U.S. troops on alert worldwide because Senate Democrats think it’s the perfect time to release ‘torture’ report

Screen Shot 2014-12-09 at 3.36.47 PM

Just as Gruber testimony is set to begin. Hmmmmm.

The whole “torture” narrative was always political, so it makes perfect sense that Senate Democrats would choose to release their report on the matter just as the politics of the situation demand it. It also makes sense that they would do so at a time when it will quite possibly put U.S. troops in harm’s way overseas, because since when do Democrats care about that?

They’re about to lose their hold on the Senate, so their chance is slipping away. And hearings involving Jonathan Gruber and other ObamaCare architects are about to start, so Democrats desperately need a distraction.

Release the hounds! Why not? Actually, there are a lot of reasons why not, especially the risks Michael Gerson outlines in his Washington Post column today:

The U.S. response in the war against terrorism has been dramatically more selective and focused on combatants. Even so, the CIA is often forced to operate at the edge of the United States’ acceptable response — currently with drone strikes and a variety of activities to degrade and dismantle the Islamic State. The avoidance of “boots on the ground” in the Middle East has placed an additional burden on intelligence services to work with (often flawed) allies, target enemies and strike from afar. Political leaders, once again, urge intelligence officials to do what is necessary.

So the Feinstein report would come in the middle of a war, targeting many Americans who are still engaged in it. It would be an act of exceptional congressional recklessness. Democratic senators on the Intelligence Committee interviewed none of the key figures in the program, yet fought for months to make it easier to identify the targets of their report. “Those personnel,” said (soon to be former) Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), “if they have that worry, can be given some legitimate security.” This is clearly what some committee members intended: exposure and a bodyguard.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the outgoing chair of the committee, was thought to be more responsible. But her legacy may be a massive dump of intelligence details useful to the enemy in a time of war. And she knows the likely results. Secretary of State John Kerry expressed the concerns of alliesabout increased violence. A National Intelligence Council report warned of threats to embassies, installations and individuals, and explored how partners would react to the disclosure.

When even John Kerry is acknowledging the risks of a baldly political move like this, you know you’ve got a problem on your hands.

But in the minds of Democrats, they’ve got an even bigger problem, which is that they’re at a low point in the public’s eyes. When better to fall back on the phoniest of phony narratives, which is what the “torture” nonsense always was?

Let’s remember: After 19 Islamic terrorists hijacked U.S. jetliners and murdered 3,000 Americans on our soil, the mindset of the nation changed dramatically. Suddenly we took the threat of such attacks seriously and we were over the niceties of following “international law” and not upsetting people in our manner of protecting ourselves. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were clearly resolved to do whatever it took to prevent another such attack from happening (which they did successfully), and the public was behind them. If that meant a terrorist had information about impending attacks or would-be attackers, and wouldn’t give it up, then waterboard, strap jumper cables to his genitals . . . do what you have to do. Their supposed right not to be tortured would not come before innocent Americans’ right not to be killed.

Don’t like it? Too damn bad.

That was the mindset of Americans at the time, and it drove Democrats bananas. They tried for awhile to feign strength on national security, but that is not them and they couldn’t fake it for long. Democrats are the party of international weakness, wanting to withdraw from the world and put their focus on confiscating the resources of the private sector to put to use in redistributing wealth and regulating every minute detail of American life. Yet Democrats were completely out of power – having lost the White House and both houses of Congress – and as long as Americans were cheering for toughness in the fight against terrorists, they were not going to get any of that power back.

So they invented outrage over the treatment of detainees. OMG! Waterboarding! It’s torture! We’re better than that! Gitmo! It’s unfair! We’re squandering the goodwill of our allies!

The media hated the post-9/11 mindset of the nation too, and was more than willing to trumpet the Democrats’ torture narrative. Bush was more concerned with stopping attacks than with the political debate – a consistent tendency of his that helped make him a good president but also handed Democrats a lot of unnecessary rhetorical victories. The result was that the hearings staged by Democrats like Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin resonated, but the release of this report still presented problems because, as Gerson points out, it’s actually going after members of the U.S. Armed Forces at a time of war, people who are still out there fighting.

And once the Democrats recaptured the White House, the national security problems became their problems, and suddenly a cretin like John Kerry – who would never hestitate for a second to attack American troops if it benefited him politically – is urging restraint.

You can count on the media going to town on this for a few days. You’ll see the familiar images of waterboarding, along with the lectures of how we stepped over the line and how this made us no better than the terrorists themselves. The Democrats have to try something, what with ObamaCare dragging them down, even if it further complicates global turmoil taking place on their watch and in large part as a result of their foolish foreign policy.

I’d like to say the release of this report won’t change anything, but that’s not true. It could get some of our servicemen and servicewomen killed. That would be a change, all right. I guess Democrats think it’s worth it if that’s what it takes to change their political fortunes, even if only for a moment.



(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has a tongue-in-cheek suggestion for President Obama: Negotiate another prisoner exchange, but this time trade five senior Democrats for a U.S. Marine being held in Mexico.

Addressing the GOP convention in Fort Worth, Texas Friday, Paul said a delegate he had been chatting to had said, “There is one guy who is kind of deserving we ought to try to get home, and that’s the Marine who accidentally carried his guns into Mexico.”

“So here’s what I’m thinking: Mr. President, you love to trade people.”

“Why don’t we set up a trade? But this time, instead of five Taliban, how about five Democrats?” Paul said to laughter and applause. “I’m thinking John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi – couldn’t we send them to Mexico?”

Paul was alluding to the controversial swap of five senior Taliban detainees being held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a soldier held by the Haqqani network, a terrorist group allied to the Taliban, for five years.

The Marine Corps reservist he was referring to, Andrew Tahmooressi, has been in Mexican custody since the end of March, when he was arrested with three legally-registered firearms in his vehicle.

The 25 year-old, who served two combat tours in Afghanistan and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, has stated that he crossed the border accidentally.

He is being held on weapons charges and several U.S. lawmakers have been urging the administration to do more to get him returned home.

On Thursday State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the administration was “working very hard to discuss with the Mexican authorities the path forward here.”

At a briefing earlier in the week, Harf fielded a question that linked the Tahmooressi and Bergdahl cases.

“Given what just transpired to release Sergeant Bergdahl – again, wouldn’t a phone call from Secretary Kerry to his [Mexican] counterpart – couldn’t this thing be wrapped up quicker?” a reporter asked.

“They are two totally different situations,” she replied. “Are you comparing the Mexican Government to the Taliban?”

“No, I’m saying one would assume that it would be easier to negotiate and talk to the Mexican government than the Taliban,” the reporter said.

“Look, he entered – he reportedly entered Mexico with several weapons and ammunition, circumstances which would normally result in arrest in Mexico. So we are letting the process work itself through,” Harf said. “The Mexican authorities provided prompt notification of his arrest, have allowed regular consular access. We’ll continue working with them.”

Kerry visited Mexico last month, and when asked afterwards about Tahmooressi said he had raised the matter with his hosts.

“We are working on determining whether or not certain evidence that has been presented is meeting the standard that’s necessary to be able to hold that young Marine, and we’re trying to find out exactly what the fact pattern is, but we are working on that,” he told CNN on May 28. “And as recently as last week, I had those discussions with Mexican authorities.”

Rand Paul: Let’s Trade John Kerry And Nancy Pelosi To The Taliban

Rand Paul: Let’s Trade John Kerry And Nancy Pelosi To The Taliban

By Brian Anderson on June 6, 2014

Rand Paul is nothing if not entertaining. Following the disastrous trade of 5 top Taliban terrorists for deserter Bowe Bergdahl by President Obama, the Kentucky Senator suggested more appropriate trade bait for future prisoner swaps.

While speaking to at the Texas GOP Convention Paul unveiled his enhanced negotiating package:

“Mr. President, you love to trade people. Why don’t we set up a trade? But this time, instead of five Taliban, how about five Democrats? I’m thinking John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi…”

Unfortunately, the crowd erupted in cheers and laughter and the last two remaining democrats up for trade could not be heard. It’s tricky to offer a guess because there are so many liberal politicians that could easily make the list. I’d say Dianne Fienstien, Harry Reid, and Bernie Sanders are all in the running.

The only problem I can see with such a swap would be that we’ve got nothing to trade for. According to Obama, Bergdahl was the last American soldier that needed to come home. The President seems to be forgetting about the 2500 POWs and MIAs from the Vietnam War, but the truth is what Obama says it is.

But do we really need something in exchange for Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi? What could we reasonably expect to get for John Kerry? A couple boxes of old newspapers, maybe? I’d be happy just to get rid of these democrats as I would with an old non-working appliance.

Instead of putting this deal in the “barter” section on Craigslist, list it under the “free” category:

Free: 5 obsolete democrats. One may have some slight brain damage, but all retain their sense of self-righteousness. Can be stripped for parts. Will be on curb of Capitol Building. First come first served. Please don’t disturb residents.

Paul was using humor to make a point about the legal and national security implications of Obama’s deal and it is something that makes him uncomfortable.

“I don’t know about y’all, but I’ve been a little bit annoyed with the president. Releasing five Taliban senior officials…it’s illegal and wrong and he should never have done it,” said Paul.

At a press conference after the speech, reporters hammered Paul about his comments.

“It was a joke. Except for Nancy Pelosi, I was serious about her,” zinged Paul.

You know liberal reports have about as much of a sense of humor as liberal politicians, so they continued to harass the Senator about his joke.

“Well, I mean, it’s humor, and I hope there’s room for humor. I thought it was funny. It was meant to be humorous,” replied Paul.

I guess Rand Paul didn’t get the memo. There is no room to make fun of Obama or the democrats. In fact, because he specifically named Clinton, Pelosi, and Kerry it will be construed as part of the GOP’s war on women. Kerry’s a girl, right?