semantics and rhetoric surrounding civil ceremonies, not about Holy Matrimony.  Once they get their stories straight (ha ha) then I will revisit the issue politically.

For this column, I want to focus on beautiful women.  In this instance, let us ask why a beautiful woman – like Carrie Prejean - found herself at the center of a national debate.  Judge Number 8, Perez Hilton, called her a “stupid bitch” in a vlog just after the pageant concluded and Miss North Carolina was crowned Miss USA.  Hilton went on to hurl other invectives, none of which I will repeat.  He may support Gay Marriage but he is not a spokesman for the cause, and his tactics are not representative.  I do not believe his attack on Miss Prejean has anything to do with her answer regarding Gay Marriage.  That is an excuse.

He’s an angry, ugly-on-the-inside person.  Since he’s famous – you can just google him.  If you want to read what a person with an ugly soul sounds like, look him up.  I refuse to link to his website.  Here’s what you will find, should you seek him out: If there is a beautiful, demure, successful woman with fame – chances are, he has written something foul about her.  It amazes me he doesn’t choose green for his text color, because he makes it all too clear that he is blistering green with envy of beautiful, feminine, talented, and succesful women.

Unsurprisingly, there are no Feminists defending Miss Prejean.  They have looked the other way as photographs of her were released without consent to the media, some of which were photoshopped or were outtakes.  As this very beautiful young woman was tossed into a firestorm, they looked the other way.  So what if she is being sexually exploited.  Feminists care about killing unborn children far more than they care about exploitation.  Let’s be honest, semi-nude photos of this young woman are not being circulated for some noble purpose.  It was to tear her down.  Now, male radio hosts (as I heard this morning driving my teenage daughter to school) are making jokes about her breasts — and so are supposedly “conservative” writers, like this one from the recently launched Parcbench.  Not every model has her nudes taken by Steven Meisel or Mario Testino.  The human body is a beautiful creation and for millenia we have appreciated nude paintings and sculptures as art.  Technology has unfortunately corrupted our culture, forcing models to accept the consequences when they choose to participate in semi-nude or nude photoshoots.

For years, I have watched as the feminist movement pretended to care about women.  From Gloria Steinem, Patricia Ireland and Margaret Sanger to Kate Michelman and their pro-abortion advocacy to Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth.  They are contempuous of beautiful, feminine, intelligent and successful women.  For a time, I read Naomi Wolf with some interest… she is charismatic, has an Ivy League education, was aesthetically beautiful and talked about the oversexualization of girls at too young an age… things I have been interested in all my life.  Somewhere along the way, she fell victim to the Leftist ideals of feminism, never realizing how the vaguely masculine Patricia Irelands of the world are all too happy to kill the spirit of a beautiful woman.  Modern feminism, with the glaring exception of Camille Paglia, is about hating men and stamping out their seed.  It is about hate.  They can wrap it up in “anti-Patriarch” ribbons and bows, but that does not make it so.

Naomi Wolf predictably blames men for her lot.  She bought the whole lie – hook, line, and sinker.  Wolf points fingers at men in general, at her college professor, and Republicans.  But rather than be angry – I paid close attention.  I listened.  I observed as she was forced to remain on the fringes of the Left punditicracy, a victim of her own aesthetic appeal.  She duped herself.

She was never acceptable to the Hillary crowd.  Once it was Al Gore’s turn to run for President - Tipper Gore never saw her as a threat.  She viewed Wolf as a nice, Liberal gal who supported her husband Al for president.  Why the disparity?

Because Hillary is a dyed in the wool member of the ugly tribe.  And Tipper is as feminine in her fifties as she was in her 20s.  Beauty and femininity are not about political ideology… and before I go further, let’s have some brutal honesty:

As a woman, I know this column will earn a lot of hate mail.  I am defending aesthetically beautiful women against their jealous detractors.  Women who believe because they are thin, attractive, or wealthy, or married, or because they helm an anti-man/pro-abortion think tank, or are Governor of a pro-life/pro-gun state such as Alaska that they are superior to a beautiful woman are mistaken.  Being thin, attractive, and/or sexually available does not inspire the word “beautiful.”

Our culture makes many assumptions about beautiful girls and women.  Some wars are not meant to be waged, yet women do this to each other every day. 

A symmetric face, dewy skin, full lips, and a decent metabolism is not a choice.  Nor is it a personal and individual attack on ugly people.  It is genetic.  It is possible to be a spectacular looking woman and be a good person.  What constitutes beauty differs from person to person.  Simple beauty, exotic beauty, classic beauty, and timeless beauty all exist.  Many of these beautiful women also possess above average intellect.  Strong work ethic.  They maintain high moral standards.  And are lovers, mothers, friends, sisters, daughters, aunts, nieces, wives that happen to be wonderful beings as well. 

Aphrodite.  Nefertiti.  Helen of Troy.  Cleopatra.  Botticelli’s beauties.  Titian’s startlingly self-possessed and sexually aware Venus of Urbino. Iconic women with iconic faces.  Their lives were rich and enduring.  Helen, wife of Menelaus, and lover to Paris… thousands of years later her face, “the face that launched one thousand ships” continues to fascinate and bewitch us. 

Beauty comes from the content of our character as well.   Think of the woman you know with the laugh or smile that  warms up a room.  Or the woman with a smile that casts incandescent light on every face around her.  Remember the mom at soccer, cross country or football?  The lovely mommy toting snacks and drinks, who effortlessly generates a positive energy - boosting team spirit.   She is not Halle Berry or Cindy Crawford but she is just as beautiful.

Beautiful women have enemies.  I am simply asking you to take a gander beyond the looking glass.   If you are one of those petty, jealous folks… go ahead and queue up the “send email” screen.  Because you are ugly.  Through and through.  Yep, I said it.  I don’t like ugly people.  Read: Ugly on the inside.  Which, with rare exception translates right onto your face.  In hardness.  And I don’t like you.  Neither does any normal, morally centered being.

Being a bitch with a borderline-anorexic body does not make you beautiful. It does not make you “better” than a truly beautiful woman, no matter her size.  It makes you superficial and clueless at best.  Making “thin” a goal, when it does not also include a healthy lifestyle and a healthy soul — well, then you don’t understand the physics of beauty either. 

Obviously, all aesthetically beautiful people are not angels.  I understand.  But after thousands of years of literature trashing the beautiful… that is well-trodden ground.  From the time Akenhaten and Nefertiti’s successors began wiping their names from the temples at El Amarna and beyond… beautiful women were easy targets.  Heck, women of any stripe are easy targets.  Beautiful or not.

From the moment DaVinci finished the Mona Lisa, some folks felt compelled to ask what was so special about her.  How many times have you heard someone say they just don’t get it? Not the smile.  Not the aesthetics. 

Here is the answer: DaVinci found her beautiful.  Or fascinating. Or captivating.  It is all beautiful – and he gave us this iconic image, he shared a piece of her magic with us.  Her beauty was simple.  If you don’t get it – that does not translate automatically to “the Mona Lisa is not beautiful.”  It means you do not get it. Either you are wrong, or DaVinci was wrong.  Unless your priceless painted canvases are hanging the Louvre, you are not the ‘decider’ with regard to 16th Century beauty.

Beauty is more than in the eye of the beholder.  Beauty is none of your damn business.  DaVinci found his model beautiful.  And that is good enough for me.  We are fascinated by this iconic face – because her smile remains as enchanting in the 21st century as it was in the 16th.

The centuries have turned into milennia since the love story of Marc Antony and his Cleopatra – a woman who conquered not only Antony, but Julius Caesar before him, was immortalized.  Reknowned Egyptian Archaeologist Zahi Hawass announced recently beneath an ancient temple to Osiris and Isis, about 30 km from Alexandria, there appear to be undisturbed burial chambers.  Artifacts and clues abound… the questions we all yearn to have answered: are they truly buried together? was their love all consuming? was Cleopatra as beautiful as we imagine or hope?  

Or, was she simply a charismatic and manipulative ruler who possessed a strangely hypnotic voice and sexual power, with just a hint of deviancy?  The implication being Marc Antony did not love her, nor find her beautiful – he was only about hot sex and accumulating power.  He could not possibly have been in love.  And, even if she were beautiful, she was just as desperate for power as he was and never loved him. 

Whatever their truth may have been – it is possible they were beautiful, in love, and any other combination of qualities.  The fascination with their relationship survives for two reasons, and you are in one camp or the other.  You believe in love and beauty, or you hope they were filthy and ugly people hellbent on world domination.

Throughout history, beautiful women who happen to be successful or intelligent or morally upright tend to get the axe.  Particularly if they partner with a wealthy, powerful man.  That is what earns the ire.  Anne Boleyn, a beauty in her day, has been plagued by rumors of a sixth finger.  People have called her a witch.  Phillippa Gregory’s The Other Boleyn Girl is a prime example.  Shoddy research and a hidden agenda equals one thing: destroy Anne.   To write a novel, with barely concealed jealousy of a woman who has been dead for five hundred years is a bit much.  To believe Gregory - we must agree that Henry VIII preferred Anne Boleyn’s slutty sister Mary over Anne.  Anne Boleyn was a self-possessed, smart, a capable tactician, and a beauty who not only loved King Henry – but challenged him to be a man of his word, she was unafraid of him or his power.  She made him better.  He made her better. 

My primary criticism of Ms. Gregory’s work, and many others, is the assertion that Anne was raped by King Henry VIII.  Why imply such a thing?  For literary enrichment?  No.  To accomplish two things: paint Anne as deserving of rape.  And to paint Henry as a rapist – depicting a powerful, passionate man as an animal.  Why again?  Because, if Anne loved King Henry – and he loved her… then his break with the Vatican (and the spark that ignited the Reformation) was due in no small part to beauty, love, passion, and intangibles most simply can not grasp.  King Henry VIII was not sitting around looking for a way to stick it to Rome.  

  How many times have you heard someone say Jane Seymour was King Henry’s greatest love?  Why do people persist with this?  He threw off his beliefs not because Martin Luther was such hot shit – his writings were simply a vehicle of justification - but for Anne Boleyn – and love, passion, and the urgency that is sometimes created when two people are consumed by their desire for each other.  Anne Boleyn was his impetus.  Jane Seymour was a lovely weekend at the beach – Anne Boleyn was a lifetime at Castel Gandolfo. (naughty reference intended)  To be clear, I am not discussing theology here – just the simple mechanics of beauty and its role in our lives.  This “power couple” is reviled only by those who hate to see a beautiful woman and a powerful, wealthy man find happiness. 

Other examples abound, with great thanks to technology.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a beautiful woman today, was victimized through female genital mutilation.  Simply because she is a woman.  Once she became a politician, and associated herself with Theo Van Gogh, the gloves came off.  Where are the feminists defending her?  She poses a triple threat to their ugliness.  Ali possesses aesthetic beauty, personal grace and intellectual gravitas.  Where are the women on the right defending her?  Ah, well – they will certainly show up for the pictures at AEI - but most folks in the Conservative movement leave discussion of Female Genital Mutilation, and anything to do with Africa, to us “Compassionate Conservatives” a. k. a. RINOs.  With the exception of Former FLOTUS Laura Bush who put MalariaNoMore on the map years ago.  (Sorry Mr. Kutcher.)

Mary Magdalene spent hundreds of years characterized as a prostitute.  Unclean.  A whore.  Millions of “believers” never asked aloud a simple question: if Jesus Christ revered this woman, what are the chances I should as well? 

Carla Bruni-Sarkozy… a spectacularly beautiful and accomplished woman.  Multi-lingual (how many Americans speak more than one language, let alone three or four?)  Karl Lagerfeld summed the state of things up nicely to Maureen Orth of Vanity Fair last year, ”She’’s imaginiative, clever, educated. She knows how to behave.  She speaks many languages.  It must be an embarassment for the wives of other heads of state to see this beautiful creature who can wear anything and speak like that.”  

Designer Jean Paul Gaultier says this: “She’s clever, super well educated, and very focused.  She is like the heroine of a book or a movie.”

Let us ponder for a moment: Carla Bruni-Sarkozy.  She once graced the cover of more than 250 magazines across the globe, during the height of her career as a supermodel.  She was romantically linked to Eric Clapton and Mick Jagger and many other famous, wealthy men.  They were, and remain, her peers.   As she built her post-modeling career with two solo albums, she met and married the President of France.  A Socialist. With regard to their whirlwind romance and marriage, Vanity Fair’s Maureen Orth captured an intimate moment thus:

Bruni beckons me from across the room to meet her husband.  “Bonjour, Maureen,” he says with a big smile.  “Is she helping you?,” I ask.  Bruni puts her arm around the president, pulling him in to kiss his cheek, and nuzzle his face with her nose.  Beaming, Sarkozy tells me, “I am happy like nev-air.”

For all the ridiculous comparisons made, no matter how many times Liberals say Michelle Obama is more elegant than Carla Bruni-Sarkozy… it will never be true.  Michelle Obama knows this, and it is cruel to compare her to Carla Bruni.  With beauty comes responsibility – and ugly-on-the-inside people should be called on the carpet.  Wearing couture does not make you beautiful.  Mrs. Obama is an attractive, athletic, and above-average lady.  But a multi-lingual French-Italian supermodel she is not. 

The examples go on, and on, and on.  Angelina Jolie is beautiful.  Her features are symmetric, voluptuous, evocative and ethereal.  She will always, always be more beautiful than Jennifer Aniston.   Miss Jolie, mother of six, is a human rights advocate.  She puts her money where her mouth is.  She donates a significant portion of her income to humanitarian relief.  She does relief work without cameras.  She is remarkably well-read.  She is the first non-college graduate to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. She is poised, even in the face of a daily onslaught against her.  Many will accuse her and Brad Pitt, a beautiful and wealthy man, of having an affair while he was married to Aniston.  First, that is none of our business.  And second, Aniston made it clear she preferred being thin and having no children.  Every interview with Brad Pitt regarding family said he wanted lots of kids.  Seems to me they both got what they wanted.  And much like Michelle Obama, Aniston knows that no matter how thin she is – she will never be the iconic, mysterious beauty that is Angelina Jolie.

Meghan McCain, another beautiful girl, was ripped for being “too plus-sized” by conservative Talk Radio guru Laura Ingraham.  Laura, like many vaguely masculine women, pretended it was satire.  But if you listen to her and her diatribes on women for any period of time… unfortunately, she – like many people – equates beauty with diminished intellectual capacity.  Ms. Ingraham has a long list of her own wonderful accomplishments.  I am sure she is beautiful to her adopted child.  Every mom is beautiful to her children, and because of that – I expected more from Ms. Ingraham.  In the world of politics, the sisterhood should accept new members every chance we get.  Miss McCain is young, energized and finding her way.  She should not be punished for her beauty.  If you have an ideological disagreement, fine.  But discussing the size of her body is off limits.  As I said earlier, being thin is not the be-all, end-all.  Not to mention, I am pretty certain that Ingraham and McCain are not dating the same types of men.

Finally… I recognize not all beautiful women come from the traditional camp.  Sarah Jessica Parker, of Sex and the City fame, has been called horse-face and many other horrible things.  But she too is a beautiful woman.  She is self-possessed, articulate, talented, and lucky enough to connect with millions of women who want love.  Real love.  The all-consuming, wash over me, can’t live without it love.  Her personal style – on screen and off – has inspired women to wait for their own Mr. Big.  

For hundreds, even thousands of years, beautiful women have been held to impossible standards.  Average women have too.  But alone in the dark, in the comfort of our beds…next to our beloved, or alone in the quiet – real beauty can not be seen.  In the darkness we are all the same.  Beauty emanates from within. 

—Media Lizzy

MUST READ: Dr. Melissa Clouthier on The Perils of Being a Beautiful Woman: Feminism’s Ugly Legacy

Worth a watch: The Human Face

follow me on FACEBOOK, or @Twitter!

I spent much of this week reading through hundreds of pages of information.  Some were resources provided to me by a former, and very senior, CIA official that gave me some profound insight to the realities decision-makers faced in the wake of 9/11.  

Then I perused my old Woodward books that centered on the Bush presidency.  I re-read Doug Feith’s diatribe, er… book.  Re-reading George Tenet’s At the Center of the Storm (coupled with data from the aforementioned former CIA official) reminded me of his tumultuous, and critical, years as DCI.

I turned to old archived data from the Bush years for contemporaneous accounts. I reviewed MSM coverage.  Then I reviewed items in Federal Register and the ever-helpful Thomas.LOC.gov site, both of which gave me ever more insight into the rampant hypocrisy and outright BS being spewed by MoCs (Members of Congress) with regard to not only EITs (Enhanced Interrogation Techniques) and the alleged torture… but also with regard to the following: Darfur, Uganda, Rwanda, Somalia, genocide, rape as a Crime Against Humanity, orphans, child soldiers, Islamic radicals, the Janjaweed, starvation, preventable diseases, malaria, malnutrition, AIDS, HIV, epidemics, pandemics, prevention, healthcare, the absence of healthcare, financial misappropriation and malfeasance, human rights, protesters, liars, bullshitters, troops, officers, civil servant, public health, and at least a hundred other things that have been discussed but not addressed in a real way for at least a generation.  

Of course, I’ve got another article on torture – and the lack thereof – partially written.  But, given my passion for the issue… I decided to share some unredacted thoughts.  

For those who are horrified or enthused by Shepard Smith’s “We do not fucking torture” outburst; keep your powder dry.  I recall the last time Shep bought time with the Liberals.  He enjoys his role as the “good” reporter at Fox News Channel.  Remember him standing on the overpass after Hurricane Katrina?  Hollering and cursing then-President George W. Bush.  Nevermind the Constitution.  Nevermind the 10th Amendment.  Nevermind that then-Governor Kathleen Blanco refused to make the official request to the President for Federal Assistance, which would have facilitated access for Federal assistance.  At what point is Shep, a native Mississippian, unclear on how Southern states feel about “State’s Rights” and state sovereignty? 

Oh nevermind, why screw around with the facts, when throwing the F-Bomb is so much more fun? 

Shepard Smith, and his sympathizers notwithstanding, the biggest problem I see with the torture issue is two-fold.  First, President Obama knows for a fact that even as Commander in Chief, he will never, ever be as much a man as any one of the Clandestine Operators, Intelligence officers, Special Forces operators, or field Commanders like General David Petraeus.  Not ever.  No matter what. 

Second, because he has no institutional knowledge (since he’s hostile to the aforementioned folks) — he is allowing his staffers to conflate the KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) & Abu Zubaydah interrogators (whose average age was 43) with the enlisted kids guarding folks at Abu Gharaib in Iraq.

The former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte’s office distributed this memo, circa September 2006.  Read this five-page memo for yourself by clicking HERE.

That memo is problematic for the Obama Administration, as well as Speaker Pelosi – because it confirms they have clearly never been stakeholders in national security.  It also crystallizes something very important.  It proves that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and many others are ignorant, willfully so, of the facts.  Only when he had his eyes on a presidential campaign did Obama “lean” to the right. (Ex: voting to confirm Condi Rice as SecState, Chertoff for DHS, and most interestingly – for John Negroponte as DNI and the re-auth of the Patriot Act & “domestic surveillance” aka FISA)

So, when it works for him to man-up, Obama does.  However fleeting – he tries to play the role of Decider.

If Obama can’t get the baseline facts straight (forget the partisanship, he has that DOWN) – just plain ol’ inconvenient facts — with regard to war, the rules of war, the UN Convention Against Torture, the US Senate’s ratification & amended statements on the UNCAT, the Geneva Convention, the War Crimes Act, and other governing statutes and treaties… how are we to have confidence in his ability to deal appropriately with the issue?

If Obama does not know the difference between an idiot non-com at Abu Gharaib and a 20+ year veteran of the Clandestine service, why should we be confident in his intellectual and dispassionate mediation of the truth between the actual players, and the press?

Truth is – we can’t.  And the American people know it — this is why the GOP is hammering the issue.  Getting into a cat-fight with Dick Cheney over national security; when he & his cadre of Ford-era behind-the-scenes players have been in the game since Obama was in short pants — well, with all that fancy-shmancy education of Obama’s – it proves you can have as many Ivy League degrees as you want — but you can’t get an academic scholarship for Common Sense.

Now – turn that lens on Africa.  Does Obama have the slightest clue what is happening there?  Does he understand why the Sudan is a huge problem?  Does he know the history we have with Sudan?  Does he understand that if Clinton had neutered UBL & his posse in The Mog – we would be in a much different world?  No one would be debating the idiocy of “terrorism” versus “man-caused disasters.”

Darfur.  Uganda.  Somalia.  Americans need a reality check with regards to the whole continent. Going to a protest and buying a (RED) t-shirt at The GAP does not a human rights advocate make.  Hiring Samantha Power and Susan Rice does not a pro-Human Rights policy make.  Susan Rice has a poor track record, and no one really believes the Samantha Power is making a darn bit of difference at her new office in the NSA.  Not one extra mouth has been fed because of her.  Not ONE.

The only sign of good news is a renewed commitment to PEPFAR appears in his FY2010 budget — but he hasn’t pushed for it. Not once.  No new press releases appear at PEPFAR.gov either.  So, it remains to be seen if he will ever be on par with his predecessor with regard to Africa.  No American President has made more of a commitment to Africa and her people than George W. Bush.  (This is the part where I refrain from making a snide comment regarding the irony there.  And where I refrain from pointing out Obama’s disdain for the British as a result of his righteous indignation on behalf of his Kenyan grandfather)

Lesson number one for every American president is this: It ain’t about YOU, your family, your ancestors.  It’s about selfless service to the American people at large.  IF you don’t understand that… then Americans have a responsibility to hold not only the President and his Administration accountable – but also the US Congress.  

President Obama, his allies, and friends in the press corps that repeat Shep Smith’s “We don’t fucking torture” mantra simply don’t get it.  The legality of these issues is well laid out, ratified by the US Senate, and like everything else in the Law — it is subject to interpretation.  That is a matter for another day. 

I reject their self-declared moral superiority because they seek to apply standards to folks who are easy targets.  Clandestine operators seldom march to the microphones and hold press conferences.  Obama is not being intellectually honest, nor consistent.  This affectation of moral highness is silly.  He has already proven that he does not care about torture.  He has done NOTHING on Darfur but appoint a neutered Scott Gration to placate anti-Genocide activists with regard to Darfur.  He has glad-handed with Hugo Chavez – who uses torture, rape, and murder on his political enemies.  He wants to hold hands with Iran’s Ahmadinejead, who encourages torture and imprisonment.  Obama wants to play nice with North Korea where Kim Jong Il uses starvation as a weapon of choice in exacting extreme obedience via mental torture on his people.  Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia where women are stoned to death every week, where Female Genital Mutilation is the order of the day. 

I can’t help but wonder, does President Obama see Female Genital Mutilation as torture?  Or is that practice ”cool?”   Because that happens every day – by the thousands – all across Africa, to little girls about the age of his daughters. (and my daughter)

So yes, let us have a debate on the morality of torture with President Barack Hussein Obama.  Let us have it out.  Release the data.  Let us discuss torture.  Mental anguish.  Let us talk of women all across Africa being raped, being cut, being stoned, and forced to watch their little girls and little boys starve, be raped, and die of preventable diseases.  Let us talk about the moral high ground on which Barack Obama judges George W. Bush.  Let us have an open and unredacted debate about a couple of caterpillars in a box with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is WORSE than any thing else. 

Is President Obama really more concerned with coddling the man who brutally beheaded Danny Pearl?   Has any one in his administration bothered to suggest that perhaps, just perhaps, banging his chest about being nice to KSM may cause Marianne Pearl and her son some “extreme mental anguish?”  

Every time Shep Smith and Barack Obama reach for the binky and snuggie when we talk about the ugly work of Clandestine operators… I think about Marianne Pearl, and the wife of Johnny Michael Spann, and their kids…  and the millions of people around the world who thank God, Allah, and every deity in the Greek Pantheon for the American Soldier.  America is the beacon of hope, not Barack Obama.

—Media Lizzy

follow me on FACEBOOK, or @Twitter!

So… let’s get caught up in the “Transnationalist” movement for just a few minutes… During the Bush 41 Administration (1989-1993) the US Senate ratified the UN Convention Against Torture.  So… let’s assume as “enemy combatants” that terrorists like Abu Zubaydah or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are not subject to the Geneva Convention (since they were not State actors wearing a nation-state uniform) but instead are subject to the Convention Against Torture.

Here is what the US Senate said about just such instances:

United States of America²⁰

Upon signature :

Declaration:

“The Government of the United States of America reserves the right to communicate, upon ratification, such reservations, interpretive understandings, or declarations as are deemed necessary.”

Upon ratification :

Reservations:

“I. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:

(1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’, only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

(2) That pursuant to article 30 (2) the United States declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 30 (1), but reserves the right specifically to agree to follow this or any other procedure for arbitration in a particular case.

II. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:

(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender’s custody or physical control.

(c) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that `sanctions’ includes judicially-imposed sanctions and other enforcement actions authorized by United States law or by judicial interpretation of such law. Nonetheless, the United States understands that a State Party could not through its domestic sanctions defeat the object and purpose of the Convention to prohibit torture.

(d) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that the term `acquiescence’ requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.

(e) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the Unites States understands that noncompliance with applicable legal procedural standards does not per se constitute torture.

(2) That the United States understands the phrase, `where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,’ as used in article 3 of the Convention, to mean `if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.’

(3) That it is the understanding of the United States that article 14 requires a State Party to provide a private right of action for damages only for acts of torture committed in territory under the jurisdiction of that State Party.

(4) That the United States understands that international law does not prohibit the death penalty, and does not consider this Convention to restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including any constitutional period of confinement prior to the imposition of the death penalty.

(5) That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by the United States Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered by the Convention and otherwise by the state and local governments. Accordingly, in implementing articles 10-14 and 16, the United States Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units of the United States of America may take appropriate measures for the fulfilment of the Convention.

III. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following declarations:

(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing.

Our friends in Great Britain were quite a bit more direct:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Upon signature:

“The United Kingdom reserves the right to formulate, upon ratifying the Convention, any reservations or interpretative declarations which it might consider necessary.”

Read the UNCAT HERE.

—Media Lizzy