"I would not have been overwhelmingly re-elected if I didn't know how to work across party lines," Brown said in the primary. "If the Democrats have a good idea, I'd be happy to vote with them."
The Cape Cod Times concluded:
Brown is exactly what Washington needs — someone who will vote his conscience rather than spew party rhetoric.The endorsement in full:
Scott Brown]]>Washington doesn't need another rubber-stamp party loyalist
January 16, 2010 2:05 AM Cape Cod Times
Impressed with his energy and with hopes for his independence, we support Scott Brown in the special election for U.S. Senate.
Although we do not agree with Brown's position on health care reform, voters should consider the whole package when they go to the polls Tuesday.
And when we took a closer look at Brown and his platform, we liked what we saw.
Brown is an independent Republican who supports President Obama's strategy in Afghanistan. He supports women's right to choose, though he opposes partial-birth abortion and believes in strong parental notification laws.
]]> On issues important to Cape Cod, he opposes the wind factory on Nantucket Sound, unlike Martha Coakley. If elected, he said he would work hard to bolster the tourism-based economy on Cape Cod and the Islands.
And unlike many conservative Republicans, he supports environmental protection and the permanent preservation of precious open spaces.
In order to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, Brown supports "reasonable and appropriate development of alternative energy," such as wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal and improved hydroelectric facilities.
Brown also brings to the race a perspective that no other candidate can claim: As a lieutenant colonel in the Army National Guard, he is uniquely aware of the importance and sacrifice of our men and women serving in the armed forces.
His military experience has informed his stance on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he appreciates President Obama's thoughtfulness about American involvement in both countries.
We don't agree with Brown on everything. For example, he opposes the national cap-and-trade program because he thinks it would impose higher costs on families and businesses. We believe a national program to reduce carbon emissions will not only reduce global warming but spur green energy technologies and create millions of high-tech jobs.
Although Brown opposes the current health care reform bill in Washington, he believes that all Americans deserve health care coverage. He supported the Massachusetts health care law that expanded coverage in 2006, and he believes individual states should follow suit.
There are many people who would like to make this race a referendum on the current health care debate, but the election is more than one issue, no matter how important that issue might be. This election is about representing the people of Massachusetts on all issues.
While we have common ground with Coakley on some points, we have our concerns about her ability to be effective in Washington based on her underwhelming campaign. With the luxury of being the front-runner since the first day of this race, Coakley has done little to demonstrate her passion for the office and commitment to the people. She squandered an opportunity to show vision but instead has run a campaign that seemed intended to run out the clock.
It is no surprise that Brown has been gaining momentum in a state, even though Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one. He has run an energetic campaign and has been outspoken on the issues. More importantly, however, we believe he is less likely of the two candidates to toe the party line. For example, in an editorial board meeting with the Cape Cod Times earlier this week, Brown was critical of President Bush and defended President Obama regarding the current financial crisis.
In his last re-election to the state Senate in 2008, Brown won by a 59-41 percent margin. Part of his success comes from his willingness to work with Democrats on important issues.
"I would not have been overwhelmingly re-elected if I didn't know how to work across party lines," Brown said in the primary. "If the Democrats have a good idea, I'd be happy to vote with them."
Brown is exactly what Washington needs — someone who will vote his conscience rather than spew party rhetoric.
The notion of change as an important ingredient here cannot be underestimated, not because the Democrats are necessarily on the wrong path, but because good government is enhanced by two viable parties.
In the special Senate election on Tuesday, we recommend Scott Brown.
Boston's Channel 7 also covered the Worcester rally:
Here's Scott's speech:
Thank you very much. What a privilege it is to share the stage with John Ratzenberger, Lenny Clarke, Doug Flutie, Curt Schilling, Fred Smerlas, Steve DeOssie, and many, many others - and my favorite singer, Ayla Brown.]]>As you know, Curt Schilling made the news just a couple of days ago when my opponent didn't recognize his name. Of all the many false accusations she's made in this campaign, one of the strangest was to call Curt Schilling a Yankee fan. Let me properly identify the guy she's been smearing on the radio: His name is Curt Schilling, formerly of the World Champion Red Sox - you know, a baseball team that plays at Fenway Park.
Doug Flutie, what can I say, great guy, great career, and I am proud you are here. John Ratzenberger, a wonderful actor, you brought a lot of laughs to us during your many years with Cheers. Fred and Steve, you are legends and good friends. Ayla, thank you for again sharing your beautiful voice. Millions have seen her on national TV, and going through this campaign I've got an idea of what Ayla went through on "American Idol." She had to deal with Simon Cowell, and I had to deal with David Gergen.
Our campaign is going strong, and the finish line is in sight. The day of decision is almost here. The whole nation is watching, but the choice on Election Day belongs to you and no one else. Friends and fellow citizens, I'm Scott Brown, I'm from Wrentham, I drive a truck and I'm asking for your vote.
]]> When we started this campaign just a few months ago, the political machine wrote us off. A Senate seat in Massachusetts, we were told, was already spoken for - and this special election was just a minor detail that wouldn't get in the way. The political machine already had a short-term placeholder in the Senate. Now all they needed was a long-term placeholder, and everything had been arranged.
Well, there was just one little problem with that plan - the independent-thinking people of Massachusetts wanted a real choice, and they - and you -- have made this a real contest.
The voters are doing their own thinking, and the machine politicians don't quite know how to react. So they put in a distress call to Washington, and the next thing you know, Air Force One is landing at Logan.
My first response is very simple: Democrat or Republican, the president of the United States is always welcome in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Now, it wasn't exactly a scheduled visit. Sort of a last-minute thing. The political machine controlled that Senate, he was told, and it was going to stay that way.
Well, the party bosses gave the president some bad information. This Senate seat belongs to no one person and no one political party - it belongs to the people of Massachusetts.
Maybe they also told President Obama that I had no chance at all. After all, who ever heard of guy from Wrentham getting elected to the U.S. Senate? But as the president might remember, upsets like that have been known to happen.
The president may recall as well how much he used to talk about a new kind of politics - about campaigns based on conviction, instead of just false and small-minded negative ads. Well, as long as he's paying a visit, he might want to talk to Martha about that. Not only are her ads negative, they are malicious. How quickly the politics of hope have become replaced by the politics of desperation. Shame on Martha.
Before the president rushed to the scene, we saw my opponent standing with a former president, the governor, the senior senator, the appointed senator - the whole party establishment, right on down the line.
At the beginning, it felt like me against the machine. But guess what? I was wrong. It's us against the machine.
I don't need an establishment to prop me up. I stand before you as the proud candidate of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents across Massachusetts, north and south, east and west.
The party machine is in high gear for my opponent. The establishment is afraid of losing their Senate seat. You can all remind them that this is not their seat, it is yours.
Should I have the honor of representing our state in Washington, D.C., I will serve no faction but Massachusetts. I will pursue no agenda but what is right. I will be nobody's senator but yours.
One of the great advantages of being independent is that you meet voters of every kind. And you learn what people are really thinking about the big issues facing our state and our country. The political experts are still wondering how this little campaign of ours grew so fast and gathered so much strength and momentum. The reason is simple.
We do not want a senator whose only question on health care is to ask Harry Reid, "How do you want me to vote?" Massachusetts wants real reform, and not this trillion-dollar Obama health care bill being forced on the American people.
This bill would raise taxes. It would cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars. It would be unfair to our veterans. It would destroy jobs, and run our nation deeper into debt. It is not in the interest of our state or country - and as your senator, I will insist we start over.I will work in the Senate to reform health care in the right way, the honest way. No more closed-door meetings behind the scenes. No more arrogant party leadership. We can do better, and as the 41st senator I'll make sure of it.
In health care, we need to start fresh, work together, and do the job right.
On the question of taxes, my opponent this week endorsed yet another tax increase. She summed up her whole approach by saying, quote, "We need to get taxes up."
She has it exactly wrong: We need to get job creation up, and taxes down. I will work in the Senate to put government back on the side of people who create jobs - and as John F. Kennedy taught us, that starts with a tax cut for the American people.
As a lieutenant colonel and 30-year member of the Army National Guard, I will keep faith with all who serve, and with our veterans, too. I will work in the Senate to defend our nation's interests and to keep our military second to none.
In our debate, my opponent insisted that there are no longer any terrorists in Afghanistan. Maybe the president can pull her aside today and explain the basics: There are still many terrorists in Afghanistan, Martha! They are at war with the United States, and for the safety of this nation we must defeat them
As an attorney, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation - they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.
Raising taxes, taking over our health care, and giving new rights to terrorists is the agenda of a new establishment in Washington. And they think you're on board with all of it. They think they own your vote. They're sure they can't lose. But on Election Day, the Bay State will set them straight.
We are witnesses, you and I, to something historic. We have run a race never to be forgotten. We are in a cause that deserves all that we can give it. In these final forty-eight hours, let us see it through to victory.
All along, I have counted on the goodwill and support of independent-minded people like you, and never more than right now. I ask for any help you can give, and above all for the honor of your vote.
In return, I make this pledge to you and to every citizen of Massachusetts: If I am entrusted with the people's seat, I will give everything that is in me to be a good and faithful senator, and to make you proud.
Thank you all very much.
Brown for Senate]]>Worcester Telegram
Massachusetts needs balance in Washington
Sunday, January 10, 2010
The special Senate election on Jan. 19 presents Massachusetts voters with an opportunity to send a message to the rest of the nation that it is time to curb the bad habits of Washington and bring a measure of thoughtful balance to this state’s delegation on Capitol Hill. On a number of critical issues, including health-care reform, taxation, immigration, job creation and national security, Congress is likely to face razor-thin votes in the months and years ahead that will involve billions of our dollars and profoundly shape the nation’s economic prospects and the freedom and security of all Americans.
]]> There is no question that with the passing of Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts lost one of the most powerful voices ever to serve in the Senate. Any candidate seeking to succeed him will need years of experience and a gift for reaching across the political aisle if they hope to approach the level of influence he wielded. Given the serious issues that face our nation, and the deep ideological divides that have riven Congress, we believe that state Sen. Scott Brown is the best choice to reinvigorate Massachusetts’ voice on Capitol Hill.
Choosing a senator, even at this time of sharp partisan divides, is ultimately not about ideology or party. As important as the health-care reform debate is, the decision before voters on Jan. 19 is not simply about adding a critical 60th vote in favor of a given bill, or adding a critical 41st vote against that bill. Nor is it a matter of making history by electing a candidate on the basis of gender. The time for such “historic” firsts is passing. Above all, voters a week from Tuesday should set aside all talk of what the late Sen. Ted Kennedy or his family would have wanted. The United States is a representative democracy. Positions of power are not to be “owned” by any political party, and cannot be inherited or handed down as if this were a medieval kingdom.
This election is about which candidate is best able to articulate and promote plans for sustainable economic growth, a vigorous national defense, and a limited government able and willing to remind its own members and the American people of the enduring value of our founding principles.
We have been disappointed to date in the tenor of the general election campaign between Mr. Brown and his Democratic opponent, Attorney General Martha Coakley, because it has not yet provided the public with the kind of in-depth, free-wheeling, head-to-head exchanges that would offer voters a clear vision of the differences between the candidates. In part, that is the result of Ms. Coakley’s reluctance to engage in one-on-one debates with Mr. Brown.
From what debates have occurred, however, the differences between the contenders are clear. Ms. Coakley would constitute a willing 60th vote for just about anything that the Democratic majority in Congress favors, including the budget-busting health-care reform legislation whose final details are now being debated in Congress. As noted above, that alone is not a reason to reject her candidacy, but there is little reason to believe that, on any major issue, Ms. Coakley would constitute anything other than another link in an unbroken chain of Democratic votes to expand the reach and role of government.
That lockstep mentality and one-party rule has not served the people of Massachusetts well on Beacon Hill, but led to a culture of corruption and arrogance. The same has been true on Capitol Hill, where, whether under President Bush or President Obama, large majorities for one party or the other have led to complacency, overspending, and a willingness to shutter debates and muffle the voice of the people.
On issue after issue, Mr. Brown has laid out concise, unequivocal positions that emphasize close adherence to constitutional principles and a commitment to limited government, transparency in lawmaking, and an eagerness to consider whatever legislation comes to hand on its merits. The reality is that Massachusetts voters gain little by electing yet another Democrat to a congressional delegation that is already the bluest in the nation. With Mr. Brown, they would establish a foothold on the GOP side of the aisle that could prove invaluable in coming years when, as it inevitably does, the pendulum of political power swings back toward the middle.
Coakley is for Coakley.
By her shifts in position over the past few weeks she has shown she will be nothing but a rubber stamp for Harry Reid and will do what she thinks best for herself. She was against the Senate healthcare bill before she was for it. One disgusted supporter said this: "This candidate has zero substance. ZERO...she is no fighter and no political strategist. She has, once again, chosen to roll over and play dead - and she isn't even elected yet."
Coakley "chilly," "lacking in soul," lacking in heart."
Yesterday The Boston Globe’s columnist Joan Vennochi, one of the paper’s leading cheerleaders for Democrats for over 25 years, in making her obligatory but unenthusiastic case for Coakley, couldn’t resist saying,
"Coakley seems afraid to say what she believes in, giving voters reason to conclude she believes in nothing. ...a campaign lacking in soul and a candidate lacking in heart.”
WHAT ELSE SHOULD WE KNOW?
Coakley is "unfit" for the Senate, hounded an innocent man for political gain.
Coakley has been called “unfit” to be a U.S. Senator because of her behavior as district attorney in Middlesex Count in the notorious Fells Acre case. To show she was tough, she blocked the release of an innocent man from prison for several years after a parole board voted unanimously to let the wrongly convicted man go home. Only the resulting uproar from public and press kept her from objecting the next time the parole board had the chance to vote and finally set him free.
Coakley, part of the old boy network, protects the politically connected.
Just this week (Thursday, January 7 ,2009) The Boston Globe reported on her failure to prosecute a politically connected Somerville police officer for rape of his 23-month old niece.
Coakley looks the other way on Beacon Hill corruption.
As Attorney General, she has done nothing to root out the endemic corruption on Beacon Hill. It was the U.S. Attorney, not Attorney General Coakley, who launched the investigation and prosecution of her colleague in the Beacon Hill mutual back scratching network former House Speaker Sal DiMasi, who was doing his deals right under her nose.
Coakley supports bill robbing Medicare and cutting reimbursements for Medicare doctors.
Coakley supports a 40% tax on top-of-the-line health insurance plans, taking money from Medicare to pay for Obamacare and slashing Medicare payments to doctors, which will force them to drop Medicare patients. Just this month the Mayo Clinic branch in Arizona pulled out of Medicare, claiming it could no longer bear the losses resulting from low Medicare reimbursements. Under Obamacare Medicare reimbursements will be cut even more. Finding new doctors on the Cape, particularly primary care doctors, is already very difficult. Coakley supports the plan that will make it worse. No wonder 57% of the American public oppose it, but Coakley has already let Harry Reid know she will do whatever he says, regardless of the consequences for seniors.
If you want more taxes, Coakley is for you.
Coakley is hiding from Scott Brown.
Seven televised debates between Coakley and Scott Brown were proposed, but Coakley only agreed to one, on Monday, January 11th.
What is Coakley running on? She's a woman. She's a Democrat. She will do what she's told. She can play in the old boy network. There is no principle she will not sacrifice for political gain. If she has to sell out seniors, she can do it. National defense, terrorism? The less said, the better.
Scott Brown has shown leadership, principle, character and an understanding of what it takes to defend America and build a strong, productive economy that creates jobs. He will not be one of the boys in Washington's network of political corruption, as Coakley has been in Massachusetts.
]]>Click on the link below, print out the form and follow the instructions.
]]>The amazing news is that Brown leads Coakley 65-21 among independents, with 19% undecided or not saying!
This race can be won. The entire country will benefit from a Scott Brown victory.
A vote for Scott on January 19th can be one of the most important votes of our lives.
Call and email your friends, neighbors and family and urge them to go to the polls on January 19th to vote for Scott Brown.
Why?
Scott is a conservative voice for fiscal sanity and can be the 41st vote against Obamacare, which he and 57% of the American public oppose.
Scott supports preserving and improving the best healthcare system in the world. He supports tort reform in health care, competition across state line for health nsurers and equality in tax treatment of individual and employer health insurance plans.
As a Lt. Colonel in the Massachusetts National Guard and the Judge Advocates General, Scott understands the threats we face from Islamic radicals, Iran and the rest and he supports a strong miltary and a tough national defense.
Coakley's support appears to be fading as debates go forward and her record becomes better known.
Coakley kept an innocent man in prison for years just to show she had tough prosecutor credentials as the new district attorney of Middlesex Count. (the Fells Acre case), even though the parole board had voted unanimously to set him free (when they did again as soon as they could and he went free). No wonder some say she is "unfit" to serve in the U.S. Senate.
Coakley has been an ineffectual attorney general of Massachusetts. It is the U.S. Attorney rooting out corruption on Beacon Hill, not Coakley. By the way she has already shifted positions, she has shown she will be a rubber stamp for Harry Reid.
And on taxes they are worlds apart. Coakley wants to raise taxes, Brown believes low taxes are the best way to create jobs and build the economy.
Here's Scott's new ad on how he and Coakley differ on taxes:
Read Scott's bio by clicking here. Want more on issues? Click here.
There's one day less than two weeks to go to Election Day. Contributions now are essential for the closing push. Click here to contribute.
Scott is in touch with the young of today. His Facebook page is teeming with activity.
You can keep up with what's happening on Twitter. You'll see the support coming in from states all across the country. Folks realize how important Scott Brown's election is.
Join Mitt Romney, John McCain and thousands and thousands of citizens across the country supporting Scott Brown.
]]>]]>The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com)
________________________________________
No One Yet Has Said He's A Nutcake. But What Does "Isolated Extremist" Really Mean?
• Marty Peretz , Publisher and Owner
• January 1, 2010 | 9:35 pmJoe Klein, who spent a lot of print trying more or less to exonerate Dr. Major Nidal Malik Hasan by dint of his being a nutcase, has been curiously silent about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. In fact, there's been a certain shyness among the whole left-wing blogosphere (and among Democrats, generally) about the skivvies terrorist. There is no place for these journalists to hide and no logic, however dubious, with which they can transfer the guilt to us. And, believe me, if they can't invent this, there is nothing to invent—nothing.
The fact is that the only personage of note to call Abdulmutallab an "isolated extremist," which is the closest thing to a solitary crank, was the president himself. And he said it when he already knew that American intelligence, in several of its iterations, had long ago been informed that the would-be bomber had been connected to Al Qaeda in Yemen.
]]> Now, Yemen is a special problem for Obama. We are now fighting (after Iraq and Afghanistan) on an unacknowledged but probably appropriate third front in Yemen. It is there that the president has repatriated several "reformed" Guantanamo prisoners. Based on the experiential records, there is little chance that many such men will stay free of the intoxicating elixirs of jihad, the common jihad of murder.But Yemen is also the foundation of the "close Guantanamo" program, which is way off schedule already, having passed the White House deadline, and has been dealt a body blow by recent events. Either Guantanamo stays or its prisoners go to a federal penitentiary, in Illinois or elsewhere. Obama has this tic about the jailhouse at the tip-end of Cuba. And Congress might force him to lump it. Yet, it is the Congress--primarily Republicans, but Democrats as well--that is being demagogic. There will be no breakouts from stateside prisons by these oh-so-pious convicts.
Moreover, the Republicans and the right-wing opinion centers are, of course, riveted on the president's instinctive detoxification of what was intended as a faithful act of Islam. They are milking it for what it's worth. But the Democrats and the vast liberal opinion industry are simply ignoring what is, frankly, an historically naïve and dangerous bewitchment. They do this at their peril.
I believe that it is Obama's perception of Abdulmutallab as an "isolated extremist" that is the real source of the intelligence calamity so dramatically revealed in this case. It is true, of course, that this dispiriting intelligence failure goes back to the Clinton and Bush years, even though Bush did almost uniquely grasp the very essence of the holy Muslim terror. But what the president has done is to wrap the Islamic orbit in a sweetly scented cashmere afghan (if you'll permit this ironic choice of words) that disguises the reality of the real Islam of this world. Obama has done this grandly several times, most especially with his addresses in Istanbul and Cairo, but also in his more quotidian remarks. The failure of the CIA and the other alphabet agencies to connect the dots is a methodological failure. The president's failure to grasp the realities is an ideological and psychological failure. In a top-down structure, the top always has the advantage.
It is a thorny matter to design grand tactics for both the world as it is and the world as Obama imagines it. Yes, the president's representatives and, to some extent, he himself are now talking factual essentials. Already during the campaign, he liquidated the war on terrorism. It was not apt. It was diversionary. And, oh, what a relief this was to his ecstatic crowds.
But for what are we mobilizing in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and apparently now also in Yemen, other than war against the terrorists of Islam? In Pakistan, in a little village called Shah Hassan Khel, the Taliban struck a volleyball game--an innocent volleyball game, for God's sake--played and attended by altogether harmless and guiltless men and boys. Deutsche Presse Agentur says that no fewer than 95 dead were left on the ground.
The president's cool cannot change that. All that he can do, if that is what he wants, is to divert America's attention from a massacre culture. But it is not likely to work. The economic imbroglio may allow him to divert us a little longer from this historic crossroads. There is also just a chance that he'll realize he was wrong and admit it to the great public. I'm not sure I'd bet on that. In any case, the American people see the facts and they will be fooled no longer. It's ironic that a terrorist assault that had no victims has clarified the truth of our circumstances.
P.S. A few minutes after I posted this Spine, news came over the Web of an Al-Qaeda-related and also-failed attempt by a Muslim terrorist to commit murder. The target was the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, who drew a bomb in Mohammed's turban four years ago. The head of the Danish intelligence service said the attacker, who was caught red-handed in Westergaard's home, was attached to Al-Shabaab, a Somali branch of Muslim Murder Inc., and to other Al Qaeda principals in eastern Africa.
________________________________________
Source URL: http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/no-one-yet-has-said-hes-nutcake-what-does-isolated-extremist-really-mean
Or so it would seem, but that's not the case. As did neighboring Sweden, Finland welcomed immigrants whose Islamic upbringing and ideology (or way of life, if you prefer) set them culturally centuries apart.
Sweden's second largest city Malmo is bulging with Muslims, who are responsible for a staggering increase in crime, particularly "youths" preying on the elderly and a multifold rise in rape of blonde Swedish women.
]]>The would-be Christmas bomber reminded everyone of that fact.
So why did the government take the Christmas bomber into the criminal law system and read him his rights as if he were a U.S. citizen and tell him he had the right to remain silent?
We need information! The bomber has already told us that there are dozens, maybe more, already trained in Yemen ready, willing and able to launch similar attacks at American targets. Don't we want to know that?
One more or less learned U.S. lawyer Josh Marshall argues that's the way it should be, what the Obama Administration is doing is the right thing. Marc Thiessen questions that:
Why is the Obama administration telling Abdulmutallab that he has the “right to remain silent”? Why are they not interrogating him to find out what follow-on attacks may be coming? Is Josh okay with the decision to let this terrorist, who tried to kill hundreds of Americans, keep his secrets to himself? And will he stand up and defend that decision if another terrorist who trained with Abdulmutallab in Yemen succeeds in blowing up another plane?
Andrew McCarthy, who successfully prosecuted the blind sheikh behind the first World Trade Center bombing, explains why what the Obama administration is doing is gravely damaging to our national defense.
UPDATE: A new Rasmussen poll finds that 58% of the American public want the Christmas bomber waterboarded! Also,
Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters think the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim to blow up the airliner as it landed in Detroit should be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act. Only 22% say it should be handled by civilian authorities as a criminal act, as is currently the case.
The public's priority is defending Americans. The president should do what the public wants and what his oath to the Constitution requires.
]]>As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war.He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, "war on terror," we won't be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe. Why doesn't he want to admit we're at war? It doesn't fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn't fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency - social transformation--the restructuring of American society. President Obama's first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.
The enemy knows it's at war. Pretending that we aren't at war is a prescription for disaster and human tragedy.
We appear to have entered a period of denial about the seriousness and magnitude of the deadly threat the nation faces.
Check out this report....
The Terrorists' Secret Weapon
by Gerald Posner in the Daily Beast
December 30, 2009 | 5:44am
Mike Segar / Reuters Intelligence experts have heard chatter for months about the explosive allegedly used by the underwear bomber. So why has the U.S. cut back on machines that detect it?
U.S. security officials had become increasingly worried in the months leading up to the attempted airplane bombing on Christmas Day about terrorists using the explosive agent concealed by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, several counterterrorism experts tell The Daily Beast. Internet chatter about PETN spiked over the summer, as monitored by U.S. intelligence services, the sources add.
Yet over the past 18 months, a Transportation Security Administration employee tells me, the U.S. has stopped using more than half of the Explosive Trace Portals that have capability of detecting PETN. These are dubbed “puffer” machines because they release several puffs of air to shake loose trace explosive particles as passengers walk through. The TSA employee, who spoke to The Daily Beast on the condition of anonymity and does not agree with the reduced use of puffers, says that there are fewer than 40 machines deployed today, down from 94 in service (and more than 200 purchased).
This cutback in puffers and delay in deploying scanners occurs as officials are increasingly worried about a successful PETN terrorist attack on a future flight. “PETN is one of the ideal terror weapons because the technology to detect it is not widely available,” says an senior U.S. intelligence analyst, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity.
PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, has been a been a major security concern ever since Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, tried blowing up a trans-Atlantic flight with it in 2001, according to these sources. It’s an innocuous looking white powder that at first glance could pass as sugar or salt. With food coloring, it can be disguised as ground coffee. It’s a major ingredient in Semtex plastic explosives and also, like its chemical cousin, nitroglycerin, PETN is used medically as a vasodilator (expanding the blood vessels) in treating heart conditions. It’s not very volatile, which means it’s good for a terrorist who doesn’t have to worry about early detonation. The attempted Christmas bomber, Abdulmutallab, had a six-inch long packet of PETN sewn into his underpants. That packet weighed 80 grams (2.8 ounces). As little as six grams could blow a hole in the metal hull of a commercial plane.
An FBI counterterrorism official told The Daily Beast that the reason the PETN did not explode is that the glycol-based liquid meant to detonate it, instead melted the plastic hypodermic syringe Abdulmutallab was carrying. Fortunately for the crew and passengers, the liquid didn't make enough contact with PETN to create an explosion. (The failure to detonate the bomb is evidence to counterterrorism officials that Abdulmutallab most likely was not the bomb maker, not intimately familiar with it, and was only instructed on how to set it off.)
Since the shoe bomber had converted his sneakers into PETN bombs, international airport security has required passengers remove their shoes and pass them separately through X-ray machines. But that’s just to spot whether there is anything unusual in the shoe, like wiring or a makeshift detonator fuse. Those X-ray units cannot detect PETN.
Hence, the worries about precisely what happened on Christmas Day. “PETN can easily be stitched into clothing and hidden around the body,” an FBI agent familiar with the explosive tells me. “And what if it’s hidden in a body cavity? No one is going to find it then.” Drug mules typically carry heroin on international flights, hidden in sealed condoms they’ve swallowed. In the case of an explosive like PETN, security experts are worried about the terrorist who might hide the small amount of powder in a condom inserted in his anus. “Without a strip search, you are never going to find it,” says the FBI agent. He then went on to give very scary details about how this powder could be deployed for maximum damage.
Since the 9/11 attacks, the government has spent more than $40 billion in security enhancements at American airports, and yet, ironically, maintenance costs are privately blamed for the cutback in the use of puffer machines. At their peak, the TSA had bought 207 at a cost of $30 million and had deployed 94 at 37 airports. But the units required about $15,000 on average annually in maintenance, and operators had to be finely trained to operate them correctly. TSA officials refused to confirm or deny their employee’s estimate that fewer than 40 are deployed today.
Bomb-sniffing dogs can also detect PETN. Well-trained dogs can also sniff out particles left on a bomber’s clothing or body from having handled the powder. But Abdulmutallab did not evidently encounter dogs when he traveled from Nigeria to Amsterdam and then to Detroit. He did pass through at least one, and probably two magnetometers, the conventional metal detectors used at most airports. While they are good at finding firearms, box cutters, and nail clippers, they are useless in detecting explosives.
As for the full-body scans, they are in use at only six airports nationwide. Despite the failed Christmas Day bombing, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) is still trying to ban the machines as a primary screening tool. His legislation, which would allow the TSA to use them only as a secondary tool after someone has raised suspicion, passed the House this year, but is stalled in the Senate.
Chaffetz’s office did not respond to request for comment. But the congressman told The Salt Lake City Tribune, "It's a difficult balance between protecting our civil liberties and protecting the safety of people on airplanes. I believe there's technology out there that can identify bomb-type materials without necessarily overly invading our privacy."
Chaffetz and his supporters cite heat sensors as an alternative to the full-body scanners. But that technology is not perfected, and has not been deployed at any airports.
What is clear is that since 2001, in the billions spent on domestic airport security, air travel has forever been changed. The TSA now has 45,000 professional screeners, who use more than 1,600 MRI-like machines to inspect checked baggage. An additional 900 machines scan carry-on bags at security points. Several hundred canine teams are now in place at the nation’s airports, and nearly 3,000 TSA officers are in behavioral-detection teams that observe passengers headed to flights for possible hints of terror plots, a counterterrorism tool used successfully by Israel for decades (although the Israelis believe the U.S. significantly reduces the effectiveness of its behavioral teams by not specifically profiling Muslim travelers).
As technology changes, so do the threats facing counterterrorism experts and airport security teams. What happens now when a passenger with a heart condition shows up with a prescription for Lentonitrat, which is nearly pure PETN? And what if they are also a diabetic and are traveling with a syringe of what they say is insulin. “Even with the all the bells and whistles,” an FBI counterterrorism official tells The Daily Beast, “it is still very difficult. We have to be right 100 percent of the time. They only have to get lucky once.”
--Gerald Posner is The Daily Beast's chief investigative reporter. He's the award-winning author of 10 investigative nonfiction bestsellers, on topics ranging from political assassinations, to Nazi war criminals, to 9/11, to terrorism. His latest book, was published in October. He lives in Miami Beach with his wife, the author Trisha Posner.