The Light: Hillary

I am puzzled by the apparent hype surrounding the arrest and arraignment of the alleged Afghan terrorist, Najibullah Zazi. I would like you to read this story for starters:

An Afghan immigrant was on the verge of unleashing a terrorist attack on New York City on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks but was scared off after drawing suspicion from police, prosecutors say.

Najibullah Zazi, 24, was stopped by police on September 10 as he entered the city, and he dropped his plans for an attack once he realised law enforcement was onto him.

Zazi was sent to New York on Friday by federal marshals to face charges of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. Law enforcement officials allege the plot focused on blowing up commuter trains.

Here’s what does not make sense. How can he be ready to carry out an attack on 9-11 when he has not made the explosives or had in hand the improvised detonator and the backpacks? Please understand I am not dismissing Zazi as someone who, with sufficient time, might have done something, but the evidence available so far paints a picture of someone who was still an amateur and still (thankfully) woefully unprepared to cause mayhem.

Let’s go back to the story:

Prosecutors said Zazi received explosives training from al-Qaeda in Pakistan and returned to the US bent on building a bomb.

Over the northern summer, he and three associates allegedly went from one beauty-supplies store to another in a Denver suburb buying chemicals to make explosives like those that killed dozens of people in transit bombings in London and Madrid, investigators said.

At least three and possibly more of his accomplices remain at large, and investigators have been fanning out across New York in pursuit of suspects.

This tells us a couple of important things. Most importantly it is clear that the FBI had this guy and his cohorts under surveillance since at least June. That’s a good thing. The FBI has a pretty good track record of penetrating and monitoring aspiring terrorists.

Second, Pakistan remains a hotbed for Islamic extremists and is allowing terrorists to train inside Pakistan territory. If you consider last year’s attack in Mumbai, India, which was prepped and launched from Pakistan, perhaps we should be paying more attention to Pakistan and less to Afghanistan.

Finally, just because Zazi “received training” does not necessarily he achieved a level of excellence and proficiency in killing innocents. His conduct suggests he may not have been the star pupil at killer’s camp.

Back to the story:

Zazi ran a coffee cart in Manhattan before moving to Denver this year and obtaining work as an airport shuttle driver.

Police have been especially active in the Queens neighbourhood Zazi visited during his New York trip. While there he stayed at an apartment with a group of cab drivers and food cart operators he knows.

He was working as an airport shuttle driver? What the hell!! So much for George Bush closing the loopholes on aspiring terrorists being able to work at airports. This should be a wake up call to the Obama. Aviation security is still inadequate and serious vulnerabilities remain.

I am surprised that even though Zazi “stayed” with cab drivers in NYC those men did not turn up with any evidence of assisting Zazi in making explosives or prepping an attack. Remember this:

FBI raids beginning on September 14 rattled the quiet, mainly Asian neighbourhood.

Muslim men said dozens of FBI agents ransacked their homes and questioned them for hours, sometimes taking DNA samples and prints from their shoes.

We still do not know why the FBI launched the raids on 14 September but it is clear that they did not scarf up a truck load of incriminating evidence. Also note the date–14 SEPTEMBER. If Zazi was intent on attacking on 11 September it is clear he failed. No explosives have been recovered so far. Just some acetone and hydrogen peroxide.

The FBI has also been visiting beauty shops and home-improvement stores in Colorado and New York for details about the alleged bomb-making purchases.

Court papers say that during the summer, Zazi and three unidentified associates bought “unusually large quantities” of hydrogen peroxide and acetone - a flammable solvent found in nail-polish remover - from Denver-area beauty supply stores.

Zazi intensified his bomb-making experiments this month, cooking up substances in a Colorado hotel suite he rented on September 6-7 before driving 2500km to New York over the course of about two days.

FBI has been pretty coy about whether or not they had video surveillance on Zazi but, based on the info about the purchase of large quantities, it certainly appears that the FBI was keeping close tabs on Zazi.

Zazi, for his part, was demonstrating his ignorance in trying to cook up a batch of TATP–Triacetone Triperoxide. It has been the explosive of choice in several Al Qaeda operations over the last 16 years but it is dangerous shit to make and handle. Richard Reid reportedly had it molded into his shoes. This stuff is so volatile that explosive experts are amazed that Reid did not self-detonate with the simple act of walking through the airport concourse.

TATP, although a high explosive and fairly easy to make, is very unstable and very difficult to handle reliably. An old friend of mine who has his own range and conducts courses on building improvised explosives for engineers told me of a doctor in Louisiana who insisted on learning how to make TATP because he wanted to blow up stumps on his land. Well, seems the good doctor tried to cook up a batch in his kitchen and he ended up blowing up the back half of his house (he survived the blast).

Check out what the prosecutor claimed about Zazi:

Neff said Zazi “was in the throes of making a bomb and attempting to perfect his formulation”.

Trying ain’t doing. And TATP is not something you casually work at trying to “perfect.” That’s a recipe for killing your own ass.

There is more to this then we are being told. I believe that prosecutors and law enforcement sincerely believe that Zazi wanted to do something. But, as I have emphasized repeatedly on this blog, desire is not the same as capability.

At least this incident reminds us that despite all of the chest thumping about military prowess in the so-called “war” on terrorism, good old fashioned law enforcement and intelligence work are more important in making sure terrorists cannot hurt us.

Finally, Zazi was not making a “Weapon of Mass Destruction.” Can we cut out the horseshit on hyped language? A nuclear bomb is a weapon of Mass Destruction. A backpack bomb, while quite capable of killing people and destroying some property, is not a mass destruction weapon. Let’s be precise in describing the threats and the capabilities of those who want to harm us.

All of nature and humanity is an evolutionary history of creating and adapting to change. Adapting is how we not only survive, but thrive.

The American people, in particular, have always excelled at adapting and thriving. At our core, we are practical innovators wrapped in a fearless bravado and big picture dreamers with one foot grounded in reality.

As a budding nation we Americans empowered and charged each and every citizen to find the courage necessary and seek the knowledge required to keep our nation strong and vibrant.

Yet there seems to be a constant refrain from the media and politicians these days that the American people don’t like change. Or that we are afraid of change. But I think they are wrong. I think they have misread both the situation and the American people. We are mired, now, as a nation, not by fear but by misplaced trust.

When we as citizens entrusted corporations and our government with our power, when we, as citizens, entrusted the media with our knowledge and when we, as citizens, allowed fatigue and frustration to overcome our courage, we lost our ability to trust ourselves and enchained our creative and critical thoughts.

Our way forward now, as it has always been throughout history, will be by creating and adapting to changes. And whether those changes are big or small, all will require our active participation. Each and every one of us will need to find our courage, expand our knowledge and responsibly wield our individual powers.

And, though she is not an American, it seems only fitting to conclude with video and music by someone who found her courage and is learning how to create and adapt to change.

Go Ms. Boyle!!

You are a heartwarming inspiration to us all!

A beautiful recording of Wild Horses by Susan Boyle (without video).
_____

A bit of video on Susan’s journey thus far.
_____

Recently, I posted a story entitled, “Children Singing In Praise Of The One,” with a video of children literally singing Obama’s praises, inserting HIS name where the name of JESUS had been. That was at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ. The school claimed that their song of praise and glory was fo r”Black History Month.” Uh huh.

Cain’t wait to hear what the excuse is, then, for this Homage to President Obama at the Sands Hill Elementary School in Asheville, NC:

Are you ready for this? That performance was for the P.T.A. Yeppers, it sure enough was.

Unfortunately, that was not the only NC school that had a “Glory And Honor To The ONE” performance planned. Check out what a teacher had prepared the students to do at the Jamestown Elementary School in Jamestown, NC:

Dear Obama

(Solo – spoken)
This is a letter to Barack Obama…it’s our way of saying thank you.
(Solo – spoken)
Thank you for showing me that no doors are closed.
I have the power to control my own future.
(Solo – spoken)
Thank you for showing me that I can stand tall and be proud of who I am.
(Solo – spoken)
You have given us strength, courage and hope.
And for that we all say Thank You!
(Verse 1)
Dear Obama, Hear us sing
We’re ready for the change that you will bring.
Going to shine the light for the world to see, to spread peace hope and democracy.
The time is now bring our troops home. Iraq can stand strong on its own.
And fight for healthcare for the young so that coverage is available for everyone.
And it’s time to find renewable ways to fuel our needs, so we don’t depend on Chavez and the Middle East. We’ve got to stand up tall for the middle class and regulate the businesses that in the past got away with no oversight.
Doing things that were not right.
Giving loans and bad advice, expecting us to pay the price.
The change we need should begin today and Barack we stand behind you as you lead the way.
(Chorus)
Dear Obama – ba, ba, ba – Obama.
Dear Obama – ba, ba, ba – Obama.
You’ve broken down doors
No limits anymore
We all agree that Yes We Can
Dear Obama we must unite and pull together members of the left and the right
With terror threats bringing fear we hope our world you will soon hear
Diplomacy in Islaamabaad and please control Ahmidinejad. With Hillary Clinton as your Secretary of State, your team has the opportunity to make.
The world will see us with adoring eyes. And our popularity will rise. Please pay off all our debts to China, and strengthen our forces against Al-qaeda. You have the power to change education, giving our public schools some dedication.
Raising up teacher pay
Improving Schools in every state
So every child can truly make it, in the steps that you have created.
(Chorus)
Dear Obama – ba, ba, ba – Obama.
Dear Obama – ba, ba, ba – Obama.
You’ve broken down doors
No limits anymore
We all agree that Yes We Can
(Solo – spoken)
And today is a new day where we can all see a new hope for our country.
And we know that all along your journey, people say mean things to you and about you. But you never gave up and that gives us strength to never give up. You are more than a President. You are a role model, a father figure, and a man we can all look up to, and for that we say Thank You.
(Chorus)
Dear Obama – ba, ba, ba – Obama.
Dear Obama – ba, ba, ba – Obama.
You’ve broken down doors
No limits anymore
We all agree that Yes We Can
(Solo – spoken)
Sincerely, every child, every family, everyone…
Barack Obama – We Thank You!

Oh. My. Goddess. Are you BELIEVING THIS?? Please, please explain to me how this is NOT indoctrination, because it sure as hell looks like it to me. It was only because concerned parents spoke out that there was intervention:

Concerned parents brought the song to the attention of Marcus Kindley, former Chairman of the Guilford Co., NC Republican Party and candidate for North Carolina Republican Party Chairman.

In a statement on ncgopchairman.com Kindley wrote, “This information was brought to my attention by a parent of a child attending this school. Such indoctrination of our children is reminiscent of totalitarian regimes marching their children out in praise of the esteemed leader.”

Kindley and parents of students attending Jamestown Elementary began an email campaign to voice their concerns over the song, which persuaded the principal of the school, and Paul Daniels, a member of the District 5 Board of Education in Guilford Co., NC, to order the teacher who planned the performance to cancel the song. It was not sung at the graduation ceremony.

I would not have thought this was a Republican v. Democrat kind of thing. It seems to me to be an AMERICAN thing.

You know, Hillary Clinton’s presidency would have been even more historic, no matter how hard David Axelrove and Co. tried to play that down. We have NEVER Had a WOMAN of any color serve as president. Do you honestly think this would have been happening had she not had the nomination stolen from her? Honestly?? No. Nor would she have WANTED something like this.

This Obama worship is cultish - there is no other way to look at it. And there is no other way to look at it but worship. This is, frankly, some scary, scary shit…

Proclaimed Whoopi Goldberg on “The View” in defense of Director, and convicted child rapist, Roman Polanski:

Um, yes, yes it WAS “rape-rape” - he admitted it, Whoopi. It wasn’t just “child abuse,” it was rape - pure and simple.

I cannot believe I used to have so much respect for this woman - hell, I read her book! I saw her on Broadway - TWICE, no small feat for a poor graduate student. I thought she was the cat’s meow. But now? I think those rose-colored glasses she often wears have colored her perspective. And now this woman, once a brilliant political commentator, is defending a man who drugged, got drunk, and raped repeatedly, a CHILD.

And now Sherri Shepherd is the voice of reason on “The View?” Wow.

Kate Harding has an excellent article on this very issue in Salon, Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped A Child:

Roman Polanski raped a child. Let’s just start right there, because that’s the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in “exile” (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.). Let’s keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she’d rather not see him prosecuted because she can’t stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let’s take a moment to recall that according to the victim’s grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, “No,” then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

Can we do that? Can we take a moment to think about all that, and about the fact that Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, before we start talking about what a victim he is? Because that would be great, and not nearly enough people seem to be doing it.

It cannot be any clearer than that. When women like Whoopi defend this man, it makes me ill. She is defending a convicted pedophile and rapist, claiming we don’t have all the facts. Hell, yes, we do, too.

How can these people defend him? How can other countries have such outrage that this man, who has been on the lam for YEARS, has finally been arrested? Beats me:

The French press, for instance (at least according to the British press) is describing Polanski “as the victim of a money-grabbing American mother and a publicity-hungry Californian judge.” Joan Z. Shore at the Huffington Post, who once met Polanski and “was utterly charmed by [his] sobriety and intelligence,” also seems to believe that a child with an unpleasant stage mother could not possibly have been raped: “The 13-year old model ’seduced’ by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies.” Oh, well, then! If her mom put her into that situation, that makes it much better! Shore continues: “The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It’s probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence.”

Wow, OK, let’s break that down. First, as blogger Jeff Fecke says, “Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It’s now 18. But of course, the age of consent isn’t like horseshoes or global thermonuclear war; close doesn’t count. Even if the age of consent had been 14, the girl wasn’t 14.” Also, even if the girl had been old enough to consent, she testified that she did not consent. There’s that. Though of course everyone makes a bigger deal of her age than her testimony that she did not consent, because if she’d been 18 and kept saying no while he kissed her, licked her, screwed her and sodomized her, this would almost certainly be a whole different story — most likely one about her past sexual experiences and drug and alcohol use, about her desire to be famous, about what she was wearing, about how easy it would be for Roman Polanski to get consensual sex, so hey, why would he need to rape anyone? It would quite possibly be a story about a wealthy and famous director who pled not guilty to sexual assault, was acquitted on “she wanted it” grounds, and continued to live and work happily in the U.S. Which is to say that 30 years on, it would not be a story at all. So it’s much safer to focus on the victim’s age removing any legal question of consent than to get tied up in that thorny “he said, she said” stuff about her begging Polanski to stop and being terrified of him.

No matter what convoluted tacks one might take to try and blame this child for her repeated rape and being sodomized, the responsibility lies SOLELY with Roman Polanski:

Second, Polanski was “demonized by the press” because he raped a child, and was convicted because he pled guilty. He “feared heavy sentencing” because drugging and raping a child is generally frowned upon by the legal system. Shore really wants us to pity him because of these things? (And, I am not making this up, boycott the entire country of Switzerland for arresting him.)

As ludicrous as Shore’s post is, I have to agree with Fecke that my favorite Polanski apologist is the Washington Post’s Anne Applebaum, who finds it “bizarre” that anyone is still pursuing this case. And who also, by the by, failed to disclose the tiny, inconsequential detail that her husband, Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, is actively pressuring U.S. authorities to drop the case.

There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.

There is also evidence that Polanski raped a child. There is evidence that the victim did not consent, regardless of her age. There is evidence — albeit purely anecdotal, in this case — that only the most debased crapweasel thinks “I didn’t know she was 13!” is a reasonable excuse for raping a child, much less continuing to rape her after she’s said no repeatedly. There is evidence that the California justice system does not hold that “notoriety, lawyers’ fees and professional stigma” are an appropriate sentence for child rape.

But hey, he wasn’t allowed to pick up his Oscar in person! For the love of all that’s holy, hasn’t the man suffered enough?

That’s snark there by Harding, just to be clear. Again, how in the world can these women DEFEND THIS MAN??? What is wrong with them? I think Harding wonders that, too:

Granted, Roman Polanski has indeed suffered a great deal in his life, which is where Applebaum takes her line of argument next:

He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski’s mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland.

Surviving the Holocaust certainly could lead to an “understandable fear of irrational punishment,” but being sentenced for pleading guilty to child rape is basically the definition of rational punishment. Applebaum then points out that Polanski was a suspect in the murder of his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, a crime actually committed by the Manson family — but again, that was the unfortunate consequence of a perfectly rational justice system. Most murdered pregnant women were killed by husbands or boyfriends, so that suspicion was neither personal nor unwarranted. This isn’t Kafkaesque stuff.

But what of the now-45-year-old victim, who received a settlement from Polanski in a civil case, saying she’d like to see the charges dropped? Shouldn’t we be honoring her wishes above all else?

In a word, no. At least, not entirely. I happen to believe we should honor her desire not to be the subject of a media circus, which is why I haven’t named her here, even though she chose to make her identity public long ago. But as for dropping the charges, Fecke said it quite well: “I understand the victim’s feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn’t work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice.”

It works on behalf of the people, in fact — the people whose laws in every state make it clear that both child rape and fleeing prosecution are serious crimes. The point is not to keep 76-year-old Polanski off the streets or help his victim feel safe. The point is that drugging and raping a child, then leaving the country before you can be sentenced for it, is behavior our society should not — and at least in theory, does not — tolerate, no matter how famous, wealthy or well-connected you are, no matter how old you were when you finally got caught, no matter what your victim says about it now, no matter how mature she looked at 13, no matter how pushy her mother was, and no matter how many really swell movies you’ve made.

Roman Polanski raped a child. No one, not even him, disputes that. Regardless of whatever legal misconduct might have gone on during his trial, the man admitted to unlawful sex with a minor. But the Polanski apologism we’re seeing now has been heating up since “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” the 2008 documentary about Polanski’s fight to get the conviction dismissed. Writing in Salon, Bill Wyman criticized the documentary’s whitewashing of Polanksi’s crimes last February, after Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza ruled that if the director wanted to challenge the conviction, he’d need to turn himself in to U.S. authorities and let the justice system sort it out. “Fugitives don’t get to dictate the terms of their case … Polanski deserves to have any potential legal folderol investigated, of course. But the fact that Espinoza had to state the obvious is testimony to the ways in which the documentary, and much of the media coverage the director has received in recent months, are bizarrely skewed.”

The reporting on Polanski’s arrest has been every bit as “bizarrely skewed,” if not more so. Roman Polanski may be a great director, an old man, a husband, a father, a friend to many powerful people, and even the target of some questionable legal shenanigans. He may very well be no threat to society at this point. He may even be a good person on balance, whatever that means. But none of that changes the basic, undisputed fact: Roman Polanski raped a child. And rushing past that point to focus on the reasons why we should forgive him, pity him, respect him, admire him, support him, whatever, is absolutely twisted. (Emphasis mine.)

Indeed.

(Bumped up from Sept. 26. Check out the original comments here.)

Written by none other than the noted author, novelist, reporter, Helene Cooper of the number one newspaper in the nation, The New York Times.

Drum roll, please.

Mr. Obama: “Where’d my First Lady go?”

Mrs. Obama: “Right here,” stepping beside him, as it started to drizzle.

Mr. Obama pokes fun at the pool, whispering something to Reggie Love and Mrs. Obama, then looking at pool and saying: “We’re talking about how you guys are all waiting to write something down.”

[snip]

Mr. Obama is teasing Mrs. Obama. “You’re standing on the wrong side of me.” She moves to his other side. He says, “I’m just teasing.” She stares straight ahead with a smile.

Oooooh, I have goosebumps all over.

The Scene:

Well, there was no red carpet lining the walkway to the Phipps Conservatory for the leaders’ dinner tonight hosted by President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. But since the First Couple nonetheless spent almost two hours greeting each of their 60 or so guests as they arrived, one by one — or in the case of couples, two by two — and since your pooler’s dream job is actually to work for E Channel covering the Academy Awards Red Carpet, consider this your Red Carpet report.

At 6:15 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. Obama stepped out of the Phipps Conservatory, underneath an awning to greet their first guests. Mr. Obama in a dark blue suit, Mrs. Obama in a taupe, pink and green patterned cocktail dress with straps. Pink patent leather two-inch heels. Hair pulled back in a full, bouffant faux ponytail. Long pearl necklace, pearl earrings. No stockings.

That’s it. I got nothing.

Wait!

7:20 — Carla Bruni!!!!

Carla Bruni Sarkozy and Nicholas Sarkozy arrive. Sarko is wearing a suit. Carla Bruni is in a stunning black silk sheath dress, stops just below the knee. She’s holding a green wool scarf, and is wearing Christian Louboutins black evening shoes.

Mr. Obama kisses her four times. “I’m not going to get a chance to see you much.”

Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Sarkozy chat warmly. A lot of touching there too.

That ladies and gentlemen, is your esteemed national newspaper, The NY Times. No wonder, these fucking incompetent morons are sinking and begging for a bail out.

In Newsweek, Howard Fineman opines about The Limits of Charisma. When sycophants like Fineman say “Mr. President, please stay off TV” and are worried enough to warn the President that it’s time to fish or cut bait, we are all in hot water.

My fellow writers and I have posted many stories these last two years detailing the same Obama shortcomings that Mr. Fineman covers here. But of course, we are just bloggers, the people who spread rumors and complain without cause. Right? In February I posted The Cost of Enabling Obama, detailing the dangers of pushing his cult of personality with no vetting. He had just been inaugurated and big media was still honeymooning, defending President Obama’s every move. That phase is over – much to the chagrin and dismay of our Celebrity-in-Chief.

Fineman states:

If ubiquity were the measure of a presidency, Barack Obama would already be grinning at us from Mount Rushmore. But of course it is not. Despite his many words and television appearances, our elegant and eloquent president remains more an emblem of change than an agent of it.
[snip]
The president’s problem isn’t that he is too visible; it’s the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches.

The phrase, “words, just words,” springs to mind. Fineman actually agrees with his conservative WaPo colleague Charles Krauthammer that our President is just a tad narcissistic. Fineman notes Obama’s “endless, worthy to-do list—health care, climate change, bank reform, global capital regulation, AfPak, the Middle East,” as yet has “no boxes checked “done.”” (more...)

(Bumped up from Monday. View the original comments here.)

He is off to Copenhagen to lobby IOC to bring 2016 Olympics to Chicago.

One has to wonder who is running the country, as he goes gallivanting around the globe pretending he is the world president or something.

But even more importantly here is my dilemma with his trip. How will it reflect on him if they don’t pick Chicago?

Or is there a guarantee now that they will pick Chicago and therefore he is going in which case is this not a wasted trip on taxpayers’ backs in this difficult economy?

Or he must not have much faith in his wife’s persuasive powers that he thinks he can make the difference which leads me back to my first question and the fallout if his overtures do not pan out.

But this fits in with his style — intimidate IOC in the name of charm. Will they be called Racists if they don’t pick Chicago? If they are afraid and they will pick Chicago anyway for that reason, is this not a wasted trip leading me back to my second question?

US President Barack Obama is to visit Copenhagen to support Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games, the White House confirmed Monday. Obama will arrive in the Danish capital Friday morning, and return to the US following the International Olympic Committee (IOC) meeting the same day when the decision about the 2016 host city will be made. The other contenders are Rio de Janeiro, Madrid and Tokyo.

“President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will both make presentations to the IOC during Friday’s session,” said the White House in a statement.

“They will discuss why Chicago is best to host the 2016 Summer Games, and how the United States is eager to bring the world together to celebrate the ideals of the Olympic movement.”

Michelle Obama, who is leading the Chicago delegation, will arrive in Copenhagen on Wednesday along with talkshow host Oprah Winfrey and Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to President Obama and head of the White House Office on Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport.

Something is lacking in this whole extravaganza. Gravitas, perhaps? Or perspective as in Iran smolders, Afghanistan burns, and Obama heads to…Denmark

[UPDATE] HINDSIGHT is 20/20
Commenter Mel on his blog post dated June 22, 2008 (last year when everything was happening!) wrote this time-line:

Dateline Chicago:

2004, Obama lays claim to no intentions of running for POTUS having no experience
Early 2006, Chicago starts working on an Olympic bid,
December 2006, Mayor Daley strangely supports the man who called Daley a “corrupt sonofabitch” Obama for POTUS
January 2007, Obama supports the corrupt sonofabitch Daley re-election
Feb 2007, Obama announces his bid for POTUS.
April 2007, USOC gives Chicago the nod for bidding on the 2016 Games
April 2007, Obama’s run for POTUS picks up huge fundraising traction
October 2007, Obama numbers very weak, Daley machine backs Obama via Daley’s brother unleashing money Rolodex
Early 2008, media, led by NBC, and Obama’s campaign keep projecting the illusion Obama is the nominee
Most Important:
April 7, 2008 Clinton calls for Bush to boycott 2008 China Summer Games Open Ceremonies
April 2008 Obama continually avoids question of Bush boycott of Summer Games
June 3, 2008 Obama declares himself the nominee after many false media reports Clinton was withdrawing the same evening
June 4th, 2008 OIC announces short list for 2016 Games, Chicago is on it and media is pressuring Clinton to withdraw
June 5, 2008 media continues to claim Clinton withdraw
June 5, 2008 sudden meeting between Obama and Clinton that evening and speculation of Clinton withdraw next day or so
June 6, 2008 IOC meetings with Chicago delegation to explain some bid problems.
June 7, 2008 Clinton suspends campaign.

Anyone wonder why it was so critical for Obama to be crowned the Democratic Party nominee prematurely to June 3rd, and then his doing so himself on the evening of June 3rd after a day full of false AP and media reports that Clinton would be dropping out that evening? Simple answer is the International Olympic Committee was announcing the finalists for the 2016 Summer Games on June 4th and Chicago was one of the Cities in the running.

Note: there are other secondary links on Mel’s original post that provide plenty of articles to support the connection between Obama’s campaign, his money makers, Chicago political machine, all in the context of the Summer Olympics 2016.

It is surreal to me that a handful of people from one single city could hoist an inexperienced, unskilled person with negligible accomplishments on the entire nation for the office of the presidency and HE GETS NOMINATED AND ELECTED. They just gave him a teleprompter and a speechwriter and he adopted his inspiration Rev. Wright in his speech making, after all he had listened to him for 20 years, and the gullible people fell for it. Those same handful of people who propped him up made a mockery of the phrase “We the People” and the election last year seems like a cruel and sick joke played on the American people. The Olympics coming to Chicago (if it does) is just icing on the cake for the Chicago pols.

The important question at this point is will it (the 2016 Chicago Olympics) clinch Obama’s second term?

Editor’s Note (via ConsortiumNews.com, which has also published this important memorandum): In reaction to the extraordinary appeal by seven ex-CIA directors that President Barack Obama halt a Justice Department inquiry into the use of torture by CIA interrogators, a dozen former U.S. intelligence professionals urge the President to ignore that appeal and back the investigation. (Their memo to Obama was dated Sept. 27.)

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Accountability for Torture

We write you, Mr. President, as former intelligence professionals to voice strong support for Attorney General Eric Holder’s authorization of a wider investigation into CIA interrogation. We respectfully disagree with the direct appeal to you by seven former CIA directors to quash that wider investigation.

The signatories of this Memorandum are former intelligence officers and analysts who have worked with CIA directors going back as far as Allen Dulles. Our cumulative experience totals more than 200 years. 

We are encouraged by your own support for Attorney General Holder’s decision to have federal prosecutor John Durham investigate possible criminal activity by individuals engaging in torture and other violations of international agreements on the treatment of detainees.

From our own experience in intelligence, both as field operators and as senior analysts, we know that personal accountability is vital to maintaining an effective intelligence service that reflects our best traditions and the rule of law.

Among the former CIA directors who, by letter of September 18, asked you to “reverse” the attorney general’s decision are some who were cognizant of and involved in decisions that led to the abuses in question. We find that troubling.

Clearly, the role of CIA directors in issuing orders that led to inappropriate behavior, and their failure to hold officers accountable, helped create the environment in which abuses occurred — the ones detailed in the Special Review of the CIA Inspector General, for example.

No analytical leap is required to conclude that those particular CIA directors might have understandable interest in blocking investigation of their own complicity. They include, first and foremost, George Tenet — many of whose misdeeds are already a matter of public record. To mention just a few: 

—Tenet was the chief enabler of torture.  He also oversaw widespread kidnapping (“extraordinary rendition”), which in some cases led to torture.

—Our sources tell us that Tenet knew about the overstepping of the guidelines approved by the lawyers and that he knew the people doing it. Rather than restrain them, he pushed them still harder, in an attempt to please his masters.

We strongly believe that investigations of possible wrongdoing cannot, in all fairness, be limited to the proverbial “bad apples at the bottom of the barrel.” Rather, in our view, such investigations must be allowed to go wherever the evidence leads.

The inquiry last year by the Senate Armed Services Committee provides a good model for doing precisely that. The main conclusion of the committee’s “Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody,” approved last fall without dissent, was captured in its first subhead: “Presidential Order Opens the Door to Considering Aggressive Techniques.”

The Hollywood version of the CIA portrays amoral spies willing to do anything without regard to ethics or human rights. Our own long experience persuades us that the intelligence community has an abundance of men and women of outstanding character, who are committed to the rule of law, and whose primary desire is to serve the nation and protect the American people.

However much former CIA directors and other people at risk might wish to derail an investigation into possible war crimes, we believe the moral standing of our nation requires that we apply the same standards to offenses by U.S. officials as we would to accusations of war crimes by those in other countries.

For all these reasons, we strongly endorse efforts by the Department of Justice to investigate allegations of torture and human rights abuses by any Americans — CIA officers and contractors included.

Please regard this Memorandum as follow up to the more extensive comments on torture in the VIPS review prepared for you in late April. A copy of that Memorandum was eventually posted at Consortiumnews.com (see http://tinyurl.com/cvvr2x).

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Steering Group

Ray Close, National Clandestine Service (CIA), Princeton, NJ
Phil Giraldi, National Clandestine Service (CIA), Purcellville, VA
Melvin A. Goodman, US Army, CIA, Dept. of State, Dept. of Defense, Bethesda, MD
Larry Johnson, CIA & Department of State, Bethesda, MD
Pat Lang, US Army (Special Forces), DIA, Alexandria, VA
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council, Linden, VA
Tom Maertens, Department of State, Mankato, MN
Ray McGovern, US Army, CIA, Arlington, VA
Sam Provance, US Army (Abu Ghraib), Greenville, SC
Coleen Rowley, FBI, Apple Valley, MN
Greg Thielmann, Dept. of State, Sen. Intelligence Committee Staff, Arlington, VA
Ann Wright, US Army, Department of State, Honolulu, HI

To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.

That would be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking out about violence against girls and women at the U.N. After the ad nauseum speeches of President Obama, this is an incredibly refreshing change, even though the subject is intense, to say the least. Still, this one has substance, and isn’t “just words.” I can’t help but think the audience knew the difference, too:

Remember that “3:00AM” ad? Who would we want answering the phone? This woman, that’s who.

Instead we have President Obama, who has gotten his early morning call, particularly regarding Afghanistan. He’s letting it go to voice-mail. Hey, he has more important things to do, like go to Copenhagen to push for Chicago to get the Olympic Games in 2016. Yep - it’s true. He’s making a “personal” appeal - presumably on OUR dime. Oh, he can’t be bothered with what’s going on with ACORN, mind you, but he can press for Chicago to get the Olympics. So, General McChrystal, and our troops, can just wait, dammit, until Obama can get to them. (By the way, General McChrystal is holding firm on wanting those troops, despite the pressure he is under to shut up.)

Oh, and a little side note on that, the whole Chicago Olympics bid. Turns out that Fox TV in Chicago has been warned - as only they can do in Chicago - to NOT air a program they did on people in Chicago OPPOSED to having the Olympics there again. Oh, I just love this Free Speech, don’t you?

Every time I hear Secretary Clinton speak, and then President Obama, every time, I am reminded of who would have been the better choice to have at the other end of the phone line in difficult times. And it sure isn’t Obama, no matter how much he loves to hear himself talk (though largely about himself, as THIS article highlights. Almost 1,200 times in just 41 speeches, NOT including all of the speechifying he did last week. Holy SMOKES - narcissistic much?). He’s not the one I would trust to deal with the big issues. Seems like some other folks are figuring that out now, too. Too late, though, for dealing with some major issues, like Afghanistan.

If only it wasn’t our soldiers who were going to bear the brunt of that call going to voice-mail…

I don’t know about you, but I could use a day off from all of the rancor of politics - ACORN, Health Care Reform, Iran, Afghanistan, all of that. It will still be there tomorrow (unfortunately). So, since I’m feeling pretty good - my beloved Yankees are the AL East Champions, completing a sweep of their arch rivals, the Red Sox, it’s a beautiful day, so time for a little break.

For something funny, I recommend The Onion’s, “Cat Congress Mired In Sunbeam.” Just to whet your appetite, here’s what their Congress looks like in action:

C’mon, how cute is that? At least they were TRYING to get something done before the Sunbeam came along…

I have a funny story of my own to tell you - though it has nothing to do with cats. Way back in December, I had a post which included a video of my favorite opera singer, Kathleen Battle. Huh - I guess there is “Kat” in there, so yeah, I guess these are related after all. Anyway, the other day, I got a bulletin in the mail from the Charleston Concert Assoc. I was glancing through it, and lo and behold, Kathleen Battle is coming here in December.. I was ecstatic - couldn’t believe my eyes!! I fired off an email to my partner licketty split, telling her of this exciting event, and the need for us to get tickets tout de suite. She wrote back, and I quote, “…I’ve known abt this since JUNE!! It’s a done deal.” Meaning, she had already gotten us tickets for my holiday present. Turns out she had been sneaking out all of the bulletins coming in the mail so I wouldn’t see this (she was out of town at the time this came). Poor thing - I ruined her surprise…But I’m still mighty excited. I saw this woman perform at the Metropolitan Opera while in graduate school, by herself, and once with Jessy Norman. Battle is a former school teacher from Ohio, now recognized as one of our greatest opera singers. Here’s a reminder (with bonus very cool footage from the movie from which the song came):

If opera isn’t your cup of tea, I have this, another song that soothes the soul from one of our greatest singer-songwriters:

And one more to round out the day:

Hope you’ve enjoyed the break!