Gadhafi is not Welcomed in New Jersey

On May 15, the United States removed Libya from its list of state sponsors of terrorism. It now looks like a bad decision.

The resumption of diplomatic ties with the U.S. should have never occurred as has been evidenced by Moammar Gadhafi’s recent hero’s welcome and support for Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Libyan intelligence agent and lone man convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 in Lockerbie, Scotland.

If you are supporting terrorists, in my book you are a terrorist. Although Gadhafi has made a concerted effort to scam his way back into the good graces of the international community, his transparent support for the Pan Am 103 bomber is a clear demonstration that he is the same man he was in the 1970s when he established terrorist training camps on Libyan soil, provided terrorist groups with arms, and offered safe haven to terrorists.

He aided Spain's ETA, Italy's Red Brigades, and Palestinian groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Libya was also suspected of attempting to assassinate the leaders of Chad, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, and Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo).

Gadhafi’s regime was also implicated in the 1989 bombing of a French passenger jet over Niger in which 171 died. In 1986, Libya sponsored the bombing of a Berlin disco popular among U.S. servicemen, killing two U.S. soldiers.

Gadhafi is planning to attend the United Nations General Assembly next month. In doing so, he intends on setting up camp in Englewood, N.J., just across the George Washington Bridge from Manhattan.

New Jersey was home to 38 victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing. Allowing him stay here while visiting the U.N. is a disgrace and a slap in the face, not only to those who died from New Jersey, but to all the victims from Flight 103.

At 11 a.m. on Aug. 30, Englewood Mayor Michael Wildes will hold a rally in protest of Gadhafi’s expected stay.

Every American should join him to send Gadhafi and others like him a message: Terrorists and sponsors of terror are not wanted in the United States.

Europe Must Stop Cowering from Terror

In 2005, Germany's high court ordered the release of a Syrian-born Mamoun Darkazani, who was being held in a German prison in connection with the 2003 Madrid bombings. He was also allegedly seen in a 1999 wedding video with two of the 9/11 suicidal attackers, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah.

Spanish authorities investigating al-Qaida, along with 41 other suspects, including Osama bin Laden, indicted Darkazani. He was released because a German federal court thought it would be illegal for him to be extradited against his will.

A notorious Spanish terrorist, Inaki de Juana Chaos, a member of the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna terrorist group, or ETA, was sentenced to 3,000 years in prison for the murder of 25 people in the 1980s.

He was released after 21 years, benefiting from a 1973 law that allowed reductions of sentences for good conduct. His good conduct in prison included making death threats to prison governors. In a letter written after one of the killings, he said of the victims: "Their tears are our smiles, and in the end we will roar with laughter."

In 1985, four armed Palestinian terrorists hijacked the cruise ship, Achille Lauro, killing a defenseless elderly man in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer, and then dumping his body overboard.

As the hijackers attempted to escape, then-President Ronald Reagan ordered U.S. fighter jets to intercept the plane carrying the terrorists. Their plane was forced to land in Signolia, Italy, where they were taken into custody.

They were sentenced to 25 years for kidnapping and murder but later released for good behavior.

European nations as a whole, have committed to fighting global terror and have talked a good game, until it comes to having the backbone and courage to stand strong in the face of threats or political influence.

The recent release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the lone man convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland, is just another example of a European nation cowering to terror.

There were 270 victims of that attack, and the person responsible was released, only to receive a hero's welcome in Tripoli, Libya.

This raises two questions: Why was he released? And should we be revisiting our decision to remove Libya from the U.S. State Department’s list of terror sponsoring states?

His sentence alone was totally outrageous! A 27-year sentence equaling 36.5 days in prison for each person he killed. However, it’s far worse since he only served eight years, meaning that he only served 10.8 days per person that he killed.

Were the lives of Susan Cohen and Joanne Hartunian’s daughters or Bert Ammerman’s brother worth no more than 11 days of al-Megrahi’s time?

Scottish officials said that they were bound by Scottish values to release al-Megrahi because he had prostate cancer and was diagnosed to only have months to live.

Were they not bound by Scottish values to ensure that he was held accountable for the murders he committed? If not, that is a disgrace.

One of my all time favorite movies is “Braveheart” – the major motion picture directed by Mel Gibson, which was based on the life of Sir William Wallace, one of Scotland's greatest heroes.

In the late 1200s, Wallace fought passionately for Scotland’s freedom from English rule, and eventually died for his cause. Be it legend, rumor or actuality, Wallace knew more that 800 years ago that you had to fight for freedom and that that fight could never end.

Here we are in 2009 fighting an enemy that despises those very freedoms that Wallace fought for and that we so often take for granted. Be it the U.S. or U.K., Spain, Germany, Italy or Scotland, the enemy today is a global network of those like al-Megrahi who have found joy in the murder of innocent civilians all around the world.

They have no remorse for their actions, nor do they care for those left behind, and if given the opportunity to do it all over again, I promise you they would not hesitate a minute.

al-Megrahi should have remained in prison until his death. It is the least that the Scottish authorities could have done to demonstrate to the world, their determination to fight terrorism.

Releasing him is nothing but a slap in the face to the victims of Pan Am 103 and all those in the war against terror today.

Armed Protests Jeopardize the President, Public

According to a number of press reports, about a dozen people carrying guns, including one with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, stood among protesters outside a convention center in Arizona where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Aug. 17.

This appears to be the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

In Arizona and several other states, it happens to be legal for people to purchase and carry these types of weapons without a permit. Gun-rights advocates say they are exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest; others who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.

I happen to be a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and strongly believe in our constitutional right to bear arms. However, I also have had the responsibility of overseeing the protection of several heads of state, including at one of the world’s largest gatherings — the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in September 2000.

I believe that there is no greater responsibility in this country than that of the men and women in our federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations charged with protecting the life of our president.

In order to protect the president, the Secret Service recruits other federal, state, and local agencies to assist them daily. The military supports the Secret Service through the use of explosive ordnance disposal teams and communications resources. When the president travels, an advance team of Secret Service agents works with host city and state law enforcement, as well as public safety officials, to jointly implement the necessary security measures.

Knowing and understanding the threats we face from terrorism alone is reason to ensure that the security arrangements for the president is of the highest standard. In addition to those possible threats, there are reports that the threats against this president are 400 percent higher than that of any other. If the threat and vulnerability assessments are accurate, this president and vice president should have the highest levels of security in the history of the Secret Service whether they like it or not.

There are reports that the vice president has ordered his protective detail be minimized during certain travel. We have also seen President Barack Obama mix it up with a crowd from time to time, and I assure you it was against the wishes of their detail leaders responsible for keeping them safe.

What principals like the president and vice president sometimes do not understand is that they have the responsibility to stay alive, just as the Secret Service has the responsibility to keep them alive.

If they intentionally or unintentionally interfere with or preclude the Secret Service from doing its job, they jeopardize their own lives as well as the lives of those charged with protecting them. Perhaps more importantly, they could jeopardize the stability of our country if something were to happen to them.

Allowing armed protesters to show up where the president is speaking is irresponsible and could cause a catastrophic security nightmare for those charged with protecting him.

It endangers the protective agents, the protesters, the public, and the president. It creates an immediate distraction as each armed protester then becomes a focus of observation for the agents.

Although Arizona and other states may allow the possession of these weapons, who can tell that the person carrying them at the time is not a threat to the president or others? An unidentified man who had a rifle slung over his shoulder told a reporter for the Arizona Republic, that “I still have some freedoms,” and he may be right. But freedom to create alarm and a possible threat to the president is not one of them.

Use some common sense.

That man may have no ill intent and possess his weapon legally, but what if someone not so nice takes it away? Why create scenarios where the protective agents focus is instinctually aimed at the weapon’s carriers? What if there is an accidental discharge by someone who is not that proficient with his or her weapon that creates a stampede or serious distraction?

No responsible gun owner, law enforcement executive, or public official should endorse or allow these armed protests anywhere near the president.

The president and his staff should let the Secret Service do its job, regardless of political correctness, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano should ensure that the president is protected at all cost . . . and if that includes stepping on some protester’s toes, so be it.

I’m all for the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms, but not at the cost of endangering the president. This is a dangerous practice and it must be stopped.

The job of protecting the president is hard enough. . . let’s not make it any harder for the men and women who have to do the job.

9/11 Anniversary a Sober Reminder to Be Ready

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes after two jetliners slammed through towers I and II of the World Trade Center, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, I, and several others stopped at a temporary command post on West Street to survey the damage of the two buildings.

We met with Sgt. John Coughlin of the NYPD’s Emergency Service Unit and three of the most experienced men in the New York City Fire Department: First Deputy Commissioner William Feehan, Chief of Department Peter Ganci, and Chief of Operations Raymond Downey. They were standing beneath two of the largest buildings in the world that had just been devastated by terror, yet didn’t blink an eye. I was encouraged by their determination and humbled by their bravery. As we walked away from them, the Fire Department’s legendary chaplain, Father Mychal Judge, blessed us with the sign of the cross.

It was the last time I would see them alive.

As we approach the eighth anniversary of the attacks of 9/11, I think of those men and the other men and women like them, who sacrificed their lives to save others. I think of the innocents in the buildings and planes, and those we lost at the Pentagon and in Shanksville.

More so, I think of how this particular anniversary should be an overwhelming reminder to all of us that an attack like this can happen again, even eight years later!

It was just over eight years between the first bombing of the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993 and the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001. It was eight months into President George W. Bush’s first term, when we realized that the shores of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans no longer protected us from the elements of war. We also learned of a new enemy that very few Americans had even heard of.

Osama bin Laden, radical Muslim extremism, and al-Qaida became household words overnight, as the fear of another attack lingered. We learned that this evil and unconventional enemy does not differentiate between civilian and military targets and has no limits in when it comes to mass murder and the annihilation of its enemy, including innocent women and children. We have since learned that it has no real leadership, is not run by an identifiable government, is larger in numbers than our enemies of World War II and has the ability to penetrate our international borders as well as to infiltrate our communities within.

So, here we are eight years after the infamous attacks on 9/11, and eight months into a new president’s administration, exactly where we were in 2001. Al-Qaida and Muslim extremism still threaten our nation, and our war against terror continues, both here and abroad.

Are we better off today than we were on Sept. 10, 2001?

The answer is yes we are — much better. But as we approach this eighth anniversary, we must also admit that we could be in a far better position today if our political leadership would put an end to partisan politics and look out for us as much as they do themselves.

The information age has brought us a far more educated terrorist, one who has access to the Internet and the international press and media so they are watching every move we make, just about in real time.

Our government’s operational secrecy seems almost impossible at times due to leaks of classified information and material. Some blame the journalists; I blame the traitors who release the information in the first place, because besides breaking the law, they jeopardize our national security as well as the lives of the men and women on the front line in this war.

As if that isn’t frightening enough, our political leadership today seems determined to keep the halls of Congress in chaos, focusing on partisan politics while failing to get anything accomplished. The better and brighter members of the House — Democrats and Republicans alike — are being stymied by those whose efforts are focused more on looking out for themselves, ingratiating themselves with a new president, or getting themselves re-elected.

The CIA director is complaining that partisan politics are interfering with operational capabilities and deteriorating the morale of the men and women who place themselves in harms way daily in their fight for our freedom, and the freedom of others.

The Department of Defense has been requested to redirect funds intended for the war, to fund such things as four jets at a total cost of over $500 million that would be used specifically for House members to travel around the world. Some of the same members of Congress who endorsed the purchase of the new aircraft ridiculed and lambasted senior officials of the auto industry when they traveled to Washington, D.C. for hearings. Talk about a hypocrisy.

If reports are accurate, 10 lawmakers — six Democrats and four Republicans — spent 11 days on an international junket in some of the most breathtaking spots on earth, diving and snorkeling at Australia's Great Barrier Reef, watching New Year's fireworks in New Zealand, and sleeping in a luxury Hawaiian hotel. They claimed it was a fact-finding mission to study climate change.

The cost to taxpayers: $500,000.

If House and Senate members are accountable to no one in their own organizations or parties, perhaps the American people need to pay closer attention to what’s going on. Perhaps we should be looking at term limits in the House and Senate . . . maybe we would get a lot more done, particularly by those politicians who in their second term would have nothing to lose. Perhaps then they would act in our best interest.

As it stands today, the ruling party blames the other for past and present failures, and when their incompetence becomes so transparent that their political poll numbers begin to plummet, they all blame the president.

Failure and incompetency in government should not be tolerated at any level, particularly when it comes to our national security. However, our present system seems to allow incompetency through this blame game, preventing real results.

If we learned anything from the attacks of 9/11, we learned that the people and groups that carried out the attacks have enormous patience. They toyed with us between 1993 and 2001 with the bombings of the Al Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole in Yemen.

Today, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela continue their threats against us and our supporters, while bin Laden and his band of thugs pursue their promise of an attack far more spectacular than Sept. 11.

With that in mind, I have to wonder if our national security is where it should be today and are our domestic and international intelligence programs running efficiently? Are there accountability programs in place to ensure we’re not missing things as a result of interagency strife or turf wars as we have in the past? Do the men and women in our armed forces have the equipment they need to fight this war and keep them safe? How about our federal and local law enforcement agencies — do they have the tools they need to get the job done? And can we guarantee that the president is going to be given accurate and real-time information to make the decisions he must to protect our homeland?

Personally, I find it amazing that President Barack Obama’s directive to close down Guantanamo Bay hasn’t already been accomplished because we still don’t have a plan in place as to what we are going to do with the prisoners.

Are we going to try them in special military courts or civilian courts on U.S. soil? Are we trying them as enemy combatants of the U.S. — which they are, or are we trying them as violators of U.S. criminal law? If we’re not holding them at Guantanamo, where are they going and more importantly, do we then have the right by law to hold them?

What are the real answers and what takes so long to create a plan?

Have we seriously looked at our constitution and the laws of our land, when it comes to dealing with this new enemy and the war against terror? The answer is no, we have not. If we had, the Guantanamo Bay issue and others like it could have been resolved by now.

Our political leadership should have addressed and resolved many of these issues over the past eight years but its self-serving and partisan interests have prevented it from doing so, just as it is today.

When it comes to our national security, this must stop.

As we approach the eighth anniversary of the worst terror attack in our nation’s history — more damaging than that of Pearl Harbor — you have to ask, did we learn our lesson the last time and have we fixed our flaws to make sure it cannot happen again?

We have tried, but not enough.

Just as it was for Bush in 2001, it has been eight years since the last attack on the World Trade Center, and we are now eight months into Obama’s first presidential term.

Will history repeat itself? As someone who lived through it the last time, I pray and hope not.

But being a realist, I know that the enemy, both here and abroad, continues to wait — testing our patience, our courage, and our leadership. It is not if but when the next attack on our country will come. We ignored the warnings after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and never imagined an attack like that of Sept. 11, 2001.

Insist that our lawmakers stop the partisan in-fighting and put our national security before their own self-interests so they can fix the flawed programs and systems before it is too late.

The lives of the American people depend on it.

Obama's Criticism of Police Sergeant Unfair

The recent controversy over the arrest of a prominent black Harvard scholar, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., by Cambridge (Mass.) Police Sgt. James Crowley who happens to be white, should be looked at with a little more common sense and for what it is, based on the police report prepared by Officer Carlos Figueroa, a Latino male.

At 12:44 p.m. on July 16, the Cambridge Police were dispatched to a house as a result of a 911 call that someone was breaking into the residence. The police arrived and found a black male in the house, who according to Figueroa was confrontational and refused to show the police his identification. Figueroa reported that he overheard who was later identified as Gates, yelling, “this is what happens to a black man in America,” and “you don’t know who you’re messing with.”

Based on Gates confrontational behavior, he was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct by Crowley, who appeared to be the supervisor on the scene.

The race card was played by Gates at the scene and then thrown into the national spotlight by the press and media when they asked President Barack Obama his opinion of the arrest.

Giving the president the same benefit of the doubt that I would give the cops, I think he was blindsided by the press. The president indicated that he didn’t know all the facts in the case, but then went on to say that anyone would have been angry if treated the way Gates claims the police treated him.

I’m sure the president didn’t have the police report in front of him, or had he, he may not have been so quick to say that the police acted “stupidly when there was already proof’’ that Gates was in his own home. But was there? Not according to Figueroa’s report, which indicates Gates was refusing to provide the responding officers with identification.

Any politician or police executive will tell you that there are two sides to every story and unless there is some substantial reason to believe otherwise, your public servants should get the benefit of the doubt.

I believe Crowley confronted Gates because he was dispatched to that residence when a neighbor reported it was being burglarized. He didn’t confront Gates because he was black — he did so because Gates was in the residence that the sergeant was told was being burglarized. If Gates was confrontational, refused to identify himself, and acted disorderly — the sergeant had the right to arrest him.

Racial profiling is wrong and the president was right in his remarks that it has happened in the past and may be happening today — but for anyone to relate this event to racial profiling, they could be equally wrong. If they were not there, I would suggest that you refer them to the neighbor who reported the burglary and to Figueroa, one of several witnesses to Gates’ behavior.

The one thing that concerns me more than anything above, is the echoing of Gates’ alleged statement, “you don’t know who you’re messing with,” and boy was he right! Crowley responded to that burglary, not knowing the dangers that could await him. One burglar or two, armed or not — he responded just like any other radio run he had been on in his 11-year career. But I am absolutely positive, that he never thought he and his performance and actions in the line of duty on that afternoon would be judged or criticized by the president of the United States.

Some will blame the president . . . some will blame some in the press and media.

Either way, a dedicated police sergeant who went to work that day doing the job he was sworn to do, will remain criticized forever.

Iraqi Policies Must Not Endanger U.S. Troops

The Iraqi government has recently moved to restrict the movement and activities of U.S. forces in what appears to me to be an amended version of their 6-month-old U.S.- Iraqi security agreement. Hopefully, there is something lost in translation because if there isn’t, commanders on the ground as well as the president’s cabinet should be deeply concerned.

Under no circumstances should we be agreeing to any condition that could jeopardize the safety and security of the men and women who are defending us here or abroad, be it Iraq or anywhere else.

Under the initial agreement that consisted of three milestones, June 30 was the deadline for moving U.S. troops out of Iraqi towns and cities, the intent being a reduction in troop size from 130,000 to 50,000 next year around this time.

U.S. commanders have began the pullout in accordance with the agreement, but have kept several combat battalions assigned to urban areas to remain engaged in training Iraqi security forces, meeting with paid informants, attending local council meetings, and supervising U.S.-funded civic and reconstruction projects.

In an order dated July 2, Iraq’s top military commanders told their U.S. counterparts to "stop all joint patrols" in Baghdad and advised them that the U.S. resupply convoys could travel only at night, almost like they intend for the Americans to become invisible.

Joint patrols benefit both the Iraqis and the Americans in the event that they must engage in combat or respond to threats, and adherence to the new order would strongly limit our supporting role and perhaps jeopardize our troops. Limiting the U.S. troop movement for resupply convoys to nighttime could also be extremely dangerous if we agreed to it.

Our troops are still in Iraq at this point to assist the Iraqis in securing and stabilizing their country, by means of collecting intelligence, responding to threats, or engaging in combat operations when necessary.

The strict application and adherence of this new agreement could limit our ability to do any of the above, not to mention could place our troops and commanders in serious jeopardy.

The radicals and extremists, who appear to have recently increased their attacks with the use of Iranian support, will quickly realize the new limitations on the U.S. troops and make every effort to use them to their advantage, placing our men and women in danger.

We cannot let that happen.

Iraq today is a free and democratic country, based strongly on the blood, sweat, and tears of U.S. forces and other coalition countries that have gotten them to where they are today.

If the Iraqis now feel that they can do it on their own, then so be it — get our people back home where they belong. But if the Iraqis still feel a need for the added security element or supplies that we provide or the use of the intelligence we collect, then they cannot restrict us in any way, shape or form that could jeopardize our people on the ground.

This isn’t a political issue and our political leaders have to do something they rarely do – listen to the commanders in theater. If they feel that the application of this new agreement hinders them in anyway from keeping our men and women safe, then it’s time to pack it up.

It’s just the right thing to do.

Obama Speech Good in Context

Over the past 96 hours, the international press has published one article after another regarding President Barack Obama’s visit to the Middle East. Promoted by the White House and his supporters, and denounced by the neo-cons and right wing conservatives, the speech has generated opinions galore.

What’s most disturbing for me is the political nitpicking and dissecting of the president’s speech, the hanging onto every word without taking into consideration his audience, his overall goals and objectives, and the possible outcome in its deliverance. More annoying are the academics and policy wonks who analyze the most, yet have never set foot in a mosque or synagogue. They wouldn’t know the difference between an Israeli or Arab dish and their firsthand and personal knowledge of the Middle East is out of the classroom or a guided tour with a school or foundation.

During the recent media hype over CIA policies on harsh interrogations during the Bush administration, the Democrats tried to do everything in their power to go back in time to analyze and criminalize the policies involved. The White House, the president and even his critics said that we should be looking forward and not backward when it comes to the CIA’s interrogations.

In the recent articles concerning the president’s visit to the Middle East, his critics are ripping him to shreds for his efforts, citing prior attempts by former administrations and then going back in time trying to analyze and break down the history of the region dating back to when Arabs and Jews lived as one, before British and French rule.

Why aren’t we looking forward instead of backward – again?

As an outsider looking in, trying to put politics aside and honestly thinking about what’s best for our country – I think there may be a chance – a real chance – that this president can negotiate and accomplish a peace plan when others could not. More so, in the course of working his magic (as many have called it), Obama may accomplish something far more important to me than just peace itself, and that is the neutralization of the radical extremist leadership, their supportive following and the threats of terror to the western world and Muslims alike.

The president has called for a redoubling of efforts towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, saying he would like to see progress within a year. Be it a year or four or eight, it is all going to depend on one thing: trust!

The Arab world must trust him, which has been a crucial problem for the peace process in the past and perhaps rightfully so. We promote freedom and democracy around the world and I believe we should.

However, we need to realize that through that process could come results not to our liking, such as Hamas in Palestine or Hezbollah in Lebanon. We can’t turn around then and say, “Oh sorry, that doesn’t count.” It doesn’t mean that we then have to continue our financial or diplomatic support for that country. There should be a law in place that absolutely prohibits us from funding any state sponsor of terror in any way. Anything other than that, we’re sending mixed messages and that is what creates that distrust.

When it comes to trust, it all but it appears that, at least for now, the president has cleared that hurdle.

In his speech in Cairo, Obama was criticized for not mentioning "terrorists" or "terrorism," just "violent extremists," and for using frequent references to the "Holy Koran" and echoes of Muslim phrases - but given the audience and his agenda, I don’t blame him.

In discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, the president was both resolute in expressing support for Israel which we must be, and sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians.

He talked about America's "unbreakable" bond with Israel and condemned anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, obviously referring to the president of Iran and his demented anti-Israeli rhetoric. The president seemed to equalize the Jewish and Palestinian suffering, noting the daily humiliations that come with occupation.

Many Palestinians said he “made everyone feel close and at home" when the he quoted from the holy books of all three faiths - Islam, Christianity and Judaism. But, naturally he drew mostly on the Koran as well as other Islamic religious teachings to provide the spiritual underpinnings of his speech, given the audience. Most importantly, he used verses from the Koran to support his arguments, allowing them to realize that although they were his ideas, the actual words had come from their own religion.

For the audience he wanted to address, his speech appeared by all accounts to be a success and now that audience will now be looking for action rather than dialogue.

The key now is whether he can have the same impact on Israel and the Israeli leadership. Will they trust him, as do the Muslims - an American president with Muslim roots and an understanding for the Muslim religion and culture that perhaps surpasses any president during our time?

Like him or not, Obama may be able to pull this off and accomplish something that no one else has been able to do. Trust and dialogue will begin to set the stage and moving forward and not backward will be equally as important. Getting Israel to agree to a two-state solution may be the sticking point, but think of the benefits to world peace that can come of this.

Lastly, and what I see as equally if not more important, could be the grand prize!

The Palestinian issue is the primary “cause” that Islamic extremists, supporters and sympathizers continually rally around. It is the one excuse that they all turn to in their attempts for recruitment for suicide bombers and soliciting funds.

What if that rallying cry was eliminated and the extremist leadership like Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri had no movement to sell? The Muslim population who has historically supported the extremist groups based on the Palestinian issue would decrease their support and question their motives for such activity. This could be one of the greatest accomplishments in combating global terror for the entire international community including Israel.

However, it all has to play out for us to win the grand prize.

On Oct. 3, 1960, His Late Majesty, King Hussein of Jordan spoke before the United Nations in New York City. He later wrote in a memoir that one of the most important reasons behind his decision to speak that day was the “still unanswered problem of Palestine.” Think about it; one of the greatest leaders in the Middle East in our time was concerned about the “unanswered problem of Palestine” 49 years ago and that problem still haunts us.

Democrats or Republicans; Christians, Jews or Muslims . . . we should all pray and hope that this works. For world peace and the safety and security of our children and theirs as well… let’s hope that President Obama has what it takes to get this done.

The whole world is depending on it.

Deal with Korea, Iran Now - Not Later

On Friday, North Korea threatened that it would act in "self-defense" if provoked by the U.N. Security Council, which is considering tough sanctions over the country's recent nuclear test.

They then followed the threat with the test launch of another short-range missile. This was the sixth short-range missile North Korea has test fired in the past week.

As a result, South Korean and the 30,000 U.S. troops stationed there, have been placed on alert at their highest levels since 2006 when the north test fired their first nuclear weapon.

As the U.S. and South Korea continues to monitor the North Korean movement, the United Nations Security Council is meeting to discuss possible sanctions for the nuclear test, but history has demonstrated that that doesn’t mean too much. The U.N. Security Council’s sanctions and resolutions have come up pretty short in dealing with countries like Iraq, the Sudan and Iran to say the least, so I have no confidence at this point any of that will change in the near future.

Senior officers in the Pentagon have expressed confidence that the U.S. can deal with North Korea and have said that U.S. ground-based interceptor rockets could knock out a long-range North Korean missile before it could reach our western shores. As concerns rise, Defense Secretary Gates recently said that he didn’t think anyone in the Obama administration thought we were entering a “crisis,” but I’m not sure South Korea and Japan would agree for they have the most to lose, knowing that the threats against them is the hands of a psychotic lunatic.

In the mean time, the entire world is watching North Korea as the U.S. and its Asian neighbors try to determine what’s coming next. However, there is one country that really doesn’t care about North Korea, South Korea or Its Asian neighbors. In fact, their probably snickering as they watch the events unfold, knowing that the inept U.N. Security Council is on the case.

Iran is not interested in North Korea other than to see how the United States responds as the Asian communist country continues to defy all, in their quest for nuclear capability.

There is the real threat!

A country of nearly 80 million people run by a madman who has threatened to annihilate entire countries in the Arab region once he obtains the nuclear capability.

Iran will not be as easy to deal with as their Asian counterpart, and the consequences for world peace could be seriously jeopardized.

North Korea, Iran and other threats like them have to be sent a message when they impose a nuclear threat against others and endanger world peace.

This is no time to test the waters with touchy feely politics or depend on the United Nations to accomplish something that they haven’t been successful at in years. Ending this non-sense with North Korea will send the right message to Iran.

Without that … no one or no country is truly safe.

Forget Partisanship - Remember 9/11

After listening to former Vice President Cheney’s speech yesterday on national security, I was a bit taken aback as to why his speech was even necessary.

Then it dawned on me what the problem may be with those who attempt to make believe that the events of 9/11 never happened, criminalize the prior administration, or try their best to ignore the threats we face by radical Islam today.

Maybe they just had to be there! And for those that weren’t and just don’t get it, perhaps they don’t feel the threats we face, or need for us to do everything within our power to make sure it never happens again.

As I listened to the vice president’s speech, there came a point that I was virtually knocked back in time, nearly eight years to the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. Cheney said that one of the defining moments for him on 9/11, was when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles per hour. It was American Airlines Flight 77, the airliner that ended up hitting the Pentagon.

While the plane was still inbound, Secret Service agents rushed into his office and I imagine with his feet barely touching the ground, he was evacuated, finding himself moments later in a fortified White House command post somewhere within the compound. Confined to this bunker, he listened to the reports and watched the images that so many Americans remember from that day.

His reflection of those events is more than mere words to me as I lived through those moments, standing in front of former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who was waiting for the vice president to come to the phone.

The mayor and I and our staff were all huddled inside a small office at 75 Barclay Street, just two blocks north of the towers on West Broadway.

After acknowledging someone on the other end of the phone, Giuliani slowly placed the phone back on its receiver. He then repeated what he had just been told, they “think the Pentagon has been hit,” and they’re “evacuating the White House.”

Cheney didn’t make it to the phone because he himself was being dragged into that bunker, and just as that moment is etched in his mind, it is etched in mine as well. It was 9:49 a.m., and although I wasn’t looking at a clock, I’m positive of the time because within 30 seconds after Giuliani hung up that phone, the building we were in began to shake as if a freight train was colliding into the side of it.

The windows in the hallways began to shatter as someone kicked open the door and yelled for us to get down to the ground. For the next 15-20 seconds, there appeared to be an endless explosion, saturating our temporary headquarters with dust, gas, and debris.

We were almost suffocating. It was now 9:50 a.m., and the unthinkable and unimaginable has just happened. Tower II of the World Trade Center had just imploded with enough force to vaporize almost everything and anything in its path.

For me and those who were there, and for those brave men and women that responded and worked day and night at ground zero for months, the events of 9/11 are very personal as we witnessed firsthand, the evil of the enemy and threats we face.

We must realize that most of the people impacted worst, like those who lost friends and family members on 9/11 or the men and women in our armed forces and their families at home; take the events of that day and our country’s national security very personal.

I believe President Bush and Vice President Cheney also took it personal. It happened on their watch; they lived through it and then most importantly, had to ensure that it wouldn’t happen again.

Now it’s President Obama’s watch, and I believe he himself has gotten a firsthand look at the threats we face, which resulted in an appointment of a much stronger National Security team than anyone would have predicted. But besides those threats, he must deal with a House and Senate, loaded with a partisan obsession to criminalize the former administration for what they felt was right and necessary at the time.

Second guessing and Monday-morning quarterbacking from the outside looking in does no one any good. At the end of the day, it’s the man in the seat who calls the shots and must deal with the outcome. We can only hope he makes the right call, and when he’s wrong, he learns from his mistakes.

Like it or not, the shots were called, and we’ve learned from what mistakes there were. Now move on and move forward. The president has a hard enough job as it is, but the partisan politics and attacks by the House and Senate serves in no one’s interest — except for those out to see us fail.

We’ve been through one 9/11 — and take my word for it — we do not want another one.