Cognitive Dissidence of the Democrats

Cognitive Dissidence: In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance—as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it.

A basic example of CD is when presented with a certain set of provable facts that are contrary to personally held beliefs one either suffers physiological tension or goes into denial. This is common among Democrats.

I watching snippets of last night’s Democratic public relations press conference (called a debate) each candidate refused to use or agree with the term Radical Islam when the question was posed by the moderators. Sanders, Clinton and O’Malley. Sanders said the term did not matter and went on to describe the barbarian behavior of the terrorists. Clinton dodged the question with her referral to Jihad excusing Muslims from being terrorist. O’Malley said the problem was radical Jihadis.

Note: Jihad is an Islamic term referring to the religious duty of Muslims to maintain the religion. In Arabic, the word jihad is a noun meaning "to strive, to apply oneself, to struggle, to persevere". A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural of which is mujahideen The word jihad appears frequently in the Quran, often in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God to refer to the act of striving to serve the purposes of God on this earth.

In essence O’Malley’s response was saying the problem was radical war makers. This is how the Democrats (including Obama) address the question of terrorists today. It is cognitive dissonance for political purposes, i.e. don’t insult Muslims, they might not vote for us. It should be noted that Islamic Radicals kill more Muslims that anyone else.

They latest attacks in Paris with 128 dead and 300 wounded (80 critically) and the downing of the Russian airliner killing 240 is the latest example of Radical Islamic jihad practiced by ISIS (ISIL). This is not workplace violence, random acts of terror, a criminal act, or senseless violence as some reporters and liberals state. It is (was) a planned, coordinated attack on us non-believers. The Pairs attack was carried out by Syrian immigrants into France. The weapons and tactics they used, including the suicide vests, were planned in detail and highly coordinated. This type of attack is not a random act of violence or senseless. It resembled the Mumbai attack of 2008 where 164 people were killed and 308 wounded.

(Photo of Victims of a shooting attack lay on the pavement outside La Bell Equipe restaurant in Paris Friday, Nov. 13, 2015. Well over 100 people were killed in Paris on Friday night in a series of shooting, explosions.Anne Sophie Chaisemartin AP )

Europe in their cognitive dissidence knows that the Syrians and Yemenese are most capable and ideologically prone to carry out attacks like this. They also know that their citizens are going to Syria to join ISIS in the fight. Yet they are allowing thousands of Syrian refugees into their countries with Germany taking the most – 700 thousand. Keep in mind that 70% of these “refugees” are men between the ages of 16-35. Where are the women? Where are the children? Yes the media focuses on one photo of a man holding a dead child who had drowned while attempting to enter Europe. This is fodder for the bleeding hearts and do-gooders. By admitting these refugees they appease their guilt and walk away feeling good about themselves ignoring the threat to national security.

French President Francois Hollande has contended unambiguously that ISIS launched the Paris terrorist attacks Friday night, and ISIS itself has now claimed responsibility. It is not too early, even now, to draw important lessons from this tragedy. We do so both to prevent the near-term recurrence of more terrorist violence against the West, and to address seriously the broader, global Islamicist threat that has been growing, not diminishing, in recent years. We certainly have at least enough information and experience to draw working hypotheses for the next days and weeks until more details become available.

Fox News reported:

“ISIS claims of responsibility for Friday’s Paris massacre are being reviewed by US intelligence analysts Sunday morning, with a focus on the English-language version, which is delivered in American-accented English, Fox News has been told. It is now clear the plot included a rollout of ISIS propaganda, which was prepared in advance, including threats directed toward the Russian people, Rome, London and Washington DC.

Separately, Fox News has learned that four credible, ISIS-linked social media accounts began sharing messages 72 hours before the Paris attack, including images of weapons, the Eiffel tower, as well as blessings for the attackers’ mission. A military intelligence source says the social media traffic is now seen as evidence the three teams had gone operational.

The translations include “God bless you in your mission” and “Support the deployment,” as well as a reference to our “sister,” suggesting an operative, or member of the support team was a woman.

Meanwhile, FBI Director James Comey has told field offices across the country to intensify surveillance on ISIS suspects, hoping to prevent violence in this country. Before the attack, Comey confirmed there are 900 active ISIS investigations, spread over all 50 states.”

Now Obama wants to allow over 65,000 Syrian refugees into the United States with more planned. The FBI states it is impossible the vet this many refugees. Where will they go? Where will they live? No doubt they will want to go to places where they can stay under the radar of law enforcement until they have consolidated their cells and planned their attacks. I sure as hell don’t want any of them in my town or neighborhood. According to the FBI we already have many ideologically indoctrinated Muslims and non-Muslims young adults in the country – too many to watch with the resources they have. The latest attack at the University of California at Merced is under investigation by the FBI. The FBI does investigate local murders – they investigate acts of terrorism.

Authors like Brad Thor, the late Vince Flynn, and the late Tom Clancy have written books on the subject of planned Islamic terror attacks in the United States. These books, while fiction might be considered precursors to what is coming. They certainly were for France.

I have often talked about situation awareness and being armed. Both will go a long way in preventing or alleviating such terrorist attacks. We know this from the attacks in Chattanooga in July and Garland, Texas. The list is long.

While most Americans are not legally armed, especially in states like California and New York; they certainly can follow the rules of situation awareness and live in the Yellow Zone and not the White where most people live their lives. For those who are not familiar with these zones here is a brief recap:

White Zone: This is where most Americans live. They walk about with ear buds in their ears or talking on cell phones. They window shop in the mall where I believe the terrorists will soon attack. They are unaware of what is going on in the world or around them.

Yellow Zone: This is the zone you can live in without too much trouble. You are aware of your surroundings and who is around you. You constantly scan your surroundings. You look in shop windows and note not only what the retailer is selling but also the reflections. You note where the exits are and where cover would be. You are constantly aware.

Orange Zone: Now we are in a zone where you need to take action to protect yourself and your loved ones. If you see something that bothers you – you will know if you are in the Yellow Zone. You might see a suspicious person or someone walking about mumbling to him or herself. Seeing a package or backpack unattended. This is where you take flight. You leave the potentially dangerous situation. There is no harm in being wrong. You are still safe. Embarrassment beats the hell out of a 5.56 or 7.62 round in your head or an explosion killing or maiming you.

The Red Zone: This zone only pertains to those who are legally armed. In this zone you cannot take flight – you have to defend yourself. Example might be in a parking structure where you approached by someone about to harm you with a knife, club or firearm. This is where there is not time or opportunity to flee. You have to shoot. It should be noted that you must be trained and proficient at self-defense shooting. You must have the mindset, the skill and muscle memory, and the tools to do this.

One last thought on whether or not words matter. If you don’t define the enemy with clarity you cannot fight and kill them. Just think of the brave soldiers of the 1^st, 29^th, and 4^th Divisions storming the beaches of Normandy on June 4, 1944 being told not to call the German defenders Nazis as they might offend them. Ridiculous? Yes it certainly is. But this is exactly what the liberals are advocating today when it comes to Radical Islam.

Islam is the world's second largest religion. According to a 2010 study and released January 2011, Islam has 1.57 billion adherents, making up over 23% of the world population. According to the Pew Research Center in 2015 there were 50 Muslim-majority countries.

I have tried to get a figure on how many Radical Islamics there are in the world. I had two problems. One is the definition of “Radical”. It runs from dedicated Jihadis like ISIS to those who endorse genital mutilation of young girls along with lack of education for girls to those supporting the imposition of Sharia Law. Second the number ranges from 0.1% to 25%. If I use 10% the number of Radical Islamists in the world would be 157 million. You can make up your own mind on how many have the resources and ability to attack us in the United States. If it’s only 0.1% that’s 157 thousand. Of course as of today it only took 8-10 to cause 128 deaths and over 300 wounded in Paris.

Indeed, this is a time for statesmanship, resolve and determination, not for sweeping the cruel reality of what has just happened under the rug. Our ability to safeguard the future may well depend in substantial part on what we do and how we do it in just these coming days and weeks.

We should not view the appropriate American and Western response as “bringing these terrorists to justice,” in President Obama’s words. This is not a matter for the criminal law, as many American political and academic leaders, including the President, have insisted, even after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

This is a war, as President Hollande has forthrightly called it, not a slightly enhanced version of thieves knocking over the corner grocery store within an ordered civil society. And the mechanism of response must be to destroy the source of the threat, not prosecute it, not contain it, not hope that we will “ultimately” destroy it. “Ultimately” is too far away.

(Photo of rescue workers help a woman after a shooting, outside the Bataclan theater in Paris, Friday Nov. 13, 2015. French President Francois Hollande declared a state of emergency and announced that he was closing the country's borders.Thibault Camus AP )

(You can view more photos at: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/article44800977.html)

In light of Paris and the continuing threat of terrorism it so graphically conveys, we need a more sensible national conversation about the need for effective intelligence gathering to uncover and prevent such tragedies before they occur.

Knee-jerk, uninformed and often wildly inaccurate criticisms of programs (such as several authorized in the wake of 9/11 in the Patriot Act) have created a widespread misimpression in the American public about what exactly our intelligence agencies have been doing and whether there was a “threat” to civil liberties. Now is the time to correct these misimpressions, and to rebut the unfounded criticisms that have in too many cases become the conventional wisdom.

Similarly, in the debate over immigration and refugees, it is time to take into account the national security issues at stake.

Law-enforcement and intelligence authorities had already estimated earlier this year that thousands of European and U.S. citizens had travelled to ISIS-controlled territory in Syria and Iraq, there to receive training and financing to conduct terrorist operations in their home countries. These were individuals with valid passports and visas, taking advantage of holes in our detection and prevention capabilities.

One priority should be to determine if any of those perpetrating the November13-14 attacks in Paris had travelled to ISIS lands. And imagine now the dangers posed by the massive refugee flows moving into Europe from North Africa, the Middle East and even Afghanistan.

A government that cannot keep its own borders secure and will not exercise discretion over Syrian refugees in light of the attacks on Paris is a government that should not stand because if that government continues to stand, the nation itself will falter.

A citizen who cannot look at Paris and realize an open invitation for Syrian refugees is a terrible idea or has faith that our government can quickly discern who should or should not come probably should be ignored.

If we cannot exercise discernment and discretion in letting in refugees from Syria, we should let none of them in. It really is that simple.

Long, Boring and Typical Obama

“Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason.” — Benjamin Franklin

Today President Obama gave a major televised foreign policy speech at the National Defense University where he addressed the issues of terrorism, drones and Gitmo.

The speech was way too long (one hour) and left you wondering at times what his point was. He drew sharp criticism from Republican senators for urging the repeal of the 2001 law that effectively authorized the war on terror.

The president addressed the law, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), toward the end of an hour-long speech largely devoted to explaining and defending his administration's lethal drone program. He even referenced the fact that America is at war in defending the legality of the drone strikes. Obama stated:

“All these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact - in sometimes unintended ways - the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing.

The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an end. Core Al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves Al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states. So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That's what history advises. That's what our democracy demands.”

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., claimed the president was assuming Al Qaeda is "on the run," calling that mindset "really incredible."

But Obama made clear that his ultimate goal is to update, and then repeal, the use of force law, saying he wants to fight terrorism without keeping the country on a "perpetual war-time footing."

"The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an end. Core Al Qaeda is a shell of its former self," Obama said. "Unless we discipline our thinking our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.

"So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further," he said. "Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That's what history advises. That's what our democracy demands."

The resolution was passed by Congress three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. It authorized the military and president to use all necessary force to go after those responsible, and prevent future acts of terror. It remains in effect.

Obama will find support in Congress for revising and updating the law. Before the president's speech, Republican Sen. Bob Corker, top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the original law is "increasingly unrelated to current terrorist threats."

But the call to repeal it stirred protests from some Republicans.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said she was "troubled" to hear that.

"We remain at war with terrorists," she said, pointing to activity in Yemen and Somalia and the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. "Now is not the time where we can consider repealing the authorization for the use of military force."

McCain agreed. "I believe we are still in a long drawn-out conflict with Al Qaeda. To somehow argue that Al Qaeda is on the run, comes from a degree of unreality that to me is really incredible," he said, saying the terror network is "expanding" across the Middle East. "To somehow think that we can bring the authorization of the use of military force to a complete closure contradicts reality of the facts on the ground," he said.

The president tackled a host of tricky subjects in his speech today. He defended his administration's drone program, while saying his administration is setting new guidelines and opening the door to new levels of congressional oversight.

On his administrations drone policy Obama had this to say:

“It is in this context that the United States has taken lethal, targeted action against Al Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions - about who is targeted, and why; about civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new enemies; about the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law; about accountability and morality.

Let me address these questions. To begin with, our actions are effective. Don't take my word for it. In the intelligence gathered at bin Laden's compound, we found that he wrote, “we could lose the reserves to the enemy's air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives.'' Other communications from Al Qaeda operatives confirm this as well. Dozens of highly skilled Al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives.

Moreover, America's actions are legal. We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war - a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense.

And yet as our fight enters a new phase, America's legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power - or risk abusing it. That's why, over the last four years, my Administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists - insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday.”

He also renewed his call to close Guantanamo Bay, pushing to resume transfers of detainees from the prison camp. This is where this long, boring and repetitive speech got a bit interesting.

“The glaring exception to this time-tested approach is the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The original premise for opening GTMO - that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention - was found unconstitutional five years ago. In the meantime, GTMO has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law. Our allies won't cooperate with us if they think a terrorist will end up at GTMO. During a time of budget cuts, we spend $150 million each year to imprison 166 people -almost $1 million per prisoner. And the Department of Defense estimates that we must spend another $200 million to keep GTMO open at a time when we are cutting investments in education and research here at home.

As President, I have tried to close GTMO. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries, or imprisoning them in the United States. These restrictions make no sense. After all, under President Bush, some 530 detainees were transferred from GTMO with Congress's support. When I ran for President the first time, John McCain supported closing GTMO. No person has ever escaped from one of our super-max or military prisons in the United States. Our courts have convicted hundreds of people for terrorism-related offenses, including some who are more dangerous than most GTMO detainees. Given my Administration's relentless pursuit of Al Qaeda's leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened.

Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries. I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen, so we can review them on a case by case basis. To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee.

Even after we take these steps, one issue will remain: how to deal with those GTMO detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted - for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. But once we commit to a process of closing GTMO, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.”

It was at this point of his speech that President Obama was interrupted three times by a woman who shouted about drones and detainees in Cuba as he delivered a speech on national security.

The woman was identified as Medea Benjamin from the anti-war group Code Pink. Benjamin yelled from behind a bank of cameras before security removed her from the hall at National Defense University in Washington.

Obama said at one point he was willing to "cut the young lady some slack" because the issues he was addressing are worth being passionate about.

Benjamin shouted, quote, "86 were cleared already. Release them today!"

It was almost as if Benjamin was a plant by the White House to give Obama some simpatico. He allowed her some time to mouth off with Code Pink’s blabber for quite a while before she was escorted from the building, something she was used to and is often her goal.

Two more points Obama made before leaving this topic. Firstly were his remarks about leakers and journalists. Where he said:

“The Justice Department's investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. As Commander- in Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over- reach. I have raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I have directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th.”

Who is he kidding? Eric Holder to come back with a report is like having the fox guard the chicken house. It was Holder’s Justice Department that initiated investigations into the AP and Fox News’ James Rosen. What he should have said is I have asked for Attorney General Eric Holder’s resignation and urged him to appear before a Congressional committee and tell the truth. I know that is a fantasy and won’t happen. I wonder what Holder, like J. Edgar Hoover had on almost everyone in Washington, D.C., has on Obama.

Finally he said the War on terror must end:

“Now make no mistake: our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. We must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience to draw from, now is the time to ask ourselves hard questions - about the nature of today's threats, and how we should confront them.

These questions matter to every American. For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, exploding our deficits and constraining our ability to nation build here at home. Our service-members and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions we are making will define the type of nation - and world - that we leave to our children.

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison's warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.'' Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do - what we must do - is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. To define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. And that begins with understanding the threat we face.”

For Obama to quote James Madison borders on sacrilegious. During his entire political career Obama has never expressed any of the principles of Madison or any other Founders.

In order to end any war you need two sides to agree to do so. This happened in 1918, 1945, and 1954. So far there is no indication that the jihadists have given any indication that are willing to negotiate an end to their terrorism. As long as they want to kill us the war will go no matter what form it takes.

The question that comes to mind is the timing of this speech. Obama gave this address on Thursday, the day before the government and the press begins to close down for the long Memorial Day Weekend. It was an opportunity to deflect the story from the Benghazi, IRS, and journalist scandals.

The Weekly Standard reported that early this week liberal pundits gathered in the West Wing. National Public Radio reporter Ari Shapiro reports that liberal pundits were seen entering the West Wing. The pundits include Jonathan Capehart, Josh Marshall, and Ezra Klein.

It also should be noted that Lois Lerner was placed on administrative leave today. Once again the announcement was made prior to the beginning of the long Memorial Day Weekend. Fox News reported:

“Sources confirmed to Fox News earlier Thursday that Lerner, the head of the IRS division that oversaw the unit targeting conservative groups, had been placed on administrative leave, with pay.

But Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, claimed she was only put in that status after refusing to step down.

He said the commissioner was in his right to demand her resignation, and said taxpayers should not continue to pay her salary indefinitely.

“She had an opportunity to disclose the targeting to Congress days before her disclosure at a legal conference and didn't do it,” Grassley said in a statement. “Then she gave the impression that the issue came up independently at the conference, when it really was a plant that she arranged. The IRS owes it to taxpayers to resolve her situation quickly. The agency needs to move on to fix the conditions that led to the targeting debacle."

Capitol Hill sources said Lerner, the director of exempt organizations, was placed on paid leave Thursday, amid calls from some lawmakers for her to be suspended or fired. In her absence, Ken Corbin, the current deputy director of the submission processing, wage and investment division, will take over her duties, according to an internal IRS memo obtained by Fox News.”

This will give the Obama media plenty of time to send their acolytes out on the talk shows over the weekend to push Obama’s national security speech and obfuscate the Benghazi, IRS and journalism scandals while Congress is not in town for the next week and the hearings are in recess. This is a good time to have your barbeque with your burgers and hot dogs, remember our fallen and visit the local office of your representative to make your beliefs

Zero Dark Thirty — Some Truth, Some Fiction

“Nothing is so contagious as opinion, especially on questions which beget in the mind a distrust of itself.” — James Madison

Last night my wife, daughter and I ventured out to see the movie Zero Dark Thirty. For those of you who live in a forest somewhere Zero Dark Thirty is the controversial movie about the hunt and rake down of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2011.

I had heard and read a myriad of opinions on this film — everything from it being a homage to Barack Obama to a glorification of torture. It was neither. It was a well-crafted film by the Oscar winning director Kathryn Bigelow and her writer Mark Boal. The film chronicles the decade-long hunt for al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden (Referred to as Usama bin Laden in the film, which is correct) after the September 2001 attacks, and his death at the hands of the Navy SEAL Team 6 in May, 2011.

Critics on the left and right have lambasted this film due to their political agendas. First and foremost it is a theatrical movie not a documentary. If you want a documentary watch the numerous accounts of the hunt and take down of bin Laden on the History, Military, or National Geographic channels. I have seen most of those documentaries and even though crafted with care and with no obvious agenda they don’t always tell the entire story. In fact the entire story will not be known for years just as the full story of the assassinations of Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy are still evolving. So with that in mind here is my humble take on the film.

After seeing the movie, it becomes obvious that Americans might now understand what was needed to make sure the homeland remained safe. The crowds in the theatre are subdued during the movie and afterward. There is no hissing, no yelling, and no cheering. But at the end of the film there was a round of applause for the film. Perhaps this was due to the fact that I saw the film in a more conservative neighborhood in Riverside County. I doubt if there was any such applause in Westwood. As the audience exits, there is an eerie quiet, maybe because the movie brought home the fact to Americans that these were very dangerous times.

Jose Rodriguez, Jr., who headed the CIA's Counterterrorism Center and then became director of the National Clandestine Service, believes that the reaction of the audience was due to people realizing that what CIA officials have been saying for years is a reality: "it was necessary and needed to be done to keep Americans safe."

The film opens with scenes of “enhanced interrogation” of a captured al Qaeda terrorist at an undisclosed CIA black site in 2002. Maya (played by Jessica Chastain) is a CIA operative whose first experience is in the interrogation of prisoners following the Al Qaeda attacks against the U.S. on the 11th September 2001. She is a reluctant participant in extreme duress applied to the detainees, but believes that the truth may only be obtained through such tactics. For several years, she is single-minded in her pursuit of leads to uncover the whereabouts of Al Qaeda's leader, Osama Bin Laden. Finally, in 2011, it appears that her work will pay off, and a U.S. Navy SEAL team is sent to kill or capture Bin Laden. But only Maya is confident Bin Laden is where she says he is. You can read a full synopsis of the plot by clicking here.

As I stated above the film opens with scenes of enhanced interrogation of a captured al-Qaeda terrorist. The scenes of waterboarding and physical beatings are quite graphic. If you have a weak stomach come in about 15 minutes late to the 157—minute long film. This is no doubt the most controversial part of the film and where I take some umbrage with Bigelow and Boal.

As the author of Hard Measures: How the CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives, Rodriguez details in the book the actual tactics of the Enhanced Interrogation Program. He does not agree with the movie depiction of the interrogation scenes since. Rodriguez stated in an easy published in the Washington Post about the film:

“The CIA did not torture anybody under the enhanced interrogation program. I know, because I actually supervised it myself from 2002 until 2007. The torture scenes in the movie did not happen. My biggest beef with this film is that millions of people around the world after seeing this movie will conclude that the CIA tortures, which is very unfair and not true."

Rodriguez went on to say:

“Indeed, as I watched the story unfold on the screen, I found myself alternating between repulsion and delight.

First, my reasons for repulsion. “Zero Dark Thirty,” which will open for Washington audiences Friday, inaccurately links torture with intelligence success and mischaracterizes how America’s enemies have been treated in the fight against terrorism. Many others object to the film, however, because they think that the depiction of torture by the CIA is accurate but that the movie is wrong to imply that our interrogation techniques worked.

“They are wrong on both counts. I was intimately involved in setting up and administering the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program, and I left the agency in 2007 secure in the knowledge not only that our program worked — but that it was not torture.

One of the advantages of inhabiting the world of Hollywood is that you can have things both ways. In the publicity campaign for the movie, the director and the screenwriter have stressed that “Zero Dark Thirty” was carefully researched and is fact-based. When discussing the so-called torture scenes, director Kathryn Bigelow has said: “I wish it was not part of our history, but it was.” Yet when pressed about inaccuracies, screenwriter Mark Boal has been quick to remind everyone: “This is not a documentary.”

What I haven’t heard anyone acknowledge is that the interrogation scenes torture the truth. Despite popular fiction — and the fiction that often masquerades as unbiased reporting — the enhanced interrogation program was carefully monitored and conducted. It bore little resemblance to what is shown on the screen.

The film shows CIA officers brutalizing detainees — beating them mercilessly, suspending them from the ceiling with chains, leading them around in dog collars and, on the spur of the moment, throwing them on the floor, grabbing a large bucket and administering a vicious ad hoc waterboarding. The movie implies that such treatment went on for years.

The truth is that no one was bloodied or beaten in the enhanced interrogation program which I supervised from 2002 to 2007. Most detainees received no enhanced interrogation techniques, and the relative few who did faced harsh measures for only a few days or weeks at the start of their detention. To give a detainee a single open-fingered slap across the face, CIA officers had to receive written authorization from Washington. No one was hung from ceilings. The filmmakers stole the dog-collar scenes from the abuses committed by Army personnel at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. No such thing was ever done at CIA “black sites.”

The CIA did waterboard three of the worst terrorists on the planet — Abu Zubaida, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri — in an effort to get them to cooperate. Instead of a large bucket, small plastic water bottles were used on the three men, who were on medical gurneys. The procedure was totally unlike the one seen in the movie but was consistent with the same tactic used, without physical or psychological damage, on tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel as part of their training.”

Bill Harlow, the former CIA director of public affairs, believes that the movie confuses incidents such as Abu Ghraib with the CIA program. For example, there is a scene where a CIA officer puts a dog collar on a terrorist detainee and walks him like a dog. Harlow was offended by this untruth because it happened at Abu Ghraib, completely contrary to the situation shown in the movie. "So many people seem to accept this as a given. It is annoying to me that they don't ask. Did this really happen that way? The beating scenes did not happen and were put in the movie for dramatic content. We never beat the crap out of people. Had anyone done those things shown in the movie, they would have been prosecuted."

Harlow goes on to state:

“It would have been more accurate and still intense if the movie put in the actual enhanced interrogation techniques. Unlike in the movie's description, Zubaida was put in a box only once — but one large enough to allow him to sit up. As for waterboarding, it was done to only three terrorist detainees, and to none after 2003. Anyone waterboarded had his vital signs monitored, which was not portrayed in the movie. The technique in the film of asking a question, pouring large buckets of water, and then asking another question is not how it was done. In reality, small plastic water bottles were used, with only drops of water being poured over the subject. Once someone agreed to cooperate, the enhanced interrogation techniques stopped as was demonstrated in the film.”

Yet the movie implies, by using the clip of President Obama saying Americans do not torture, that enhanced interrogation is torture. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden, for his part, feels that Jose Rodriguez's op-ed is the definitive piece on this issue. Rodriguez made it clear that those senators who are yelling and are threatening an investigation about the film's sources are trying to rewrite history because "they are denying that enhanced interrogation worked and call it torture." Hayden also was struck with the fact that these "senators wanted to investigate the Agency — not for the classification of what they told the filmmakers, but because they disagreed with the conclusions suggested by the film. The senators appear to be fixated on this issue."

The film correctly portrays that the hunt for bin Laden was a ten-year marathon, not a sprint. For a while people believed it was all Obama. It was the CIA's focus and hard work that eventually allowed us to find bin Laden. Many women deserve a chunk of the credit for their focus, tenacity, intensity, and being detailed-oriented, including Jennifer Matthews, chief of the Khost Afghanistan base at Camp Chapman. I have written a detailed account of how Ms. Matthews (called Jessica and played by Jennifer Ehle in the film) was killed by a Jordanian suicide bomber. For more information on this attack that killed 7 CIA agents, including Ms. Matthews and wounded 7 others click here. I think it will give you better understanding of the culture within the CIA at the time.)

According to Robert Baer, an ex CIA operative, writing in GQ Magazine Michael Scheuer, “her first boss in Alec Station, the CIA unit that tracked bin Laden, told me she had attended the operative's basic training course at the Farm, the agency's training facility, and that he considered her a good, smart officer. Another officer who knew her told me that despite her training at the Farm, she was always slotted to be a reports officer, someone who edits reports coming in from the field. She was never intended to meet and debrief informants.”

Baer continued:

“Matthews knew that there was a time when only seasoned field operatives were put in charge of places like Khost. Not only would an operative need to have distinguished himself at the Farm; he or she would've run informants in the field for five years or more before earning such a post. He probably would have done at least one previous tour in a war zone, too. And he would have known the local language, in this case Pashto. Matthews skipped all of this”.

According to all of the reports I have read on this incident Ms. Matthews was portrayed correctly in the film as was the entire incident at Khost. It is quite a shocker in the film.

Now to the main character in the film known as Maya and played by Jessica Chastain. Maya is not her real name and the CIA will not release her real name as there is a price on her head from al-Queda. The Navy SEAL who wrote the controversial book detailing the assassination of Osama bin Laden credits a 'feisty' female CIA analyst for leading them to their target, after spending five years hunting him.

Author Matt Bissonnette – whose identity was revealed even though he wrote the tell-all book No Easy Day under the pen name of Mark Owen – only refers to the woman using the pseudonym ‘Jen’ in his book. According to Bissonnette, as reported in The Guardian, Jen", was convinced Bin Laden was hiding at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where he was found.

She travelled with the Seals to Afghanistan ahead of the raid and briefed them on what they were likely to find. "I can't give her enough credit. In my opinion she kind of teed up this whole thing," Owen told CBS's 60 Minutes in an interview to be broadcast Sunday.

Owen described Jen as "wicked smart, kind of feisty". She was 100% sure that bin Laden was hiding in the Abbottabad compound, according to Owen. President Barack Obama, CIA Director Leon Panetta and others had said they were only 70% sure Bin Laden would be found at the compound. Owen told 60 Minutes that all of her predictions proved to be exactly right. This is portrayed in the film where Maya is part of a group seated around a conference table and Director Panetta polls the operatives and analysts on their confidence that bin Laden is at the Abbottabad compound. The men’s responses range from 50 to 70 percent and when Maya is asked she responds with 100% positive, but downgrades to 95% saying nothing in the intelligence world is 100%.

In his book, Bissonnette writes that he sat next to the woman during one of the long-haul flights as they headed to Pakistan for the mission, and his brief description paints a picture of a young and extremely dedicated analyst.

'Recruited by the agency out of college, she'd been working on the Bin Laden task force for the last five years. Analysts rotated in and out of the task force, but she stayed and kept after it.

'After the al-Kuwaiti phone call, she'd worked to put all the pieces together. she had been our go-to analyst on all intelligence questions regarding the target,' he writes.

Jen is the real-life heroine of the CIA hunt for Osama bin Laden, a headstrong young operative whose work tracking the al-Qaida leader serves as the dramatic core of Zero Dark Thirty. It should also be pointed out that according to the Mail Online Jen is the person the character Carrie Mathison (played by Clare Danes) in the Golden Globe and Emmy award winning Showtime series Homeland is modeled after. Danes said that while researching her role as Mathison she met one of the men who led the raid on bin Laden.

Danes hinted at a connection during an interview about the research she did to prepare for her role as Carrie Mathison.

“There’s a woman Carrie is loosely modeled on and she’s a CIA officer and so I met with her and she took me to Langley and introduced me to some of her colleagues,” Danes told The Wall Street Journal.

The Homeland protagonist is described as being stubborn, headstrong, and outspoken. The same appears true for the female agent Jen.

“Jen wasn't afraid to share her opinion with even the highest officers,” Bissonnette wrote in the book. “This was her baby. Jen and her team spent five years tracking him to get us where we were now.”

Her CIA career has followed a more problematic script, however, since bin Laden was killed.

The operative, who remains undercover, was passed over for a promotion that many in the CIA thought would be impossible to withhold from someone who played such a key role in one of the most successful operations in agency history.

The real life Jen stirred up a bit of a firestorm when she blasted some of her fellow CIA compatriots with an e-mail. According to the Washington Post:

“The operative, who remains undercover, was passed over for a promotion that many in the CIA thought would be impossible to withhold from someone who played such a key role in one of the most successful operations in agency history.

She has sparred with CIA colleagues over credit for the bin Laden mission. After being given a prestigious award for her work, she sent an e-mail to dozens of other recipients saying they didn’t deserve to share her accolades, current and former officials said.

The woman has also come under scrutiny for her contacts with filmmakers and others about the bin Laden mission, part of a broader internal inquiry into the agency’s cooperation on the new movie and other projects, former officials said.

Her defenders say the operative has been treated unfairly, and even her critics acknowledge that her contributions to the bin Laden hunt were crucial. But the developments have cast a cloud over a career that is about to be bathed in the sort of cinematic glow ordinarily reserved for fictional Hollywood spies.”

Colleagues said the on-screen depiction captures the woman’s dedication and combative temperament.

“She’s not Miss Congeniality, but that’s not going to find Osama bin Laden,” said a former CIA associate, who added that the attention from filmmakers sent waves of envy through the agency’s ranks.

“The agency is a funny place, very insular,” the former official said. “It’s like middle-schoolers with clearances.”

This spring, she was among a handful of employees given the agency’s Distinguished Intelligence Medal, its highest honor except for those recognizing people who have come under direct fire. But when dozens of others were given lesser awards, the female officer lashed out.

“She hit ‘reply all’ ” to an e-mail announcement of the awards, a second former CIA official said. The thrust of her message, the former official said, was: “You guys tried to obstruct me. You fought me. Only I deserve the award.”

Over the past year, she was denied a promotion that would have raised her civil service rank from GS-13 to GS-14, bringing an additional $16,000 in annual pay.

Officials said the woman was given a cash bonus for her work on the bin Laden mission and has since moved on to a new counterterrorism assignment. They declined to say why the promotion was blocked.

The move stunned the woman’s former associates, despite her reputation for clashing with colleagues.

This is just another example of how the CIA has mutated from its origins of the OSS and the Cold War into a massive bureaucratic government organization as has the Department of Defense. As a person who held a security clearance and worked with the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency I can attest that there are many bureaucrats in the intelligence business who are more concerned with budgets and achieving their next GS ratings so they can retire with a larger pension. Decisions are had to come by from these bureaucrats. They don’t like to make waves or rock the boat. To them doing nothing is playing it safe and looking for someone else to point a finger at is standard operating procedure. That’s why 9/11 happened.

Overall, both Harlow and Rodriguez encourage Americans to see the film. They are hoping that what people will realize is that instead of supporting rights for terrorists, as some senators seem to be encouraging, those at the CIA chose to do what was right and legal to make sure terrorist plots were foiled. Although they wish the filmmakers consulted with them about the interrogation scenes, the movie realistically showed that here are those at the Agency who are patriotic, very disciplined, and smart, and that they are risk-takers when it comes to making sure Americans are kept safe.

Despite its flaws, inaccuracies and shortcuts, I do believe this film is well worth seeing. Theatergoers should understand, however, that “Zero Dark Thirty” is more than a movie and less than the literal truth. It is more about Maya and her 10-year hunt for bin Laden and all of the hurdles, both external and external, she had to jump. This is especially apparent in the final scene, with Maya in tears, drained, not sure where to go or what to do next.

And finally we come to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences — the folks who pass out the Oscars to their BFFs. David Clennon, an Emmy Award-winning actor and member of the AMPAS, announced in an op-ed for the leftist website Truthout that he would not be voting for “Zero Dark Thirty” in any Oscar categories because of its torture scenes.

“At the risk of being expelled for disclosing my intentions, I will not be voting for ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ – in any Academy Awards category,” Clennon wrote. “Torture is an appalling crime under any circumstances. ‘Zero’ never acknowledges that torture is immoral and criminal. It does portray torture as getting results.”

Clennon, who is best known for his work on TV series' "Thirtysomething," "Almost Perfect" and "The Agency" won an Emmy for a guest spot for "Dream On" in 1993. A longtime political activist, his remarks caused something of a furor since Academy members are specifically encourage by AMPAS not to reveal who they are voting for (assuming they are even voting). It's unclear whether Clennon will be reprimanded for his revelation.

But Sony executive Amy Pascal pushed back against Clennon’s assertions, stating bluntly: “Zero Dark Thirty does not advocate torture. To not include that part of history would have been irresponsible and inaccurate.”

Pascal said the studio is “outraged that any responsible member of the Academy would use their voting status in AMPAS as a platform to advance their own political agenda.”

“This film should be judged free of partisanship. To punish an Artist’s right of expression is abhorrent. This community, more than any other, should know how reprehensible that is,” she said.

According to The Wrap Zero Dark Thirty” roared out of the gate in its nationwide expansion Friday, taking in $9 million. That puts Sony’s controversial drama on pace to easily win the weekend box office race with $25 million.

It was running safely ahead of the weekend’s two debuting movies, Warner Bros.’ star-studded “Gangster Squad” and the horror spoof “A Haunted House,” the two R-rated films in a battle for No. 2. The period mob drama opened to $6.6 million from 3,103 theaters and is looking at a roughly $19 million weekend, just under analysts' projections. Marlon Wayans' comedy brought in about $6.7 million from 2,160 theaters, which puts it on pace for $17 million, in line with expectations.

In conclusion the film is worth ten bucks and a couple hours of your time if you like action thrillers based on actual events and to see the outstanding performance of Jessica Chastain. Theatrical movies are not made for the study of history, but they can motivate the viewer to research the events portrayed in the film and learn for themselves.

War Dogs

“The only creatures that are evolved enough to convey pure love are dogs and infants.” — Johnny Depp

As the owner of three German Shepherds (one deceased) I love to read stories about hero war dogs. These dogs have saved countless lives and get little or no recognition in the MSM.

This morning I saw a story about and Air Force dog who lost a leg saving his handler and other members of the squad in Afghanistan. Her name is Layka and she is a Belgian Malinois, a close relative of the German Shepherd.

Belgian Malinois

Mike Joseph reports on the U.S. Air Force Web Site:

“A Belgian Malinois became the first military working dog honored by the 341st Training Squadron for her heroic actions while assigned to a U.S. Special Forces unit in Afghanistan.

Layka, an almost 3-year-old female, was recognized Sept. 12 at Joint Base San Antonio - Lackland, Texas, for saving several Coalition Forces team members during a June 4 special operations mission.

Layka had been dispatched to clear a building of explosives and help look for enemy combatants after a brief fire fight.

During her search, the dog was ambushed by one of the assailants. Layka received multiple gunshot wounds to the abdomen and a limb, which later had to be amputated.

Severely wounded, she attacked and subdued the assailant, protecting the lives of her handler and other coalition team members behind her.

Once the area was secured, Layka's handler and a physician's assistant began treating the injured canine. Layka was then flown to a theater hospital for the first of several surgeries, eventually losing her right front leg. She arrived in San Antonio in early July for rehabilitation at the Daniel Holland Military Working Dog Hospital.

"This has never been done before by us, but we wanted to thank Layka," said Maj. Jason Harris, 341st TRS commander, who presented the dog with a medal of heroism from the unit's parent organization, the 37th Training Group.

The squadron provides trained military working dogs used in patrol, drug and explosive detection, and other specialized mission functions by the Department of Defense and other government agencies.

"The medal is unofficial because no decoration exists for military working dogs, but we felt Layka deserved recognition," Harris said. "What these dogs do, day in and day out, is phenomenal. They do save lives.

"Layka was shot and still attacked the person shooting her. She's been through a lot, and what she did is nothing less than heroic."

Following the ceremony, Layka was flown to Georgia to be reunited with her handler, who is still on active duty.

No longer able to serve because of the injuries, Layka has been adopted by her handler, who cannot be identified for reasons of security.

"He's very excited to get her and thankful he had her that day (in Afghanistan)," Harris said. "Layka is very handler-protective, which led to what she did over there."

Tech. Sgt. Joseph Null, the 341st TRS military working dogs adoptions coordinator, said MWDs are invaluable to the armed services.

"She surprised the terrorist, who was waiting to lay down fire on the team. I heard from people on the mission that if Layka hadn't reacted like she did, there was a potential for multiple casualties," Null said. "Layka needed to be recognized for her sacrifice."

When I saw this story this morning on Fox and Friends I could not help but think of my two German Shepherds, Baina and Blaze, and give them a hug. I also harkened back to a documentary I saw about war dogs on the National Geographic Channel several years ago. The documentary focused mainly on the dogs that were used in Vietnam by the Army and Marines. It was a great story until the end where a veterinarian, who served in the army during the Vietnam War, was interviewed. At that time the military considered the war dogs as equipment and like any other equipment were considered surplus when we withdrew from Vietnam. The veterinarian explained that his job was changed from caring for the dogs to putting them down as surplus. He said that to this day he cannot look into the eyes of a German Shepherd without welling up in tears.

Baina

Blaze

It was just one year ago that the world first heard of Cairo, the dog who joined the mission that took down the world's most hunted terrorist, Osama bin Laden. The news sparked something of a sensation, and while Cairo might be the world's best-known war dog, he's far from a lone fighting force. The world of combat canines is vast, with a long and rich history, and these dogs have footholds on war fronts where you'd least expect to find them. From patrolling Moscow's train stations to thwarting insurgent ambushes in Afghanistan to guarding the borders of the West Bank to serving on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's private security detail, war dogs are essential to many of the world's most elite units, detecting bombs, detaining enemies, and saving lives.

Dogs have been fighting alongside U.S. soldiers for more than 100 years, seeing combat in the Civil War and World War I. But their service was informal; only in 1942 were canines officially inducted into the U.S. Army. Today, they're a central part of U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan — as of early 2010 the U.S. Army had 2,800 active-duty dogs deployed (the largest canine contingent in the world). And these numbers will continue to grow as these dogs become an ever-more-vital military asset.

So it should come as no surprise that among the 79 commandos involved in Operation Neptune Spear that resulted in Osama bin Laden's killing, there was one dog — the elite of the four-legged variety. And though the dog in question remains an enigma — another mysterious detail of the still-unfolding narrative of that historic mission — there should be little reason to speculate about why there was a dog involved: Man's best friend is a pretty fearsome warrior.

[Rebecca Frankel, who specializes in writing about war dogs, has a great photographic essay in Foreign Policy Magazine.]

There are several memorials to these magnificent dogs around the world. One is located at March Air Force Reserve Base near my home in the city of Riverside, California. It’s a great memorial to the many dogs that served, and are serving our military throughout the world.

War Dog memorial at March AFRB in Riverside, California

Also there are several books on the subject of war dogs with the most recent being Sergeant Rex by former Marine handler Mike Dowling, a book I read cover to cover in one night with Baina and Blaze by my side.

Everyone has heard of Rin Tin Tin, but Sergeant Rex is the real-life German Shepherd military dog. By all accounts, he had a great reputation for being a superior working dog, whose duty was to patrol and detect explosives. Rex was so special. Mike Dowling wrote Sergeant Rex to honor him, and Megan Leavey never gave up her dream of being reunited with Rex after their retirement.

Rex was born in Germany in 2001, and he came to America as a puppy to go through the military dog-training program at Camp Pendleton, California. Mike commented that Rex had all the qualities needed for a military working dog: "Stamina, loyalty, athleticism, intelligence, and a drive to work. In fact, he was nicknamed 'Sexy Rexy' for his handsomeness, and 'T-Rex' for his aggressiveness when necessary."

In March 2004, Corporal Mike Dowling and Rex were deployed to Iraq. They were one of a dozen working dog teams sent to the frontlines since the Vietnam War. Their mission was to save American soldiers' lives while enduring the dangers of trigger-happy insurgents who planted explosives.

Another informal assignment for the dog-handler team was for Rex to serve as a therapy and morale dog. Mike stated that stress affects every single military person, yet "[t]he great thing about having Rex is that after the battle we were able to get back to the base and play with each other. Having a dog attached to a combat unit improves people's morale. Most everyone loves dogs, so we were immediately welcomed. From the highest to the lowest ranks, everyone wanted to interact with Rex and talk about their own dog. He was able to take everyone's mind away from combat for a few minutes."

Mike and Rex were together for two and a half years, and never once did Rex forget what he was taught. "In his book he refers to Rex as a sergeant because dog handlers treat their dogs as if they are one rank higher than them, even though dogs are not given official ranks. This is to remind them that they never disrespect them. It got to a point that he knew what Rex was going to do before he did it." Before leaving the Marines, Mike worked with Rex's next dog handler, Megan, "giving her advice on how to handle and approach Rex." Both Megan and Mike noted that they looked upon Rex not as "a dog," but rather as a Marine, a partner, and an extension of themselves, learning his mannerisms and personality.

Rex was the only dog Megan worked with, and they were together from October 2004 until December 2007. They worked together for over a hundred missions during their two deployments to Iraq. Megan's time with Rex was very different from Mike's because of the harrowing experience they had together.

On September 4, 2006, Rex and Megan found a large number of IEDs. While they continued the search for more explosives, an insurgent watcher detonated an IED while Rex and Megan were directly over it. Megan became unconscious, bursting all the blood vessels in both ears. As she came to, even though the atmosphere was smoky, making it hard to see, and the only sound she could hear was a ringing in her ears, one of her first thoughts was of Rex: "Thank God Rex was attached to my flack jacket. I made sure Rex was all right and found that he had a severe shoulder injury, had shut down, and was very scared." They did not leave the scene of the intense firefight, instead waiting for the detonation team to arrive. Megan received the Purple Heart for the true heroism she and Rex displayed.

Due to their injuries, Megan and Rex were not involved in future missions, and in December 2006, they were sent back to Camp Pendleton. Megan's last year was spent taking Rex to physical therapy sessions and helping other Marines get ready for deployment. In 2007, after finishing her service, she filed papers to adopt Rex. Because Rex recovered from his injuries, he remained on active duty, so her request was put on hold.

Megan explained that military dogs are kept working as long as they are physically able because of the money invested in them (about $50,000). She also dispelled the rumor that once a dog is no longer able to work, it is "put to sleep. The military puts dogs to sleep only if they have a medical condition or are too aggressive and unable to adapt to pet life."

Megan felt that having Rex beside her gave her strength. She never wavered from her determination that one day she and Rex would be together. She stayed in touch, calling Rex's handlers on a regular basis. A year after leaving the Marines, she visited Rex at Camp Pendleton, enjoying their time together since "everyone knew Rex was my dog. All I wanted was to be reunited with Rex and take care of him."

By the time Rex turned eleven, Megan had enlisted the help of the public and Senator Charles Schumer to push through the adoption papers. After supposedly being diagnosed with facial palsy, a disease that causes the left side of his face to be droopy and numb, Rex was retired and adopted by Megan on April 6 of this year. She noted, "I had not seen Rex in three or four years, and as soon as I took the leash, we just picked up where we left off. It seemed like no time had passed between us."

Ever since I was a young child I had had a fascination with German Shepherds. I loved the Rin-Tin-Tin films and have purchased a DVD of them. They are powerful, smart, and loyal dogs. But, as the military vet stated; it’s the eyes. When you look into the eyes of a German Shepherd you cannot doubt they understand and love you.

Obama is Obfuscating The War on Terror

“There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.” — George Washington, Fifth Annual Message — 1793.

The recent events in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and other Muslim controlled nations have brought our foreign policy once again to the forefront. With the constant clamor over taxing the rich, wealth redistribution, and polls our foreign policy and the way we are fighting he so-called war on terror had taken a back seat until our ambassador was murdered during a planned terrorist attack in Benghazi by al-Qaeda on September 11^th.

At first the administration claimed the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration against a purported anti-Islamist film posted on You Tube. It took over a week for the facts to dribble out, many from international intelligence sources and news media. Our mainstream media, for most part, bought into the administration’s version hook line, and sinker.

As recently as yesterday, President Obama stood before the world at the United Nations and blamed the film "The Innocence of Muslims" for the unrest in the Middle East and, more specifically, the death of four Americans in Libya, including Christopher Stevens, our Libyan Ambassador. Obama refuses to acknowledge the assassination of Stevens was a terrorist attack, even though other members of his Administration, including his own Secretary of State, have already conceded it was exactly that.

In fact, every bit of intelligence also contradicts the President.

And now, Libyan President Mohamed Magarief is on the record declaratively stating the video had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks when he stated during an interview on NBC; “the trailer for the anti-Islam film had nothing to do with this attack."

Magarief said the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, which also resulted in the deaths of three other Americans, was more likely pegged to the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

"Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September," Magarief told NBC’s Ann Curry in the exclusive interview. "They chose this date, 11th of September to carry a certain message."

Magarief noted that there were no protesters at the consulate prior to the attack, and that the incident was more of a clearly coordinated assault than a demonstration run amok. He noted the attackers used rocket-propelled grenades on the consulate and then fired mortars at a safe house where Stevens had fled.

It's just a fact that Obama refuses to acknowledge al-Qaeda launched a successful attack on the anniversary of 9/11 that resulted in the rape and murder of an Ambassador and three other Americans.

It's also a fact that our media is not only allowing Obama to get away with this charade, but refusing to hold him or the Administration responsible for the security lapses that left our consulate vulnerable and the subsequent cover up.

Five days after the attack on the Benghazi consulate that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, the Obama administration sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice onto five Sunday talk shows to insist that the sacking of the consulate was the result of a protest over a YouTube video that “spun out of control.” The government of Libya was already scoffing at that story, and by the end of the next week the White House began reluctantly admitting that terrorists had attacked the diplomatic mission. Today, however, Eli Lake reports for the Daily Beast that the Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the attack had not been a spontaneous event, but a well-planned terrorist attack:

“Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.

The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. “We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy,” this official said. “We believe we had enough to target him.”

Another U.S. intelligence official said, “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address. There are camps of people and a wide variety of things we could do.”

A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment for the story. But another U.S. intelligence official said, “I can’t get into specific numbers but soon after the attack we had a pretty good bead on some individuals involved in the attack.”

In other words, either Susan Rice lied to the press, or was lied to by the Obama administration and sent out to the press deliberately. That leaves the national media in a quandary. Clearly, with only a couple of exceptions, the media hasn’t wanted to address the implications of a successful terrorist attack on an American diplomatic installation at least not during the Barack Obama presidency. Now it’s becoming very clear that the administration didn’t just tell them to “buzz off,” the White House actively lied about the attack in order to deflect further questions from the media.

So what did Obama do 34 hours after the attack? He jumped in Air Force One and flew off to Las Vegas for one his many campaign events where he compared his campaign workers to the “brave and courageous” Americans in Libya that had just died. And all the while his lap dog MSM kept Obama’s narrative alive as long as it could.

Now Two GOP Senators are demanding clarification on what security measures were in place for U.S. personnel there after reports that those who attacked the Libyan consulate may have had inside help.

Sens. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Bob Corker (R-TN) have sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which stated that they were "extremely concerned" over news of how security may have been handled in the days leading up to the attack.

Isakson and Corker have read reports that indicate the State Dept. not only failed to bolster security at the Libyan consulate as threats mounted but actually sought a waiver to circumvent their duty to so.

This squares perfectly with the scenario Libyan militia leader Fawzi Bukatef described when he claimed the Obama administration left all security measures in the hands of his militia, the February 17 Brigade. And it is feared that because of Bukatef's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist factions, the February 17 Brigade may have actually stood down and allowed the attackers to reach Ambassador Stevens.

Isakson and Corker are seeking clarity on these things. To that end, they have asked for "all communications" between the State Dept. and the U.S. consulate in Libya that dealt with security "in the period leading up to the attacks."

This was not the most egregious terrorist even that went mostly unreported in Obama’s lap dog MSM.

Late on Friday, Sept. 14, 2012, a Taliban insurgent force of sappers attacked the NATO ISAF base, Camp Bastion, in Afghanistan, resulting in the worst loss of U.S. airpower in a single incident since the Vietnam War. Two Marines, including VMA-211’s commanding officer, were killed in the attack, and nine other personnel (eight military and one contractor, reportedly) were wounded. By the time the base was secured roughly five hours later, six U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) AV-8B+ Harrier “jump jets” had been destroyed, and two more “significantly” damaged. In addition, three refueling points were destroyed, and six “soft-skinned” aircraft hangers were damaged to some degree. As a result of this attack, the air strength of Marine Attack Squadron 211 (VMA-211 – “The Avengers”) presumably 10 aircraft, was almost completely destroyed. It should be noted that original cost for the out of production AV-8B Harrier ranged between $20 to $30 million per unit. This loss of ten irreplaceable combat aircraft cost the United States not only two lives, approximately $300 billion dollars.

Camp Bastion is a British-run ISAF base in Helmand Providence northwest of Lashkar Gah, built adjacent to Camp Leatherneck (the primary USMC base in the area) and Camp Shorabak (run by the Afghan National Army). Equipped with a 3,500-meter (11,482 foot) runway and servicing up to 28,000 personnel, it is the largest British base in Afghanistan. One of them, on Sept. 14, was an AH-64 Apache crewman named Capt.“Wales,” otherwise known as Harry, Prince of Wales. Along with the British Apaches and other U.K. aircraft, Camp Bastion also provides basing for USMC aviation units, including VMA-211, the only Harrier squadron then in Afghanistan.

The attack on Camp Bastion began at around 10:00 PM local time, when about 20 Taliban fighters (mainly goat herders) approached the perimeter, disguised in U.S. battle dress uniforms. One of the Taliban used his explosive suicide vest to blow a hole in the perimeter fence, which reportedly allowed three five-man sapper squads into the secured areas of the base. Armed with AK-47s, RPG-7s and explosive suicide vests, the Taliban fighters flooded into the U.S. area known as Camp Barber.

As they began to attack the flight line areas, however, the RAF security force began to react within just 12 minutes, when they established an MQ-9 Reaper UAV orbit over the camp. This was followed by the launch of a British Apache helicopter that immediately engaged the insurgents, killing several. In addition, the British ground security force began to fight its way toward Camp Barber over the main runway, reportedly expending around 10,000 rounds of ammunition in the process. It took five hours to secure the base and police up the insurgents

When the sun rose the next day, the deadly cost of the Taliban raid began to be seen. Fourteen of the 15 insurgent goat herder sappers were killed, along with two of their support force outside the fence. One insurgent was wounded and captured, and is providing useful information on this latest “Green on Blue” Taliban attack. The Allied casualties, however, are proving heartbreaking. Killed during the attack were Lt. Col. Christopher “Otis” K. Raible, USMC (the commander of VMA-211) and Sgt. Bradley W. Atwell (from Marine Air Logistics Squadron 13), both based at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, Ariz.

Maj. Gen. Gregg Sturdevant, USMC, commander of Marine Aircraft Wing Three (Forward), has announced that replacements for the lost aircraft and personnel will be “brought forward,” suggesting VMA-211 will be reconstituted in place. While VMA-211’s executive officer, Maj. John “Strut” Havener, USMC, has been named the interim squadron commander, it is possible another Harrier squadron will be deployed and the Avengers returned to their home base at MCAS Yuma. The only “good” news about the attack was that Prince Harry was unharmed. He appears to have been one of the targets of the Taliban attack (his birthday was Sept. 15), and was taken to a “safe area” of the base and given extra security.

Whatever the organizational outcome, the Sept. 14, 2012 attack on Camp Bastion is arguably the worst day in USMC aviation history since the Tet Offensive of 1968. The last time VMA-211 was combat ineffective was in December 1941, when the squadron was wiped out during the 13-day defense of Wake Island against the Japanese. Eight irreplaceable aircraft (the AV-8B has been out of production since 1999) have been destroyed or put out of action – approximately 7 percent of the total flying USMC Harrier fleet. Worse yet, the aircraft involved were the AV-B+ variant equipped with the APG-65 radar and AAQ-28 Litening II targeting pods – the most capable in the force. Given the current funding situation, it’s likely that the two damaged AV-8Bs will become spare parts “hangar queens” and never fly again. A Harrier squadron commander is dead, along with another Marine. Another nine personnel have been wounded, and the nearby Marines at Camp Freedom are now without effective fixed-wing air support. The USMC’s response to this disaster will be a telling report card on its leadership and organizational agility.

Under the leadership of Barack H. Obama, though hardly noticed by the pro-Obama mainstream media, the U.S. Marine Corps has suffered its worst air squadron catastrophe since Vietnam, and its prized VMA-211 squadron has taken its worst hit since its defense of Wake Island in World War II.

Under Obama, the U.S. has taken 1,491 casualties in Afghanistan, over 70% of the total 2,125 casualties sustained since the fighting there began. Helmand Province, where Camp Bastion is located, has been the grounds for the lion's share of them, twice as many as any other region of the country. Things have gotten so bad that, in the wake of the attack on Camp Bastion, the International Security Assistance Force, which trains Afghan citizens to defend their country against the Islamic fanatics of the Taliban, suspended operations.

Indeed, it seems that the only possible objective of the attack that was not achieved would be the assassination of Prince Harry, who was stationed at British-administered Camp Bastion as a helicopter pilot and who was planning to celebrate his birthday the following morning.

Indeed, it seems that the only possible objective of the attack that was not achieved would be the assassination of Prince Harry, who was stationed at British-administered Camp Bastion as a helicopter pilot and who was planning to celebrate his birthday the following morning. It's believed that Harry was a collateral target of the attack.

Perhaps even more impressive than the raid's results is the sophisticated planning that must have been required to carry it out. How did this band of radicals even manage to approach a highly advanced multi-national military base without being detected, much less force their way inside en masse? How were they able to attack so quickly and efficiently that, even though nearly every one of them was killed in the effort, they were able to harm the mighty leathernecks more than they had been in half a century?

National Review has speculated that they may have had high-level advice from a national military force, most likely Pakistan, warning that the attack has "heralded a shrinkage of American power and influence in the region, demoralized our allies, and emboldened our enemies." Fevered and bloodthirsty anti-U.S. riots in Pakistan recently give considerable credence to this theory.

The attack was only one aspect, of course, of a recent wave of horrifying attacks on the United States by Islamic radicals, motivated purportedly by the display of an American-made film on YouTube that trashed them. With so many bold claims from the Obama administration about conciliation in the Middle East over the past four years, one might have hoped that its denizens could not be motivated to such bloodletting by the mere existence of an obscure internet movie with dubious ties to the U.S. But as with so many features of Obama's rule, his Middle East gambit has been exposed as total failure. Americans have seen their influence diminish considerably, but they have not reaped the benefits of the policies of appeasement Obama has followed — namely, a reduction in poisonous bile directed at them by the fanatics.

The same must also be said of Obama's policy in Afghanistan. Despite his campaign promises, U.S. casualties have soared rather than falling, and the hand held by the Taliban has strengthened, not weakened. Obama said he would achieve disengagement with honor, but instead he has escalated the violence and carnage without improving our strategic position, and it is clear now that if the Taliban fighters can achieve victories like the one in Camp Bastion against the mighty alliance led by the U.S., then the feeble Afghan army has no chance against it and will surely descend into chaos if the U.S. leaves the field. Then we can expect the terrorist camps to spring right back, targeting the new tower rising over Ground Zero in New York City and many others besides.

And the same can be said of Obama's policy in Iraq. No less a friend of Obama's than the New York Times was forced to admit in a recent article that Obama has fallen "frustratingly short" on his withdrawal objectives in Iraq. He has failed to create a stable successor government, failed to establish security patrol oversight, and failed to establish a training program for Iraqi security forces. The NYT itself admits that the MSM has largely ignored these failures and that Obama has attempted to sweep them under the carpet. The NYT admits that Iraq is now "less stable domestically and less reliable internationally" than Obama promised it would be. And of course, Obama didn't keep his promise to have all U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of last year, so the U.S. is getting the worst of all possible worlds.

Moreover, Obama's policy of appeasement towards Russia hasn't stopped the Putin dictatorship from continuing to side with our enemies throughout the Middle East. That's because Obama failed to understand the fundamental dichotomy of interests between Russia and the U.S. Russia wants discord in the Middle East, and the rising oil prices that result from it, so that Russian oil exports generate more cash. The U.S. wants peace in the Middle East and low oil prices. Obama's relaxed attitude toward Russia has only left Putin with a free hand to liquidate American friends and values in Russia (USAID was just kicked out of the country, a bone-crushing slight to Obama) while giving the U.S. nothing of value in return.

The upcoming presidential debates will give Mitt Romney the opportunity to hold Obama's feet to the fires burning because of his reckless and failed foreign policy. Obama's record abroad is just as disastrous as his economic record at home, but so far Romney has not done enough to make Americans confront Obama's record. He ought to ask Americans whether they are prepared to tolerate more disasters like the one in Lashkar Gah, to watch American power fade and American values be trampled along with our flag under the feet of those who wish us ill. He ought to offer them the chance to once again make America a great beacon light of hope for those who struggle against oppression around the world.

Muslim nations are imploding against the looming backdrop of sequestration, the trillion-dollar budget cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act, passed by Congress last year. As of January 1, 2013, half of those cuts must come from defense, which amounts to about $600 billion over a period of ten years.

President Obama unveiled his sequestration plan, which calls for cutting discretionary defense appropriations by 9.4%, a $55-billion hit. Among the projected cuts: spending for weapons procurement and shipbuilding, money spent on the war in Afghanistan, a reduction of readiness for many non-deployed units, delays in investments for new equipment and facilities, and cutbacks in military research and equipment repairs.

On the one hand President Obama is embracing these defense cuts, and on the other hand is Mitt Romney, who stated, "We can always find places to end waste. But we cannot cancel program after program, we cannot jeopardize critical missions, and we cannot cut corners in the quality of the equipment and training we provide."

What these recent riots have shown is that this administration was unprepared, that the American overseas diplomatic institutions need to be made into fortresses, and that foreign governments cannot be depended on for security. President Obama deals with this obvious and costly problem through reducing the funding for embassy security, construction, and maintenance by 8.2% as part of his sequestration plan.

While Obama continues to fly around the country on campaign jaunts and making appearances on various TV shows like the View and the David Letterman show he is acting more like the entertainer in chief rather than the commander in chief. His lap dog MSM refuses to accurately report on his foreign policy failures and continues to focus on the polls.