Although additional evidence regarding the severity of America’s debt crisis should not be necessary, Standard & Poors provided some more, lowering its future outlook for United States creditworthiness from “stable” to “negative.” That move effectively amounts to a warning that the nation needs to put its fiscal house in order or face disastrous consequences.

Standard & Poors did not downgrade the United States’ actual credit rating, which remains at AAA/A-1+, Standard & Poors’ highest possible score. Instead, the agency is putting the nation on notice that if we don’t do something to start paying down our massive debt, our national credit rating could be downgraded in the future. The United States has never had a credit rating below AAA with Standard & Poors, and of the 127 nations that the agency rates, only nineteen have AAA ratings.

Losing that AAA rating would be a disaster for the country, meaning that the United States government would have to offer higher interest rates when selling its debt, which would in turn lead to even more government spending. In issuing its warning, Standard & Poors noted how the federal government’s debt varied between two and five per cent of GDP from 2003 through 2008. That, the agency said, is a higher percentage than it usually allows in the case of other nations that carry the treasured top rating.

In 2009, the first year of the Obama administration, the nation’s debt load exploded to eleven per cent of GDP and has yet to come down, prompting the Standard & Poors outlook warning. “The outlook reflects our view of the increased risk that the political negotiations over when and how to address both the medium- and long-term fiscal challenges will persist until at least after national elections in 2012,” said S&P credit analyst Nikola Swann.

The magnitude of our national debt, now in excess of $14 trillion, and our commitment to paying out entitlement programs is hard to fathom. According to economist Bruce Bartlett, meeting all of our unfunded Social Security and Medicare commitments would require an immediate eighty one per cent increase in federal income taxes, which would have to remain in effect forever. The gap between revenues to meet entitlement commitments and the commitments themselves stands at approximately $100 trillion today and the longer we do nothing, the bigger that chasm becomes.

"Intelligence agencies slammed over Christmas plot," by Eli Lake in the Washington Times, May 19:

A scathing new Senate report is blaming nearly every facet of the U.S. intelligence community for failing to connect the dots on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian national who attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet en route from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day.

The unclassified summary released late Tuesday found 14 specific faults in the intelligence community's actions prior to the Christmas Day failed bombing that saw an agent of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula nearly detonate a military-grade explosive sewn into his underwear.

The report for example faults the State Department for failing to revoke Mr. Abdulmutallab's visa; the CIA for failing to disseminate intelligence on him to other relevant agencies; the National Security Agency for failing to put Mr. Abdulmutallab on a "watch list"; and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) for failing to connect reporting on the Christmas Day bomber and to conduct additional research on him.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said, "The attempted Christmas Day attack was marked by several intelligence failures."

Mrs. Feinstein's Republican counterpart on the committee, Senator Christopher S. "Kit" Bond, offered an equally harsh assessment.

"Unfortunately, there is no longer any doubt that major intelligence failures allowed the Christmas Day bomber to almost turn our airplanes into deadly weapons once again," the Missouri lawmaker said in a statement. "We cannot depend on dumb luck, incompetent terrorists and alert citizens to keep our families safe. It is critical we make changes to prevent these types of intelligence failures in the future."...

Indeed. But the changes that need to be made are not on the horizon.

A federal agency has rejected a request for a trademark by the organization "Stop Islamization of America" because its name may "disparage" Muslims.

The group launched by Atlas Shrugs blogger Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has drawn national attention for its bus-sign campaign offering support for Muslims who want to leave Islam. SIOA currently is organizing opposition to plans for an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero in New York City.

Now the group reports the U.S. government has refused its request for a trademark designation for its name.

The government response, posted on the site, states, "The applied-for mark refers to Muslims in a disparaging manner because by definition it implies that conversion or conformity to Islam is something that needs to be stopped or caused to cease.

"The proposed mark further disparages Muslims because, taking into account the nature of the services ('providing information regarding understanding and preventing terrorism'), it implies that Islam is associated with violence and threats," the government agency said.

"The trademark examining attorney refers to the excerpted articles from the LEXISNEXIS® computerized database referencing how many Muslims view terrorists as illegitimate adherents of Islam. ... Therefore, the suggestion that Islam equates terrorism would be disparaging to a substantial group of Muslims," it said.

Geller commented in a report on the group's site

"It is everywhere, folks, in every aspect of our lives from the big stuff (Major Hasan cover-up) to the minutia (trademark registration)," she said. "Take a look at this. Robert and I registered the name Stop Islamization of American for trademark. It was refused."

A link to a 20-page summary from the government's office of trademark applications listed definitions for Islam and terror.

"Accordingly, the applied-for mark is refused under Section 2(a) because it consists of matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute Muslims and the Islamic religion," the government report said....

OTTAWA - Canada's spy agency is keeping tabs on more than 200 people within the country it says are suspected terrorists.

Richard Fadden, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, told the parliamentary public safety committee Tuesday that his clandestine organization's "No. 1 priority" is protecting Canadians from the "threat of al-Qaida, its affiliates and its adherents."

"In that regard, I can say that as of this month, CSIS is investigating over 200 individuals in this country whose activities meet the definition of terrorism as set out in the (Anti-Terrorism) act," Fadden said, adding they are also monitoring people abroad.

"It is also worth mentioning that the service maintains an active interest in the threat-related activities of a number of non-citizens who have ties to Canada, whether through former residence here or family links."

Since the terrorism attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the spy agency's budget has skyrocketed 72%, and Fadden said 45% of its overall budget is spent on "counter-terrorism" in Canada and internationally.

But the idea there are more than 200 people in Canada whose activities are technically terrorism doesn't worry Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.

"I think it's a credit to CSIS in terms of the work that they are doing monitoring certain individuals," Toews said. It's clear that there is a concern by CSIS and by other organizations that there is a radicalization occurring among certain individuals and that we need to take steps to ensure that Canadians are safe.

"I am confident in my briefings with CSIS that they have a good understanding of what is happening in Canada in that respect."

TEHRAN - An Iranian navy plane that came close to a US aircraft carrier in the Gulf was filming the vessel, the Fars news agency quoted Iran's naval chief as saying on Tuesday.

"The F27 plane of the navy flew above this aircraft carrier and took a thorough film. Despite the carrier's objection we insist that this is our right," the agency quoted Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayari as saying.

On April 21, the Iranian aircraft came as close as 1,000 yards (915 metres) to the USS Eisenhower in the international waters south of Iran, a senior US military officer said, adding that nothing had come of the incident.

The US commander, who requested anonymity, said the aircraft had stayed at that distance for about 20 minutes, but pointed out that "all interaction with the aircraft was routine and correct."

The incident happened on the eve of war games conducted by Iran's Revolutionary Guards in the Gulf and the strategic Strait of Hormuz oil route.

The American officer said US Navy ships operating in the Gulf region "routinely have Iranian maritime patrol aircraft fly by their positions -- almost on a daily basis."

Iran's air force chief said at the time that the Islamic Republic was entitled to conducting routine surveillance flights and "no one can object to this."...

No one will, whether or not they can.

Don't know much about history;
Don't know much biology;
Don't know much about a science book;
Don't know much about the French I took;

But I do know that Allah hates you*;
And I know that if we blame the Jews,
What a halal world this would be.

*Sahih Bukhari 2.24.255: "Allah has hated you" for asking too many questions.

"Three schools blown up in Orakzai Agency," from Dawn, April 29:

PESHAWAR: Three schools were blown up by militants in the Mamozai area of upper Orakzai Agency on Thursday.

The attacks were the latest in a slew of militant violence. On Wednesday, suspected militants attacked a checkpoint in Beizot. Forces retaliated and killed five suspected militants and injured several others.

Five suspected militants were also arrested in Mishit-Mela and Ferozekhel.

It has been almost four weeks since the Orakzai operation was launched in the agency, in which troops claim to have killed over 400 militants so far.

Security forces also claim to have consolidated their positions in most parts of the lower Orakzai and now claim to be advancing towards the central part of the agency.

In the Khyber Agency at least five militants have been killed and 18 others have been arrested including two commanders of Lashkar-e-Islam in Bara Tehsil.

Pop quiz: What does Amish population in Lancaster County, Pa. and the diverse populations in Chicago’s Cook County, IL have in common? Answer: They both have thousands of children who have never been vaccinated, and don’t have autism.

For years parents have voiced their concerns over the rise in Autism and a suspected link to childhood vaccines. In spite of assurances that there are no “credible connections” between Autism and vaccinations, many parents have not been convinced, and refuse to immunize their children.

A new study from Environmental Protection Agency may have discovered the missing link between vaccines and autism, which could vindicate parental instincts and strengthen a key component of the conservative platform.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s new study has shown a connection between the use of cells from aborted babies, and the sky rocking increase of autism.

According to reports, the study pinpoints 1988 as a significant date because that’s when the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended adding the second dose of the MMR vaccine, containing cells from aborted babies.

According to LifeNews:

“The study found two other change point dates: 1981, two years after MMRII was approved in the United States with fetal cells, and 1995, when SCPI says the chickenpox vaccine using aborted cells was approved.”

“Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League, said today that his group is joining SCPI in calling for a Fair Labeling and Informed Consent Act to let people know of this link and the use of cells from babies victimized by abortion.”

When you look at the 1988 date when aborted cell lines came into use, it becomes clear why autism has been skyrocketing since the early nineties. Autism has a 1,148 percent growth rate, with the population of autistic children doubling every four years.

Until this new study, all parents could cite was anecdotal evidence from other parents, and by family practices like Homefirst Health Services in Chicago.

Homefirst Health Services is an obstetric and pediatric practice in the metropolitan Chicago area that has cared for an estimated 35,000 children over the years. It claims to have never seen a single case of autism in a child it has delivered and whose parents have opted out of vaccinations.

The Amish in Lancaster is another population who is both unvaccinated and autism free, there too, autism is largely unknown.

These populations of autism free children have been virtually ignored. Nonetheless federal health authorities and the vast majority of medical professionals have steadfastly denied that there is any link between autism and vaccinations. They have continued to add new recommendations to the immunization schedule.

Feminists have been a fierce champion of the abortion industry, and the Hollywood Left has been vocal in accusing vaccines of being the culprit behind autism.

Do you think the Left could put away its disdain of Conservatives long enough to join forces and get the DNA of aborted babies out of the nation’s vaccines?

The recent capture of the Afghan Taliban's second in command seemed to signal a turning point in Pakistan, an indication that its intelligence agency had gone from providing help to cracking down on the militant Islamist group.

But U.S. officials now believe that even as Pakistani security forces worked with American counterparts to detain Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and other insurgents, the country's Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, or ISI, quietly freed at least two senior Afghan Taliban figures it had captured on its own.

U.S. military and intelligence officials said the releases, detected by spy agencies but not publicly disclosed, are evidence that parts of Pakistan's security establishment continue to support the Afghan Taliban. This assistance underscores how complicated the CIA-ISI relationship remains at a time when the United States and Pakistan are both battling insurgencies that straddle the Afghanistan border and are increasingly anxious about how the war in that country will end.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity and declined to disclose the names of the Taliban figures who were released, citing the secrecy surrounding U.S. monitoring of the ISI. But officials said the freed captives were high-ranking Taliban members and would have been recognized as insurgents the United States would want in custody.

The capture of Baradar was "positive, any way you slice it," said a U.S. counter-terrorism official. "But it doesn't mean they've cut ties at every level to each and every group." Initial reports said the arrest had occurred in February, but U.S. officials say that it took place in late January.

U.S. officials believe that Pakistan continues to pursue a hedging strategy in seeking to maintain relationships with an array of entities -- including the U.S. and Afghan governments, as well as insurgent networks -- struggling to shape the outcome in Afghanistan, even as it aggressively battles the Pakistani branch of the Taliban.

The ISI wants "to be able to resort to the hard power option of supporting groups that can take Kabul" if the United States suddenly leaves, said a U.S. military advisor briefed on the matter. The ISI's relationship with the Afghan Taliban was forged under similar circumstances in the 1990s, when the spy service backed the fledgling Islamist movement as a solution to the chaos that followed the Soviet withdrawal. [...]

Even after the Baradar arrest, some U.S. intelligence officials cautioned against seeing the capture as a decisive turn.

High-ranking U.S. intelligence officials acknowledge that they have a very limited understanding of the ISI. CIA veterans who have worked closely with the agency describe it as sprawling and so compartmentalized that units working alongside the CIA might have little knowledge of the activities of the so-called "S" directorate that maintains ties to insurgent groups....

General Michael Vincent Hayden served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from May, 2006 until February, 2009. He is a retired United States Air Force four-star general and a former Director of the National Security Agency. Currently, Hayden is a principal at the Chertoff Group, a security consultancy, co-founded by former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Hayden also serves as a Distinguished Visiting Professor at George Mason University School of Public Policy. NewsReal Blog interviewed General Hayden and found him to be engaging, witty, and insightful.

Click here for part 2 of this interview. And here for Part 1.

NRB: It appears that despite this administration’s criticism of President Bush’s policies President Obama has kept a number of them. Am I correct?

Hayden: Absolutely, Let me recount. They are following the Bush policies on rendition, military commissions, indefinite detentions, continue to argue the case for state secrets, and are threatening to veto legislation that requires the President to brief more members of Congress on covert actions.

NRB: Doesn’t that imply that President Obama has felt a lot of the interrogation tactics were appropriate?

Hayden: President Obama limited the interrogation tactics to the army field manual but did not technically outlaw anything. Remember, he took the interrogation tactics off the table by executive order but apparently does not want them taken off by legislation. It is kind of interesting and does imply he wants to keep some flexibility (as well as preserving executive prerogatives.)

NRB: Were there any instances where the Obama administration broke away from the Bush policies?

Hayden: He ended the CIA interrogation program. I opposed the decision but not the President’s right to make that decision.

NRB: It seems to me that the Department of Justice is going after the CIA. Do you agree?

Hayden: It was a mistake to release all the DOJ memos and a mistake to allow the re-investigation of a 5 year old case against CIA officers. This is an agency right now that is worried if anyone has their back.

NRB: Recently, pictures were taken of CIA operatives in Northern Virginia, by defense attorneys, and shown to the terrorists at Gitmo. The DOJ seems to be dragging its feet investigating this-any comment?

Hayden: People at the agency had been concerned that Justice seemed to be ignoring it. If these investigations are not pursued with some energy it’s just going to make the problem worse. This appears to be a violation of the law. I think the involvement of Patrick Fitzgerald in the investigation has given the folks at the Agency more confidence that this is now being pursued.

NRB: Are you upset that this is not getting much media attention?

Hayden: I am outraged that it was a one day story and not many have followed it up. The press was all over the Valerie Plame incident, which was also about protecting the identity of a CIA officer. It became a national story with a constant drumbeat. This was a one day event that went away.

NRB: The Congressional Democrats want to insert into the authorization bill a provision that would require the videotaping of interrogations. How do you feel about this?

Hayden: Videotaping is necessary to preserve evidence for a federal trial. CIA interrogates people for their intelligence value. The Obama administration made it quite clear that the videotaping requirement would be an unacceptable provision of the law. Why tape CIA interrogations and not apply it to DOD? Why would we do it? In the history of the Republic the US has interrogated hundreds of thousands, if not millions of enemy combatants and it was done without videotaping.

NRB: What would you want the American public to understand?

Hayden: The Declaration of Independence stated that we have an organized government to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We need to balance our actions with protecting those three ideals: the need to protect our life, our security, and our liberties. This calls for very hard choices.

Frontpge Interview’s guest today is Asaf Romirowsky, a Senior Fellow at the Endowment for Middle East Truth and an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum.

FP: Asaf Romirowsky, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Canada has become the first country to defund from UNRWA. It is the first Western government to do so. Tell us about UNRWA and this Canadian move.

Romirowsky: Thank you for having me

To an outsider, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) seems to be a UN humanitarian group aiding Palestinian refugees. In reality however, it helps destroy the chances of Arab-Israeli peace, promotes terrorism, and holds back Palestinian society from ever achieving statehood.

There has been much evidence to show how UNRWA schools have become hotbeds of anti-Western, anti-American, and anti-Semitic indoctrination, as well as recruiting offices for Islamist terror groups. UNRWA is the largest employer of Palestinians as such the local offices are dominated by radicals who staff and subsidize Islamist groups while potentially intimidating anyone from voicing a different line. UNRWA facilities and vehicles are used to store and transport weapons, and have actually served as military bases.

In this process, UNRWA has broken all the rules that are presumed to govern humanitarian enterprises, encouraging their resettlement, avoiding political stances, and putting refugees in danger. But by design, UNRWA is the exact opposite of other refugee relief operations, such as those orchestrated by the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR).

UNRWA defines a “refugee” in the broadest terms by including not only those Arabs who fled from territories held by Israel, but also those who stayed in their homes and lost their source of livelihood as a result of war. Today, this would include all third- and fourth-generation children of refugees, even those of just one Palestinian refugee parent.

UNRWA in its current make up is a liability for many reasons. For one, it affords its employees U.N. diplomatic immunity, it undercuts the organization’s accountability. UNRWA workers have abused their diplomatic privilege to engage in or encourage terrorism. Television crews have filmed UNRWA employees escorting armed Palestinian fighters in U.N. vehicles. Agency-operated – and, by extension, America-funded – schools decorate their classrooms with flags and banners celebrating terrorist groups.

Currently, all UNRWA has to do when it goes to request monies from the United States is to say that they take care of the betterment of the Palestinian refugees without any kind of actual transparency and accountability of what they actual do to further that agenda. The United States which funds a third of UNRWA’s annual budget deserves checks and balances from any agency it finances especially, UNRWA.

As a result of the above, Canada has become the first Western country to demand the type of accountability and responsibility that a donor country deserves by saying NO to UNRWA and only allocating monies to certain Palestinian projects within the Palestinian Authority that can show how they evaluate their work and prove their effectiveness.

Given that one of the chief policy issues for the United States is how to aid in mobilizing donors, both public and private, for a financial infusion of aid resources to finance refugee compensation (and resettlement, immigration, and rehabilitation) as well as the permanent status agreement in general. It would behoove us to follow the Canadian example which would allow our tax dollars to be spent on promoting independent Palestinian organizations and private-sector growth.

FP: How did it come to pass that UNRWA became as you describe it and that this was allowed to actually take place?

Romirowsky: UNRWA was created as a temporary organization that has no end in sight. As such, UNRWA is here 60 plus years later still maintaining and sustaining the Palestinian refugee status.

While the refugees benefit from UNRWA, the organization benefits more from the refugees. These refugees are the organization’s raison d’etre. Accordingly, UNRWA has zero incentive to resolve the Palestinian refugee problem; ending the refugee problem would render the agency obsolete.

The interests of the refugees and UNRWA are so intertwined that UNRWA is staffed in situ mainly by local Palestinians—more than 23,000 of them—with only about 100 international United Nations professionals. While the U.N. High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) and UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Fund) avoid employing locals who are also recipients of agency services, UNRWA does not make this distinction.

Thus, in the interest of self-perpetuation, UNRWA seeks to maintain the violent status quo in the Middle East, even if it means turning a blind eye to terror.

FP: What more can be done about stopping this kind of abuse represented by UNRWA? What form of action do you advocate? What Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has done is clearly a step in the right direction.

Romirowsky: Indeed – Canada’s actions regarding UNRWA under Stephen Harper’s leadership are without a doubt a step in the right direction and more donor countries should be adopting this very policy. As I see it, there are four basic steps that can be taken which are highly reasonable as it concerns UNRWA.

First, UNRWA should ultimately be dissolved.

Second, all the services UNRWA currently provides should be transferred to other agencies within the UN, notably the UNHCR, which have a long experience in such programs. In addition, these activities must be subject to normal transparency and accountability.

Third, to the greatest possible extent, responsibility for normal social services should be turned over to the Palestinian Authority. A large portion of the UNRWA staff should be transferred to that governmental authority. Donors should use the maximum amount of oversight to ensure this be done effectively.

Fourth, the text books used by UNRWA should be subject to oversight to ensure that the teach co-existence and peace between Arabs and Jews.

People often wonder why it is that violence and instability persists after so many years regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict and especially the Palestinian element therein. Why is this issue so seemingly impossible to resolve?

A part of the answer is that UNRWA does not work towards a resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem. In fact, the opposite is true. UNRWA perpetuates the problem. All those seeking real progress toward peace between Israelis and Palestinians need to take a close look at this unacceptable situation.

FP: Asaf Romirowsky, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

General Michael Vincent Hayden served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from May, 2006 until February, 2009. He is a retired United States Air Force four-star general and a former Director of the National Security Agency. Currently, Hayden is a principal at the Chertoff Group, a security consultancy, co-founded by former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Hayden also serves as a Distinguished Visiting Professor at George Mason University School of Public Policy. NewsReal Blog interviewed General Hayden and found him to be engaging, witty, and insightful.

Click here for Part 1 of this interview.

NRB: What is the biggest threat to America today?

Hayden: Al Qaeda. If they could attack us in a massive way they would. If they can’t attack us in a massive way, they may choose to attack us in a way less threatening but more difficult to prevent.

NRB: Pakistan and the US captured the Taliban’s top military commander, Mullah Baradar, in a joint operation. Why weren’t we the ones to interrogate him?

Hayden: The Pakistanis are interrogating him. This has happened before. I doubt that they are following the Army Field Manual (AFM) either for interrogation or for the conditions of confinement. I am NOT claiming, however, that his treatment is cruel, inhuman or unlawful—just that it’s probably not governed by the AFM.

NRB: Do you agree with how quickly The Christmas Day Bomber was Mirandized?

Hayden: You don’t Mirandize in less than an hour. We don’t have many terrorists that we can talk to and gain information. Mirandizing is about prosecution whereas intelligence is about information. He is truly a military combatant. He is an Al Qaeda combatant, recruited by Al Qaeda, trained by Al Qaeda, motivated by Al Qaeda, and continuing the Al Qaeda plan to kill Americans. He made Detroit into a battlefield of the war. We should interrogate him with the strongest tools available and not offer him a lawyer where he has the option to remain silent.

NRB: With that logic, should Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) not be tried in a federal court?

Hayden: You have major figures like Attorney General Holder wanting to do it in this venue to showcase our justice system. Yet, they talk about guilt being evident. This is at the beginning of a process in which KSM is presumed innocent. Oh by the way, if he is declared innocent what are we doing to do with him? We have already made it clear we are never going to release him.

NRB: Do you fear that KSM’s trial will turn into a trial of the CIA?

Hayden: I fear when this process gets under way KSM’s defense counsel will try to make a centerpiece of the case; his treatment and detention by the CIA.

NRB: What is your opinion on the self-radicalized Americans such as Major Hassan, the Fort Hood murderer, and Jihad Jane to name a few?

Hayden: We have seen disturbing events over the past year. This looks like the new flavor of threat to the US. Al Qaeda is a thinking enemy. They say “OK they are looking for Middle Eastern men between the ages of 20 and 40.” If you over concentrate on that you will miss other people who are real threats. Al Qaeda is trying to recruit people who would not raise eyebrows at Dulles. Prudence requires a broad view.

NRB: For what type of attack are we most vulnerable?

Hayden: One of the fears I have is that Al Qaeda will go to school on the Mumbai attacks. In the past, they have only gone for the spectacular: blowing up the Pentagon, the World Trade Center. Mumbai was pretty low tech, just 12 guys with automatic weapons and cell phones; yet, it had great political impact. A low tech attack would be less devastating but harder to detect and prevent. My greatest fear is that Al Qaeda will back away from the spectacular and start working on these less difficult to mount attacks, but still with great political affect.

NRB: Do you think these types of attacks would freeze the country?

Hayden: Yes. First thing we would do is to react to the type of attack or its target and that would have an economic impact on the country.

NRB: It seems that a lot of those self radicalized Jihadists had contact with Al Qaeda through the internet. Is that correct?

Hayden: Al Qaeda has used the web to get their message out. They use it as an element of recruitment. At some point they establish human contact that guides and vets the recruit.

NRB: Should we put more restrictions on the internet?

Hayden: The whole question of the internet with regard to terrorism is a very complex issue. Even I, someone with a career in intelligence and security, understand the 1st Amendment’s importance, the internet being a vehicle for free speech. However, there is a difference between speech and doing something harmful.

NRB: Speaking of the spectacular do we have to worry about Al Qaeda obtaining a weapon of mass destruction (WMD)?

Hayden: The absolute consensus in the intelligence community is if Al Qaeda got their hands on it they will use it- that is the real danger.

NRB: What role does Iran play in the WMD roulette?

Hayden: Based on what I know the danger of Iran having a WMD is Iran having those weapons. It is hard for me to believe they would give it to Sunni extremists like Al Qaeda. My point is that it’s bad enough for the Iranians getting it without secondary scenarios.

NRB: Do you think Iran will obtain a WMD?

Hayden: The recently revealed secret facility in Qom leads me to believe that they intend to get a weapon. My personal view is that they are determined to have a weapon. If not a weapon, they intend to be in a permanent breakout state where they will have everything in place and will be able to create a weapon in a relatively short time.

NRB: Would being in permanent breakout capability be the best of all worlds for Iran?

Hayden: Yes, that may actually be their sweet spot. If they have this capability everyone in the region could go postal.

NRB: Is there any way to stop or deter the Iranians?

Hayden: The Iranian government’s decision making process has always been a mystery. I am not sure if it’s able to have a functional decision making process. How do you deter a state that may not act as a rational actor?

NRB: Did the National Intelligence Estimate of 2007(a report on Iran’s nuclear capability) get it wrong?

Hayden: Be very careful. What it said was that we have evidence that Iran stopped the development of a warhead in 2003 and we had moderate confidence they had not resumed it when we issued the NIE report in December, 2007.
You need to understand that three events needed to happen:
a. They needed fissile material which is currently on going
b. They needed a delivery system, missiles, which is currently on going
c. They had to work on the technology to put the material into something small and rugged enough to put on top of a missile, the war head which is what we discussed in the report.

NRB: American Jihadist Sharif Mobley worked in a nuclear power plant. My fear is that people like him will volunteer or be recruited by Al Qaeda; people able to infiltrate or gain access to radioactive materials. Can you comment?

Hayden: You stated the problem clearly. It requires vigilance and intelligence. What we did after 9/11 is not sit on the goal line and play defense but penetrate enemy cells. This disrupts Al Qaeda and makes us less dependent on catching every potential danger. We should be playing offense and disrupting them rather than just figuring out who they may be recruiting among us. The best counter terrorism tool is penetrating the other guy’s network.

NRB: Is there anything we can be optimistic about regarding Al Qaeda’s plots?

Hayden: Take for example the Christmas Day Bomber. Our intelligence as well as other tools has pushed them into this type of attack. They used a low probability weapon that usually doesn’t work with a guy that they hardly vetted and trained. If they held him any longer we would know who he was.

NRB: To use a metaphor, are we getting Al Qaeda to strike out?

Hayden: It’s not that they are planning to go low tech, they just can’t seem to put anything else together because we are attacking them. Let’s say they are not getting on base very much. I want to emphasize WE SHOULD NOT BE ARROGANT about this because they are still a dangerous enemy. However, the big lesson here is that the efforts of the last 8 years have made them much less capable of attacking us. This is not a bad outcome, the product of the last 8 years not just the last 8 months.

LONDON: Al-Qaida is laying deadly "booby traps" by equipping its female suicide bombers with explosive breast implants that are impossible to be detected at airport security checkpoints, British intelligence agency MI5 has claimed.

"Women suicide bombers recruited by al-Qaida are known to have had the explosives inserted in their breasts under techniques similar to breast enhancing surgery," the British newspaper Sun quoted terrorist expert Joseph Farah, as saying.

The lethal explosives called PETN are inserted inside plastic shapes during the operation, before the breast is then sewn up, he added.

According to the MI5, al-Qaida doctors have been trained at some of Britain's leading teaching hospitals before returning to their own countries to perform the surgical procedures.

The intelligence agency has also discovered that extremists are inserting the explosives into the buttocks of some male suicide bombers.

Top surgeons have confirmed the feasibility of the explosive implants.

"Properly inserted, the implant would be virtually impossible to detect by the usual airport scanning machines," one surgeon said.

"You would need to subject a suspect to a sophisticated X-ray. Given that the explosive would be inserted in a sealed plastic sachet, and would be a small amount, would make it all the more impossible to spot it with the usual body scanner," he added.

A sachet containing as little as five ounces of PETN could blow "a considerable hole" in an airline's skin, causing it to crash, experts said.

"Gunmen kill 6 in Western aid agency raid in Pakistan," by Michael Georgy for Reuters, March 10 (thanks to Twostellas):

OGHI, Pakistan (Reuters) - Suspected Islamist militants stormed an office of a U.S.-based Christian aid agency in Pakistan on Wednesday, killing six members of staff in a hail of bullets and a bomb.

Nuclear-armed U.S. ally Pakistan is battling al Qaeda-linked militants who have launched a string of attacks over the past few years, including some on foreign targets.

Gunmen burst into the World Vision office in Oghi village in Mansehra district, about 80 km (50 miles) north of Islamabad, at about 9 a.m. (0400 GMT), police and a witness said.

"About 10 men came, they were all wearing masks. They kicked the doors down, took everyone out of their offices, put them in one place and then started shooting," said an office administrator, who asked to be identified only as Asif.

"They threw a bomb as they were leaving," he said....

World Vision said the six dead were Pakistani members of staff and it was suspending all operations in the country.

Seven members of staff were wounded and one was missing, the aid agency said in a statement, adding that its relief and development work in Pakistan was conducted by Pakistanis.

"Those who kill humanitarian workers must be reminded that they are not only killing their own country's residents, but also people seeking to improve the lives of victims of poverty and injustice," it said....

More and more, communities throughout the United States are implementing drug collection programs to dispose of their unused prescriptions drugs. There are good reasons for doing so, like keeping prescription drugs out of the hands of children. But these programs have also been trumpeted as a boon for the environment, and as always when the environmentalist movement is involved, there is a more ominous agenda in play.

A rather obscure theory, dear to the hearts of many environmental groups, holds that over- the-counter drugs, prescription drugs and pesticides are wreaking havoc on human health and the environment because they act as “endocrine disruptors.” Understanding the theory will force us to delve into the science a bit.

Humans and animals depend of endocrine systems for a variety of biological functions. These systems utilize communications between hormones to regulate, among other things, reproductive and digestive processes. But what if something interferes with that communication system? To put a point on it, what if man-made chemicals sabotage endocrine systems? The results could be disastrous.

Disrupting endocrine systems could – emphasis on “could” – reduce reproductive rates, result in more birth deformities and cause other biological problems. The degree to which a particular chemical could cause such damage depends on a couple of things: the nature of the chemical and the amount of the chemical ingested. The adage “the dose makes the poison” applies. The problem here, which is what makes potential regulation of endocrine disruptors so ominous, is that it is claimed that some chemicals have the ability to disrupt endocrine systems at extremely low doses, concentrations so minute that it is necessary to push the envelope of science to even find these chemicals, much less remove them. It has been claimed that, for some chemicals, concentrations as low as parts per trillion, even parts per quadrillion, can damage endocrine systems.

Such claims are nothing more than nonsense of the sort that environmental groups routinely spout in order to create non-existent crises that their supporters are urged to address. Not coincidentally, these manufactured crises are used by environmental groups to drum up contributions in order to battle evil corporations bent on destroying the planet. In 1999 scientists on the National Research Council found that there is no good evidence to suggest that man-made chemicals are damaging endocrine systems in either humans or wildlife. Nonetheless, the Environmental Protection Agency decided to press on with further research into the issue, a process that continues to this day.

EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) was created in 1996 with the goal of isolating and eventually regulating those chemicals that the Agency determines pose a threat to endocrine systems. In 2007, EPA released a list of the first seventy three “Tier I” chemicals that it believes pose the most immediate threat. The Agency is now studying this list in greater depth. What’s on the list? Mostly pesticides, including some widely used chemicals like Malathion that environmental groups have had in their crosshairs for years, but some very important, widely used industrial chemicals, as well. Acetone, methyl ethyl ketone and toluene, used in a wide variety of industrial applications, make the cut, as do certain phthalates, which are used in the production of some plastics.

As I have noted before, environmental groups will get you any way they can. If they can’t ban coal combustion outright, then they’ll try to pile costs onto coal-fired power by imposing expensive rules that restrict the reuse of coal ash. If they can’t get rid of phthalates one way, then creating new, incredibly low standards for phthalate residue in the environment is a neat way to solve the supposed problem.

We’ve seen this environmental two-step before. Step one: create a crisis whose causes are too complex for the layman to understand and claim that, if not addressed rapidly, it will cause horrific damage. Step two: solve the “crisis” by piling expensive new restrictions on industrial activity in America. That’s the endgame whenever these seemingly innocuous research programs swing into gear. The Natural Resources Defense Council, for example, jumped on the endocrine disruptor bandwagon early, warning supporters that they, their children and wildlife of all sorts were at risk.

This brings us back to increasingly popular drug collection programs. Is there legitimate concern about teen-agers pilfering the Vicodin left over after dad has his knee surgery? Maybe. But there’s more here than meets the eye. In the world of endocrine disruptor theory, many drugs are said to be especially dangerous threats. A lot of people flush unused and expired drugs down their toilets, which eventually end up in water supplies, since treatment plants are not equipped to remove the tiny amount of these drugs in waste water streams. Thus, for environmentalists, drug collection programs are an important way to protect mother earth. However, there is a flaw in this grand design: it won’t work. There is no way that the government will convince enough people to stop flushing drugs down their toilet such that the concentrations of these drugs is, for all purposes, undetectable in water supplies.

So, following the path of the inevitable environmental regulatory logic to follow, when the EPA determines that the “problem” can’t be solved by voluntary means, the agency will require waste water plants to upgrade their treatment systems in order to remove a tiny bit of nothing from incoming waste streams. This in turn will cost money, probably a great deal of money, and that cost will be reflected in your water bill because that’s how you pay for operation of the treatment plant. Water being more expensive, people will cut down on their water use, which, from the environmentalist point of view, will be a most happy result indeed.

No doubt that is the ultimate aim of some of the environmental groups that are so concerned about the supposed nasty effects of endocrine disruptors. There is surely sincere, if unsubstantiated, concern mixed in there as well among certain groups, but subtle indeed are the ways of the green revolution. If the “endocrine disruptor crisis” can eventually result in sabotaging pesticide use, making key industrial chemicals more expensive and increasing the cost of using water, then it’s a green crusade made in heaven. The inevitable regulations to follow are still a long way off, but there’s no doubt that they’re coming. It’s just a matter of time.

Rich Trzupek is a chemist and Principal Consultant at Mostardi Platt Environmental, an environmental consulting firm based in Oak Brook, Illinois. He specializes in air quality issues and is the author of McGraw-Hill’s Air Quality Permitting and Compliance Manual. Rich is a confirmed skeptic with regard to the theory that human activity has caused global warming. He is also a regular contributor at threedonia.com.

RABAT, Morocco (AP) -- Authorities have dismantled a six-member terror cell that was planning attacks in the North African kingdom, Morocco's official news agency says.

The six suspected Islamists were active in several cities and "planned to commit terrorist acts inside national territory," the MAP agency says, quoting a statement from the national police.

The cell's members will be tried after an investigation, the report says.

Morocco has led a crackdown on suspected terrorists since 2003, when al-Qaeda-linked extremists killed 45 people in a string of attacks in Casablanca, the country's economic center.

Should the Islamic Republic of Iran be renamed the Misunderstanders of Islam Republic of Iran? Or is this a Sunni/Shi'ite thing, with the Sunnis of the Fiqh Council being all uptight while those insoucient, mystically-minded Shia have no problem with appearing buck naked in front of the prying, hungry eyes of kuffar TSA personnel?

Unlikely. More likely is the fact that there is nothing really Islamically objectionable about body scanners, but if the Fiqh Council can intimidate the clueless, hopelessly compromised dhimmis of the TSA to allow an exemption for Muslims, they will have enabled the jihad against the West to advance that much more smoothly and unimpeded.

When we hear the sound of hoofbeats, should we think horses or zebras? The question is a classic problem of intelligence analysis. Too often in recent years the CIA, FBI and Department of Homeland Security have got it wrong—most recently with the Christmas Day underwear bomber, who was able to board a U.S.-bound flight despite plenty of early warning signs. Political scientist Robert Jervis wants to know the reason for such error.

In “Why Intelligence Fails,” Mr. Jervis examines two important U.S. intelligence lapses and tries to account for what went awry. After both, the CIA hired Mr. Jervis—a longtime student of international affairs—to help the agency sort out its mistakes. He thus brings an invaluable perspective as a smart outsider with sufficient inside access to appraise the agency's blind spots.

The first of his two cases is the CIA's failure to grasp the weakness of the Iranian monarchy on the cusp of the Iranian revolution in 1979. “An island of stability” is what President Jimmy Carter called Iran just before the Islamic volcano erupted. No doubt the CIA estimates that Mr. Carter saw were not quite so ludicrously sanguine, but they were still dangerously inaccurate.

via Book: Why Intelligence Fails – WSJ.com.

NEW DELHI: In what threatens to cast a shadow on the upcoming Indo-Pakistan talks scheduled for February 25, three Sikh youths were beheaded by the Taliban in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) region after they allegedly refused to convert to Islam. Their severed heads were dumped at a gurudwara in Peshawar.

The Sikh youths -- identified as Jaspal Singh, Sarabjit Singh and Baronat Singh -- had gone to realise the money owed to them by some people in the FATA region adjoining Afghanistan, when they were abducted by the Taliban militia. They were allegedly told by the Taliban to embrace Islam or face death. When the Sikh youth refused, their heads were chopped and sent to the Bhai Joga Singh Gurudwara in Peshawar.

A sizeable number of Sikhs lived in the tribal belt, particularly Aurakzai Agency, till the Taliban imposed jiziya or religious tax on them in 2009. Most members of the community, faced with increasing pressure from the Taliban to convert to Islam, have since fled to cities across Pakistan.

Israel praised an International Atomic Energy Agency report released on Thursday that says Iran may be developing a nuclear warhead.

"The new IAEA report deals more sharply and clearly than its predecessors with the military aspects of Iran's nuclear program," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement released on Friday.

Noting that the report is the first during the term of new IAEA chief Yukiya Amano of Japan, Israel said it "establishes that the agency has a lot of trustworthy information about the past and present activities that testify to the military tendencies of the Iranian program."

Among these activities were the recently declared decisions to enrich uranium to 20 percent and the continued construction of the Qom nuclear facility, kept secret until it was discovered by Western intelligence agencies and made public in recent months.

The UN nuclear agency report suggested for the first time that Teheran had either resumed such work or had never stopped when US intelligence thought it did....

Yet the Fantasy-Based Policymaking continues.

"Imam Khamenei says Iran will never seek atom bomb," from the Ahlul Bayt News Agency, February 19 (thanks to Block Ness):

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said Friday that the country neither believes in atomic bombs nor is it seeking to develop such weapons.

The Leader said the continuation of allegations by the West that the country is pursuing military objectives in its civilian nuclear program signals that the propaganda campaign against Iran has failed.

Iran has announced many times, he said, that its fundamentals and religious principles consider weapons of mass destruction as "illegal and haraam" -- meaning forbidden and prohibited according to Islamic rules....

Iran in no way believes in an atomic bomb, and it does not seek one, Imam Khamenei said....

Yes, but were his fingers crossed when he said it?