ConservativeINC

Vladimir Putin is like that deadbeat cousin who comes over to stay for a week but ends up staying for much, much longer. He may no longer be president but he’s still going to be the leader of Russia. The NY Times covers this story alright, but if you want my opinion, and you better, The Guardian covers it better. In fact, here’s the important part from the Guardian:

Medvedev said Putin should lead the government after Russia’s March 2 presidential elections. The move means that Putin would continue as Russia’s de facto leader, and sets the stage for his possible return as president in Russia’s next election in 2012 - if not sooner.

“It is crucial for our country to keep Vladimir Putin in a top position in our executive,” Medvedev said, a day after winning Putin’s backing as candidate for president.

Medvedev added: “Expressing my readiness to run as a candidate for president, I ask him [Putin] to agree to head the government of Russia after the election of the new president.”

He went on: “It is not enough to choose the new president who can divide up all those responsibilities. It’s no less important to preserve the capable team formed by the current president.”

The announcement appears to end the mystery about what role Putin will play once his term in office ends. Under Russia’s constitution he is obliged to step down after two consecutive terms.

There is nothing, however, to stop him coming back. Putin has already said that he intends to “influence” his successor and hinted in October during a congress of his United Russia party that he was considering taking the prime minister’s job.

Yesterday analysts said that there was no doubt that Putin would remain in charge of Russia’s foreign and domestic policy. He would also exercise decisive influence over the military and security agencies, they said.

He’s such a good leader they just can’t get enough of him! Now, if Putin were a General things would be different and there would be an international outcry against him retaining power. But he’s a lovable ex-KGB type, oh, wait, the left hates spies. At least spies from their own country.

ABC News has a piece out today titled: Questions Linger After Hayden Testimony. They are the types of questions you would expect from the left-wing media; so no need to go into that. But I do have a question of my own: why aren’t we using “enhanced” interrogation techniques more often? According to the ABC News piece:

Tuesday’s hearing came as a former CIA agent who was part of the interrogation team went public with his account, saying the waterboarding of a top al-Qaida figure was approved at the top levels of the U.S. government.

According to the former agent, waterboarding of terror suspect Abu Zubaydah got him to talk in less than 35 seconds. The technique, which critics say is torture, probably disrupted “dozens” of planned al-Qaida attacks, said John Kiriakou, a leader of the team that captured Abu Zubaydah, a major al-Qaida figure.

In 35 seconds, less time than most commercials, this hardened terrorist spilled the beans and dozens of terrorist attacks were diverted. I seriously doubt that many of those people in the military or in the clandestine services who perform these interrogations have a problem doing what they do. “Torturing” these animals has saved at least dozens of lives. Putting someone on a board with a cloth over their mouth and pouring water down on them isn’t going to cause me to lose any sleep at night because even if only one innocent life is saved it is more than worth it.

One of those CIA agents who was involved in the interrogation (he wasn’t involved in the waterboarding though) of Abu Zubaydah talked to the Washington Post (and the Post probably listened because the agent now views waterboarding as torture). This is what was said in the Post:

“It was like flipping a switch,” said Kiriakou, the first former CIA employee directly involved in the questioning of “high-value” al-Qaeda detainees to speak publicly.

In an interview, Kiriakou said he did not witness Abu Zubaida’s waterboarding but was part of the interrogation team that questioned him in a hospital in Pakistan for weeks after his capture in that country in the spring of 2002.

He described Abu Zubaida as ideologically zealous, defiant and uncooperative — until the day in mid-summer when his captors strapped him to a board, wrapped his nose and mouth in cellophane and forced water into his throat in a technique that simulates drowning.

The waterboarding lasted about 35 seconds before Abu Zubaida broke down, according to Kiriakou, who said he was given a detailed description of the incident by fellow team members. The next day, Abu Zubaida told his captors he would tell them whatever they wanted, Kiriakou said.

“He said that Allah had come to him in his cell and told him to cooperate, because it would make things easier for his brothers,” Kiriakou said.

“It was like flipping a switch.” Torture, forceful interrogations, or whatever you want to call it, works. Even if the fact that this stuff works doesn’t make you want to support it you could think about it this way: waterboarding helped Abu Zubaida talk with Allah. When his brothers find out that waterboarding helps them talk with Allah they’ll probably be lining up outside the nearest detention center asking for an audience with the supreme being.

What is so disturbing about this is that there is so little understanding about what we are up against. The enemy is a widely distributed group of terrorists who have little connection between each other at the lower levels. But the big guys, the ones who plan their strategy and coordinate attacks, they know a lot. Milking all the information out of them is what is going to save countless lives. Who knows, maybe if we were more worried about winning the War on Terror than we are about not torturing some scum al Qaeda’s most recent bombing in Algeria might not have happened.

But enough about terrorists and how best to deal with them. Let’s talk about the environment. Specifically, about the “consensus” opinion about how mankind is bringing about the end of the world. Well, it turns out that at the UN “consensus” means silencing dissent. According to The Inhofe EPW Press Blog that is exactly what is going on. This is what it says:

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

“Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,” Monckton told participants.

“The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)” Monckton added. (LINK)

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.

“UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings,” Monckton explained.

Does this surprise anyone? Didn’t think so.

BigT’s Linkapalooza:
National Review votes for Mitt Romney.
Who’s blacker, Bill Clinton or the Oprah?
Democrats want a Huckabee ticket.
John Stossel on Ron Paul.
Drugs will get you less time now.
BigT

Tell Your Friends! Bookmark Me!



Take Me To Your Homepage!