Snowden: Friend or Foe?

The answer is yes. Edward Snowden is regarded as either friend or foe, depending on which side of the issue are willing to take.

With Snowden leaking information about some of the NSA's top secret information-gathering programs comes many questions; some relating to the job he had, and some questions about why the program even exists.

Here's the deal...the program does exist.  Now what Congress and the adminstration need to do is answer to  the American people about why they think collecting this amount of information from folks who are not a national security threat is so important.  But, to address Snowden leaking secret NSA information, I have to wonder...why does a government contractor have this kind of access to sensitive information about a top secret program;  why didn't he use his "chain of command";  why did he run off to Hong Kong;  and my big question is why didn't the NSA know about this before we did?

The Snowden leak scenario, in my opinion, has to be the biggest slap in the face to those who support the NSA's information-gathering program.  The fact that he was able to get data a take it out of the office with him proves that the security measures in place to protect the data are second-rate.  The data is simply not safe.

Whatever your opinion, the bottom line is that Snowden took an oath to protect the program and the contents therein.  If he was not comfortable with the program, there are measures in place for whistle blowers to use.  Am I glad he leaked information about the program?  You bet.  However, I wish he had gone about it in a way that did not jeopardize national security.

New Look for Taliban Office in Qatar?

Reports are in that the Taliban have opened an office in Doha, Qatar for the sole purpose of meeting with U.S., Afghan, and Qatar officials for discussions on the war efforts in Afghanistan..

Actually,  there's nothing new about the Taliban having an office in Doha...here's a little background:

I was at a military location near Doha nearly two years ago for a "vacation".  During the vacation, I frequently read a well-known newsletter called "Stars and Stripes".  An article that I held on to was one that concerned me a little.  The article discussed the fact that Janet Napolitano was traveling to the area to meet with Talban officials to discuss a "trade".  The talks were to take place at the Taliban office located in Doha, Qatar, and the "trade" talk subject was one that consisted of the U.S. trading Taliban prisoners at Gitmo in return for the Taliban easing up on the attacks on U.S. and Coalition forces in Afghanistan.

I thought this was somewhat non-standard - sending Janet Napolitano to Doha...why?  She was, and still is, the head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  What business does she have going to the Middle East?

Something else I thought was a little weird...since when does the U.S. negotiate with terrorists?  Depends...

You see, the U.S. State Department has a counter-terrorism division.  The CT division is responsible for identifying, reporting, and tracking the activities of terrorist groups that meet a certain set of criteria (threat to U.S. national security, etc.), with the approval of Congress, of course.  These groups are called Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO).  Here is a link to the State Department's site, go look for yourself:

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

On this page, you should notice who is not on the list: the Taliban.  Good tactic, I guess.  By leaving the Taliban off the list, the administration can still negotiate with them without breaking the U.S. policy of "we don't negotiate with terrorists".

There's the resounding question of "why is the U.S. negotiating with these terrorists?" when the real question that needs to be asked is "why the hell isn't this group a U.S.-recognized FTO?".

I suspect it's for the same reason that the White House stopped it's investigation and prosecution of the over 100 unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case in Texas. Go have fun reading up on that one too!

Where's the "Off" Switch?

Will someone close to John McCain PLEASE ask him to shut up about supporting the rebels in Syria?!  The U.S. has NO business aiding either side.

Chemical weapons were used? Approximately 150 or so people died from sarin gas?  This is the "red line" we're willing to go to war with Russia and Iran over?  What about the other 93,000 people that Assad's regime executed before he decided to use sarin gas?  Iran is sending 4,000 ground troops to support the Assad regime?  Who cares!

Why does the U.S. need to get involved at all?  There is NOTHING to gain...except that a loss for Assad would indeed place another Muslim Brotherhood Islam extremist in power - in very close proximity to Israel, by the way...

We're Not at War with Islam?

In April 2009, Obama gave a speech in Turkey and made (what I see) two points that seemed to slip right through the short attention span of most Americans.

Original article posted here.

First, he decides and states that"The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam." Where the hell have you been Mr. O?  Islam is at war with us. Remember 9/11?  Either 9/11...pick one.  Even the Egyptian official caught on hot mic last week (Muslim Brotherhood member) has made it abundantly clear that the U.S. (and Israel) are the enemy, despite all the military assets and monetary assistance this administration has delivered.

Here's a link to the Fox News YouTube video.

Second, Mr. O tells the people of Turkey that he basically sees the country of Turkey as an example for other Middle Eastern countries to follow.  Why would he say that?  The Muslim Brotherhood is in control in Turkey, that's why.

How come there is no talk of sending help to the rebels in the current secular country of Turkey that are trying to stand up the the Islamist ideology?  How come we are promising to send military aid to the Al Quaeda in Syria to fight the Assad regime?

Mr. O made it known in the beginning that he would side with his Muslim brothers if faced with the choice.