Why? The jihad is on fire. Israel is on the front lines, the West is flanking them. What is this tool thinking? We have been infiltrated, have we not?
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
President-elect Barack Obama's new head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, Dawn Johnsen, called the legal reasoning which gave the president broad powers to authorize "rough" interrogation of terrorists "shockingly flawed…bogus…outlandish." She said it allowed "horrific acts" and demanded to know "Where is the outrage? The public outcry?" This is the person who will decide how to interrogate terrorists. If she errs on the side of weakening methods of questioning, there's no chance her boss, Eric Holder the new Attorney General, will reverse her. He approved of the Clinton/Reno "wall" preventing intelligence from finding out what criminal investigators had found out and took the lead in pardoning the FALN terrorists.
What is Obama thinking? How could he weaken so dramatically our protections against terrorism? Doesn't he realize that without warrantless FISA wiretaps we could never have uncovered the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge (how could we have gotten a warrant for conversations about the bridge when we didn't yet know that al Qaeda had it in its sights?) Has he forgotten that we only found the name of the operative who was tasked with destroying the bridge because we subjected Kahlid [sic] Mohammed, the mastermind of 9-11, to "rough" interrogation techniques? Does he really mean to leave us vulnerable to terrorist attacks?










OBAMA = HAMAS' "MAN IN WASHINGTON"
Posted by: yonason | Tuesday, January 13, 2009 at 02:55 PM
Nothing like getting what you voted for. The East/West coast leftards apparently don't like safety, so they voted for Obama. Danger is more interesting.
Posted by: PRCalDude | Tuesday, January 13, 2009 at 07:52 PM