The New Year's Eve massacre in Finland was described by police as a case of domestic violence, a bloody crime of passion.Actually, that's hardly all of the story. Ibrahim Shkupolli, a suspected KLA Islamist, is an Albanian refugee from Kosovo and known drug dealer:
And so it was:a middle-aged man rebuffed by his ex-girlfriend broke a restraining order, killed her, then shot four of her colleagues at a supermarket before, it seems, taking his own life.
But behind the horrific crime of an apparently deranged individual there was the deep-rooted problem of social exclusion. The clue is in the name of the suspected gunman: Ibrahim Shkupolli.
Finnish sources say he was a Pristina-born Kosovo Albanian, one of the many who have settled in Finland. And therein lies a story.
Police have confirmed to YLE that a sixth person found dead in Espoo on Thursday was the perpetrator of a shooting rampage at the Sello shopping mall. Four people were shot dead at the shopping centre on Thursday. A fifth victim, an ex-girlfriend of the shooter, was found dead in a flat in Espoo.
Following the incident, police began a manhunt for the suspect, Ibrahim Shkupolli. They said he was considered armed and dangerous, and had run-ins with the police in the past ....
According to an eyewitness, one or more people were shot at the Prisma grocery store. One employee was seen lying on the floor in the upper level of the shop. A man dressed in black was seen walking toward the Citymarket grocery shop.
And, at Origins of Islam, "Alleged Saudi sponsored UCK (Kosovo muslim terrorist org.) mass-murderer Ibrahim Shkupolli allegedly also murders at least five in Finland today."
Ibrahim Shkupolli is a UCK/KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army - i.e. muslim terrorists) veteran. He killed 32 Serb civilians in the Qela village in 1997. Also fought against Serb police. He is wanted in Serbia already since 1995.
That's a translation of Finnish website, and there's speculation this is an unfounded rumor (Serbian source is here, and a link from the comments). But if accurate, Shkupolli could very well have previous ties to Middle East terrorist networks. See, "German Intelligence and the CIA supported Al Qaeda sponsored Terrorists in Yugoslavia":
Both the CIA and German intelligence (BND) supported the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a terrorist organization with links to Al Qaeda.
This report by the German TV ZDF Network, reviewed by Mira Beham, is revealing in many regards.
First the report corroborates earlier analysis on the role of the BND and the CIA in supporting the KLA, several years prior as well as in the wake of the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia.
Second, it further documents and confirms the KLA's links to Al Qaeda and the role of the latter in the Kosovo conflict ...
That would be the Clinton administration's intelligence services. See, "The Kosovo Liberation Army: Does Clinton Policy Support Group with Terror, Drug Ties?" And, "The Connections between the KLA, Heroin and Al Qaida."
I know, just because he was a muslim doesn’t mean islam played a role in his decision to commit mass murder (yeah right).Also, at Astute Bloggers, "IBRAHIM SHKUPOLLI, DRUG DEALING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT MURDERS 5," Gateway Pundit, "Muslim Immigrant Opens Fire – Kills 5 in Finnish Mall,," and Atlas Shrugs, "Helsinki: Bosnian Muslim Slaughters Five in Shopping Mall - Including Ex-Wife - Before Killing Himself."
...now that Rush apparently is in the hospital with chest pains...DaTechGuy then updates with Ann Althouse's post, "'I hope he dies'." Ann links to Lee Doren's tweet from last night:
More than a quarter of British women believe fitting into an old pair of jeans again would feel better than sex, according to research.Actually, I think guys would take the sex. More on that, here:
More than a third (35 per cent) of those surveyed admitted owning a pair of ''trophy'' jeans they used to fit into and kept in the hope they would slim down enough to wear.
Asked how managing to put them back on would feel, 29.1 per cent said it would be better than sex, 28.9 per cent thought it would beat a promotion, 20.6 per cent believed it would top a best friend's wedding, 20.3 per cent said it would feel better than a lottery win and 11.1 per cent thought it would beat a marriage proposal.
The poll by cereal brand Special K also revealed that 30 per cent of women fantasised more about slimming back into their ''trophy'' jeans than about Hollywood heartthrobs such as George Clooney or Brad Pitt.
The survey showed that on average women own five pairs of jeans, with 10 per cent of women claiming their jeans have outlasted their longest relationship.
Laura Bryant, from Special K, said: ''Women hold a deep attachment to that one pair of jeans which they know they look and feel great in.
''They use them as a benchmark and a great motivational tool when slimming and it doesn't matter how old the pair is.
If women are from Venus, men are -- well -- men. Seventy percent of men think about sex every day -- double the rate among women. Indeed, 43 percent of men think about sex several times a day; just 13 percent of women do that. Eighty-three percent of men enjoy sex "a great deal"; that falls to 59 percent of women. Women, though, are equally likely to express satisfaction with their sex lives.
In the aftermath of the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an airliner by radical Islamist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Rachel Maddow alerted her audience to the REAL security threat facing the United States.Guess which of the following concerned Rachel:
- That the TSA is still not using intelligent profiling techniques that have kept Israeli flights terrorist-free for decades?
- That Abdulmutallab was brought a lawyer by the Feds while he was still in his hospital bed—better treatment than a white collar criminal– and not subject to military or intelligence-style questioning while vital information might still be obtained?
- That Congressman Peter Hoekstra, the biggest thorn in the side of ACLU and pre-9/11 mentality liberals– who is running for Governor of Michigan– brought up this incident in a fundraising letter to supporters?
If you chose anything but number 3, then you don’t know Rachel.
The reaction of the Left to the Christmas bomber crystallizes once again something that has been true since at least the 1950s—liberals rarely think fighting any foreign threat, no matter how deadly, repressive, or expansionist they may be, is as important as defeating the world’s real evil obstacle to progress and utopia– Republicans!
More at the link. Maddow's attack on Hoekstra's here:
Please take a moment tonight to remember the fallen heroes of 2009 who fight to keep us free and safe from those who mean to harm us.Kenneth directs us to Michael Yon's photo-essay, "Into Thine Hand I Commit My Spirit :
Arghandab, Afghanistan
New Year's Eve, 2009
On this small base surrounded by a mixture of enemy and friendly territory, a memorial has been erected just next to the Chapel. Inside the tepee are 21 photos of 21 soldiers killed during the first months of a year-long tour of duty. The fallen will belong forever to the honor rolls of the 1-17th Infantry Battalion, 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, and they will join the sacred list of names of those who have given their lives in service of the United States of America.
President Obama has belatedly declared that the near miss above Detroit constituted "a catastrophic breach of security" and ordered a review of America's intelligence efforts. We're glad to hear it, but let's hope the Commander in Chief also rethinks his own approach to counterterrorism.RTWT at the link.
Recent events have exposed the shortcomings of treating terror as a law enforcement problem and rushing to close Guantanamo Bay. A new wave of jihadists is coming of age, inspiring last month's deadly attack at Ft. Hood and nearly bringing down Northwest Flight 253, and next time we may not be so lucky.
Their latest sanctuary lies in unruly Yemen, headquarters for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, which last year pulled off a series of local bombings, including at the U.S. embassy in the capital Sana, killing 13. The al Qaeda chapter in Yemen has re-emerged under the leadership of a former secretary to Osama bin Laden.
Along with a dozen other al Qaeda members, he was allowed to escape from a Yemeni jail in 2006. His deputy, Said Ali al-Shihri, was a Saudi inmate at Gitmo who after his release "graduated" from that country's terrorist "rehabilitation" program before moving to Yemen last year. About a fifth of the so-called graduates have ended back on the Saudi terror most-wanted list, according to a GAO study this year.
U.S. investigators are looking into whether Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian would-be bomber, was in contact with al-Shihri and another Guantanamo alum who turned up at the AQAP, Muhammad al-Awfi. The week before Christmas, Yemen agreed, presumably under U.S. prodding, to take back six more Guantanamo detainees. Ninety-seven of the 210 left at Gitmo are from Yemen, and if this transfer goes smoothly, the Administration wants to repatriate many more. Most are such hard terror cases that this year even Saudi Arabia rejected U.S. entreaties to accept them.
A Pentagon analysis, released in May, showed that one in seven freed Gitmo detainees—61 in all—returned to terrorism. Al-Shihri and Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, the Taliban's operations leader in southern Afghanistan, are merely the best known. The Pentagon has since updated its findings, and we're told the numbers are even worse.
Yet the White House has resisted calls by Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees to declassify this revised report—no doubt because that would make closing Gitmo harder. Congress should insist on its release.
This second generation of al Qaeda also makes good use of modern technology for recruitment. A student from a wealthy family, Abdulmutallab was exposed to radical Islam through the Internet, and according to some reports was a "big fan" of the imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, who ran a popular jihadi Web site and Facebook page. This 38-year-old cleric, who was born in the U.S., is the spiritual leader of AQAP.
Al-Awlaki was also in email contact with Major Nidal Hasan in the months before the Army doctor shot and killed 13 U.S. soldiers at Ft. Hood. U.S. intelligence intercepted emails between the imam and the Major, but the FBI decided that they didn't constitute a threat. We don't know if Abdulmuttab also communicated with al-Awlaki, but this too is something Congress should strive to find out.
One encouraging development is that the U.S. and Yemen governments are finally working together against jihadists. A series of recent raids supported by the U.S. have killed more than 50 suspected al Qaeda fighters, including suicide bombers. Al-Awlaki and the top two AQAP leaders were possibly killed in one of the strikes, though their fate is unclear.
The Los Angeles Times also the wire report, "Calif. Deputies Say Man Savagely Kills Dog, Runs Naked in Tennis Club, Pours Coffee on Head":
A man savagely killed a dog, ran naked through a tennis club and poured hot coffee on his head before he was finally arrested early Wednesday, Orange County sheriff's deputies said.The Times' report says the woman's name is "Judy" Donnelley, but the Orange County Register also reports the dog owner's name as Julie Donnelley.
Bayron Reyes Lopez, 26, of San Clemente, was hospitalized after being captured at the tennis club where he worked as a maintenance man, sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino said.
Deputies got the first call about the man at 4:30 a.m. Wednesday when there were reports of a loud radio at his apartment. Amormino said deputies believe he jumped from a third-story window to get away, and was unhurt.
Just after 6 a.m. Judy Donnelley called to say a "strange" man had approached her, and when her 5-year-old mini schnauzer named Coco intervened, the man killed the dog, hitting, choking and "repeatedly beating her on asphalt in front of me."
"She saved my life," Donnelley told KCAL-TV. "I don't know how to thank her." She put flowers on the street where her dog died.
Minutes later, other callers reported a naked man running through the Rancho San Clemente Tennis Club and pouring hot coffee on his head. That's where deputies caught up with him, Amormino said.
Eight Americans were killed in a suicide bombing Wednesday at a military base in eastern Afghanistan, according to a U.S. military official and a U.S. Embassy official.Folks will recall President Obama's disastrous indecision on the surge for Afghanistan. While the administration dithered, we've seen an escalation of bombings in the main Afghan theater, and Pakistan has deteriorated to a near-collapsed state, with audacious Taliban incursions and bombings almost daily.
A suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest attacked Forward Operating Base Chapman near the district of Khost in Khost province, said a third official, who asked not to be named.
The military official said the eight people were not from the military.
There were conflicting reports as to whether the bomber walked into the dining facility or the gym at the base.
Rick Derris said...
"...and nearly 300 died on Christmas Day."
I'm sure you meant to write that "...and 300 nearly died on Christmas Day", Professor Douglas. And I also find it a bit disturbing that you seem to be blaming Obama for the American deaths in Afghanistan rather than the crazy religious fanatic who actually committed the crime, ie the enemy. Obama is not that enemy.
Is it possible to deradicalize terrorists and their potential recruits? Saudi Arabia, a pioneer in rehabilitation efforts, claims that it is. Since 2004, more than 4,000 militants have gone through Saudi Arabia's programs, and the graduates have been reintegrated into mainstream society much more successfully than ordinary criminals. Governments elsewhere in the Middle East and throughout Europe and Southeast Asia have launched similar programs for neo-Nazis, far-right militants, narcoterrorists, and Islamist terrorists, encouraging them to abandon their radical ideology or renounce their violent means or both.Look at that section I've highlighted. Abdallah al-Ajmi? I've written about him before. See, "Abdullah Saleh Al-Ajmi: From Guantanamo to Martyrdom." Below is the complex he blew up, Combat Outpost Inman:
The U.S. government would do well to better understand the successes and failures of such efforts, especially those that target Islamist terrorists. This is important, first, because, as General David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, has noted, the United States "cannot kill [its] way to victory" in the struggle against al Qaeda and related groups. Although military action, especially covert military action, is an essential part of the strategy against the Islamist terrorist movement, the United States' main goal should be to stop the movement from growing. Terrorists do not fight on traditional battlefields; they fight among civilians, which increases the risks of collateral damage. Indeed, Islamist terrorists provoke the governments they oppose into responding in ways that seem to prove that these governments want to humiliate or harm Muslims. Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, and "extraordinary rendition" have become for Muslim youth symbols of the United States' belligerence and hypocrisy.
Second, the effectiveness of deradicalization programs aimed at detained terrorists have direct and immediate effects on U.S. national security. This is especially true regarding the detainees at the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Because it is difficult to gather evidence that is usable in court, some truly bad actors, along with some not so bad ones who have been held unfairly, will inevitably be released. Effective deradicalization programs could help make such individuals less dangerous. Abdallah al-Ajmi, who was repatriated to Kuwait in 2005 on the order of a U.S. judge and was acquitted of terrorism charges by a Kuwaiti court, subsequently carried out a suicide bombing on Iraqi security forces in Mosul that killed 13 Iraqis. Had he received the kind of reintegration assistance and follow-up (including surveillance) now available in Saudi Arabia after his release, he might not have traveled to Iraq.
Third, the success, or failure, of terrorism-prevention programs outside the United States is important to Americans. For one thing, people who carry European passports can enter the United States relatively easily, and so the presence of terrorists in Europe can threaten U.S. national security. For another, terrorism-prevention programs presently under way in, for example, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, could be models for at-risk groups in the United States, such as the Somali community in Minnesota, from which some young men have been recruited to fight alongside al Shabab, the radical Islamist organization that controls southern Somalia and claims to be aligned with al Qaeda. These men do not seem to be plotting attacks in the West, but it is important to think now about how to integrate Somalis into American society more fully in order to reduce the chances that they will carry out attacks in the United States.
The fight against al Qaeda and related groups is not over: Saudi Arabia's deputy interior minister was nearly killed by a terrorist posing as a repentant militant in August 2009; in September, U.S. government officials interrupted a plot in New York and Denver that they believed was the most significant since 9/11; and in October, the French police arrested a nuclear physicist employed at the CERN accelerator, near Geneva, who reportedly had suggested French targets to members of the Algerian terrorist group al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. But in the long term, the most important factor in limiting terrorism will be success at curtailing recruitment to and retention in extremist movements.
Now is the moment to try. Counterterrorism efforts have significantly eroded al Qaeda's strength in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia since the "war on terror" began in 2001. U.S. Predator strikes in Pakistan have killed top al Qaeda leaders, disrupting essential communications between the group's core and its affiliates and new recruits. Testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs last September, Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said that such activities were "potentially disrupting plots that are under way" and "leaving leadership vacuums that are increasingly difficult to fill."
Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.It turns out PBS did a rave puff program on the jihadi rehab initiative. See Pat in Shreveport, "Jihad Art Rehab." Amazingly, she cites an article from Psychology Today, "Jihad Rehab: Can Art Therapy Cure Terrorism?"
American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia, where they entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials. ABC News described their enrollment in the art therapy program in a January report.
Friday's attempt to blow up a transatlantic airliner by a British-educated Islamist was foiled by the bravery of its passengers and crew. We cannot assume that we will be lucky next time. And the indications are that there will be a next time. According to police sources, 25 British-born Muslims are currently in Yemen being trained in the art of bombing planes. But most of these terrorists did not acquire their crazed beliefs in the Islamic world: they were indoctrinated in Britain. Indeed, thousands of young British Muslims support the use of violence to further the Islamist cause – and this despite millions of pounds poured by the Government into projects designed to prevent Islamic extremism.
Is it time for a fundamental rethink of Britain's attitude towards domestic Islamism? Consider this analogy. Suppose that, in several London universities, Right‑wing student societies were allowed to invite neo-Nazi speakers to address teenagers. Meanwhile, churches in poor white neighbourhoods handed over their pulpits to Jew-hating admirers of Adolf Hitler, called for the execution of homosexuals, preached the intellectual inferiority of women, and blessed the murder of civilians. What would the Government do? It would bring the full might of the criminal law against activists indoctrinating young Britons with an inhuman Nazi ideology – and the authorities that let them. Any public servants complicit in this evil would be hounded from their jobs.
Jihadist Islamism is also a murderous ideology, comparable to Nazism in many respects. The British public realises this; so do the intelligence services. Yet because it arises out of a worldwide religion – most of whose followers are peaceful – politicians and the public sector shrink from treating its ideologues as criminal supporters of violence. Instead, the Government throws vast sums of money at the Muslim community in order to ensure that what is effectively a civil war between extremists and moderates is won by the latter. This policy – supported by all the main political parties – does not seem to be working. The authorities, lacking specialist knowledge, sometimes turn for advice to "moderate" Muslims who have extreme sympathies; supporters of al-Qaeda are paid to disseminate their ideology to young people.
Radical Islamist leaders are not stupid: they know how to play this system. The indoctrination of students carries on under the noses of public servants who are terrified of being labelled Islamophobic or racist. Therefore they fail to do their duty, which is to protect Muslims and non-Muslims alike from a terrorist ideology. If providing that protection requires fewer "consultations" with "community leaders" and more arrests, then so be it.
Cartoon Credit: Michael Ramirez.
I suspect it succeeded for three main reasons: It is a fully federal program, it helps a broad cross section of American people, and it has a sufficiently large base of active users. By being a fully federal program, Medicare is equally as good in red states as it is in blue states. It was not carved up, poorly executed, improperly regulated, or underfunded in many states for ideological reasons, or out of budgetary necessity. Being a fully federal program was very important, and made sure its success with felt by people equally across the entire country.There's a lot wrong with this. For one thing, Walker fails to note the difference between entitlements and means-tested (public assistance) programs. Medicare, as an entitlement, is perceived as "earned" by beneficiaries. Folks have worked over their lifetimes, qualified for Social Security benefits, and thus the Medicare add-on health program as well. Medicaid is basically welfare, and there's never been a broad-based level of popular support for it. Walker's right to note the middle-class basis of Medicare's support, but that has little to do with whether the program is run by the federal government or the states. The key issue is the welfare-dependency concept itself. With Medicaid being one program out of many in the smorgasboard of state-level public assistance hand-outs, taxpayers have long resisted the increasing demands on their earnings to pay for programs that are not infrequently abused by those with chronic unemployment and resistance to self-sufficiency, as well as among illegal immigrant communities who use emergency rooms as out-patient clinics. California has been known to exceed $1 billion annually on Medicare outlays for the undocumented. Clearly, the nexus between poverty, healthcare, and border control is not something leftists are eager to talk about.
Having Medicare serve everyone over 65 gave it a strong cross-section of supporters. It benefits the rich as well as poor. It helps everyone–from truck drivers and factory worker, to lawyers, politicians, and doctors–this has ensured that at least some of the people on Medicare are well-organized, politically active members of society. Finally, Medicare covers roughly 13% of Americans, and a greater percentage of voters. This is a large enough chunk voters that it makes messing with Medicare very dangerous politically.
In other words, the Medicare system creates all kinds of individual and market perversions and disincentives that stand in the way of efficiency and optimality. As a public system, Medicare may result in a misallocation of resources, and suboptimal healthcare outcomes. It also removes personal responsibility from much of health maintenance and rationalization. Not only that, because of the coverage gap for long-term care, the perceptual difference between "entitlements" and "means-tested" becomes meaningless. If folks live long enough, they'll end up on public support for the healthcare. Following that logic, Cohen goes on to argue that Medicare Part B reforms in 2007 shifted the system to a means-testing regime for individuals with annual incomes of $80,000 and couples with $160,000. Thus:First, Medicare is primarily a federally funded, third-party payer, fee-for-service program. In other words, when seniors get sick, they go to the doctor and the government pays most of the bill. Beneficiaries pay some premiums: an $876 deductible for major hospital visits under Part A; $66.60 per month, a $100 annual deductible, and 20 percent co-payments for most outpatient treatment under Part B. But the value of the government subsidies rises the more care one uses. Seniors who participate in traditional Medicare (roughly 88 percent) have the freedom to see any doctor who will see them. This is generally wonderful for beneficiaries: They have access to all the care they desire. But it is problematic for society as a whole, since there are limited incentives for seniors to cut their own health-care costs, and there is limited room within the heavily regulated system for private insurers to improve efficiency by creating health-care networks or tailoring services to individual needs. This economic problem will only get worse, many believe, as expensive new medical technologies become available, as the percentage of the national population on Medicare increases, and as the average age of Medicare beneficiaries rises and their health deteriorates.
Second, Medicare is a major part of the "hidden subsidy" and "price control" system that now shapes American health care. The government sets the prices by fiat for all the medical services covered under Medicare--with different physician groups lobbying constantly for increases to the reimbursement rate for their own specialties, and the government trying constantly to keep up with ongoing changes in the nature of medical care. This system allows government to exert some control over Medicare costs--though reimbursement cuts in the past have often resulted in reduced access to care, reduced quality of care, or increased billing for a larger volume of services. And of course, government doesn't get the prices right. This means the system only works because those services that are over-reimbursed subsidize those services that are under-reimbursed--for example, over-payment for cancer drugs subsidizes under-payment for cancer treatment. This system of cross-subsidizing exists both within Medicare and between Medicare and private-sector health insurance.
Third, Medicare's system of government-controlled pricing also shapes how patients are treated, and not always for the better. In some cases, people seek not the best or cheapest treatments for a given condition but those treatments that are covered by Medicare. In other cases, avoiding inexpensive but uncovered therapies leads to expensive but covered emergencies in the future. As Joseph Antos, an analyst for the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), explains about cancer therapy: "There is widespread agreement that Medicare overpaid for Part B drugs, although oncologists argued that those overpayments helped compensate for the extra costs of administering the drugs and caring for patients that were not reflected in fees paid by Medicare for office visits." The problem is that when the federal government reduced payments for cancer drugs, as it did in MMA, there was "a shift of patients out of the doctor's office and back to the inpatient hospital care, which reduces patient satisfaction and could increase federal outlays."Finally, the current Medicare system does not pay for long-term care. If someone suffers a stroke, for example, Medicare covers the expenses incurred in its immediate aftermath--hospital care, 21 days of skilled nursing care with no deductible, and 79 additional days of skilled nursing care for a subsidized rate of $109.50 per day. However, once the patient no longer requires skilled medical treatment but still requires constant personal care, Medicare pays nothing. This leaves individuals and families with a range of hard choices: family caretaking by a spouse or child; professional caretaking paid for out-of-pocket; or self-impoverishment until one qualifies for Medicaid, which does pay for long-term care, either by spending down one's assets or moving them in advance to one's children or siblings. The result is that a significant number of seniors who live to 65 end up on Medicaid--a welfare program--at some point before dying, including many who were self-sufficient throughout most of their lives. And looking forward, it suggests that the next Medicare entitlement debate will be about whether to add a long-term care benefit--which could prove far more expensive than paying for drugs.
The cost savings of such a change are likely minor compared to the cost of Medicare as a whole, since the higher premiums will affect only an estimated 1.2 million seniors out of the 35 million now on Medicare. But the principle it establishes for future reform may be significant: namely, the idea that means-testing is a potential route for further cost-cutting.But Cohen has some important warnings for the Bush administration drug coverage expansion from 2003, called the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA):
The fact is that, if Medicare were being created from scratch, it would almost certainly include a prescription drug benefit. But there are also good reasons to believe that adding a universal drug benefit was unnecessary or unwise, and that the sense of urgency in doing so was more artificial than real--a battle for senior-friendly voters (young, not old) who presumed a crisis that never really existed. As Samuelson reported in the Washington Post, a government survey of Medicare recipients in 2002 asked the following question: "In the last six months, how much of a problem, if any, was it to get the prescription medicine you needed?" The answers: 86.4 percent, not a problem; 9.4 percent, a small problem; 4.2 percent, a big problem. And so one could have imagined a targeted subsidy for low-income seniors in need, and national acceptance that drugs are just one of those things on which seniors will have to spend their own money.Or, in other words, at some point we won't be able to afford this luxurious entitlement. That, or drastic trade-offs will be necessay, particularly among the younger age-cohorts (post-Baby Boomers) who will be saddled with increased taxes to pay for their parents and the grandparents care, and reduced benefits when they themselves will be ready for retirement.
But for the politically ambitious, drug coverage had already become a "must deliver" issue, and for the country, it had become a political expectation. Moreover, it is unclear how the above survey from 2002 meshes with other realities, such as the high number of low-income Medicare beneficiaries who will now be eligible for drug subsidies, or the deepening erosion of employee-based drug coverage for retirees. Clearly, there existed some real hardship, though hardly a national crisis. And clearly, both parties believed they needed to pass a prescription drug benefit in order to remain attractive to senior and senior-friendly voters.
Given these realities, there is a certain wisdom in the way MMA's drug benefit is designed. It establishes a baseline of coverage for all seniors, and thus assures universal access to at least the most urgently needed medications. It provides genuine insurance against catastrophic drug costs--that is, against suddenly losing all of one's financial resources in a desperate effort to stay alive. But MMA also establishes the principle that not everything can be paid for by government; that medicine must be balanced against other national priorities and other human goods; and that middle-class individuals will have to support their own middling drug bills. The "hole in the doughnut," for all the mockery it has received, is sensible in its guiding principles.
What path will this new health care reform bill follow? My strong hope was that the House bill would follow Medicare. It has a national exchange that is funded directly by the federal government. There is national regulation of the insurance industry, and a nationwide public option.It's a straightforward recipe for government nationalization of the healthcare industry. And we know what will happen: Even great market disincentives will be established. Costs will not decline, since meaningful preventative medicine and health rationalization will be obviated. Access and quality of services will decline, as the U.S. system increasingly apes the Canadian. And of course, taxes will skyrocket, and expected payouts for future generations will deteriorate even further -- which will result in collapsing public support for the federal government all around.
The Nigerian accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner had his suicide mission personally blessed in Yemen by Anwar al-Awlaki, the same Muslim imam suspected of radicalizing the Fort Hood shooting suspect, a U.S. intelligence source has told The Washington Times.I thought about this after writing my post rebutting Steve Clemons. It's newfangled extremists like Awlaki who'll pose the biggest threats to international security in the years ahead. Who knows where Osama bin Laden is? And the Middle East's young jihadis probably couldn't give a flying-v, in any case. They've got up-and-coming inside-militants like this formerly U.S.-based cleric? Too bad he escaped that recent drone attack.
The intelligence official, who is familiar with the FBI's interrogation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, said the bombing suspect has boasted of his jihad training during interrogation by the FBI and has said it included final exhortations by Mr. al-Awlaki.
"It was Awlaki who indoctrinated him," the official said. "He was told, 'You are going to be the tip of the spear of the Muslim nation.'"
How far back do these two go? According to CBS, they might have hooked up in Londonistan years ago when Abdulmutallab was a student and Aulaqi was preaching the good word of jihad in the local mosque. (He was kicked out of the country in 2006.) The question tomorrow will be whether the former ended up in Yemen for his own reasons or whether he followed Aulaqi there, in which case you’ve got a whole new avenue of missed red flags potentially opening up.
He could, of course, be lying about all this, trying to spook intel agents by mentioning Aulaqi knowing that he already has a body count at Fort Hood. But he also told the agents that there are many more jihadis in Yemen ready to follow his example and he appears to be telling the truth about that. Obama’s called a surprise presser that’s set to start at any minute as I’m writing this. Stand by to see if he delves into any of it in his remarks.
One source said Radanovich will back state Sen. Jeff Denham (R) as his replacement. CA Senate districts are actually larger than congressional districts, though Denham's is more closely related to Rep. Dennis Cardoza's (D) neighboring 18th district. Top GOPers had tried to convince Denham to run against Cardoza, though Radanovich's district has a stronger GOP lean.
But Denham is unlikely to get a clean shot at the seat. Fresno Mayor Jim Patterson (R), who had backing from the Club for Growth during his '02 primary against now-Rep. Devin Nunes (R), is also likely to run. One source even suggested that ex-Rep. Richard Pombo (R), who lost his neighboring 11th district to Rep. Jerry McNerney (D) in '06, may be a potential contender as well.I'm focusing on Mayor Patterson since I'm fairly well-acquainted with him. We attended Fresno State together, both graduating in 1992. He's a super intelligent man with a business background in Christian radio. Although Hotline On Call doesn't mention it, I suspect Patterson is even more conservative than the incumbent. The California Central Valley's been a hotbed of tea party activism this year, and the water crisis has been hammering farmers. Apparently, Radanovich favors the San Joaquin River restoration project, a major Central Valley environmental initiative which is opposed by area farmers. And a recent Miami Herald piece reports that Patterson had signaled his intent to challenge Radanovich in the primary. That, combines with wife Ethie Radanovich health questions, moved the 9th-term congressman to call it quits. According to the Herald's report:
Republicans in California's San Joaquin Valley are girding for a potential intramural clash pitting former Fresno Mayor Jim Patterson against incumbent Rep. George Radanovich of Mariposa.Patterson's extremely ambitious. Folks mentioned his name for a congressional seat back in the early '90s, before he left the mayor's office. He's apparently a big fundraiser as well, with the support of the local business sector and Club-for-Growth activists. I imagine that State Senator Denham's going to have his hands full.
Though Patterson has made no official campaign announcement, Republican and Democratic circles alike are abuzz with anticipation that he will declare his candidacy in early January. Privately, some Valley political activists say they have already been assured Patterson will challenge Radanovich.
"It's certainly going to be an interesting race if he does run," prominent Republican and Fresno Lincoln Club president Michael Der Manouel Jr. noted, though he stressed that no decision can be counted as final until candidacy papers are filed.
Patterson insisted Wednesday that he is still undecided, though he acknowledged he has been "testing the waters up and down the district." Tellingly, he added that he has no interest in running for an open seat in the state Legislature.
"I think I am suited best to be in Congress and that is where I'd love to serve in these times," Patterson said.
A primary race between Radanovich and Patterson would instantly become one of the most closely watched in California, if not the nation. It would likely become expensive, forcing campaign contributors to either choose sides or hedge their bets.
A GOP primary also would almost certainly select the next congressman from the 19th Congressional District. Republicans enjoy a commanding 44-37 percent voter registration advantage in the district, which sweeps through all or part of Fresno, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Mariposa and Madera counties.
National security officials in the administration need to go back and read Peter Bergen's Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden in which he recounts many aspects of bin Laden's plan from the Islamic extremist uber-guru's own words - which was to draw the US deeply into the Middle East, and by its presence -- destabilize the governments in the region.I have not read the Bergen book, although published in 2001, the thesis that Bin Laden remains at the center of the global al Qaeda organization is badly outdated. While Bin Laden affiliates and family members remain important terrorist actors in global jihad, experts today speak of intense decentralization as the defining element of current international terrorism. As I reported previously, al Qaeda is now a drastically tranformed network of follow-on jihadi cells and copy-cat Islamists. Indeed, the group is actually making a comeback from its decimation in Iraq, when U.S. forces badly degraded the cells operating under Abu Musab al Zarqawi. In 2006, Zarqawi was killed by U.S. bombs in a fighter strike outside of Baqubah. (For more on this, see Frederick Kagan's pathbreaking analysis, "Al Qaeda In Iraq.")
Bin Laden, hiding somewhere in Pakistan, remains the single most significant sculptor of global affairs today, pushing the buttons of an American superpower as well as other regimes, so that they engage in emotional, knee jerk crusades that undermine what is left of a global equilibrium and the perception of American power.
Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and enemies yet to be named win with each new soldier deployed to the Middle East and South Asia.
The Obama administration has come under fire from critics who said the president waited too long to address the nation publicly about the Christmas Day terror plot, and that his administration has not been tough enough on terrorism.RTWT at the link.
The mostly partisan attacks came after Friday's attempt by a Nigerian national to blow up Northwest Flight 253 as it approached Detroit. Terror plots in the past have tended to unite the two parties, but recent attacks have departed from that norm.
President Obama has ordered a sweeping review of how the suspect managed to board the flight from Amsterdam, but that has done little to appease his critics.
Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, blamed the Obama administration for taking its eye off the threat of terrorism from abroad.
"I think there's enough blame to go around here," Hoekstra said Monday in an interview with ABC News. "The bottom line is we ended up with a bomb on a plane with a detonator ready to go off. That's totally unacceptable. There's probably failures at every step of the way, in Nigeria, in the Netherlands, and in the overall procedures. Early on in this administration, I think that this administration sent a clear signal that they believed that the threat to the homeland was not as significant as what it really is."
The plot to blow up Northwest Airlines flight 253 on Christmas Day was, according to multiple news accounts, organized and launched by al-Qaeda leaders in Yemen. ABC News has reported that the Nigerian man who attempted to blow up a plane over Detroit, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, spent a month at an al-Qaeda compound north of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, where he completed training alongside a Saudi al-Qaeda bomb-maker.RTWT at the link. Also, Marc's firm is Oval Office Writers, LLC.
Little noted is the fact that the second in command of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — the group that reportedly trained and deployed Abdulmutallab for his mission to attack the American homeland is a released Guantanamo detainee: Said Ali al-Shihri.While al-Shihri’s specific role has not been determined, it is increasingly clear that the terrorist network he helps lead was behind the attempted Detroit attack.
Known to Guantanamo officials as Detainee No. 372, al-Shihri was captured on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in December 2001. He denied being a terrorist and claimed to have traveled to Afghanistan two weeks after the 9/11 attacks to deliver money for the Red Crescent. At Guantanamo, he told officials that he had never even heard of al-Qaeda until he arrived in Guantanamo, and declared that “Usama bin Laden had no business representing Islam.” He promised that if released he would return to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, reunite with his family and work in their used furniture store.
Despite evidence that he had trained in an al-Qaeda camp north of Kabul, he was released in 2007 to a Saudi rehabilitation program. But al-Shihri never became a furniture salesman. Instead, last January, he appeared in a series of jihadist videos identified as al-Qaeda’s second in command on the Arabian Peninsula. The New York Times reported that he is “suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa,” in September 2008.
Each new layer of security, each new inconvenience for the travelling public, is mostly a placebo. It does very little to improve our inflight safety. Instead, each is imposed mostly to make it appear as though authorities are doing something and to give us the public some reassurance that they are safe in the air.Hat Tip: Kathy Shaidle. Video courtesy of Islamization Watch, "Airline Terror Suspect in Federal Prison."
And most are implemented, too, to preserve the politically correct, multicultural myth that anyone is a potential terrorist, that all are equally worthy of official suspicion, that everyone must be searched as thoroughly as the next passenger in line.
.... by the time security personnel have caught on to one terror technique, the very real enemies of the West who would blow up airliners loaded with innocents have moved on to a new tactic. Once we learned to forbid box cutters, the terrorists moved on to shoes with fuses, then sports drinks laced with incendiaries and bags of powder strapped to their thighs.
No matter what we screen for, no matter how much we irritate and inconvenience passengers at airports, the bad guys will figure out new ways to bring potential death aboard our planes.
The real trick is screening out bad guys. But to do that would require a cultural will the West has not yet shown itself capable of. It would require us to admit that young Muslims -- mostly young Muslim males -- see themselves at war with the West, so they require a special level of scrutiny from security and intelligence forces.
Abdulmutallab's father, a prominent Nigerian banker, had notified the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria of his son's increasingly extremist religious beliefs. But no one had thought enough of the warning to subject the 23-year-old engineering student to an added thoroughness of search before he boarded a U.S.-bound flight.
Not all Muslims need be harassed -- not even most. Following 9/11, a U.S. think-tank devised a pre-flight screening technique that would red-flag the appropriate suspects.
Anyone, Muslim or not, who had a mortgage, had held the same job for more than 10 years, had a lengthy history of incident-free commercial flights, had a solid credit rating, a retirement account and no reports, like Abdulmutallab's, of extremist tendencies might well still have to do the detector walk-through, but wouldn't need to toss his latte and nail file before getting on a flight.
The trouble is, we are too timid as a culture to do the obvious -- focus on young Muslim men with radical connections, who have proven themselves to be 99 per cent of the problem.
