free web counter

Maries Two Cents

Far Right Conservative And Proud Of It!..... Stories That I Think Need Special Attention, And, Of Course, My Two Cents :-)

My Photo
Name:
Location: Del City, Oklahoma, United States




Click for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Forecast





Homeland Security Advisory

February 15, 2008

Feed Shark Turbo Tagger

Congress Leaves On Vacation Leaving America Vulnerable To Another Attack

House Dems 'Leave Washington, Leave America Exposed to Attack'


President Bush and Republicans are blasting House Democratic leaders for taking a week-long President's Day recess without passing a key piece of national security legislation.

The Protect America Act -- which authorizes the U.S. intelligence community to quickly monitor terrorist communications -- will expire at midnight on Saturday.

"If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning will be compromised," President Bush warned on Thursday. "It would be a mistake if the Congress were to allow this to happen."

House Democrats are going to allow it to happen, however.

They have refused to take up a bipartisan bill that easily passed the Senate earlier this week, because that bill would not only modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- it also would grant legal immunity to telecommunications companies that assisted the government in its warrantless electronic surveillance after Sept. 11, 2001.

"Without this protection, without this liability shield, we may not be able
to secure the private sector's cooperation with our intelligence efforts," President Bush warned. That would put the American people at risk, he added.

Two days ago, the House rejected a short-term FISA extension intended to give Democrats more time to work on a permanent fix. Even some Democrats voted against a short-term fix.

"Terrorists seeking to harm America and destroy our way of life have been handed a major victory by the Majority's decision to bar intelligence officials from opening any new foreign surveillance cases without needless bureaucratic hurdles," House Republican Leader John Boehner said on Thursday.

"As Members of Congress return to their congressional districts for the 12-day recess, terrorists will continue plotting to attack our nation and our allies. And the American people will have every reason to ask why House Democrats have undermined the ability of our intelligence officials to protect us."



The FISA bill is so important to President Bush, he offered to delay his trip to Africa on Friday if it would help House leaders finish work on the FISA bill.

President Bush says it's clear that the Senate bill would easily pass the House, if only House Democratic leaders would bring it to the floor for a vote.

"Our government has no greater responsibility than getting this work done, and there really is no excuse for letting this critical legislation expire," Bush said. "The House should not leave Washington without passing the Senate bill."

In response to a question, President Bush said he hopes Congress isn't "playing politics," as some Republicans have charged. "I can assure you al Qaeda in their planning isn't thinking about politics. They're thinking about hurting the American people again."

President Bush says the U.S. intelligence community needs to know what America's enemies are saying, planning and thinking. He said electronic surveillance "has been very effective."

President Bush noted that the House passed a short-term FISA fix last summer - the Protect America Act, which expires this weekend. "And if it was necessary last summer, why is it not necessary today?" Bush asked.

Instead of tackling a FISA bill on Thursday, House Democrats further infuriated Republicans by issuing contempt of Congress citations against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.

The House voted 223 to 32 to hold Miers and Bolten in contempt for refusing to comply with a legally binding subpoena relating to the Bush administration's firing of U.S. attorney-generals.

Pelosi said members of Congress take their "oversight" responsibility "seriously."

Too bad House Democrats don't take national security seriously, House Republican Whip House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) said on Thursday.

"I am amazed that while Democrats are eagerly taking political potshots at White House employees, including one who left over a year ago, they refuse to consider bipartisan legislation to safeguard our nation.

"Taking up these contempt citations with only two days until a critical intelligence law expires is as poorly timed as it is poorly reasoned, and it demonstrates the Democrats' cavalier approach to national security."

House Republicans walked off the House floor in protest on Thursday afternoon.

On Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi brushed aside Republican complaints that the nation will suffer if the Protect America Act expires.

"Even if the Protect America Act expires later this week, the American people can be confident that our country remains safe and strong. Every order entered under the law can remain in effect for 12 months from the date it was issued," Pelosi said.

But the Bush administration says without the force of law to protect them, telecommunications companies are increasingly reluctant to cooperate with warrantless surveillance.

Pelosi on Wednesday also slammed Republicans for refusing to support a short-term extension of the bill. Republicans "therefore will bear the responsibility should any adverse national consequences result," Pelosi insisted. (President Bush said it's time for the House to pass a permanent fix, just as the Senate did -- not another patch.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh NO Pelosi, if anything happens to America while YOU are on vacation YOU will be held responsible for it, NOT PRESIDENT BUSH!! President Bush is trying his damndest to protect this Country and you Democrat Liberals are doing your best to get us attacked again. And this is NOT a scare tactic, it's real! Remember 9-11?

Cant President Bush override Congress while they are on "Vacation" to protect this Country? I bet President Bush will do what he has to do to protect this Country while Congress is on "Vacation". Piss on Congress!

ANYONE THAT SIT'S THIS NEXT ELECTION OUT, OR VOTES FOR A DEMOCRAT THAT WILL DO NOTHING TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY IS AN IDIOT! A COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE IDIOT WITH A DEATHWISH!

Al-Qeada isnt on Vacation, why is Congress?

PRESIDENT BUSH, CALL CONGRESS BACK IN SESSION!!





Labels: , ,

23 Comments:

Blogger DD2 aka Debonair Dude said...

This is not right I know Marie.
But try to have a nice weekend
We can continue on Monday

February 15, 2008 3:10 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

DD,

It just started working again! Yippie!!

No this is so not right.

I cant believe anyone voted in these idiotic Democrats.

We have to make sure no matter how we feel that the Presidency and the Congress get back in Republican Control!

February 15, 2008 3:21 PM  
Blogger Mike's America said...

This is off topic, but please allow me to make a shameless appeal for support from your many kind readers.

I am currently in second place in the Flopping Aces 2 millionth reader caption contest.

My caption is for photo Number 1:
"Obama to Hillary: “Girl, who does your nails? I can’t get mine to look like that and I went to same gal John Edwards uses.”
"

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/02/15/final-leg-of-the-2-million-contest/

PLEASE go to the above link and vote for NUMBER 1!

And I have it on good authority that the leading entry (a very simplistic one) was submitted by a McCain supporter and the author of #2 admits that he VOTED FOR BILL CLINTON!

Vote for NUMBER 1. You CAN make the difference!

We now return you to your regular programming!

February 15, 2008 3:22 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Mike,

LOL!

I will go do it again :-)

February 15, 2008 6:46 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

I can't believe the shameless pandering!

Shouldn't we vote on principle, Mike?

February 16, 2008 12:58 AM  
Blogger DD2 aka Debonair Dude said...

Mike is "Pimping" himself out?
LOL

February 16, 2008 5:38 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

LOL!

Sometimes I wonder what is really going on over at Flopping Aces.

Yall are silly I know that

February 16, 2008 7:34 AM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Nothing has changed, as the slanted article states very clearly.

If they've done nothing wrong, why be afraid of eliminating retroactive immunity? Isn't that the neocon perspective on illegal wiretapping? (If you've got nothing to hide, why worry?)

If the president wants to wiretap someone, he still can do so, just as before.

I know, I know, the Constitution can be a pain in the ass sometimes.
But remember, this is real life, not an episode of "24".

On a lighter note...this just in...

Vehicle Delay Blamed for Marines' Deaths
AP IMPACT: Delay in Getting Bomb-Resistant Marine Vehicles Called MRAPs to Iraq Cost Lives
By RICHARD LARDNER
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON

Hundreds of U.S. Marines have been killed or injured by roadside bombs in Iraq because Marine Corps bureaucrats refused an urgent request in 2005 from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, an internal military study concludes.

The study, written by a civilian Marine Corps official and obtained by The Associated Press, accuses the service of "gross mismanagement" that delayed deliveries of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks for more than two years.

Cost was a driving factor in the decision to turn down the request for the so-called MRAPs, according to the study. Stateside authorities saw the hulking vehicles, which can cost as much as a $1 million each, as a financial threat to programs aimed at developing lighter vehicles that were years from being fielded.

After Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared the MRAP (pronounced M-rap) the Pentagon's No. 1 acquisition priority in May 2007, the trucks began to be shipped to Iraq in large quantities.

The vehicles weigh as much as 40 tons and have been effective at protecting American forces from improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the weapon of choice for Iraqi insurgents. Only four U.S. troops have been killed by such bombs while riding in MRAPs; three of those deaths occurred in older versions of the vehicles.

The study's author, Franz J. Gayl, catalogs what he says were flawed decisions and missteps by mid-level managers in Marine Corps offices that occurred well before Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld in December 2006.

Among the findings in the Jan. 22 study:

Budget and procurement managers failed to recognize the damage being done by IEDs in late 2004 and early 2005 and were convinced the best solution was adding more armor to the less-sturdy Humvees the Marines were using. Humvees, even those with extra layers of steel, proved incapable of blunting the increasingly powerful explosives planted by insurgents.

An urgent February 2005 request for MRAPs got lost in bureaucracy. It was signed by then-Brig. Gen. Dennis Hejlik, who asked for 1,169 of the vehicles. The Marines could not continue to take "serious and grave casualties" caused by IEDs when a solution was commercially available, wrote Hejlik, who was a commander in western Iraq from June 2004 to February 2005.

Gayl cites documents showing Hejlik's request was shuttled to a civilian logistics official at the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in suburban Washington who had little experience with military vehicles. As a result, there was more concern over how the MRAP would upset the Marine Corps' supply and maintenance chains than there was in getting the troops a truck that would keep them alive, the study contends.

The Marine Corps' acquisition staff didn't give top leaders correct information. Gen. James Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, was not told of the gravity of Hejlik's MRAP request and the real reasons it was shelved, Gayl writes. That resulted in Conway giving "inaccurate and incomplete" information to Congress about why buying MRAPs was not hotly pursued.

The Combat Development Command, which decides what gear to buy, treated the MRAP as an expensive obstacle to long-range plans for equipment that was more mobile and fit into the Marines Corps' vision as a rapid reaction force. Those projects included a Humvee replacement called the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and a new vehicle for reconnaissance and surveillance missions.

The MRAPs didn't meet this fast-moving standard and so the Combat Development Command didn't want to buy them, according to Gayl. The study calls this approach a "Cold War orientation" that suffocates the ability to react to emergency situations.

The Combat Development Command has managers some of whom are retired Marines who lack adequate technical credentials. They have outdated views of what works on the battlefield and how the defense industry operates, Gayl says. Yet they are in position to ignore or overrule calls from deployed commanders.

An inquiry should be conducted by the Marine Corps inspector general to determine if any military or government employees are culpable for failing to rush critical gear to the troops, recommends Gayl, who prepared the study for the Marine Corps' plans, policies and operations department.

The study was obtained by the AP from a nongovernment source.

"If the mass procurement and fielding of MRAPs had begun in 2005 in response to the known and acknowledged threats at that time, as the (Marine Corps) is doing today, hundreds of deaths and injuries could have been prevented," writes Gayl, the science and technology adviser to Lt. Gen. Richard Natonski, who heads the department. "While the possibility of individual corruption remains undetermined, the existence of corrupted MRAP processes is likely, and worthy of (inspector general) investigation."

Gayl, who has clashed with his superiors in the past and filed for whistle-blower protection last year, uses official Marine Corps documents, e-mails, briefing charts, memos, congressional testimony, and news articles to make his case.

He was not allowed to interview or correspond with any employees connected to the Combat Development Command. The study's cover page says the views in the study are his own.

Maj. Manuel Delarosa, a Marine Corps spokesman, called Gayl's study "predecisional staff work" and said it would be inappropriate to comment on it. Delarosa said, "It would be inaccurate to state that Lt. Gen. Natonski has seen or is even aware of" the study.

Last year, the service defended the decision to not buy MRAPs after receiving the 2005 request. There were too few companies able to make the vehicles, and armored Humvees were adequate, officials said then.

Hejlik, who is now a major general and heads Marine Corps Special Operations Command, has cast his 2005 statement as more of a recommendation than a demand for a specific system.

The term mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicle "was very generic" and intended to guide a broader discussion of what type of truck would be needed to defend against the changing threats troops in the field faced, Hejlik told reporters in May 2007. "I don't think there was any intent by anybody to do anything but the right thing."

The study does not say precisely how many Marine casualties Gayl thinks occurred due to the lack of MRAPs, which have V-shaped hulls that deflect blasts out and away from the vehicles.

Gayl cites a March 1, 2007, memo from Conway to Gen. Peter Pace, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in which Conway said 150 service members were killed and an additional 1,500 were seriously injured in the prior nine months by IEDs while traveling in vehicles.

The MRAP, Conway told Pace, could reduce IED casualties in vehicles by 80 percent. He told Pace an urgent request for the vehicles was submitted by a Marine commander in May 2006. No mention is made of Hejlik's call more than a year before.

Delivering MRAPs to Marines in Iraq, Conway wrote, was his "number one unfilled warfighting requirement at this time." Overall, he added, the Marine Corps needed 3,700 of the trucks more than three times the number requested by Hejlik in 2005.

More than 3,200 U.S. troops, including 824 Marines, have been killed in action in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. An additional 29,000 have been wounded, nearly 8,400 of them Marines. The majority of the deaths and injuries have been caused by explosive devices, according to the Defense Department.

Congress has provided more than $22 billion for 15,000 MRAPs the Defense Department plans to acquire, mostly for the Army. Depending on the size of the vehicle and how it is equipped, the trucks can cost between $450,000 and $1 million.

As of May 2007, roughly 120 MRAPs were being used by troops from all the military services, Pentagon records show. Now, more than 2,150 are in the hands of personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Marines have 900 of those.

One section of Gayl's study analyzes a letter Conway sent in late July 2007 to Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Kit Bond, R-Mo., two critics of delays in sending equipment to Iraq.

More heavily armored Humvees were determined to be the best response to the 2005 MRAP request, the commandant told the senators. He also said the industrial capacity to build MRAPs in large numbers "did not exist" when the request was submitted. Additionally, although the trucks had been fielded in small numbers, they were not adequately tested and exhibited reliability problems, the letter said.

The letter to the senators is evidence of the "bad advice" senior Marine Corps leaders receive, Gayl contends. The letter, he says, portions of which were probably drafted by the Combat Development Command, omitted that the urgent 2005 request from the Iraq battlefield specifically asked for MRAPs and not more heavily armored Humvees. It also ignored the Marines' own findings that armored Humvees wouldn't stop IEDs.

Conway's assertion there was a lack of manufacturing capacity to build MRAPs is "inexplicable," Gayl says. Manufacturers would have hurried production if they knew the Marines wanted them and any reliability issues would have been resolved, he says.

In late November, the Marine Corps announced it would buy 2,300 MRAPs 1,400 fewer than planned. Improved security in Iraq, changes in tactics, and decreasing troop levels allowed for the cut. But Marine officials also listed several downsides to the MRAP: The vehicles are too tall and heavy to pursue the enemy down narrow streets, on rough terrain or across many bridges.

If MRAPs arrived to Iraq late, or proved too bulky for certain missions, the Marine Corps should have come up with different and better solutions several years ago when the IED crisis was growing, Gayl contends.

A former Marine officer, Gayl spent nearly six months in Iraq in 2006 and 2007 as an adviser to leaders of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force.

His stinging indictment of the Marine Corps' system for fielding gear is not a first. He has been an outspoken advocate for non-lethal weapons, such as a beam gun that stings but doesn't kill and "dazzlers" that use a powerful light beam to steer unwelcome vehicles and people from checkpoints and convoys.

The failure to send these alternative weapons to Iraq has led to U.S. casualties and the deaths of Iraqi civilians, Gayl has said.

Gayl filed for whistle-blower protection in May with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. He said he was threatened with disciplinary action after meeting with congressional staff on Capitol Hill.

Biden and Bond rebuked the Marine Corps in September for "apparent retaliation" against Gayl.

Associated Press researcher Monika Mathur contributed to this report from New York.

On The Net: http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/homepage?readform

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures


Where's the outrage?????

February 16, 2008 10:18 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Federalist,

If they've done nothing wrong, why be afraid of eliminating retroactive immunity? Isn't that the neocon perspective on illegal wiretapping? (If you've got nothing to hide, why worry?)


Hmmmm Congress knows all about the wiretapping between Terrorists and America and Vise Versa, but it's still illegal that's a new one especially when it was made law by Jimmy Carter in 1978.

Well maybe the Terrorists do have something to hide but as of midnight lastnight we wont know about it because it expired.


I know, I know, the Constitution can be a pain in the ass sometimes.
But remember, this is real life, not an episode of "24".



Well you will have to talk to Jimmy Carter about the Constitution and the FISA Act. As for real life, LOL! Gee ya think?



Could you have made this post any longer?


And the Associated Press? Were'nt they the ones who had to fire a reporter for Doctoring Photos from Iraq?


I am not in the mood to read this entire bunch of crap, I'll have to get back to it later.

February 16, 2008 11:45 AM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Wiretapping by itself is not illegal--doing it by subverting constitutional law and not obtaining a search warrant is very illegal (once again, according to that silly document called "The Bill of Rights").

The original FISA law of 1978 specifically outlines the provisions for the secret court and their approval or denial of SEARCH WARRANTS.

Bush's new dictatorial law, discovered in 2005, was wiretapping without warrants. ("The Constitution is just a god-damned piece of paper."--George W. Bush, November 2005)

Without oversight in government we would be easy targets for a dictatorial, fascist regime. That's not what our forefathers envisioned for America and what it should represent.

February 16, 2008 12:06 PM  
Blogger Indigo Red said...

Most of the world's electronic comunications are routed through the US. Wire tapping warrants should only apply to communications strictly within the US, or at least, originating here.

It is entirely possible for terrorists to actually have Sprint, AT&T, Vonage, etc. long distance service. That does not entitle them to the protection of the Constitutions assumed right to privacy. Foreign communications passing through US territory/equipment should have no expectation to privacy.

February 16, 2008 6:41 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Federalist,

I'm pretty damn sure that since congress knows all about the wiretapping and let it expire that if there was anything illegal about it they would have hung President Bush by a rope in front of the White House by now.

They claim the President has all the authority he needs but he kinda wanted to do it the legal way through congress and they just left on vacation and said screw it.

So if we get attacked before they get back from playtime, it's not President Bush's fault!

I have never seen a Congress like this in my life, they dont give a rats ass about what happens to this Country and they just proved it.

Screw Democrats, that's how we got in this mess to begin with.

February 16, 2008 9:28 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Exactly Indigo,

As a matter of fact Congress did pass a law protecting them from lawsuits if I recall last week, but left everything else out there to expire.

Democrats, dont ya just love 'em? Pfft!

February 16, 2008 9:30 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Marie,

It's not that simple. You may want Wordsmith or Scott to explain to you what is at stake.

It's not just voting to allow wiretapping or not to allow it.

February 17, 2008 3:27 PM  
Blogger Indigo Red said...

"It's not just voting to allow wiretapping or not to allow it."

Then ... it's what? Is that the end of the great and grand wisdom, Federalist? Does it have something to do with puppies? Are rutabagas involved? Are you suggesting a new TV crime show about a short, hairy space alien stranded in Hawaii entitled, "Magnum, E.T."?

What are we to imagine you are getting at, or are you, in fact, not getting at anything at all?

February 17, 2008 3:38 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Indigo,

I intuit that you had been storing up that "Magnum, E.T." crack for a while. I'm grateful you finally found the opportunity to release it.

I had decided to leave the informative piece to those who think like Marie: emotion first, intellect second. They are a few who can penetrate that fortress of ignorance (benevolent) with a certain kind of vernacular, that will get people charged up and then drop an aroma of factual information just to set the record straight and cover their tracks.

I have discovered that posting on here provokes the cons to respond to what I'm NOT saying instead of what I am saying.

Nonetheless...the Protect America Act that expired Saturday night will, God willing, undergo two major changes: it will require Bush to obtain a warrant and it will not give retroactive immunity to parties involved.

First of all, nothing has really changed in the procedure or order of events. Since Bush originally said they were only wiretapping foreign phone communications, we've discovered that is false. There have been thousands of domestic phone calls and e-mails that have been collected.

But most importantly, if Bush were to desire to wiretap someone, he can still do it in mere seconds, with the same speed as on or before February 16, 2008. Difference now would be that he must obtain a warrant within 72 hours by the secret court (which has only denied 3 requests out of millions since the program's inception).
I know, the Constitution and accountability are two "pain in the ass" concepts.

Secondly, if parties involved didn't do anything wrong, why the need for retroactive immunity? Isn't that the Republican song? "If you're worried about them spying on you, what are you hiding?"


Even two dobermans from Hawaii can see that the program really hasn't changed. But to say that it is a surprise that the cons are upset and have put a nasty spin on this would be naive.

But if fear-mongering, finger-pointing and renouncing your civil liberties get you closer to Jack Bauer, then why let facts get in the way?

Well, I have to get back to watching C-SPAN. That's what the terrorists are watching and that's what emboldens them.

February 17, 2008 7:32 PM  
Blogger Indigo Red said...

Well, Fed, I have been saving that for a long while. I actually have a million of 'em.

Since the Security Act in it's current form is not going to be extended, and we can't actually prove that it has had any effect for good or ill, I suppose it's best that it does expire. That way, when many Americans are murdered as the result of a plot that couldn't be wiretapped, then we certainly will know where to point our fingers.

February 17, 2008 9:09 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

1. ALL terrorist plots are discussed on the phone before implementation? Is that the same logic that says that terrorists watch our nightly news shows?
Amazing, you people should work for the CIA. You know more about national security and about the military than those in Washington.

2. Nothing has changed with the ability or facility to wiretap. The only thing that has changed in this paper trail. I wouldn't put anything past the neocons. My bet is that there will be a supposed major plot that will be foiled or some type of event that will have Bush suspend the elections and declare martial law. No one likes to give up that much power.
But get those fingers ready! Just point them in the right direction.

February 18, 2008 3:49 AM  
Blogger DD2 aka Debonair Dude said...

Why did George Bush neglect to use the bully pulpit to disapprove and express condemnation to the left for deliberately trying to damage, and sabotage the war effort. He never did anything about it. We and he were right, And the left's betrayal was wrong.. So it's just more of the same on this FISA bill, And Bush chose not to oppose the left again.

February 18, 2008 11:01 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Federalist,

It all depends on how I wake up in the morning as to if I use Emotion First and Intellect second or Vise Versa.

BTW Dont you ever laugh?



DD,


I dont know DD.

Maybe he's trying to keep a low profile since he doesnt have much time left and he doesnt want to influence the election?

I did see him pretty mad about this when someone interviewed him, but he has'nt taken to the bully pullpit in a while.

I do know he's living it up in Tanzania right now lol


Maybe Cheney is monitoring this situation the Democrats have once again put us in.

February 18, 2008 4:25 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Federalist,

So you do laugh!

I forget where you are in my archives so I am answering you here.

Glad you got a kick out of whatever it was.

February 19, 2008 11:01 AM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

I was remembering a previous post of yours ripping Obama for saying that he would approve of bombing known terrorist sites inside Pakistan---with or without permission or knowledge of Pakistani government. The funny part is that Bush said a year before that he would do the exact same thing.

And...he finally did do it!

Here it is:

By Joby Warrick and Robin Wright of The Washington Post
updated 9:45 p.m. MT, Mon., Feb. 18, 2008

In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

Yee-Haw!

Where's the outrage on this one Marie? What is the spin on this?

February 19, 2008 2:31 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Federalist,

Oh God I wish you would remember things correctly.

Obama said he would'nt have stopped at Afghanistan, he said he would go all the way to Pakistan remember?

He was talking about "Invading" a Country with a Nuclear Arsonel. With mountainous regions that have caves and they can see us but we cant see them except on a rare occasion like the one you mentioned that just occured.

Every time we get the opportunity we blast off the head of the snake in that region, it's lawless.

Hell Musharaff's own Troops cant even get up in there.

And the minute the Taliban or al-Queda sees them coming (On foot) BOOM!

President Bush has the authority through Musharraff to shoot in there if we clearly see the target.

Bush is still the President remember?

Obama is not fit to command "Who sank my battleship"!

February 19, 2008 2:52 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

RepublicanGOP.com The Ring of Republican Websites
Ring Owner: Republicans Site: republicangop.com/ - The Ring of Republican Websites
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Free Site Ring form Bravenet

Proud Member Of The Alliance

........In Memory Of President Ronald Wilson Reagan....................................................................In Memory Of President Ronald Wilson Reagan........


Click for Harbor City, California Forecast


Click for Carthage, Tennessee Forecast


Click for Dekalb, Illinois Forecast