US Releases Iran-Backed Terrorist Who Lead Murder of US Troops

A New Year’s Eve news dump.

Andy McCarthy discusses another questionable release of a terrorist behind the murder of American troops. The Long War Journal has the details. Ed Morrissey and others are saying that this release was an exchange for a British hostage.

McCarthy’s post links back to the news of other terrorists who were released this year, which we’ve covered.

If this release was indeed an exchange for the hostage, that sends a bad message that will encourage taking more hostages.

UPDATE: Max Boot thinks the supposed deal may be reasonably justified.

Dick Cheney: “President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war”

Dick Cheney’s latest comments about President Obama’s handling of national security issues are dead-on:

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.

Cheney has it correct: We are at war, and the President wants to downplay that to win the ideological battle and push his views. Why else eliminate the phrase “war on terror” while we’re still in battle, announce we’re closing Guantanamo, send 9/11 terrorists to civilian trials, and avoid offering strong support for Iranian revolutionaries?

Then there is this gem at the end of the article:

As indicative of what they contend is Obama’s world view, conservatives passed around the recording of a statement Obama made while taking calls on New Hampshire Public Radio on Nov. 21, 2007: “I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, that not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also can understand their point of view. …

“The world will have confidence that I am listening to them, and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world. That will ultimately make us safer. And that’s something that this administration has failed to understand.”

If Obama is indeed listening, has that made us safer as he suggested? I’d contend not.

Taxing Those Who Aren’t Yet Rich

Victor Davis Hanson has another wonderful column, this time exposing the class warfare that is targeting those who wish to become rich:

With the proposed new income, payroll and health-care tax rates, along with increased state and local taxes, many business owners fear that 60 percent to 70 percent of their income will go to the government. That does not seem a good way to convince small businesses to hire more workers in hopes of greater rewards.

He makes a simple but effective point that is consistent with what I’ve been writing. Read the entire piece.

Latest Terror Plot and Closing Guantanamo

The Christmas terrorist plot may make it even more difficult for President Obama to close Gitmo (H/T Paul Mirengoff at Power Line). I recently suggested that the attempted attack was a reminder of the dangers we face that aren’t going away because of Obama’s presence or his approach thus far.

Scott Johnson at Power Line examines an Andy McCarthy post that questions how Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab obtained a visa. Have we not learned?

During my vacation, I also read this Andy McCarthy post that pointed out a holiday week news dump:

Not content with the Friday bad-news dump, the administration announced on the Sunday before Christmas that it had transferred a dozen detainees out of Gitmo. On its face, this is alarming enough. …

But the release announced this past weekend is just appalling. The twelve detainees have been transferred to: Yemen, an al-Qaeda hotbed whose government makes common cause with jihadists (and has a history of allowing them to escape — or of releasing them outright); Afghanistan, which is so ungovernable and rife with jihadism that we’re surging thousands of troops there (troops the jihadists are targeting); and Somaliland, which is not even a country, and which offers an easy entree into Somalia, a failed state and al-Qaeda safe-haven. At least one of the released terrorists, a Somali named Abdullahi Sudi Arale (aka Ismail Mahmoud Muhammad), was released notwithstanding the military’s designation of him as a “high-value detainee” (a label that has been applied only to top-tier terrorist prisoners — and one that fits in this case given Arale’s status as a point of contact between al-Qaeda’s satellites in East Africa and Pakistan).

We were going to send these detainees to places like Yemen, despite the dangers of doing so, but now that we know who was behind the attempted airplane plot this Christmas, we might reconsider. It’s sad that this is what it took to make the government reevaluate.

Maybe, however, this administration and the public will recognize that announcing the closing of Gitmo isn’t stopping attempted terrorist attacks and that Obama’s promise has only tied his hands on national security. Since Congress will reconsider, does anyone want to reevaluate how intelligent and reasonable Obama’s positions on these issues sounded during the campaign after seeing his policies in action for a year?

UPDATE: It only gets better. Apparently, two of the four leaders of the Christmas plot were released from Gitmo in 2007. Can we hammer the point home any more? This makes Obama’s position difficult to defend.

UPDATE 2: Andy McCarthy clarifies the cited Yemeni players, and the post linked in his post provides more detail. On top of this, Yemen’s Foreign Minister is saying that there are hundreds of al-Qaeda militants plotting attacks from Yemen.

2009 Was Not a Good Year for Obama’s Foreign Policy

The UK Telegraph has a top ten list of Obama’s foreign policy blunders this year.

Charles Krauthammer criticizes Obama’s mishandling of Iran. His suggestion:

What should we do? Pressure from without — cutting off gasoline supplies, for example — to complement and reinforce pressure from within. The pressure should be aimed not at changing the current regime’s nuclear policy — that will never happen — but at helping change the regime itself.

Give the kind of covert support to assist dissident communication and circumvent censorship that, for example, we gave Solidarity in Poland during the 1980s. (In those days, that meant broadcasting equipment and copying machines.) But of equal importance is robust rhetorical and diplomatic support from the very highest level: full-throated denunciation of the regime’s savagery and persecution. In detail — highlighting cases, the way Western leaders adopted the causes of Sharansky and Andrei Sakharov during the rise of the dissident movement that helped bring down the Soviet empire.

His conclusion:

One way or the other, Iran will dominate 2010. Either there will be an Israeli attack, or Iran will arrive at — or cross — the nuclear threshold. Unless revolution intervenes. Which is why to fail to do everything in our power to support this popular revolt is unforgivable.

The latest terrorist attempt on the airlines this week, reportedly plotted by al Qaeda, is a reminder that no speech or offer to talk to enemies is going to diminish the threats we face and the ideology behind them. Neither will closing Guantanamo or trying to prove our President is not George W. Bush. Our President has shown in year one that he is in over his head on these issues, as many feared during the campaign.

Healthcare Bill Is A Monumental Waste

The holiday week produced some major drama, as Harry Reid rounded up the 60 votes necessary for his Senate bill. Michelle Malkin has a summary of what buyouts were necessary to get the remaining votes in the Senate. As I’ve been saying, the passing of this Senate bill was expected, as is the manner in which it was passed.

Some on the left are heralding this as a monumental moment for healthcare and social policy in general. Some on the right are lamenting a massive step towards socialism. Some on both sides are rightly disgusted with an embarrassing political process that is nothing like President Obama promised on the campaign trail. Democrat senators like Harry Reid are saying how great this bill is and that we’ll all appreciate it later. Reid and other liberals celebrating this bill are faking it.

Let’s be clear about what happened. First, the House sneaked a bill through by a five vote margin because of an anti-abortion amendment offered by a Democrat, because it watered down the public option, and because it offered goodies to some moderates. Next, the Senate had to buy votes on both sides and strip the public option. What are we left with? Two bills without much of what the Democrats in Congress set out to achieve, that will neither nationalize nor improve the insurance market, and that will be difficult to reconcile.

The Senate bill is a massive subsidy to buy private insurance, so any liberal in Congress saying how proud they are of this bill is lying through his or her teeth. They wanted nationalized insurance, but couldn’t get it. They then wanted a public option that would help them get to nationalization, but couldn’t get that either. They then offered a significant Medicare expansion, but couldn’t get that either. What did they get?

Insurance regulations and mandates that will largely raise premiums and taxes that will hit the middle class and will probably break Obama’s tax pledge. Will the deficit be reduced? Not likely, as the Senate bill relies on significant Medicare cuts that are unlikely to happen. Even if they do, the CBO estimate suggests a small deficit reduction that would be wiped out by Medicare physician payments that have been stripped from the bill. And savings to Medicare would likely be spent elsewhere instead of paying down debt.

Both the right and left mostly hate this bill, and for good reason. This bill will waste billions and perhaps trillions of dollars if not overturned (and the Senate is questionably trying to make it hard to overturn). It will raise premiums and taxes. It will raise costs of healthcare by adding taxes on drugs and devices that will be passed on to consumers and paid for with the subsidies that the government will offer (essentially, the government will tax us to pay for additional costs that it creates).

That is, if a bill passes at all. President Obama has adjusted expectations by looking for the debate to carry into February. Why? Because the Senate bill has more liberal abortion language than the House bill, which needed that Stupak abortion amendment to narrowly pass the House. Also, because the House bill has a public option while the Senate bill had to strip that provision to pass. Here are some other differences that will have to be worked out.

If President Obama signs a bill later this Winter or Spring that mandates and subsidizes the purchase of private insurance as the Senate bill does now, then he’ll have to bite his tongue to do it. The Senate bill is nothing like he and his party wanted. The House bill surely would make him happier, but even it is a far cry from what they intended. The Democrats may get some things they want, but they are losers in this battle, and they should be losers in 2010 for repudiating a strong majority of public opinion.

I’m ashamed of this Congress, but not at all surprised. This is who we elected.

Is ObamaCare Dead?

We know that the Medicare expansion proposal was dropped by the Senate, and that the public option is all but dead (as previously noted). When the ideal goal for liberals was single-payer, and the realistic goal something that moved the country in that direction, this year-long healthcare effort is looking like a failure for them. In fact, ObamaCare took another blow Tuesday night as the Senate rejected a measure to allow prescription drug re-importation.

Now that the public option is being stripped from the bill, Senator Lieberman suggests he may be willing to support a version of the legislation. Losing the public option, of course, has the liberals fuming. The left wing of the Democrat party, which includes the party’s leadership, is likely not going to get what they wanted. In fact, the Reid bill without a public option would mandate Americans to buy private insurance. That is certainly not an option that will please the left. Is ObamaCare dead though?

Probably not, as the Democrats have likely gone past the point of no return and must produce something that allows them to claim victory. They probably couldn’t even step back and attempt the incremental reforms that I suggested would be good moves for them, as they’ve probably raised too much skepticism and lost too much credibility on the issue. It’s pass something or bust now.

What can they pass though? Even without a public option, attempts to increase government’s involvement in the insurance industry should remain contentious, and satisfying both sides of the abortion debate continues to be a challenge. Democrats may be willing to concede on some issues, but they’ll still need something they can say they achieved in their favor.

They’ll probably pass something, but how many broken promises will it take? Liberals have failed to deliver on their promise of a public option, and President Obama has broken his promises on drug re-importation and taxes on people making less than $250K a year. Who will actually be pleased with what comes out of Congress at this point?

ObamaCare as it was advertised may be dead, but we’ll probably still end up with a boondoggle that satisfies neither side.

UPDATE: Democrats of all stripes are in disarray. Will Reid try for reconciliation? How will the Senate and House resolve their differences? The Democrats went for the home run and it seems they will likely fail to achieve what they set out to do, even though some legislation might still pass.

Obama to Send Gitmo Detainees to Illinois

Thanks to Jake Tapper for the report. This was expected, as Obama was desperately trying to deliver on his promise to close Guantanamo, and Illinois was volunteering. Being a resident of the state, I can’t wait to meet my new neighbors, and I’m sure everyone else around here feels the same way, right?

What is absurd is that supportive Democrats in Illinois have been boasting about how the new use of the prison will help the state’s economy. This, of course, is a horrible rationale for the decision. One can think of many ideas that could help the economy but shouldn’t happen.

The editors at National Review offer a nice response to the announcement. They challenge the notion of the prison being a good financial investment, and continue describing the bigger problems:

But the money isn’t the worst of it. Moving the detainees into the United States would greatly increase the likelihood that federal judges will order some of them released here. …

Even if they are not released, the presence of terrorists in American prisons creates enormous security problems. In 2000, while purportedly preparing for his trial on charges of bombing U.S. embassies in Africa, an al-Qaeda inmate maimed a prison guard in an attempt to break himself and his confederates out of jail. Sayyid Nosair helped plot the 1993 World Trade Center bombing from Attica prison in New York, even as he recruited new terrorists and conspired to escape. Despite maximum-security confinement conditions, other WTC bombers were permitted to communicate by mail with overseas terror cells. And from the federal prison where he is serving a life sentence for terrorism, the notorious “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel Rahman, issued the fatwa approving the 9/11 attacks. With the help of his now-convicted lawyer, he continued guiding his Egyptian terrorist organization.

This is a dangerous and irresponsible decision, just like the one to send 9/11 plotters to civilian trials in New York. Such decisions could sink a presidency.

UPDATE: Jen Rubin brings up a good point about what I’m now calling the new Illinois Stimulus Plan, which is that Obama will need Congress to allow the transfer of these detainees onto American soil:

And even the Obami realize that “the move would require Congressional approval, since Congress now bars Guantánamo detainees from being brought onto American soil unless they face prosecution, and some of the detainees may be indefinitely confined without being tried.” The Obama administration is banking on Democrats in Congress “to lift that restriction if the administration came up with an acceptable plan for closing the military prison at Guantanamo.” This should make for an interesting debate. But as with the original plan to close Guantanamo, there are many questions, and the whole endeavor feels as if they’re winging it.

And what is the point of bringing these detainees to Illinois if, as noted in Jen Rubin’s post, the Obama administration is going to transfer detainees out of the country if they win habeas corpus challenges? This boggles the mind.

Reid Healthcare Bill: Amendments and Middle Class Impact

While Speaker Pelosi is suggesting she may be open the Medicare buy-in plan, meaning the House may accept a bill that comes out of the Senate, Bob Laszewski thinks that proposal is dead on arrival and there will be no public option, meaning liberals have a choice to make.

It would appear that Laszewski is correct. Keith Hennessey examines the Joint Tax Committee analysis of the Reid bill’s effect on the middle class, which shows that more middle class Americans will see premiums increase than will see them decrease. Reports like this are a bad sign for the overall bill.

For anyone interested the drug and device industry, here is a summary of some of the proposed amendments regarding generics. There is also a proposed amendment that would block drug makers’ prescription drug data mining.

The OPM Healthcare Plan is Not a Compromise

The latest news in the healthcare debate, other than the Senate’s rejection of an anti-abortion amendment similar to the Stupak amendment that allowed the House bill to pass, is that ten Democrat Senators have been working behind closed doors to come up with a new plan for the public option:

The latest proposal on the public option would empower the government’s Office of Personnel Management — which already oversees federal employees’ health plan — to run a new national health plan. The office would negotiate terms with private insurers, and then contract with nonprofit entities set up by the private sector to run the program, congressional aides said.

It’s difficult to see how this plan would be effective in lowering costs. As Bob Laszewski, who is quoted in the article, notes on his blog:

The insurance exchange would already include all of the not-for-profit health plans operating in the market. These plans would already be under competitive pressure to offer their best rates—that is supposedly the point of the insurance exchange. Heck, the whole idea of an insurance exchange came from the FEHBP plan in the first place. The notion that adding the OPM to the equation–something that was based on the OPM model in the first place–will somehow drive costs down even further is hard to understand.

So what would this plan do? Again, I’ll defer to Laszewski:

It would give Democrats something they can call a “public health plan option” and declare victory.

If you accept the premise that the Democrats were never going to achieve a robust Medicare-style public option, however, then you’d hardly call this a compromise when considering what this group of Democrats might ask in return:

Negotiators Monday were considering a proposal that would open Medicare to people ages 55 to 64 if they couldn’t find coverage elsewhere. The proposal would allow them to buy insurance coverage at subsidized rates under Medicare, though the subsidies wouldn’t be as great as those for people 65 and over, said congressional aides and lawmakers.

A companion proposal would expand Medicaid beyond what is already called for in the bill. Under one scenario, people with incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty level would qualify for the program. The poverty level is currently about $22,000 for a family of four.

In other words, the “compromise” is to give up the public option in favor of a program run by a federal office in exchange for a significant expansion in Medicare and Medicaid. Some compromise. This sounds like a win for Democrats, as they’ll be able to claim they won the public option while still achieving government expansion of Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Plus, the OPM plan may not be as harmless as it sounds. One needs to consider the power that OPM will be granted. For more analysis of the plan, go here.

Another key question is how we would pay for such an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid. The sustainability of these programs is already in question. The proposal to pay for the legislation thus far has been a combination of new taxes and Medicare cuts. Polls suggest that people are already uncomfortable with these ideas. What about this “compromise” is supposed to make anyone more excited about the plan?