Kristen Breitweiser

Dear Mr Obama: You're Just Like Dick

2013-03-14T15:15:50-04:00

Mr. President, what a high bar you have set for yourself in assuring us that you are no Dick Cheney when it comes to drones.

Wow, the country must feel so comfortably numb with your glowing self-assessment.

But actually Mr. President, you are probably worse than Dick Cheney.

Because with Cheney, the Democrats screamed and yelled (ok, more like ineffectively grumbled and mumbled) about Cheney's unconstitutional power grabs. Yes, with Cheney at least there was a modicum of pushback, a scintilla of oversight -- even if it was only due to partisan politics.

With you Mr. Obama, indeed, the halls of Congress, the media, and the provocateurs of the prattle-sphere are mostly silent. And that's what's so dangerous.

Because who could believe that the first African-American President -- a former Con-law professor, no less! -- could so thoughtlessly, recklessly throw our Constitution under the bus?

Who would have imagined that such a man like Barack would have maintained a kill list that would please even the staunchest, most hawkish Republicans?

Who would ever think that a Democratic President would task his legal team for over two years to find the language and loopholes necessary to assassinate US citizens -- even innocent 16-year-old citizens?

Tell me Mr. President, is your current aversion towards any oversight surrounding your drone program a faculty of your own lack of conviction in having killed all these people (allegedly a sum of more than 4700) or simply that you feel you are above the law? Because humbly, I think we are entitled to know.

And by the way Mr. President, glad to see you picked up Cheney's idea of using minders when it comes to protecting WH arse. It works quite well in cover-ups. I should know, since Cheney used it with regard to the 9/11 Commission investigation. But again, you're nothing like him, are you.

For me, it's quite clear. You have gone from a Senator who allegedly believed in transparency, oversight, and the balance of powers -- notably all requisite things in a d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y -- and erased them from your memory banks. Not because you have cogent, intelligent reasons that reveal any sort of deep conviction on your own behalf, but rather because you've tasted power.

Should I expect you to take up fly-fishing on the Snake River in the near future just to be more like Dick?

Respectfully, Mr. President, perhaps there is one thing that separates your Administration from that of Bush/Cheney, at least they returned phone calls and told you -- to your face -- when they were going to stab you in the back.

Droning On -- But Where's the Dialogue?

2012-10-23T11:20:53-04:00

This morning the topic of drones was raised on MSNBC's Morning Joe. I never thought I'd actually agree with Morning Joe's Joe Scarborough, but I do.

Scarborough courageously spoke the truth about the long-term dangerous effects of ANY U.S. President's use of drones. And he went further by saying that it was time Americans started educating themselves and having a serious dialogue about our nation's drone use overseas. I couldn't agree more with him.

Joe Scarborough said what few Democrats or Republicans are willing to say because they either fear publicly criticizing "their own" President or appearing in any degree soft on extremism.

The truth is that anyone who has spoken to people in the know regarding drones will tell you that President Obama's use of lethal force via drones is far more excessive and therefore potentially damaging than former President Bush's programs. And that says something particularly given President Bush's bad judgment and damning record when it comes to the way he dealt with extremism.

A few years back during a conversation I was having with someone, the person commented how "tough" he thought Obama was with regard to dealing with extremism. He remarked that special ops guys seemed astounded with the incredible ease and willingness that Obama green-lighted drone strikes. With Obama, it seemed nothing was off the table; he gave way more latitude than Bush. Almost all was a go. This person thought Obama's decisions showed great courage and bravery as a Commander in Chief. I disagreed. And still do.

Because to me, making a decision is not tough when you will never be held accountable for the consequences. Killing someone in the dark isn't brave when you don't own up to it in the sunlight of day. Murdering extremists isn't courage or justice when you never ask or answer questions about it. And blunt assassination by remote joystick will never be noble when there's no oversight or post-mortem to be had.

The likely truth about most drone strikes made by any U.S. President (at least at this point) is that they are almost all automatically couched in terms of success. Any human being -- even an innocent 4-year-old -- killed in the strike zone is immediately deemed an extremist due to their mere proximity to the known target. 'Nuff said. Every strike is a go, all strikes are a success, regardless of outcome. Consequences? There are none -- other than that we are winning the war. Don't believe us? Just look at our kill numbers. All of them bad guys, by the way. B-a-d G-u-ys.

To me, what will be tough, what will take courage is facing the rippling repercussions of these murders, these nifty mini-surgical acts of war in the years to come. Because make no mistake, there will be consequences -- real live human consequences. And then what will we say? What will we do?

And I take serious umbrage with journalist Joe Klein, who more or less dismissed Scarborough's concern over all these innocents being killed. Klein casually remarked that it all depended on "whose life it is." In other words, Klein asked whether it was going to be "their" four-year-old or "ours." Stunning. Facile. And to me, flatly abhorrent.

We will not kill our way out of any situation. Just like we've recently learned that we cannot spend, lie, hide, or cheat our way out of anything. We are a nation of laws. We are a democracy. No act -- even a President's decision to green-light a drone strike half way around the world -- should ever go so utterly unchecked, unexamined, unstudied, and unconstitutional.

And as much as I hate suggesting panels or commissions, some legitimate governing body needs to examine the past history of our drone strikes. And then, going forward, the efficacy and ease of such use of lethal force must be carried out ONLY within clear constitutional boundaries, with strident oversight, accompanied by regular postmortems and genuine accountability.

As a 9/11 widow, I am no shrinking violet when it comes to defending ourselves against extremists; I'm all for being tough on terrorists. But, in my opinion, no U.S. President should ever have the sole sweeping power to assassinate anyone without others--including to some degree the rest of the world-- looking over their shoulder.

Libyan Consulate Attack: Who's to Blame?

2012-09-12T10:30:57-04:00

Yesterday, I spent the day walking the beach and quietly reflecting
about my husband, who was killed on September 11th. Eleven years later,
I am finally able to find my own peace.

By stark contrast, I woke up this morning to the news of four Americans
killed in Libya and protests in Cairo. And, I asked myself "how could
this have happened?"

Many people will assuredly believe that the only people to blame for
this deadly violence are the Muslims who did it.

And undoubtedly, those who carried out this horrendous act are guilty.

But please remain mindful that the Muslims might not be the only ones responsible.

After reading reports including Al Jazeera's coverage below, some
immediate questions came to my mind and I hope all Americans will
demand the answers to these questions.

From Al Jazeera:

The film was made by an Israeli filmmaker, Sam Bacile, who has gone
into hiding.

The film was promoted by Morris Sadek, an extreme anti-Muslim Egyptian
Christian campaigner who lives in California.

Speaking by phone to the Associated Press from an undisclosed location,
writer and director Bacile remained defiant, maintaining that he
intended his film to be a provocative political statement.

Bacile, 52, admitted he had not anticipated such a furious reaction to
his film and said: "I feel sorry for the embassy. I am mad".

He also said the film was produced in English and that he did not know
who had dubbed it in Arabic.

The full film has not been shown yet, he said, and he said he had
declined distribution offers for now.

The two-hour movie, "Innocence of Muslims'', cost $5m to make and was
financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile.

Sadek said that he had promoted the video on his website and on certain
TV stations, which he did not identify.

My Five Questions:

1. Who are the alleged "over 100 Jewish donors" who financed this film?
Will they be sending their condolences to the families of the four
Americans killed because of their film? Will they in any way be
publicly held
accountable for their support of this film and its message?

2. Will Sam Bacile, the filmmaker, and Morris Sadek, the film's
promoter, be held accountable for their seeming incitement of terrorist
acts against U.S. interests abroad?

3. Who allegedly translated this film into Arabic since it was
originally not
available in Arabic?

4. Specifically, how did this film get released and made available to
Libyan and
Egyptian youth on September 11th, particularly since it was apparently
not readily available to them online in its full form?

In effect, in my opinion, somebody "pushed" this film out there to
incite and spread hatred and rage in the Middle East on September 11th,
and the identity of the person or organization behind this plot should
be exposed and held accountable.

5. Given the broad and sweeping powers of the U.S. Patriot Act (an Act
that I despise), will the U.S. government be electronically
"backtracking" and investigating who is
responsible for the creation, translation, and distribution of this
film that has incited the senseless killings of four Americans? And
will the families of those killed be able to hold any and all of these
individuals or organizations accountable in an open court of law?

Finally, I offer my sincere condolences to the families of those killed
yesterday; it breaks my heart to witness such violent acts particularly
on the anniversary of September 11th.

Heights of Hypocrisy: The Universal Use of 9/11 in Politics

2012-05-03T09:32:22-04:00

A year ago, I wrote a blog about the death of Osama bin Laden, "Today is Not a Day of Celebration for Me."

I wrote the blog after witnessing so many Americans celebrating, fist-pumping, dancing, and reveling in the streets about the death of bin Laden.

Seeing so many Americans acting like that was too much of an uncomfortable reminder of those who celebrated in the streets during the attacks of 9/11 while men like my husband either burned alive, were crushed alive, or horrifically jumped to their deaths.

A year ago, what drove me to write was my sadness in bearing the sight of Americans celebrating the death of anyone -- even the man largely responsible for the murder of my husband.

Now one year later, I am once again driven to write due to witnessing President Obama resort to the same campaign tactics as George W. Bush.

Frankly, for what it's worth, it sickens me; and it saddens me.

President Obama, have you lost your way so much that you now believe that the murder of anyone should be your most defining moment? A moment for which you want to earn votes?

Respectfully, Mr. President, perhaps you should relinquish your Nobel Peace Prize.

In the end, I guess I should not be surprised.

President Obama, when it comes down to many things, you are not much different than George W. Bush. To name a few: You drew back on your promise to close GTMO. You did away with the use of Article III courts and our Constitution in favor of military tribunals. You kept the Patriot Act. You expanded Executive power. You didn't release the 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry of Congress' Report regarding possible Saudi complicity in 9/11. And, in one area, drone attacks, you've actually far exceeded the realms of both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, combined. You really must be so proud.

And to all those Democrats and progressives out there who are now celebrating this campaign ad, those who are supporting its use, saying that its about time Democrats fight dirty like the Republicans; level the playing field so to speak. Congratulations. You, too, must be so proud.

What great heights we've all soared to in the past 10 years.

A friend once said that it's hypocrisy that ultimately does a candidate, a person, (and maybe even a country) in.

I guess we'll find out if he's right.

Deja Vu-doo: The Fuse of Iran?

2012-01-26T11:32:20-05:00

In National Journal yesterday, Michael Hirsch wrote,

The Obama camp knows it has only a so-so case to make, at best, that the president's performance on the economy qualifies him for a second term. So the White House and Obama's Chicago-based campaign staff is preparing a well-thought-out effort to cast him as the most impressive Democratic president on national security in decades.

Ok, so call me jaded. Call me crazy. Call me dumb. But I get uncomfortable when I read articles talking about a president wanting to run on national security, particularly when there doesn't seem to be any credible, sustained national security risk on the horizon.

Why do I get nervous? Because sadly, I've learned through past experience that in Washington, when you need a risk, and a real risk doesn't exist, you have to make up a perceived one. And sometimes as history has shown when the wrong people and agendas get involved in fabricating perceived risks, they can (and often do) morph into very real risks. And then, of course, people die. Sorry to be so blunt.

"I would regard this as the most capable and purposeful Democratic administration in foreign policy since John F. Kennedy's," says Philip Zelikow, a former senior counselor to Condoleezza Rice, Bush's loyal Secretary of State.

Now, first and foremost, no president should ever want Phil Zelikow praising his foreign policy. And if somebody like Zelikow is so openly spooning the fig jam like this on the morning after the State of the Union Address and in the middle of an election year, then we all better ask ourselves why.

By way of background and disclosure, the reason I don't trust, respect or like Phil Zelikow is because he was the Staff Director of the 9/11 Commission.

But even before that, Zelikow a close friend and confidant of Condoleeza Rice, former Bush National Security Advisor, served on the Bush national security transition team. Thus, in December 2000 and January 2001, Zelikow was privy to top-secret briefings between the outgoing Clinton Administration and the incoming Bush Administration. This would mean that information regarding Bin Laden and any future warnings of domestic terrorist attacks would have been placed before Zelikow's eyes and it would have been Zelikow's job in concert with Rice to design the national security strategy and policy of the Bush Administration to deal with such threats or strikes. I think the 9/11 attacks, the failure to net Bin Laden in Tora Bora and the costly war in Iraq to name just a few, attest to the fact that neither Rice nor Zelikow did a very good job.

Yet incredibly, after 9/11, Zelikow -- against the wishes of many 9/11 family members -- was appointed to be the Staff Director of the 9.11 Commission. In essence, Zelikow would guide the direction of the investigation and at crucial points also be responsible for investigating himself and his close friend Condoleeza Rice. In my opinion, Zelikow did his very best to make sure that the facts of 9/11 remained obscured and that virtually no accountability would ever be assigned to any and all US leaders, officials, or agents who failed to prevent the attacks that killed 3000.

So when my Google Alert pinged me notifying me that Zelikow was throwing around gratuitous props to our Democratic president, I took notice. And I wondered why? And to what end?

Perhaps not so widely known about Phil Zelikow, is how he arrived to be the Staff Director of the 9.11 Commission. George Bush appointee? Dick Cheney choice? Nope. He was hand-picked by former Indiana Congressman and 9/11 Commission Democratic Co-Chair Lee Hamilton to head the 9/11 investigation. I will reiterate that the 9/11 families vehemently opposed Zelikow's appointment to the Commission, just like we opposed Henry Kissinger's as Chairman of the Commission.

Now to some, Kissinger automatically sets off alarm bells. To me, Zelikow and Hamilton should set off similar alarm bells because, though lower profile, they are equally as busy in their carving, crafting, and pushing of policies behind the scenes in Washington. Ultimately for me, it wasn't such a surprise that Hamilton ignored our gripes about Zelikow. And as a result, in my opinion, the 9/11 Commission's Final Report would thereafter always be incomplete, compromised, and in parts pushing an agenda, a fact that left Hamilton seemingly unfazed.

Undoubtedly, when it comes to Washington and the murky defense/foreign policy/intelligence establishment that runs it, one quickly learns that allegiances span decades, are well-masked, and readily cross party lines. The ends, however, always remains the same: money and power. I just wish more people understood this. (and fought against it)

So is it mere coincidence that Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes, who incidentally also worked for Lee Hamilton, is quoted in this article saying some of the very same things as Phil Zelikow regarding the national security cred of President Obama?

Rhodes states,

"Insofar as character is an issue, many ways in which [Obama's] excelled speaks to this issue: The ability to make tough decisions; to show grace under pressure," he said. "As commander-in-chief he has demonstrated that he will make the difficult decisions to use forces in sometimes very risky situations, but he also recognizes the limits of military force." During the election campaign, the campaign plans to highlight his "tremendous results." "There is so much political noise," says Rhodes, "but the president has built a record in the last three years that is in many respects unassailable."

Unassailable?

Sorry but for starters, I don't consider Obama's character or record to be so "unassailable" when it comes to honoring his word regarding GTMO, the trial of terrorists in Article 3 Courts, the Patriot Act, and/or scaling back Executive Branch powers, just to name a few. In fact, I find it reprehensible and just like George Bush.

But worse, let's talk about the drone attacks mentioned in the article,

Although the administration does not publicly acknowledge the existence of the program, the number of Predator drone strikes on targets in Pakistan and elsewhere has more than tripled during Obama's presidency, and the CIA, supplied with more resources than it got under Bush, has conducted "the most aggressive counterterror ops in the agency's history," according to an intelligence official. A number of terror experts believe the terror group is now close to defeat.

Is this considered "grace under pressure"? Or, the sort of "tough decisions" being made?

Because to me, the ease in which President Obama routinely green-lights these unilateral top-secret little mini-acts of war is plain alarming -- particularly when carried out by a man who balked about the illegal war in Iraq and who was also at one time a constitutional law professor.

These drone attacks lack any credible oversight and suffer from no public accountability--except of course for the dead people (whose guilt or innocence in the war on terror we'll never know) blown to bits on the other end of the feed-screen. As a genuine believer in democracy, is it wrong for me to want, expect some checks and balances over Obama's sweeping use of this lethal Executive power? And, I'm not saying discontinue drone attacks. I'm saying, how about a little oversight and accountability.

But it's the last sentence of the intelligence official's quote that brings me back to the beginning of this article and causes me the most worry: "the terror group is now close to defeat."

Because, again, maybe I'm just dumb, but why would Obama's campaign team design a re-election platform that is no longer ripe; indeed almost obsolete. After all, to run on a war platform, don't you need a war footing? And to get on a war footing, don't you need a viable, identifiable enemy? And forgive me but I don't think Somali pirates -- though noisome -- rise to quite that actionable a level.

And so I start thinking about the past 10 years. And real vs perceived risks. And then I look at some of the names and faces of the players. And I watch them show up on the scene one by one, on talk shows, in blogs, in newspaper columns. And I listen to their spinning of words. I hear the substitution of Iran for Iraq.

And then I consider how no risk turns into perceived risk turns into real risk.

And then I wonder whether this is déjà vu all over again.

Of course, I'm sure it is just pure coincidence that Rhodes and Zelikow are quoted in the same article singing similar songs of praise for a president who didn't get elected to be a war president. Just like the raid and rescue in Somalia that dovetailed with the SOTU was serendipitous, Jim Miklaszewski overhearing Obama's words to Panetta was accidental, and Obama singing Al Green in Harlem last week was spontaneous.

The Blind Lion Who Never Roared

2011-11-10T09:44:45-05:00

Want to know what starting a war on lies and getting away with it because nobody has the guts to stand up and yell stop does to a nation?

Want to discuss what happens when a country that prides itself on a bill of rights, starts torturing people?

Care to talk about what happens when greed takes over where morals were lost?

How about what happens when adults start to believe their own lies because its more convenient?

It was bad when Americans took to the streets and celebrated the death of Bin Laden a mere 8 months ago. To me, celebrating murder was something only our enemies would ever do as they had allegedly done on the morning of September 11th when my husband was killed.

What is perhaps even more unsettling is to wake up this morning and witness the young adults at Penn State University rioting in the streets about the firing of Joe Paterno.

Joe Paterno is a man who turned a blind eye to the brutal rape of a 10-year-old boy and perhaps several others for years in exchange for greed, reputation, or even worse to win a few more football games.

I'm no moral compass. But I am a mom. And an American. So I take the actions of those Penn State kids personally and as a sobering reflection.

And I am ashamed.

What has become of us and our priorities in the past ten years?

We have so clearly lost our way.

And, I ask, where have all our leaders, our coaches, and our parents gone?

No Place To Go But Up: Howard Schultz' Upward Spiral 2011

2011-09-04T14:24:42-04:00

It's seven days before the tenth anniversary of 9/11.

Usually during the week-long build-up to the anniversary of my husband's death, I stay away from television and newspapers. Too depressing. Too much of a reminder. Just too much in my face.

So with trepidation, I picked up my morning newspaper and started rifling through it.

Same old, same old. Economy in a deathspin. Obama a disappointment. Middle East in precarious transition. Wounded veterans being neglected. Education wallowing. Environment a mess.

And then I came across the full-page advertisement of Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks Coffee Company on page A15 of the NYTimes. And I read it.

Now, I don't know if Starbucks is perfect. If Howard Schultz is perfect. Or if the group upwardspiral2011.org is perfect. But I do know one thing: Schultz' idea is perfect.

Like many of us, Schultz is frustrated and fed up. He is done with partisan politics and useless leaders. He loves our country, still believes in the American Dream, and knows that we are better than this. And he is right.

What sets Schultz apart from the rest of us is two-fold: first, he runs Starbucks a multinational company that is responsible for employing many Americans in every state across the country. In other words, he knows what he is talking about when he talks about jobs and our faltered economy.

Secondly and perhaps most importantly given the current personalities appallingly exhibited by almost all of those in Washington today, Howard Schultz follows up his sensible, well-informed, and reality-based talk with genuine concrete, concerted action. How absolutely rare, refreshing, and revolutionary. And to think, this comes from a CEO?!? Aren't they the bad guys who got us into this mess to start with?

Schultz is not asking us to buy his coffee. Nor is he asking us to donate money to any cause. He merely asks us to pick up our telephones on Tuesday night to become a part of a new movement -- an upward spiral. A call to arms that starts with all of us who feel like we've been left behind, don't matter, can't make a difference, and/or can't have our voices heard.

Prior to the call, he asks everyone to visit www.upwardspiral2011.org to take a pledge with two principles: first, to withhold all political contributions to all elected officials until a "transparent, comprehensive, bipartisan dept and deficit package is reached that honestly and fairly sets America on a path to long-term financial health and security."

And second, "to do all we can to break the cycle of economic uncertainty that grips our country by committing to accelerate investment in jobs and hiring."

Sounds pretty simple and straight-forward to me. More than anything, it's a start and I'm grateful to Schultz for picking up the baton.

And as someone who's tried in the past to make a difference in Washington, I can say first-hand that the best, quickest, most potent way to get Washington to listen is to cut off their money and get 'em where it hurts.

I know I will be on the call on Tuesday, how about you?

www.upwardspiral2011.org

(I haven't regularly drank Starbucks coffee in years and I've regrettably never met Howard Schultz. My agenda is simple: I have a 12-year-old daughter who has already grown up without a father, I'd like to ensure that she can still have an American Dream.)

Hacking the Saudis

2011-07-16T16:14:32-04:00

Breathlessly, six members of Congress have requested that the FBI investigate the "outrageous" allegations that News Corp might have hacked into the cell phones of 9/11 victims and their families. Lickety split, the Justice Department has done so.

First off, does it surprise me that a corporation like News Corp. might try to hack into the information of private citizens for their own financial gain? Nope.

Much like it wouldn't surprise me if my own government hacked into the private information of its citizens for political gain or... er, I mean, "reasons of national security." Just ask Dick Cheney and Karl Rove about that.

Of course, any such "accidental netting" on their part would be immediately explained away under the protections of FISA and the Patriot Act, because clearly it would have been necessary "in the ongoing fight against terrorism."

Too bad, Congress doesn't want to investigate those types of indiscretions. Sigh.

But truly, I am awestruck when people like Congressman Peter King, Chairman of the House Committee for Homeland Security is so quickly moved to demand an investigation into such vague, seemingly hollow allegations as someone hacking into the cell phones of people like me.

Is this the same Congressman King who when faced with actual hard, incontrovertible facts and figures regarding the vulnerabilities posed by dangerous chemical and water plants across the country remains disinterested? And, I might add firmly on the side of big business. An issue, I might also add, that places a million+ Americans in the bull's eye everyday. Where's the outrage there? Or the demand for immediate investigation and action when it comes to that, Congressman King?

Indeed, as someone who has tried to pique the interest of both Congress and the Justice Department to investigate various issues over the course of the past 10 years to no avail, I wonder: what exactly does it take to get Congress and the Department of Justice interested in an issue.

Because with regard to Murdoch-gate and 9/11 victims, ironically, it would seem the bar is pretty low.

According to the Washington Post, "the Mirror's story remains unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, and it has been reported exclusively by a British tabloid famous for sensational journalism."

Moreover, the Post reports that "the Mirror names no specific sources in its reporting, and it relies on a single anonymous second-hand source for its account."

Yet apparently, the US Department of Justice and FBI feel the need to delve into these allegations.

Do they really have that kind of spare time? Especially in light of recent news reports that Bin Laden was planning another large-scale attack on the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

More to the point, if all it takes are allegations made in the media to spark a fire in the "seat" of Congress, then I'd like to re-direct their attention along with Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, Attorney General Eric Holder, and President Obama to this month's Vanity Fair article written by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, "The Kingdom and the Towers."

The article details strong, credible allegations directly connecting Saudi financing to the 9/11 attacks. In fact, there are too many alarming, damning bits of information to adequately highlight here. You'll have to read the article for yourself.

When done reading, I hope that you, too, will question why 10 years later neither Congress nor our Justice Department is interested or willing to investigate the truth about Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

After all, some might say that Congress' attempt to go up against a ruthless bastard like Murdoch makes taking on the Saudis look like a proverbial walk in the park. But of course, that's what we'd all be doing -- walking -- if DOJ and Congress ever did seriously confront the Saudis, since we'd end up being a little short on oil.

The Red Line of Pakistan's Complicity?

2011-05-09T11:50:17-04:00

There are many unanswered questions and potential uncomfortable truths swirling around OBL's death.

While Pakistan's role in bin Laden's living conditions for the past seven years should absolutely be scrutinized (see below), please let's first examine the role of the entities that we actually had a reasonable expectation in locating bin Laden for the past seven years -- namely our U.S. intelligence agencies.

As a 9/11 widow, I fought very long and hard to make sure our intelligence agencies were operating at their optimal performance post-9/11. That's why I find it reprehensible that OBL was living in a million-dollar, custom-built home in the open Pakistani countryside, a mere mile from an ISI military base, 30 miles from Islamabad, and 100 miles from the Afghan mountains.

So please, with all the hullabaloo surrounding OBL's execution and the incredible cache of intelligence material found at OBL's compound, let's not lose sight of the fact that while it is undoubtedly a SOCOM success story, it is also a stunning seven-year-fumble by U.S. intelligence and foreign policy.

Abbottabad was not an unknown place to our intelligence agencies. It is a well-known military town, home to Pakistan's "West Point."

Abbottabad was also apparently a well-known destination for terrorists who, as it now turns out, might have been touching base with bin Laden during the past seven years.

For example, in 2005, al Qaeda's No. 3, Abu Faraj al-Libi, lived in the town before his arrest. Wasn't bin Laden's home just nearing completion in 2005?

Moreover, earlier this year, Indonesian terror suspect Umar Patek (wanted for the 2002 Bali bombings) was caught by Pakistani intelligence at a house in the town. Ironically, news reports stated at the time of his arrest in March: "Details about what Patek was doing in Pakistan also remain murky, raising questions about whether he was there to plan an attack with al-Qaida's top operational leaders as the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack nears."

Now, given its status as a home to an ISI military base and also the place of al-Libi's arrest in 05, why was Abbottabad not considered a ripe place to infiltrate back in '05?

If our spy satellites and eavesdropping capabilities were not geared toward this town and its installations since '05, then we need to know why.

What potentially more important Pakistani quadrant or target could NIMA, NGA, or NSA been calibrated to other than a military town like Abbottabad?

Will there be any post-mortem? Will old images be reviewed to determine if something was overlooked -- namely a six-foot bin Laden (or his shadow) strolling through his cabbage fields? Because it simply defies logic to believe that bin Laden never took a single stroll outdoors in sunlight during the past seven years.

Will anyone at NGA, NIMA, or NSA be held accountable for this seven-year failure? Or are we just too distracted by our victory and comfortable in our complacency to bother to look back, learn vital lessons, or hold anyone accountable?

And what about the CIA?

The big question for the CIA is what role, if any, Raymond Davis played in the taking down of OBL. Recall that Davis was the American who was arrested back in January for gunning down two men in Lahore. At the time, several media reports stated that Davis was CIA and had a history with both Special Forces and XE.

According to the Guardian, it was confirmed that Davis was a CIA agent who was "on assignment at the time" of the killings.

Additionally, when Davis was arrested, Pakistani officials remarked, "This is not the work of a diplomat. He was doing espionage and surveillance activities."

So what was Davis' assignment? And who were the men he killed? Did they have any relation to OBL? Or OBL's couriers?

Quite interestingly, the Guardian had this to report:

Some reports, quoting Pakistani intelligence officials, have suggested that the men Davis killed, Faizan Haider, 21, and Muhammad Faheem, 19, were agents of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency (ISI) and had orders to shadow Davis because he crossed a "red line."

ISI agents? A red line?? Wonder what that could be.

But perhaps what remains most damning to me when it comes to Pakistan and its blatant complicity of harboring OBL for the past seven years is what was so obviously missing during the SEAL's raid: any large-scale, legitimate resistance.

Here you had the world's most wanted individual. A $50 million bounty on his head. Stories heard throughout the past 10 years of a dizzying array of body doubles and bodyguards, a man who allegedly took his own security and protection to the paranoid extreme.

And yet, frankly speaking, those SEALS would have met more resistance breaching my residence in the middle of the night -- and all I've got are motion cameras, an alarm, and two dopey (though loyal) retrievers.

In short, it is downright suspicious that there were no bodyguards, body doubles, security personnel, alarms or even dogs protecting the world's most wanted man and his family.

It's almost as if OBL had a tacit understanding that he would be left alone and kept safe.

And considering the $1.5 BILLION in taxpayer dollars Congress hands over to Pakistan each year, I sure hope President Obama demands some answers. Because, it makes me sick to think that any of our tax dollars might have been spent on keeping OBL safe and worry-free for the past seven years.

Today Is Not a Day of Celebration for Me

2011-05-02T15:45:38-04:00

When my husband was killed on the morning of 9/11, television stations around the world ran split-screen video. They showed the buildings still burning juxtaposed against young Arabs celebrating in the streets. That disturbing vision left me incredulous; it was forever emblazoned on my psyche.

Ten years later, now fully awake in the bright sunlight of the day, when I contemplate the definition of victory for our country when it comes to the death of Osama bin Laden, I can only think about the damage that has been done.

I think about the thousands of lives lost -- American, Afghani, Iraqi. I know firsthand the sorrow those families have felt. I ponder how the billions -- maybe trillions -- of dollars could have been better spent. I remain alarmed about the continued expansion of absolute Executive power in the name of fighting this seemingly ongoing and never-ending "war on terror." I worry about the further erosion of our constitutional rights. I wonder when our troops will ever be called home. I know all too well, that thousands of young American men and women soldiers will never have the opportunity to return home. And of course, I fear reprisal.

But more than anything, I cannot seem to remove the optics of the giddy, gleeful throngs of Americans who took to the streets celebrating in the early morning hours.

Forgive me, but I don't want to watch uncorked champagne spill onto hallowed ground where thousands were murdered in cold blood.

And I don't want to see any ugly blood stained sheets as proof of death or justice.

Nor do I want to think about bullet-ridden corpses being dumped into the sea.

And it breaks my heart to witness young Americans cheer any death -- even the death of a horrible, evil, murderous person -- like it is some raucous tailgate party on a college campus.

Why are we not somber?

Where is the deeper, more meaningful reflection?

Haven't we learned any lessons in ten years? Paid any attention along the way? Gained any valuable wisdom? Are we really better off?

Can it ever be a true victory when so many don't even seem to comprehend the magnitude of what has been lost along the way? Or even what the future might hold?

Was it all worth it?

As my phone rings and the media looks toward me to give them their trite, warm soundbite of closure and elation, I have to be honest, today is not a day of celebration for me.

Justice for My Husband

2011-05-02T00:52:29-04:00

The news of the death of Osama bin Laden gives me a sense of long-awaited, meaningful closure.

Ten years since the senseless, heartless murder of my husband and 3,000 innocent others, final justice has been meted out -- though not swift it is certainly sweet.

My 12-year-old daughter will wake tomorrow to a safer world, hopefully a more peaceful world. And that brings me a rare sense of relief.

And I am enormously grateful for the tireless effort and incredible courage and bravery of our counter-terrorism agents who for ten long years remained focused and undeterred in their mission to capture and kill Osama bin Laden.

The Sad Defeat of Our Constitution

2011-04-04T17:10:23-04:00

Today I was given two hours of "advance notice" regarding DOJ's decision to not prosecute the remaining alleged 9/11 conspirators in an open court of law. According to DOJ's statement, the remaining individuals will be sent to military tribunals.

I recognize that there are many, many other things for Americans to be upset with today, but I hope everyone can take a second to contemplate this decision and recognize what it says about President Obama, the Department of Justice, and the United States.

As for the Department of Justice, it shows their inability to prosecute individuals who are responsible for the death of 3,000 people on the morning of 9/11. Apparently our Constitution and judicial system -- two of the very cornerstones that make America so great and used to set such a shining example to the rest of the world -- are not adequately set up to respond to or deal with the aftermath of terrorism. To me, this is a startling and dismal acknowledgment that perhaps Osama Bin Laden did, in fact, win on the morning of 9/11. And chillingly, I wonder whether it wasn't just the steel towers that were brought down and incinerated on 9/11, but the yellowed pages of our U.S. Constitution, as well.

And what does it say about the solemn capabilities of our Department of Justice if it is left to "subcontract out" its duties and responsibilities to the Department of Defense? We should all think about that scary notion for a bit. But, perhaps more disturbingly recognize that it is not occurring under the tutelage of Bush and Cheney, rather it is coming at the hands of Obama.

At least when President Bush was in office, he was candid about his feelings regarding the alleged 9/11 conspirators in our custody. He didn't care about them. He allowed them to be tortured. He was fine letting them rot in the heat of Guantanamo for all of eternity. They were less than human to him and he certainly was never going to afford them the benefits of our U.S. Constitution or the Geneva Conventions. That was President Bush. Whether you agreed or disagreed with him, you, at least, knew where he stood. And you could, like it or not, rely on his word.

For the past two years, it's been President Obama in the Oval Office. Quite early on in his presidency, Obama invited the 9/11 families to the White House to discuss 9/11-related issues. During this meeting in Feb '09 the topic of closing Guantanamo and the use of Article 3 courts to prosecute the remaining alleged 9/11 conspirators was discussed. Many of us were incredibly relieved to learn that as a matter of course President Obama was going to shut down Guantanamo and support the open prosecution of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. He gave us -- the various widows and children at the meeting -- his golden word. He shook our hands. He smiled broadly. He posed for pictures. (In fact, several weeks later many of the widows even received hand signed courtesy copies of these photos from Obama -- a nice touch. I did not receive such a photo.)

It's been almost ten years now since my husband was killed. My daughter has gone from a 2-year-old to a 12-year-old. Our country has started two -- and now maybe three -- pointless, misguided, costly wars. And if it wasn't already difficult enough to accept that Osama Bin Laden will probably never be caught or held accountable, now I have to swallow the fact that I will never see constitutional justice for the handful of individuals we actually hold in custody. In short, justice in a court of law for the murder of my husband and 3,000 others will never come.

I suppose in life timing is everything. To me, as a lawyer and a 9/11 widow, DOJ's announcement today acknowledges the sad defeat of our U.S. Constitution when it comes to 9/11. How truly tragic in my eyes. And you would think that a man who was once a constitutional law professor might feel the same way. Yet, not so much for President Barack Obama who has chosen this great day to announce his billion-dollar campaign for re-election. His slogan asking us to "join in" by writing him a check.

First, I've never been much of an "in"-sider. Second, I truly wonder how you can trust a leader who carries no compunction to keep his promises or his word -- whether those words and promises were made in support of gay rights, to not start or perpetuate illegal/useless/costly military campaigns (or wars), in support of environmental causes even to the detriment of big business, to put an immediate end to torture and unlawful detainment, to rein in the bloat and greed of Wall Street, to oppose gun control, or to correct the broad overreach of a previous administration.

But perhaps most pointedly, if you can't trust what a man says to a group of widows and children, then what words and promises of his can you trust?

So President Obama, am I IN? Will you be receiving my check?

Hell no.

Because I'm tired of gambling on your hope, believing in your promises, and being thrown under your bus.

Representative Peter "King: of Hypocrites"

2011-03-10T09:59:50-05:00

According to The Hill, Peter King will be holding hearings this morning to fulfill his "congressional duty and probe one of the most serious threats to national security." 

Really? That's interesting because back in 2002 when 9/11 families were fighting for the creation of the 9/11 Commission, Peter King -- Republican Congressman of NY -- had no interest in supporting it.

Indeed, as one of the 9/11 widows who lobbied Congress seeking support for a 9/11 Commission to probe one of the most serious attacks to our nation, I distinctly recall walking into King's office and noticing his Sinn Fein mementos strewn about his office, along with several photos of King with Gerry Adams -- a terrorist.

In fact, at one point I recall even being invited to a gathering to meet Adams. As I tried to figure out just what kind of person's support I was trying to get, my head swam. I mean, I was a woman whose husband was just murdered by terrorists. And to me, a terrorist was a terrorist.

But let's flash back to 2011, where King currently says that he, "will not allow political correctness to obscure a real and dangerous threat to the safety and security of the citizens of the United States."

Once again, that's just so funny because as I recall back in 2002 Representative King certainly allowed his own political correctness to obscure his support of the 9/11 Commission when like a chump he blindly followed orders from President Bush and Vice President Cheney and vehemently opposed any public investigation into the attacks that killed 3000 people.

Indeed, back in '02 the "safety and security of the citizens of the United States" didn't seem so pressing and paramount to WH fall-guy Representative Peter King.

Today, King says that,"he doesn't want to feel guilty for not going forward in case another attack, like that of Sept. 11, 2001, takes place." According to The Hill, King "has blamed the mainstream media for inciting the public over an issue he says is vital to the national security -- and which has not been adequately addressed so far."  King says, "What are they afraid of? What are they hiding from?"

Gee, once again, I'm sorry to say this but I certainly don't recall King asking Bush or Cheney what they were so afraid of or what they might be hiding back in 2002. That would have been nice.

Which is probably why this little nugget uttered by King on Morning Joe, is just so rich:

I can take the hits, that doesn't bother me at all.  I don't ever want it on my conscience that if another attack comes, I wake up the next morning and say, 'I backed down to political correctness, I backed down to The Washington Post, or the left-wing New York Times, because I was afraid of political retribution.' I'm going to do what I have to do, and I'm going to do it.

Wow. I wonder if that wide stance and swagger comes with a 10-gallon hat and a loaded gun, too.

Rooting for Egypt

2011-02-11T18:35:16-05:00

Today's victory of the peaceful Egyptian protesters torpedoes the notion that the only effective means to an end in the Middle East must center on violence.

For two weeks now, the news covering the Egyptian Revolution has been split between two very clear groups: those who supported authentic democracy in the streets; and others who locked into their own fear or hypocrisy saw the protestors as a grave threat to our "security."

Indeed warnings were whispered about the terrible things that could happen if the "wrong" people were put into power in Egypt. Radical Islamic leaders could step up to power and destroy the region; Egyptians are incapable of achieving their own democracy: WWIII is on its way; and of course, the sky was also falling.

Yet for two weeks, many of us continued to "naively" believe in these brave, young Egyptians. Along with my 11-year-old daughter, I sat riveted and inspired as we witnessed a people's -- not a leader's or a ruling elite's -- peaceful revolution. Recognizing that the protestors' courage was not driven by religion or anger but by a common and peacefulunderstanding that Egyptians simply deserved and wanted better for themselves and their country.

Fancy that -- peace -- being used as a means to an end in the Middle East. Who would ever dare to think it? But we did.

So, when Homeland Security Advisor Janet Napolitano commented this week about the continued risk of another terrorist attack, it brought UBL and my fear of violence back to the forefront. Napolitano literally killed my Egyptian-high.

And given the timing of Napolitano's statements dovetailing with the events unfolding in Tahrir Square, I almost thought it was another play on fear. But then I remembered that Bush was no longer in office.

What did induce fear in me, however, was how breathtakingly off-base and out-of-touch some of our leaders and experts seemed to be on the Egyptian situation. Clearly, there needs to be a postmortem. And given CIA's recent past history of being "duped" by other Middle East dictators/tyrants, I hope that any excuse given based on Mubarak misleading them, or reneging on a promise is flatly rejected. Egypt is the second largest recipient of US foreign aid and also considered an ally. It is frankly stunning to consider that we did not have a better handle and more reliable "intelligence" on the situation.

But at this point for me, the most meaningful takeaway has been the Egyptian protestors incredible ability to achieve their victory while remaining peaceful throughout.

On the days when Mubarak's people injected violence into the crowd, they stood strong and stayed peaceful. In the hours when the they looked for encouragement and found only shaky support from nations like the United States, they remained steadfast and peaceful. For the weeks when faced with very little food, water, shelter, or modern comforts, the protestors remained calm, hopeful, but above all else, peaceful.

For a group of people who allegedly shouldn't dare be trusted nor given a chance to run their own country, they sure showed us all a thing or two.

For a population who undoubtedly has been under-educated, oppressed, and neglected for 30 years, these young, underestimated Egyptians certainly found a sophisticated, organized, and thoughtful voice.

Indeed, it would seem a most noble voice for the rest of the world to follow.

In the very shaky, difficult days ahead, both my daughter and I will be rooting for that noble voice to remain true.

Egypt: Skin in the Game

2011-02-02T16:10:31-05:00

How absolutely exhilarating to watch the events unfold in Egypt. As I sit with my daughter who has been studying Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia telling her to watch closely since history is unfolding right before our eyes, I can't help to worry and wonder what impact this will have on our troops that are still fighting in Iraq. Will this affect the complete U.S. troop withdrawal date of December 31, 2011?

Of course the irony is not lost on me.

Nearly 8 long years ago, the Iraq War was wrongfully started under the guise of spreading democracy in the Middle East. And now, I sit and watch real democracy take to the streets of Cairo and Alexandria brought on by -- not armies, intelligence officers, and private contractors from misguided nations -- but regular, average Egyptian citizens who are simply fed up.

How absolutely incredible to think that in the land of the Pharaoh's where slaves centuries ago built the mighty pyramids, now thanks to the peaceful weapons of the Internet, Facebook, and Twitter such regular working class people are finally having a say in the course of their country.

And as someone who once went up against the forces of government with an interest to hold leaders accountable for the events of 9/11, I happen to enjoy seeing average people empowered by their collective desire to affect change. It inspires me. It gives me real hope.

But where is everybody else in this clarion call for democracy?

Yes, it would seem to be a pretty dark day, and again ironic, when Senator John Kerry is the only person in the room willing to openly embrace the sort of non-CIA led, non-Muslim Brotherhood provoked, and apparently non-Mossad approved democracy unfolding in the streets of Egypt.

Indeed, Senator Kerry seems to grasp the fact that democracy doesn't come a la carte.

So, thank you Senator Kerry for your courage while the rest of our leaders, intellectuals, and experts squirm uncomfortably in their seats buying time, couching words, mincing phrases, waiting for the prevailing breezes. Hypocrites all. Not so easy to support democracy when it conflicts with one of your sidebar interests. Forget about courage when you don't yet know which way the wind blows.

Admittedly, I, too, worry about who will fill the vacuum left by Mubarak. I am aware of the consequences, the unknowns. But that is not because I fear rising oil prices, or worry about Israel, or remain concerned with Obama's unsteady response and how it will ultimately shakeout in the Arab world -- whether it might serve to inspire extremism and anti-American sentiment.

What most concerns me right now is whether the events unfolding in Egypt will directly affect Obama's handling of the other "tricky" situation: Iraq.

And all I can say is that I hope Obama remains steady with his promise of our complete troop withdrawal on December 31, 2011.