Sunday, April 28, 2013

Did Assad Really Use WMD in Syria?

Politicians and pundits are claiming that the intelligence community (IC) has confirmed that Bashar al-Assad has used WMD in Syria and that the U.S. must now act. But did the IC really confirm the use of WMD in Syria? And if so, did the IC really confirm that Assad used them?

After weeks of people speculating that someone used WMD in Syria (including some people suggesting that Iraqi WMD might have been used in Syria), several foreign governments began alleging this as well.

The White House recently sent identical letters to Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, saying that, “Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin.”

Some politicians and media seem to have taken this to mean that this is proof that the Assad regime, or elements of it, has used WMD in Syria. However, the letter specifically states that the White House is seeking more evidence. One of the issues the White House letter cites is chain-of-custody issues with the supposed evidence of WMD use in Syria.

Also, the IC assessment only has “varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons.” This is a critically important statement.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Assassinating U.S. Citizens vs. Assassinating Foreign Leaders

The topics of the federal government massing ammunition, purchasing armored vehicles, using unmanned aerial systems (UAS) on U.S. soil, and generally militarizing the United States have been hot topics since Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) filibustered in the Senate in March.

And while Senator Paul received some praise for filibustering until the Obama administration explicitly stated that the Constitution does not authorize the government to assassinate a U.S. citizen (who poses no imminent threat to life or safety) on U.S. soil, others deemed his concerns as ill-founded.

Yet Senator Paul’s concerns seem to be resonating with the American people—including his questioning of if the government would assassinate U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without due process and/or just cause.

And perhaps this concern is not as unfounded as some believe.

Those involved with the intelligence community (IC) are well aware of Executive Order 12333. They receive training (or at least a briefing) on it at least once per year, sometimes more. EO 12333 plays a part in letting the intelligence community know what it can and cannot do.

Monday, April 1, 2013

The DIA and Fashion Advice

The media reported that someone in the DIA gave a presentation on how to look and dress for work. Reportedly, this person included in the presentation some tips for women:
‘Makeup makes you more attractive’ they were told, and the advice included a reminder on the importance of painting fingernails. 
‘A sweater with a skirt is better than a sweater with slacks,’ the presenter recommended, adding ‘no flats.’ 
‘Don’t be a plain Jane,’ attenders were told, in addition to ‘brunettes have more leeway with vibrant colors than blondes or redheads.’
In a civilized and sane world, this would be normal and welcome advice. And therefore the advice was not welcome. The same media reported that the DIA was embarrassed by this:
DIA director Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn also wrote a letter to his staff to apologize for the style advice, which had sexist overtones. 
He called the incident an ‘unnecessary and serious distraction’ and ‘highly offensive.’ 
‘Even smart people do dumb things sometimes. That said, no one is going to be taken to the wood shed over this. They’ll require some counseling (to be sure) on what it means to think before you act.’
Of course, the U.S. military isn’t offended by all dress tips. Such as when it’s telling its female troops to wear hijabs out of deference to Muslims.

And the military and government isn’t always offended by highly offensive things. Such as when the U.S. embassy in Nairobi hosts a sin pride event, or when the U.S. embassy in Pakistan does the same thing. Or when the U.S. government uses foreign aid to promote sin (even as foreign nations tell them how offensive this is). Or when the CIA actively seeks to hire people boasting of practicing sin.

And, of course, no one is offended when the leftist mayor of New York City tells a female sodomite cohort essentially the same thing that the DIA voluntary fashion advice presentation said . . . even if the mayor later denies he said what he is alleged to have said.

But once again, we don’t live in a civilized or sane world any longer.


While Christians and conservatives can’t even bring themselves to forcefully denounce sodomy—or even call it “sodomy”—or even mildly defend what is right—and instead insist that we “drop the social issues” since they are “distractions” and “turn people off to our message,” the left is busy at work waging war on pronouns.

Thus we see who is committed to their cause and who isn’t.

Thus we see who truly is obsessed with the “social issues” and who is willing to surrender on them.