Counterculture Con HQ

November 13, 2011

Liberal moderator argues with Newt Gingrich on targeted assassinations

At one of the GOP debates, Liberal media rep Scott Pelley forgets he’s just a moderator and tries to argue with Newt Gingrich about the rule of law as applied to enemy combatants (why are Liberals moderating GOP debates?  That is insane).  Mr. Pelley argues these targeted assassinations are “outside of the law” because they are “extra-judicial” and not approved by a judge or jury.  Essentially the same old moral posturing disguised as “constitutional analysis” we’ve come to expect from these Libs for the last ten years.  Mind you, Pelley’s job is to ask questions, not argue with the candidates, but he just can’t help himself.  But this isn’t Herman Cain he’s arguing with, who like most political neophytes isn’t yet sure why/what he believes and has to make it up on the fly.  This is Newt Gingrich, one of the smartest and most experienced players in American politics, and there’s nothing the likes of Pelley can do to intimidate him.  Here Newt reminds Pelley what is (or should be) common sense to the rest of us.  If you want the protections of the U.S. Constitution and civilian courts of law, then you must SUBMIT YOURSELF to them.  Otherwise you are off the reservation and deserve what’s coming to you.

“If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant.  You have none of the civil liberties of the United States.

December 14, 2010

US Media & Leadership Sucking up to Jihadis, Persecuting Christians

The Fort Hood massacre has been tossed down the memory hole, and they still haven’t told us how and why it happened.  No huge investigations with the U.S. media waiting breathlessly to publish the results.  It just fell off the radar.   Here General Boykin tells us how the massacre happened and why it was deep sixed by the media establishment.

December 2, 2010

Merry Christmas from Afghanistan

December 1, 2010

Game changer: XM 25 Super weapon

Filed under: U.S. Military — Tags: — Jesusland @ 21:17

Mikey likes it!  Jihadis have no defense against this.  They say this rifle will change the battlefield as we know it.  And I believe them.

SkyNet: “Like an F-35 Appearing on a WWI battlefield”

Filed under: Foreign Policy, Iran, U.S. Military — Tags: — Jesusland @ 15:54

Bush’s fault!  This was an enthralling read.  And frightening.  Because if we can use this to shut down rogue state nuclear weapons programs, somebody else (the Chinese or Russians) can use one just like this to shut down our own grids– with unimaginable consequences.  And we can’t stop it.

Stuxnet “Cyber Missile” Cripples Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Ambitions

In the 20th century, this would have been a job for James Bond.  The mission: Infiltrate the highly advanced, securely guarded enemy headquarters where scientists in the clutches of an evil master are secretly building a weapon that can destroy the world. Then render that weapon harmless and escape undetected.

But in the 21st century, Bond doesn’t get the call. Instead, the job is handled by a suave and very sophisticated secret computer worm, a jumble of code called Stuxnet, which in the last year has not only crippled Iran’s nuclear program but has caused a major rethinking of computer security around the globe.

Simply put, Stuxnet is an incredibly advanced, undetectable computer worm that took years to construct and was designed to jump from computer to computer until it found the specific, protected control system that it aimed to destroy: Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.

Intelligence agencies, computer security companies and the nuclear industry have been trying to analyze the worm since it was discovered in June by a Belarus-based company that was doing business in Iran. And what they’ve all found, says Sean McGurk, the Homeland Security Department’s acting director of national cyber security and communications integration, is a “game changer.”The construction of the worm was so advanced, it was “like the arrival of an F-35 into a World War I battlefield,” says Ralph Langner, the computer expert who was the first to sound the alarm about Stuxnet. Others have called it the first “weaponized” computer virus.

The target was seemingly impenetrable; for security reasons, it lay several stories underground and was not connected to the World Wide Web. And that meant Stuxnet had to act as sort of a computer cruise missile: As it made its passage through a set of unconnected computers, it had to grow and adapt to security measures and other changes until it reached one that could bring it into the nuclear facility.

Read the rest.

October 4, 2010

US strike kills 5 “German” militants in Pakistan

Five "Germans" Killed in U.S. missile strike

Barack Obama Declares War on Ze Germans!

AP – An American missile strike killed five German militants Monday in the rugged Pakistan border area where a cell of Germans and Britons at the heart of the U.S. terror alert for Europe — a plot U.S. officials link to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden — were believed in hiding.

The attack, part of a recent spike in American drone strikes on Pakistan, came as Germany said it has “concrete evidence” that at least 70 Germans have undergone paramilitary training in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and about a third have returned to German.

Authorities across Europe have heightened security at airports and other travel hubs as well as at main tourist attractions following the U.S. warning of an al-Qaida-linked terror plot targeting London, Paris, Berlin and other European capitals.

Washington warned Americans over the weekend to use caution when traveling in Europe and imposed a curfew on some U.S. troops based in Germany. On Monday, Britain, Japan and Sweden issued warnings of their own, advising their citizens traveling in Europe to be on alert for possible terrorist attack by al-Qaida or other groups.

Police officers with sniffer dogs patrolled subways in Britain on Monday, while soldiers and mounted police were dispatched to two major churches in Paris — Notre Dame in the heart of the city and Sacre Coeur on the Right Bank. Paramilitary troops were also seen patrolling the area around the Eiffel Tower — twice evacuated in recent weeks for unspecified threats.

The U.S. missile strike in Pakistan killed five German militants taking shelter in a house in the town of Mir Ali in North Waziristan, a known hub for foreign militants with links to al-Qaida, Pakistani intelligence officials said.  The terror cell said to be behind the Europe plot — eight Germans and a Briton — were believed to have been in hiding in the region. A second Briton was killed in a U.S. strike last month


Germans my big black ass.  MUSLIMS.

But the term ‘German’ is tossed around so liberally here you’d think we were reading old newsprint from the Great War.  Because of course, the determining factor here is what passports they carry, not their religion!  Right?  So if PC demands we eradicate the term ‘Muslim’ from the war on terror lexicon because not all Muslims are terrorists, are the Perception Shapers therefore implying that all Germans and Britons must be terrorists?  And if we mustn’t use the ‘M’ word because we aren’t at war with Islam, does that mean we are now at war with Germany?  Their logic, folks, not mine.

August 27, 2010

The ACLU is PRO-Al Qaida

Here Bill O’reilly interviews a Gitmo lawyer about the ACLU’s lawsuit against the Obama administration for their drone war against Al-Qaida.  This is what anti-Americanism looks like.  Of course, cloaked in the kind of arrogant and self-deceptive moral posturing that allows the do-gooders to believe they are better people than the rest of us.  It’s a self-image I recognize well from growing up on the Left.

August 25, 2010

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters on GZ Mosque

We are the most tolerant country on earth.  It’s time for Islam to reciprocate some of that tolerance.

“These people are playing the Liberal Establishment elite for all it’s worth.”

August 6, 2010

Carrier-killing missiles, space bombers to alter balance of power

USS George Washington

Chinese Developing Carrier-Killing Missile

ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON – U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China — an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).

The weapon, a version of which was displayed last year in a Chinese military parade, could revolutionize China’s role in the Pacific balance of power, seriously weakening Washington’s ability to intervene in any potential conflict over Taiwan or North Korea. It could also deny U.S. ships safe access to international waters near China’s 11,200-mile (18,000-kilometer) -long coastline.

Setting the stage for a possible conflict, Beijing has grown increasingly vocal in its demands for the U.S. to stay away from the wide swaths of ocean — covering much of the Yellow, East and South China seas — where it claims exclusivity.  It strongly opposed plans to hold U.S.-South Korean war games in the Yellow Sea off the northeastern Chinese coast, saying the participation of the USS George Washington supercarrier, with its 1,092-foot (333-meter) flight deck and 6,250 personnel, would be a provocation because it put Beijing within striking range of U.S. F-18 warplanes.

The carrier instead took part in maneuvers held farther away in the Sea of Japan.  U.S. officials deny Chinese pressure kept it away, and say they will not be told by Beijing where they can operate.  “We reserve the right to exercise in international waters anywhere in the world,” Rear Adm. Daniel Cloyd, who headed the U.S. side of the exercises, said aboard the carrier during the maneuvers, which ended last week.

But the new missile, if able to evade the defenses of a carrier and of the vessels sailing with it, could undermine that policy.  “China can reach out and hit the U.S. well before the U.S. can get close enough to the mainland to hit back,” said Toshi Yoshihara, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He said U.S. ships have only twice been that vulnerable — against Japan in World War II and against Soviet bombers in the Cold War.

Former Navy commander James Kraska, a professor of international law and sea power at the U.S. Naval War College, recently wrote a controversial article in the magazine Orbis outlining a hypothetical scenario set just five years from now in which a Deng Feng 21D missile with a penetrator warhead sinks the USS George Washington.  That would usher in a “new epoch of international order in which Beijing emerges to displace the United States.”

Read the rest.

The Chinese missile is an “anti-access” weapon.  It’s mere existence restricts the movement of U.S. aircraft carriers in waters within range.  This missile, and subsequent generations that are to come could spell the end for the aircraft carrier as a weapons system if this missile technology proliferates across the globe, making it harder to justify the astronomical financial costs of building and maintaining a carrier fleet that is subject to ever diminishing access to the world’s oceans.  The carrier fleet would eventually join in obsolescence the mighty battleships and dreadnoughts that preceded it as the U.S. Navy’s ability to project military power inevitably contracts, and its role shrinks to resemble that of other navies across the world; protecting the littoral waters of the homeland only, something Navy planners must no doubt be worried sick about.

Yet as China arms itself for the last war and develops missile systems for dealing with naval threats whose expiration date is on the visible horizon, the U.S. prepares for future conflicts with the development of space-based weapons systems like DARPA’s hypersonic troop transport and the X-37 space bomber, the latter which may in effect put the U.S. carrier fleets out of business before the Chinese do.  Who needs aircraft carriers when you’ve got a fleet of these hanging in stationary orbit above their target:


DARPA’s Mach 20 Hypersonic Glider and Air Force’s X-37B Space Plane Make Their Debuts

Future space marines might commemorate yesterday as a historic moment, based on the coinciding launches of DARPA’s hypersonic glider and an Air Force space plane. Both test vehicles could pave the way for new warfighter transports or weapons systems, the Ares Defense Blog reports.

DARPA’s HTV-2 was first into the air, around 7 pm EDT. The hypersonic vehicle is designed to glide through the Earth’s atmosphere at speeds 20 times greater than the speed of sound. The Santa Maria Times notes that several maneuvers were scheduled to test how HTV-2 handles during the hypersonic glide stage, before hurtling into the Pacific Ocean at more than 13,000 mph for a planned demise.

A future hypersonic platform could theoretically deliver precision strikes to targets around the world with “little or no advanced warning,” as DARPA puts it. A second test is planned for 2011, based on the success of yesterday’s sortie.

Barely an hour after the HTV-2 debut, the U.S. Air Force launched its X-37B space plane. That much-anticipated mission lofted the space plane — powered by gallium arsenide solar cells with lithium-ion batteries — into orbit for possibly as long as 270 days, according to the Ares Defense Blog.Like DARPA, the Air Force has remained relatively tight-lipped about the exact purpose of such a space plane. But it’s not hard to imagine what hypersonic weapons or a space plane might do for the future of U.S. military operations, as far as speed of deployment is concerned.


July 28, 2010

ISI: The Secret Government of Pakistan

The nation of Pakistan suffers from a personality disorder.  They are our purported allies, yet a haven for our worst enemies.  Behind Pakistan’s democratic facade is a shadow government run by their infamous Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).  It is not an overstatement to say the ISI are defacto rulers of Pakistan.  The ISI assisted in the creation of the Taliban to help unleash an Islamic uprising in Indian-held Kashmir, and are thought to have helped evacuate top Taliban and Al-Qaida operatives as American forces were closing in.  The ISI was using their Afghan allies to wage a guerrilla war against India, and in return the Taliban gained Pakistani volunteers for their madrassas, as well as weapons and ammo to gain control of the country.  The ISI’s real agenda begins and ends with victory over India in the Kashmir.  Nothing else concerns them.  If Osama is still roaming free today in the Pakistani frontier territories, it’s because the ISI has decided this furthers their cause.  The fact is the ISI has been playing a double game with us since terrorists slammed those planes into the World Trade Center on 9/11.  While Pakistan’s democratic government makes nice with us, the ISI undermines the war on terror behind our backs.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

July 6, 2010

What’s Great About America — the Military

Here’s a segment from John Stossel’s Fox News special, What’s Great About America.

July 4, 2010

“The Surge: The Untold Story” (bumped)

This is the Iraq War movie Hollywood will never make.  Simply EPIC.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

April 13, 2010

The Last War Protester

Peace out!

The last living anti-war protester in America, Cindy Sheehan, wants our boys to die.  I say this because she’s protesting Obama’s drone war, which keeps our boys alive.

Sacramento, Calif. – The anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan who famously camped outside President Bush’s Crawford, Texas ranch is leading a protest against a small manufacturing company in Oregon that makes unarmed, unmanned drone surveillance aircraft for the U.S. military. The pro-troop group Move America Forward is working with local military and community groups to support the company and the troops fighting the war on terror, especially those who are helped by technology.

“They’re attacking the use of drones and the people that make them because they say it ‘hides the human cost of war’” said Move America Forward’s spokesperson Debbie Lee, who lost her son in the war in Iraq. “But these anti-war people tend to forget, or they just don’t care, that these drones are saving the lives of our troops, taking on dangerous missions that would otherwise risk the lives of America’s bravest most precious resource, our young men and women. “

“We want to show our troops that despite what these anti-military groups say, and despite what Cindy Sheehan has to say, we support our troops, and we support using drones to minimize casualties. There are hundreds of military families out there who have lost family members in the wars and some of them might still be alive today and this conference is an insult to them.” concluded Lee, whose own son Marc was the first Navy SEAL to be lost in the War in Iraq.

“The most disgusting thing about these protests is that these anti-war folks act like we need to give the terrorists a fair fight.” concluded Lee.


She’s a kook, but an honest one.  When Bush left office, the anti-war movement evaporated into thin air.  But not Cindy!  Which means she wasn’t anti-Bush, she was genuinely anti-war.  Unfortunately for her, the Lib Media no longer cares about her.  It’s not like they’re going to use her against their Obamessiah the way they did with Bush.  When Bush left, they dropped her faster than Wiley E. Coyote could find a cliff.  Huge surprise there, right?

April 9, 2010

March 22, 2010


Obama disses yet another ally.

And so it begins.

Obama blocks delivery of bunker-busters to Israel

WASHINGTON — The United States has diverted a shipment of bunker-busters designated for Israel.

Officials said the U.S. military was ordered to divert a shipment of smart bunker-buster bombs from Israel to a military base in Diego Garcia. They said the shipment of 387 smart munitions had been slated to join pre-positioned U.S. military equipment in Israel Air Force bases. “This was a political decision,” an official said.

In 2008, the United States approved an Israeli request for bunker-busters capable of destroying underground facilities, including Iranian nuclear weapons sites. Officials said delivery of the weapons was held up by the administration of President Barack Obama.

The decision to divert the BLU munitions was taken amid the crisis between Israel and the United States over planned construction of Jewish homes in Jerusalem. The administration, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has warned that Washington could reduce military aid to Israel because of its construction policy.

Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, was quoted as saying that his country faced its biggest crisis with the United States since 1975. A pro-Israel lobbyist said Oren was referring to the current U.S. embargo, which echoed a decision taken 35 years ago by then-President Gerald Ford after Israel’s refusal to withdraw from Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. Oren has since denied the remark.


Bibi to Barack:  Eat my shorts.

Israeli will neither change policies that have been upheld by its various governments since 1967 nor halt construction in Jerusalem, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu stressed at Sunday’s cabinet meeting. “We will clarify that building in Jerusalem is like building in Tel Aviv,” Netanyahu said. A final-status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, he said, could only be reached at the conclusion of direct talks in which the two sides “sit together and sort the issues out.” The prime minister said that the planned proximity talks – indirect negotiations with US mediation – would enable the two sides to individually state their case, but would not facilitate an enduring peace process.

Netanyahu said his position would remain unflagging during his visit to Washington later on Sunday, and that he would clarify that to the Obama administration.


If Barack won’t give him the green light to take out Iran’s nuclear sites, then what the frik does Bibi need bunker busters for?  Keep building, Israel.  Do your thing.

And with this, CCHQ commences our coverage of Obama’s war on Israel.  President Obama accepts the fact that Israel is a strong U.S. ally, that the U.S. Congress, as well as the American people, are solidly pro-Israel, and that his party relies on Jewish support here in the U.S.  These are inescapable facts.  But I don’t think he is a friend of Israel.  He couldn’t possibly be; not after attending Rev. Wright’s church for the last 20 years.  And nothing that he has done so far suggests that he is.  It’s going to be rough sailing for the Jewish State the next three years.

March 19, 2010

ACLU Sues Obama over drone warfare

Obama's Drones too effective for the ACLU

The American Criminal Liars Union sues warmonger in chief.

ACLU Sues Government Over Use Of Drones In War Zones

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the federal government Tuesday to learn the use of unmanned drones for targeted killings by the military and CIA.

“In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings,” the ACLU said in a statement, announcing its action.

Really?  That’s all they want?  No problem!  Here’s the nuclear launch codes too while we’re at it!

“The government’s use of drones to conduct targeted killings raises complicated questions – not only legal questions, but policy and moral questions as well,” said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project. “These kinds of questions ought to be discussed and debated publicly, not resolved secretly behind closed doors. While the Obama administration may legitimately withhold intelligence information as well as sensitive information about military strategy, it should disclose basic information about the scope of the drone program, the legal basis for the program and the civilian casualties that have resulted from the program.”


Personally, I think the ACLU has a point in an upside down sort of way.  If it’s President Obama’s position that it’s perfectly ok to swarm jihadis from the sky with remote controlled drones and j-dam the living crap out of them without so much as a miranda warning, doesn’t the notion that jihadis deserve civilian trials, with all the constitutional rights concurrent with such a trial, at the very least raise questions about that original premise?  J-damming perfect strangers from the clear blue sky is legal, but giving them military tribunals violates their constitutional rights?  That doesn’t make a lot of sense.  It has the stench of moral posturing about it.  This is the legal and ethical contradiction that Obama has created for himself in his effort to win a war overseas while appeasing his Leftwing base here at home.  If the drone war is legal, then so are military tribunals.  If military tribunals violate a terrorist’s constitutional rights, then the drone war is illegal.  Period, end of story.  Now Obama’s being sued by the ACLU, and he’s got to convince the judge why the court should ignore this inherent contradiction in his approach to the war on terror.

As for the ACLU, I’m handing it to Rusty Shackleford at Jawa Report::  “Does the ACLU love the Taliban?  Or just hate America.  I’m thinking the latter. Oh, they’ll tell you they love America, but they don’t. They love the idea of America, not the reality. They love America only to the extent that America meets some ideal. And ideals, by definition, can never be met in the real world [they can only be aspired to].

Hardcore Leftists like this “love” America like an abusive husband “loves” his wife. And if you talk to abusive husbands they almost always claim a deep affection for the person they are constantly beating up.  He loves the idea of a wife. He loves it when she does things exactly the way he wants. But when she crosses the line? Well, that b*tch just deserved it, right?

Just like the leftists at the ACLU. They’ll claim they want to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban. But only on their terms. And since their terms are unattainable, then should they ever be implemented: check mate, we just lost the war.  Ideally every person we kill in war would be an enemy combatant. But this can never happen in the real world. In the real world innocents die. Not because we want innocents to die, but because we have no choice.

If we want to fight al Qaeda innocents will die. Preventing this is not a call for justice, it is a call for surrender.”

Stop the ACLU also responds to the lawsuit’s request for information on the drone war’s scope and legal basis:  “The scope? To kill Islamists. Legal basis? War zone. Constitution. Civilian casualties? The ACLU has never been concerned about the use of civilians as human shields by Islamists. The US military does everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. Unfortunately, there is that “war zone” issue. And Islamists who use civilians as human shields. Oh, and the fact that this is occurring in other countries, ones which are not American. How about just butting out, ACLU. Go bug some school because they had an evil Santa figurine.”  lol.

Not to mention, what the HELL does the war in AFGHANISTAN have to do with the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union?  Hmmm?  Just another tax payer-funded Leftist agitator trying to stay relevant in a country that no longer needs them.

January 29, 2010

Obama and the Nobel Peace Paradigm

Light and dark: the power of paradigms

Barack Obama is under tremendous pressure to be the “peace president.”  He has, in my view, transcended those expectations for the most part.  Now he’s doing it again.  This won’t sit well with his adoring base.  Not with the honest ones at least.


Barack Obama has allocated £4.3billion to spend on maintaining the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile – £370million more than what was budgeted by George Bush.  The budget will also be increased by more than £3.1billion over the next five years.

The announcement comes despite the American President declaring nuclear weapons were the ‘greatest danger’ to U.S. people during in his State of the Union address on Wednesday.  And it flies in the face of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to him in October for ‘his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples’.

Yup.  Barry’s a warmonger!

Obama, it appears, can spend money on our nuclear arsenal, even upping the amount spent by Bush because it’s for all the right reasons.  Of course!  That goes without saying.  Meanwhile, the Right spends money on our military arsenal because they are partners in crime with some vast military industrial complex. It’s a big money-making con job on the American people.  Their motives are evil.  That is an inviolable truth and premise.  Ah, the power of paradigms!  And paradigms must never be questioned.

January 28, 2010

Torture, Waterboarding and Moral Purity

The Left is abuzz.  From the Huffington Post.


Well, it’s official now: John Kiriakou, the former CIA operative who affirmed claims that waterboarding quickly unloosed the tongues of hard-core terrorists, says he didn’t know what he was talking about.

Kiriakou, a 15-year veteran of the agency’s intelligence analysis and operations directorates, electrified the hand-wringing national debate over torture in December 2007 when he told ABC’s Brian Ross and Richard Esposito  in a much ballyhooed, exclusive interview that senior al Qaeda commando Abu Zubaydah cracked after only one application of the face cloth and water.

“What I told Brian Ross in late 2007 was wrong on a couple counts,” he writes. “I suggested that Abu Zubaydah had lasted only thirty or thirty-five seconds during his waterboarding before he begged his interrogators to stop; after that, I said he opened up and gave the agency actionable intelligence.”  But never mind, he says now.  “I wasn’t there when the interrogation took place; instead, I relied on what I’d heard and read inside the agency at the time.” In a word, it was hearsay, water-cooler talk.  “Now we know,” Kiriakou goes on, “that Zubaydah was waterboarded eighty-three times in a single month, raising questions about how much useful information he actually supplied.”


According to Kiriakou, waterboarding saved lives.  But his account is discredited because he lied about witnessing this fact personally, instead he relied on other CIA insiders.   Let’s assume that he’s only a secondary source, and that the information came to him from other primary sources who were actual witnesses.  Does that disprove his original premise that waterboarding produced reliable, actionable information and may have saved American lives?  I don’t believe it logically does.  Unless you believe he’s now lying about hearing it from CIA insider sources, just as he lied about being a direct witness.  Fair enough.  But one doesn’t necessarily follow from the other, and that too is a fair conclusion.  If he heard it from other primary sources, can we not reach the same conclusions about waterboarding than the ones we did when he was an alleged direct witness?  For why would his CIA insider sources have lied to him, a fellow insider?  There’s no reason at all why they should have.  Thus the “clarification” seized upon by the Huffington Post from Kiriakous’s book has no real bearing on the effectiveness of waterboarding, only upon Kiriakou’s veracity about how close he was to the events.

But let’s assume for argument’s sake that waterboarding doesn’t work.  Wouldn’t that explain why it has only been used on three terrorists, but is no longer being used?  I’m pretty sure the CIA is only using the interrogation techniques they believe are effective, and not waterboarding people just to get their rocks off.  But if it did in fact work, and did in fact save lives–as Kiriakou claims CIA insiders told him–and they’re no longer using that technique because of political pressure, isn’t that a greater scandal than the fact Kiriakou lied about being a first hand witness?

CCHQ does not celebrate torture, nor even waterboarding.  But it does revel in saving innocent American lives.  IF waterboarding doesn’t work, then it shouldn’t be used.  Period.  And we’re happy it was scrapped.  If, on the other hand, it did work as Kiriakou claims, then isn’t it a greater shame (than Kiriakou’s white lie) that American lives may in the future be lost because we aren’t allowed to use waterboarding on these terrorists, and in fact are giving them 5th amendment rights to remain silent?  Whether waterboarding works or not is a legitimate point of contention.  Whether waterboarding is torture is also a legitimate argument to have.  But at least for the former, I’d rather our intelligence services be the judge of that.  If they aren’t currently using the practice–and we have no reason to believe they are–then I hope it’s because they determined it simply doesn’t work, and not because they were forced to table it because of political pressure.

As for the latter–whether waterboarding is torture–I suspect the objection will be the following: waterboarding, whether it works or not, is torture.  And torture should never be used under any circumstance.  Fair enough.  In which case the issue of whether Kiriakous is a first-hand witness or not becomes moot.  It never mattered to you in the first place because you’ve already rejected waterboarding as a tactic no matter what the results.  Yet the only reason Kiriakous’s account is relevant as a story is because it spoke to the effectiveness of waterboarding; and if the effectiveness of waterboarding as a tactic is irrelevant to you–as somebody who opposes waterboarding no matter how impressive the results–then why are Huffpo’s recent revelations about Kiriakous’s account even relevant?

I don’t believe waterboarding descends to the level of torture.  If it did, we wouldn’t be using it on our own military; and in fact waterboarding our soldiers would probably have been subject to all sorts of lawsuits and congressional hearings long ago if indeed it were torture.  But it hasn’t because it simply does not rise to that level.  But whether waterboarding is torture or not is something we can agree to disagree about for now.  We have bigger fish to fry here.  I want to go even further with this.  The larger question I’d like to put to you, gentle readers, is whether there are situations that do condone torture.

I know what many of you are thinking.  Torture?  Never!  Because in your heart of hearts you are absolutely, positively certain that torture can never be condoned.  I applaud you for that.  It’s a good default position from which to start.  But are you really as set against it as you think you are?  Ask yourself one question:  if your child were kidnapped and held prisoner in a dungeon would you torture the serial killer who took him in order to get him back alive?  Remember, the clock is ticking and time is limited.  What are you going to do?  Let your child die?  Or are you going to do whatever it takes to save your child’s life.  Everything you believe about torture hinges on the answer to that question.  Those innocent American lives of which I speak–people you’ve never met–are as important to somebody else as your child is to you, and time is running out.  This is the ticking bomb scenario.  What do we do?  Are you willing to sacrifice the lives of those innocent Americans for the sake of your moral purity?  CCHQ believes some situations simply do not allow us the luxury of this kind of moral posturing.  That is false morality.  And I believe the debate surrounding waterboarding is neck deep in it.

January 25, 2010

US Marines Wrap Up Mission in Iraq

Our Marines leave Iraq victorious, despite the tireless efforts by so many on the Left and within the Democratic party to see that they surrender, or famously, “re-deploy” to Okinawa.

BAGHDAD  —  The U.S. Marine Corps wrapped nearly seven years in Iraq on Saturday, handing over duties to the Army and signaling the beginning of an accelerated withdrawal of American troops as the U.S. turns its focus away from the waning Iraqi war to a growing one in Afghanistan.

The Marines formally handed over control of Sunni-dominated Anbar, Iraq’s largest province, to the Army during a ceremony at a base in Ramadi — where some of the fiercest fighting of the war took place.

If all goes as planned, the last remaining Marines will be followed out by tens of thousands of soldiers in the coming months. President Obama has ordered all but 50,000 troops out of the country by Aug. 31, 2010, with most to depart after the March 7 parliamentary election.

The remaining troops will leave by the end of 2011 under a U.S.-Iraqi security pact.

The changeover at Ramadi, west of Baghdad, leaves the U.S. Army’s 1st Armored Division with responsibility over both Baghdad and Anbar, the vast desert province that stretches from western Baghdad to the borders of Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

As many as 25,000 Marines were in Iraq at the peak, mostly in Anbar province. The few thousand who remain — except for U.S. Embassy guards and advisers in Baghdad — are expected to ship out in a matter of weeks.


A great victory for the U.S. Marines and for all of our servicemen.  It’s also a victory for President George W. Bush whose surge nobody believed in, and who was unyielding in his commitment to a free and democratic Iraq.  Below the vile and disgusting (soon ex) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) attempting to engineer our defeat and surrender for purely partisan purposes:

Harry Reid: “This war is lost.”

January 22, 2010

Investigate Trijicon, Says Watchdog Group

They aren’t going to let this one die.


( – The advocacy group that brought worldwide attention to the fact that an American company has been stamping biblical references on combat rifle sights used by the U.S. military said Thursday it hoped the damage done was not “beyond repair.”

Trijicon’s “outrageous practice” of stamping Christian references on rifle scopes used by the U.S. military “was an unconstitutional disgrace of the highest magnitude to our military and an action that clearly gave additional incentive and emboldenment to recruiters for our nation’s enemies,” Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) head Mikey Weinstein said, after Trijicon Inc. announced it would now stop the practice.

“It is nothing short of a vile national security threat that, despite our nation’s efforts to convince the Muslim world we are not pursuing a holy war against them, our military and its contractors time again resort to unlawful fundamentalist evangelical Christian practices, even on the battlefield,” Weinstein said in a message posted on the MRFF Web site.

MRFF, a watchdog group that describes itself as an advocate of “the free exercise of religious freedom in the military,” says on its Web site that it “brought to light” the existence of “the secret ‘Jesus’ Bible codes.”

It is taking credit for breaking the story, which ABC News first reported on Monday, and it is calling for a congressional investigation: “We can now only hope that the United States Congress and The Pentagon will comprehensively investigate how this catastrophe and countless other examples of military religious extremism infiltrates every branch of our honorable armed services.”

Before the MRFF-initiated “ABC News investigation,” Trijicon had included the biblical references alongside other markings on its products for more than two decades, a practice it ascribed in a statement this week to “our faith and our belief in service to our country.”

Thanks to the MRFF, the obscure sets of numbers and letters like 2COR4:6 and JN8:12 are now widely known to refer to New Testament verses.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, meanwhile, called the presence of the markings “a potential recruiting tool for anti-American forces” and a Muslim Public Affairs Council official said they provided “propaganda ammo to extremists who claim there is a ‘Crusader war against Islam’ by the United States.”

Trijicon on Thursday issued a statement saying it had agreed to stop putting references to scripture on products manufactured for the U.S. military, and would also provide modification kits to enable the military to remove the markings on products already deployed.


Let’s follow the latest bit of “logic” from the self-described Reality-Based Community.  They say Congress must investigate Trijicon because that company’s “Bible codes” serve as a recruiting tool for jihad.  And while that may be true, what would the publicity do that such an investigation would bring?  Why, it would serve as a recruiting tool for jihad!  This is obvious on its face.  It isn’t a subtle point and it does not require any of that famous Liberal nuance to see.  It’s OBVIOUS.  So if recruiting jihad is what they’re worried about, don’t they think this story is something we’d want to downplay, instead of publicize a la Abu Graib?  But that is logic, gentle readers, and logic is no match for agenda.  Just like they claimed “outrage” over Abu Graib because it “recruited” jihadists, and then proceeded to fulfill that prophecy by ensuring it became the biggest story of the year.  And the same with Gitmo.  Because it’s not logic they are operating under, but rather agenda posing as moral posturing.  The fact is, gentle readers, these faux outragists don’t care a whit about jihad; they’ve already proven that.  Most of them believe the war on terror is a farce, and many that Bush destroyed the Twin Towers to invade Iraq, and that you–“white christian” that you are–are more frightening than any jihadi.  What they really care about is sticking it to “the Right.”  That’s all this moral posturing is, and has been since 9/11.  And if sticking it to the Right happens to recruit a few jihadis–which is exactly what the publicity of a congressional investigation would do– then so be it.  It was worth it.

Original story, here.

Older Posts »