Ft. Hood shooter’s imam on assassination list

April 11, 2010

Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, the “spiritual adviser” of the Ft. Hood jihadi and a suspected facilitator of the 9-11 hijackers, has the first American citizen to be targeted for assassination by the CIA:

A Muslim cleric tied to the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner has become the first U.S. citizen added to a list of suspected terrorists the CIA is authorized to kill, a U.S. official said Tuesday.

Anwar al-Aulaqi, who resides in Yemen, was previously placed on a target list maintained by the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command and has survived at least one strike carried out by Yemeni forces with U.S. assistance against a gathering of suspected al-Qaeda operatives.

Because he is a U.S. citizen, adding Aulaqi to the CIA list required special approval from the White House, officials said. The move means that Aulaqi would be considered a legitimate target not only for a military strike carried out by U.S. and Yemeni forces, but also for lethal CIA operations.

“He’s in everybody’s sights,” said the U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the topic’s sensitivity.

Good. Awlaki may have US citizenship, but he’s sided with America’s enemies and provided aid and comfort to them. He’s a traitor who’s made his choice, so he can pay the price.

And while I’ve been heavy in my criticism of President Obama, he earns praise for this. Guys like al-Awlaki deserve to be treated as enemies in wartime, not as suspected criminals to be investigated and brought to trial. He should take the opportunity this presents to rectify his mistake in approving civilian trials for Khaild Sheikh Muhammad and other al-Qaeda plotters and instead return them to the military justice system, where captured enemies belong.

LINKS: More at Hot Air.


Sarkozy: “Obama is insane!”

April 11, 2010

Somewhere deep in the recesses of my memory, I seem to recall President-elect Obama promising to restore our relations with the rest of the world. Somehow, I don’t think it’s indicative of an improvement when the French President says Obama is insane:

A new report circulating in the Kremlin today authored by France’s Directorate-General for External Security (DGSE) and recently “obtained” by the FSB shockingly quotes French President Nicolas Sarkozy … as stating that President Barack Obama is “a  dangerous[ly] aliéné”, which translates into his, Obama, being a “mad lunatic”, or in the American vernacular, “insane”.

According to this report, Sarkozy was “appalled” at Obama’s “vision” of what the World should be under his “guidance” and “amazed” at the American Presidents unwillingness to listen to either “reason” or “logic”.  Sarkozy’s meeting where these impressions of Obama were formed took place nearly a fortnight ago at the White House in Washington D.C., and upon his leaving he “scolded” Obama and the US for not listening closely enough to what the rest of the World has to say.

Bear in mind that Sarkozy, while I have a great deal of respect for him (as opposed to his corrupt predecessor), is not the most unbiased source when it comes to Obama. In fact, he seems to crave the President’s attention. And yet, he has in the past scolded Obama for failing to deal with reality, which, you have to admit, can be a sign of a deranged mind. So perhaps multiple experiences have lead him to this conclusion. At the very least, the French President seems to be following roughly the same line of thought as the Hollywood writer.

So, has our President’s little choo-choo gone chugging around the bend? Is he a fruitcake with extra nuts? Should we pad Oval Office?

Nah. As I said before, I think he’s a callow egotist who needs to grow up. He can do (and is doing) enough damage just being that. He doesn’t need to be insane, and calling him that only serves to weaken the legitimate criticism he so richly deserves.

AFTERTHOUGHT: And did the Russians really steal that report, or did the French “let” it be stolen? Thinking

(via JammieWearingFool)

UPDATE: To clarify a point made in the comments, the source newspaper seems more than a bit … questionable, to be nice about it. I should have made that more clear, rather than assume people would get it from the post. Next time, I’ll put it in bright, red letters: quotation here is for illustrative purposes and does not necessarily imply endorsement. The thrust of the piece merely reminded me of earlier Sarkozy-Obama frictions (see links) and questions about the President and personality disorders. (See other link.)

The media finally notices the bigotry of the Left?

April 11, 2010

Recently, a series of vicious and bigoted phone messages left for an African-American professor who was opposed to ObamaCare drew media attention. At Big Government, Bob Parks vents his disgust… at the media:

When I read Monica Crowley’s piece on Big Government, I must admit to being thoroughly disgusted.

Not because she posted racial-slur laden voicemails sent to Dr. Christopher Metzler, Associate Dean of Continuing Studies at Georgetown University because of his opposition to ObamaCare. No, I am disgusted because for years the mainstream media has invited black conservatives on their radio and television programs to be an opposing voice to the black liberals who are often sought as the voice of black America. We’ve told them (off the record) of the response we normally get after our appearances.

We know what the headlines would read if something were said to annoy Al Sharpton. But it took racist phonecalls to a dean to invoke outrage.

I know many other black conservatives have endured the racial slurs from the left for decades, and the media has never had our backs.

Parks then goes through a long list of racist attacks by the Left against Black conservatives that the media has ignored.

(Argh. Hit “publish” instead of save draft. The rest of the post follows….)

The question is why this happens. Why does the media regularly ignore churlish behavior originating on the Left that they gleefully expose when it comes from the Right?

For some, I’m sure, it’s ideological: the American mainstream media largely skews Left, and they’re supporting their allies. For example, look at the extensive effort of Dan Rather and other figures at CBS to smear President George W. Bush in order to help Senator John Kerry just before the 2004 election. (An overview of the scandal: Rathergate)

For others, though, I think it’s just the self-perception of virtue causing a form of blindness: “Our side is the good side; they’re the racists. We just can’t be guilty of the same thing. When we characterize Condoleezza Rice as Mammy, or Michael Steele as Sambo, that’s legitimate satire.” This refusal to see fault in one’s own side is the more common reason I think, and something not limited to the Left.