Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

[Beskar]

Presuming:

1. Bin Laden isn't dead already, which he most likely is.
2. He isn't dead and his network is actually a major threat. Activity has been "very low" either because security services are good at their jobs or the threat is over-estimated.
3. That lobbyists and Fillibuster Republicans actually allow him to.
4. See Crazed_Rabbit, he attacked Obama for proposing such moves. Aka, Republicans won't allow it, so will the Lobbyists.

Unfortunately, KukriKhan, I doubt you will see the miracles you want, if the Republicans have their ways.

I'd rather have Obama than Brown too, by a long shot. Still, at least Merkel is competent, even if I disagree with quite a few of her aims.

You must be sick, you are agreeing with me.

[Crazed Rabbit]

4. See Crazed_Rabbit, he attacked Obama for proposing such moves. Aka, Republicans won't allow it, so will the Lobbyists.

No, I attacked Obama for proposing a tax that will get back TARP money from people who already paid and ignoring those who haven't.


CR

[Xiahou]

The WaPo editorial board confirms what I already knew. Specifically that the decision to indict the underwear bomber "was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous."

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

UMAR FAROUK Abdulmutallab was nabbed in Detroit on board Northwest Flight 253 after trying unsuccessfully to ignite explosives sewn into his underwear. The Obama administration had three options: It could charge him in federal court. It could detain him as an enemy belligerent. Or it could hold him for prolonged questioning and later indict him, ensuring that nothing Mr. Abdulmutallab said during questioning was used against him in court.

It is now clear that the administration did not give serious thought to anything but Door No. 1. This was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

Whether to charge terrorism suspects or hold and interrogate them is a judgment call. We originally supported the administration's decision in the Abdulmutallab case, assuming that it had been made after due consideration. But the decision to try Mr. Abdulmutallab turns out to have resulted not from a deliberative process but as a knee-jerk default to a crime-and-punishment model.

In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, all said they were not asked to weigh in on how best to deal with Mr. Abdulmutallab. Some intelligence officials, including personnel from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, were included in briefings by the Justice Department before Mr. Abdulmutallab was charged. These sessions did provide an opportunity for those attending to debate the merits of detention vs. prosecution. According to sources with knowledge of the discussions, no one questioned the approach or raised the possibility of taking more time to question the suspect. This makes the administration's approach even more worrisome than it would have been had intelligence personnel been cut out of the process altogether.

The fight against an unconventional enemy such as al-Qaeda cannot be waged exclusively or effectively through any single approach. Just as it would be a mistake to view all terrorist acts as law enforcement challenges, so would it be unwise to deal with all such incidents as acts of war. All paths must be seriously considered before a determination is made.

The administration claims Mr. Abdulmutallab provided valuable information -- and probably exhausted his knowledge of al-Qaeda operations -- before he clammed up. This was immediately after he was read his Miranda rights and provided with a court-appointed lawyer. The truth is, we may never know whether the administration made the right call or whether it squandered a valuable opportunity.

[Lemur]

Finally, real change I can believe in. We are the haggis we've been waiting for.

Smuggled and bootlegged, it has been the cause of transatlantic tensions for more than two decades. But after 21 years in exile, the haggis is to be allowed back into the United States.

The "great chieftan o' the puddin-race" was one of earliest casualties of the BSE crisis of the 1980s-90s, banned on health grounds by the US authorities in 1989 because they feared its main ingredient ‑ minced sheep offal ‑ could prove lethal. [...]

For the past two decades, Americans of Scottish descent ‑ of whom there are at least 6 million ‑ have been forced to celebrate Burns' night without a true haggis, much to their distress.

There are stories of Scots smuggling in a haggis for their starving cousins, risking deportation in the process. Others are said to have secretly tried to create homemade, bootleg haggis, desperate to sample that particularly peppery concoction.

[Subotan]

Was BSE ever actually a threat?

[Kralizec]

Nah, it was merely a conspiracy to destroy the British beef industry

[Lemur]

Uh-oh, I guess Obama is a false prophet after all. FDA sez no haggis for you!

Recently, several news articles have incorrectly stated that the U.S. will be relaxing or lifting its ban on Scottish haggis. At this time, haggis is still banned in the U.S. The APHIS rule covers all ruminant imports, which includes haggis. It is currently being reviewed to incorporate the current risk and latest science related to these regulations. There is no specific time frame for the completion of this review. Please check back with APHIS periodically for updates.