WWII

Some “Tempering” of Michelle Malkin’s Book Defending Internment

Published by Papa Giorgio

Michelle Malkin’s book In Defense of Internment had quite a few narratives and stories I had never considered or heard. Some good WWII history. Of course there were detractors of it, so here are the main articles responding to the critiques. Here is a quick catch up to her not being on the political scene for years:

Michelle Malkin largely ended her three-decade career as a nationally syndicated political columnist in October 2022, publishing a farewell column titled “-30-: An Ending, but Not the End.” She cited changes in the media environment, corporate influence, censorship, and conflicts within both the political left and right as reasons for stepping away.

Rather than retiring completely, Malkin began a new chapter. She enrolled in paralegal studies at Pikes Peak State College in Colorado Springs and shifted her attention toward criminal justice advocacy, particularly cases she believes involve wrongful convictions.

One of her primary causes has been the case of former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzclaw, convicted in 2015 of multiple sexual offenses. Malkin has publicly challenged the conviction and investigated alleged problems with the evidence and prosecution.

By late 2025 and into 2026, she began reemerging through independent media, launching Corruptahoma: Unlock the Truth, a podcast and investigative project examining alleged misconduct, questionable forensic evidence, prosecutorial practices, and wrongful convictions in Oklahoma.

In essence: Malkin hasn’t abandoned investigative commentary; she has changed its focus. After stepping away from mainstream political punditry, she redirected her career toward criminal justice investigations and wrongful-conviction advocacy, building a new independent-media platform around that work.

As an aside, having followed Michelle’s ventures for years in the early conservative media world — founding one of my still favorite conservative news sites: HOT AIR — after her cousin [goddaughter] was “disappeared,” I think kidnapped into the sex slavery world never to be seen again, Michelle lost heart for it all. Moved to concentrate on a differing path for a career and spent more time with hubby and kids.

Here is here response as well as others, merely summarized and linked. There are quite a few reviews at AMAZON.

Michelle Malkin’s Defense of Internment:
Reexamining the Evidence and the Historical Debate

Michelle Malkin’s In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror (2004) challenged the prevailing historical narrative surrounding the wartime removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II. Her central argument was that the government’s actions should be examined within the context of the national security threats, intelligence assessments, and extraordinary circumstances facing the United States following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Malkin’s argument rests partly on intelligence information that she believes has received insufficient attention in conventional accounts of the controversy, particularly the MAGIC intercepts. These intercepted Japanese diplomatic communications documented Japanese efforts to gather intelligence within the United States. Malkin argues that this material demonstrates that American security concerns were not entirely imaginary or fabricated after the fact, and that historical assessments should take seriously what government officials knew or reasonably believed during wartime.

She also challenges the tendency to evaluate wartime decisions exclusively through the benefit of hindsight. Following Pearl Harbor, the United States faced an actual military conflict with Japan, fears of sabotage, intelligence-gathering operations, and uncertainty about the extent of enemy activity on American soil. Malkin maintains that these circumstances deserve consideration when evaluating the decisions made by military and political authorities.

Her critics, particularly historians Greg Robinson and legal scholar Eric Muller, dispute whether the MAGIC intercepts substantiate the broader conclusions Malkin draws from them. They argue that evidence of Japanese intelligence operations does not establish widespread espionage among Japanese Americans, nor does it demonstrate that the intelligence directly motivated the mass removal program. They further contend that the government failed to establish individualized grounds for treating an entire population as a security threat.

Malkin has responded to these criticisms by defending her interpretation of the intelligence record and challenging the completeness of the historical examination undertaken by her opponents. She argues that important evidence and wartime considerations have been marginalized in discussions of Japanese American incarceration.

Importantly, the debate should distinguish between several separate questions:

  1. Did Imperial Japan conduct intelligence operations in the United States? Yes, historical records document Japanese intelligence-gathering efforts.
  2. Did American officials have legitimate national security concerns following Pearl Harbor? Clearly, the United States faced genuine wartime threats.
  3. Did the available intelligence establish that Japanese Americans collectively posed a security threat? That is a substantially different and contested question.
  4. Did the evidence justify the mass removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans, including American citizens? This remains the central historical, constitutional, and moral controversy.

A useful contribution to this discussion is Charles Lofgren’s review, “Hardships of War,” published in the Claremont Review of Books. Lofgren recognizes aspects of Malkin’s historical argument while also examining weaknesses in her interpretation. His review illustrates why the discussion should not be reduced to simply accepting or dismissing Malkin’s book.

The broader significance of Malkin’s work is its challenge to readers to examine primary historical evidence, intelligence records, government decisions, and the competing interpretations of historians. Whether one ultimately accepts her conclusions or not, the underlying questions about wartime security, government authority, individual liberty, and constitutional protections deserve careful examination.

The issue is not whether America faced a genuine threat in 1941. It did. The historical question is how that threat was assessed, what the government actually knew, and whether the resulting policies were justified by the evidence available at the time.

Hardships of War:
A Critical Examination of Michelle Malkin’s
Defense of Japanese American Internment

Author: Charles A. Lofgren
Publication: Claremont Review of Books
Subject: A historical examination of Michelle Malkin’s In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror (2004).

Introduction

In his review, “Hardships of War,” historian Charles A. Lofgren examines Michelle Malkin’s controversial defense of the government’s World War II removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans. Malkin’s book challenges the prevailing historical interpretation that the policy was primarily the product of racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and political opportunism.

Lofgren approaches Malkin’s argument with a degree of nuance. Rather than dismissing her work outright, he acknowledges that she raises legitimate historical questions concerning Japanese intelligence operations, American military concerns, and the intelligence information available during the war. However, he also identifies weaknesses in her interpretation of the evidence and questions whether the intelligence material establishes the necessity of mass removal.

His review is particularly valuable because it engages the historical evidence rather than treating the controversy as a simple choice between national security and civil liberties.

1. Japanese Espionage and American Security Concerns

One important component of Malkin’s argument is her use of the MAGIC intercepts: decoded Japanese diplomatic communications that documented Japanese intelligence-gathering efforts within the United States.

These communications reveal that Japanese officials were attempting to obtain information about American military installations, shipping, industrial production, and other strategic matters.

Lofgren does not dismiss the existence of Japanese espionage. He acknowledges that intelligence-gathering operations were real and that American officials had legitimate reasons to be concerned following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

There were also documented Japanese military operations along the American coastline, including submarine attacks and shelling incidents. These circumstances provide important context for understanding the atmosphere of uncertainty and fear confronting American military authorities in 1941 and 1942.

However, the existence of Japanese espionage does not automatically establish that Japanese Americans collectively represented a security threat. That distinction becomes central to Lofgren’s criticism.

2. The MAGIC Intercepts: What Did the Intelligence Actually Establish?

The MAGIC intercepts are among the most important pieces of evidence in Malkin’s defense.

They document Japanese efforts to develop intelligence sources and obtain sensitive information within the United States. Malkin argues that this material has been insufficiently considered in conventional accounts of the internment controversy.

Lofgren acknowledges the significance of the intercepts but questions whether Malkin draws conclusions from them that extend beyond what the documents actually demonstrate.

In particular, evidence that Japanese intelligence personnel were seeking information does not necessarily establish widespread espionage among Japanese Americans or prove that the Japanese American population as a whole was involved in such activities.

The distinction is important: documenting an intelligence threat is not the same as demonstrating that an entire ancestry group posed that threat.

3. The Timing of Military Decisions

Lofgren also examines the chronology of events surrounding the government’s decision to remove Japanese Americans from the West Coast.

Some of the incidents Malkin discusses occurred after the critical decisions concerning mass removal had already been made.

For example, the Japanese submarine shelling near Santa Barbara occurred on February 23, 1942, after President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942.

Lofgren argues that subsequent events cannot automatically be used to justify decisions that preceded them.

This raises an important historical question: What information was actually available to military and political decision-makers when they formulated and implemented the removal policy?

A proper assessment must distinguish between intelligence available at the time and evidence that emerged afterward.

4. The Role of Military and Political Leadership

Lofgren further examines the changing positions of military and civilian officials, including General John L. DeWitt, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, and Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy.

He considers the influence of military assessments, political pressure, and demands from West Coast representatives who advocated removing people of Japanese ancestry from strategically sensitive areas.

Lofgren questions whether Malkin adequately examines the extent to which political considerations influenced the government’s decision.

This is particularly relevant because the historical debate concerns not simply whether security concerns existed, but how those concerns were translated into government policy.

Were the decisions based primarily on demonstrated military necessity, intelligence assessments, political pressure, or a combination of these factors?

That question deserves careful examination.

5. The Distinction Between Internment and Mass Removal

Another important historical distinction concerns the terminology used to describe the government’s wartime policies.

Technically, internment generally referred to the detention of enemy aliens under wartime authority. The broader West Coast removal program, however, involved the forced relocation and incarceration of Japanese Americans, including American citizens who had not been individually charged with espionage or sabotage.

The two policies should not be confused.

Malkin challenges some of the comparisons made between the American relocation centers and other forms of wartime imprisonment. Lofgren recognizes the importance of distinguishing the American facilities from Nazi extermination camps, while also questioning aspects of Malkin’s treatment of the Supreme Court’s decision in Korematsu v. United States.

The fact that the relocation centers were not extermination camps does not, by itself, resolve the constitutional or moral questions surrounding the government’s actions.

6. Lofgren’s Overall Assessment

Lofgren’s assessment is neither an unqualified endorsement nor a wholesale rejection of Malkin’s book.

He recognizes that Malkin brings attention to intelligence evidence and wartime circumstances that deserve consideration. He acknowledges the existence of Japanese espionage and the genuine security concerns confronting American officials.

Nevertheless, he believes Malkin does not sufficiently establish the connection between the intelligence evidence and the government’s decision to undertake indiscriminate mass removal.

His principal objections concern the interpretation of the MAGIC intercepts, the chronology of events, the influence of political considerations, and the extent to which the available evidence justified the policy adopted.

Lofgren’s review therefore provides a useful independent examination of Malkin’s historical argument, while identifying questions that her defenders must address.

Conclusion: The Historical Questions Remain Important

The debate surrounding Michelle Malkin’s In Defense of Internment raises questions that extend beyond the events of World War II.

The United States faced a genuine military threat following Pearl Harbor. Japanese intelligence operations existed, and American officials had legitimate responsibilities to protect military installations, shipping, and the civilian population.

However, recognizing those realities does not automatically establish that the mass removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans was justified.

The central historical questions remain:

  • What did American intelligence actually know about Japanese espionage operations?
  • Which officials received and relied upon the MAGIC intercepts?
  • Did the available intelligence establish a threat among Japanese Americans collectively?
  • How much did military assessments, political pressure, and racial prejudice contribute to the removal decision?
  • Could individualized investigations and security measures have addressed the actual threats without imposing collective restrictions?

Lofgren’s review is valuable because it acknowledges the evidence that makes Malkin’s argument worthy of examination while identifying the weaknesses that prevent her conclusions from being accepted without further scrutiny.

Historical analysis should neither dismiss inconvenient evidence nor stretch that evidence beyond what it establishes. The existence of a national security threat and the justification for a particular government response are two separate questions. Both deserve examination.

 

Leftist Students Embrace Nazis and Segregationists

Published by Papa Giorgio

EXAMPLE 1: Yale students form a human chain to block a Jewish student from entering the University

Do we have a historical precedence of this happening?

EXAMPLE 2: UCLA Jewish student trying to attend class is forcibly prevented entry by 6 masked Pro-Hamas students while UCLA guard stands by and DOES NOTHING. “I am a UCLA student…my class is over there. I want to use THAT entrance. Let me go in.”

Do we have a historical precedence of this happening?

Peter Doocy Serves KJP Some Cannibal Tartare (#CannibalGate)

Published by Papa Giorgio

I was amazed at Karine Jean-Pierre’s (KJP) response to Doocy. She said that Biden lying was fine because it was an emotional moment.

What!?

See RED STATE for more of Biden’s ?-?

Per Jesse Watters below, the “fact checks” were out n “full force”

  • “[Biden] off on details” – AP
  • “Biden mischaracterizes” – NBC
  • “Biden’s claim differs” – CNN
  • “Lol” – RPT

JESSE WATTERS

Could you imagine if Trump “mischaracterized” a story like that? Oh-my-goodness.. the 24-hour news cycle would b cray-cray.

Here is Peter Doocey’s after thoughts:

MATT WALSH

Joe Biden invented a story about his uncle being eaten by cannibals. Unsurprisingly, he’s now being accused of cultural insensitivity for it.

FOX & FRIENDS 

F&F discuss a few lies from Biden

Israel Declared War… Day 2

Published by Papa Giorgio

POWERLINE:

  • Hamas’s 10/7 attack is something like Israel’s 9/11, only worse. Israel’s death toll has hit more than 350. Adjusting for population and measuring by the deaths inflicted so far, Israel has suffered (is suffering) an attack that is something like three times more damaging than 9/11.
  • Hamas is a genocidal terrorist organization. It is waging war by atrocity, as it always does. The fire this time should be its last.
  • As I write on 10/8, Hamas’s attack continues and deaths mount. Israel seems not yet to have concluded the fighting on its own territory.
  • The Israeli intelligence, defense, and political establishments were caught napping. The complete failure of intelligence is comparable to the one that preceded the Yom Kippur War 50 years ago.
  • Speaking of the Yom Kippur war, we can infer that the attack was timed to coincide with its 50th anniversary. Given the planning and preparation that preceded the attack, disruption of Israel’s possible peace with Saudi Arabia must constitute an added benefit rather than its immediate object.
  • By comparison with the Yom Kippur War, it seems to me that the consequences of this war are more dire and the effects more difficult to contemplate. Last night Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that Hamas would be destroy Hamas’s military and governmental capabilities. What happens next?
  • Hamas has taken numerous hostages and removed them to Gaza. The Israeli embassy to the United States is reporting that 100 soldiers and civilians have been kidnapped. So long as Hamas holds these hostages, it will necessarily constrain Israel’s freedom of action to achieve its stated objectives, as does Israel’s meticulous compliance with the laws of war. The IDF is not free to combat savagery with savagery.
  • As Elliott Abrams puts it at NRO: “There is no way around the fact that Hamas has new assets and that future negotiations over the captured Israelis will be excruciating. That is one reason a government of national unity is called for — to stop opposition parties from politicizing tough decisions by making them partly responsible for Israeli policy in the coming months.”
  • Hezbollah aggravates Israel’s military challenge at present. Their forces and their arsenal exceed Hamas and hold Lebanon in thrall.
  • The intelligence and readiness failures underlying Yom Kippur War brought down the government of Prime Minister Golda Meir. The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces the same after a commission of inquiry does its work.
  • Iran is of course behind this war: Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad tells the BBC that Iran gave its support to the Palestinian terror group to launch its surprise multi-front attack on Israel on Saturday. Yet the Biden administration remains in doubt about that.
  • Which raises the question of our own failure of intelligence. Thus spake National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan only a few days ago. This didn’t age well. Unfortunately, these people are incapable of shame.

Like POWERLINE….

  • When a country is attacked, the only appropriate course is to respond with massively disproportionate force, as we did against the Japanese in World War II. Israel should treat Gaza as the Allies treated Dresden and other German and Japanese cities to end that war. Israel made a mistake in withdrawing from Gaza, and Gaza has been a thorn in its side ever since. This should be the last time.

…. the FEDERALIST discusses overwhelming power to unconditional surrender. Here is a good addition by them:

What does unconditional surrender look like? Let history be our guide. As Allied forces swept into Germany in 1945, tin plates bearing this proclamation from Gen. Eisenhower were nailed to posts and walls in both English and German:

I, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force, do hereby proclaim as follows:

  1. The Allied forces serving under my command have now entered Germany. We come as conquerors, but not as oppressors. In the area of Germany occupied by the forces under my command we shall obliterate nazism and German militarism. We shall overthrow the Nazi rule, dissolve the Nazi party and abolish the cruel, oppressive and discriminatory laws and institutions which the party has created. We shall eradicate that German militarism which has so often disrupted the peace of the world. Military and party leaders, the Gestapo and others suspected of crimes and atrocities will be tried and, if guilty, punished as they deserve.
  2. Supreme legislative, judicial and executive authority and powers within the occupied territory are vested in me as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces and as military governor, and the military government is established to exercise these powers under my direction. All persons in the occupied territory will obey immediately and without question all the enactments and orders of the military government. Military government courts will be established for punishment of offenders. Resistance to the Allied forces will be ruthlessly stamped out. Other serious offenses will be dealt with severely.
  3. All German courts and educational institutions within the occupied territory are suspended. The Volksgerichtshof, the Sondergerichte, the SS police courts and other special courts are deprived of authority throughout the occupied territory. Reopening of the criminal and civil courts and educational institutions will be authorized when conditions permit. All officials are charged with the duty of remaining at their posts until further orders and obeying and enforcing all orders or directions of military government or the Allied authorities addressed to the German Government or the German people. This applies also to officials, employees and workers of all public undertakings and utilities and to all other persons engaged in essential work.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, General, Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force

Not only that, but you know there are non-thinking Lefties in the Biden administration’s Office of Palestinian Affairs when they deleted a post advising Israel not to retaliate after Saturday’s massive attack by the Islamist group Hamas, according to multiple reports.

The United States’ Office for Palestinian Affairs has deleted a post from their X account that called for Israelis to “refrain from violence and retaliatory attacks” in response to Hamas attacking Israel.

The post on X had said “We unequivocally condemn the attack of Hamas terrorists and the loss of life that has incurred. We urge all sides to refrain from violence and retaliatory attacks. Terror and violence solve nothing.”

(JERUSALEM POST | NEWSMAX)

Of course the anti-Israel schills on the media (MSNBC, CNN) are saying the quite part out load. But the DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA take the cake (BREITBART):

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) will host an “All Out for Palestine” rally in New York’s Times Square on Sunday, gathering in the wake of the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel that has claimed more than 500 lives and left several thousand more injured.

[….]

“The NYC-DSA is revealing itself for what it truly is: an antisemitic stain on the soul of America’s largest city.”

THE NEW YORK POST notes that the organizers are telling people “Wear a mask so you’re not recognized.” Kinda like the KKK. They go on to rightly note that “The DSA is the party of Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush, Rashida Talib — and oh yes, New York’s very own Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jamaal ‘Fire Alarm’ Bowman.” RED STATE has a good post on this, and put the onus on these far-Left Democrats in office:

In case that isn’t clear, they’re not advising wearing a mask for COVID protection; they’re advising masks and not posting pictures so they can’t be identified by the police when the “action” starts to go potentially criminal. 

So here’s a good question for reporters: Ask AOC and her other DSA-associated brethren in Congress their opinion on this “action” by the DSA. Put them on the spot and hold them accountable for such actions. Ask if they will renounce this group that is now explicitly supporting such attacks. I doubt you will get any kind of honest response. Many people called out the association with the Democrats and called out this “protest.” 

[….]

Some worthwhile links over at LEGAL INSURRECTION on this war.

Democrat and Obama supporting Code Pink joins the Wall Of Shame designation as well:

Canada vs. India and the Waffen-SS

Published by Papa Giorgio

CANADA VS. INDIA

So over the past couple weeks Canada has been in the news… enough so that I feel prompted to post on it. And the tow countries (India and Canada) have expelled diplomats of the issue. Here is more:

The WASHINGTON TIMES covers the story:

NEW DELHI — Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Sikh independence advocate whose killing two months ago is at the center of a widening breach between India and Canada, was called a human rights activist by Sikh organizations and a terrorist by India’s government.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Monday that his government was investigating “credible allegations” that Indian government agents were linked to the slaying on June 18 when Nijjar was gunned down outside a Sikh cultural center in Surrey, British Columbia.

India has denied any role in the killing, calling the allegations absurd.

Nijjar was a prominent member of a movement to create an independent Sikh homeland known as Khalistan, and at the time of his death was organizing an unofficial referendum among the Sikh diaspora with the organization Sikhs For Justice.

He also owned a plumbing business and served as president of a Sikh temple or gurdwara in suburban Vancouver. In a 2016 interview with the Vancouver Sun he responded dismissively to reports in Indian media that he was suspected of leading a terrorist cell.

“This is garbage – all the allegations. I am living here 20 years, right? Look at my record. There is nothing. I am a hard worker. I own my own business in the plumbing,” Nijjar told the newspaper.

Following his death, the World Sikh Organization of Canada called Nijjar an outspoken supporter of Khalistan who “often led peaceful protests against the violation of human rights actively taking place in India and in support of Khalistan.”

Nijjar was a wanted man in India, where authorities labeled him a terrorist in 2020.

In 2016, Indian media reported that he was suspected of masterminding a bombing in the Sikh-majority state of Punjab and training terrorists in a small city southeast of Vancouver. He denied the allegations.

India also filed a criminal case against Nijjar in 2020 for “conspiring to create an atmosphere of fear and lawlessness, and inciting people to rise in rebellion against the Government of India” when farmers, many from Punjab, camped out on the edges of New Delhi to protest controversial agriculture laws.

Last year, Indian authorities accused Nijjar of involvement in an alleged attack on a Hindu priest in India and announced a reward of about $16,000 for information leading to his arrest.

India has waged an at-times bloody struggle against the Sikh independence movement since the 1980s, when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered a raid to capture armed separatists taking refuge in a major Sikh temple.

The raid killed hundreds of people, and two of Gandhi’s Sikh bodyguards assassinated her shortly after. In response, anti-Sikh riots took place across India in which members of the minority were dragged out of their homes and killed.

More recently, the Hindu nationalist-led government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has cracked down on both non-Hindu rights movements and dissidents.

Canadian police said Nijjar was shot as he was leaving the car park of the Sikh temple where he served as president in British Columbia. He suffered multiple gunshot wounds and died at the scene.

After the killing, a lawyer and spokesperson for Sikhs For Justice, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, said Nijjar had been a target of threats because of his activism. His killing was the second in two years of a prominent member of the Sikh community in Canada …..

One of the interviewees in the video above noted Canada’s parliament just coming back into session, which brings me to this next story.

A story of the Waffen-SS, WWII, and Ukraine.

CANADA VS Waffen-SS

Quite a few online personalities noted the story, here is one for instance:

What Benny and others have seemingly said is that this was a planned introduction and that the background of Yaroslav Hunk was known by Canadian officials. Even if Benny was not intimating it, it can be seen that way surely. The article Benny shared in his feed after the above intimation said this in their article ender:

  • It is unclear whether Zelenskyy knew that Hunka fought with the unit. In 2021, the Ukrainian president joined the governments of Israel and Germany in denouncing a march honoring SS Galichina in Kyiv.

A fellow “Facebooker” noted this article from NEWSWEEK discussing the issue:

Hunka, 98, was recognized by Anthony Rota, the speaker of Canada’s House of Commons, as a “Ukrainian hero” who fought for the First Ukrainian Division. The speaker has since apologized for the blunder.

“We have here in the chamber today a Ukrainian-Canadian veteran from the Second World War who fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians and continues to support the troops today, even at his age of 98,” Rota said before the Canadian parliament on September 22, after which Hunka was met with a round of applause, while Zelensky raised his fist.

Rota added, “He’s a Ukrainian hero, a Canadian hero, and we thank him for all his service. Thank you.”….

This ended up being an impromptu blunder that has brought some unawares of WWII history up to speed on this narrow piece of Ukrainian history. More on this in a moment, back to NEWSWEEK. After Newsweek catalogues the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies clarifying the man’s background, you had the official apology for the blunder released:

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was also present at the time of Hunka’s recognition. A statement issued by his office said “no advance notice was provided to the Prime Minister’s Office, nor the Ukrainian delegation, about the invitation or the recognition.”

[….]

Rota has issued a statement apologizing for his move to recognize Hunka.

“In my remarks following the address of the President of Ukraine, I recognized an individual in the gallery. I have subsequently become aware of more information which causes me to regret my decision to do so,” Rota said. “I particularly want to extend my deepest apologies to Jewish communities in Canada and around the world. I accept full responsibility for my action.”

This being a mistake is the more believable side of the coin, I mean, who would intentionally sink their political career by knowingly supporting a member of the SS controlled unit?

Here is more via the POLITICO:

  • “I wish to make clear that no one, including fellow parliamentarians and the Ukraine delegation, was aware of my intention or of my remarks before I delivered them,” he said. “This initiative was entirely my own, the individual in question being from my riding and having been brought to my attention.”

Here is more on the history of this unit by FORWARD — and excellent article:

The Canadian Parliament gave a standing ovation on Friday to a 98-year-old immigrant from Ukraine who fought in a Third Reich military formation accused of war crimes.

The elderly veteran, Yaroslav Hunka was honored during a session in which President Volodomyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine addressed the lawmakers to thank them for their support since Russia invaded his country, saying Canada has always been on “the bright side of history.” The  Speaker of the House of Commons, Anthony Rota — who had compared Zelenskyy to Winston Churchill — recognized a “veteran from the Second World War who fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians and continues to support the troops today even at his age of 98.”

The assembly then rose to applaud a man in a khaki uniform standing on the balcony, who saluted, according to this screenshot from Canadian television.

The man was identified as Hunka by the Associated Press, which published a photograph showing Zelenskyy smiling and raising a fist during the ovation.

The AP caption described Hunka as having “fought with the First Ukrainian Division in World War II before later immigrating to Canada.” The First Ukrainian Division is another name for the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS, the military wing of the Nazi Party; the unit was also called SS Galichina.

This is the same unit that is honored by controversial monuments in Canada, Australia, and, as the Forward recently exposed, the suburbs of Philadelphia and Detroit. Jewish groups have called for their removal.

After a Forward article in August that was followed by coverage in the Philadelphia Inquirer, local television stations and other news outlets, the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia temporarily covered the monument located in a cemetery in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, pending discussions with local Jewish leaders. The Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia and regional branches of the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League had expressed outrage about the monument.

FROM THAT ABOVE LINKED ARTICLE:

Two monuments to a Nazi military division with a record of war crimes have been hiding in plain sight in the suburbs of Philadelphia and Detroit. Both honor the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), commonly known as SS Galichina.

Formed in 1943, SS Galichina was a Ukrainian unit in the Waffen-SS — the combat branch of the SS (Schutzstaffel) wing of the Nazi Party. Such units “were heavily involved in the commission of the Holocaust through their participation in mass shootings, anti-partisan warfare, and in supplying guards for Nazi concentration camps,” according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, and were “responsible for many other war crimes.” 

Marches and monuments honoring SS Galichina in other nations including Canada have been condemned by Jewish organizations and the governments of Ukraine, Germany and Israel. The Forward has over the last three years documented more than 1,600 monuments, memorials and streets honoring Holocaust perpetrators and Third Reich collaborators in 30 countries.

Formed in 1943, SS Galichina was composed of recruits from the Galicia region in western Ukraine. The unit was armed and trained by the Nazis and commanded by German officers. In 1944, the division was visited by SS head Heinrich Himmler, who spoke of the soldiers’ willingness to slaughter Poles.”

Three months earlier, SS Galichina subunits perpetrated what is known as the Huta Pieniacka massacre, burning 500 to 1,000 Polish villagers alive.

During the Nuremberg Trials, the International Military Tribunal declared the Waffen-SS to be a criminal organization responsible for mass atrocities including the “persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps, excesses in the administration of occupied territories, the administration of the slave labor program, and the mistreatment and murder of prisoners.” 

After the war, thousands of SS Galichina veterans were allowed to resettle in the West, around 2,000 of them in Canada. By then, the unit was universally known as the First Ukrainian Division.  

A blog by an association of its veterans, called “Combatant News” in Ukrainian, includes an autobiographical entry by a Yaroslav Hunka that says he volunteered to join the division in 1943 and several photographs of him during the war. The captions say the pictures show Hunka during SS artillery training in Munich in December 1943 and in Neuhammer (now Świętoszów), Poland, the site of Himmler’s visit. 

In posts to the blog dated 2011 and 2010, Hunka describes 1941 to 1943 as the happiest years of his life and compares the veterans of his unit, who were scattered across the world, to Jews.

Canada has two monuments to the unit, one in a Wayville, which is outside Toronto, the other in Edmonton. Canadian Jewish organizations have called for their removal. ….

By the way, at the beginning of this conflict I was of the mindset of Dennis Prager that Ukrainian Fascism was a Russian propaganda lie. I can also see the point made that maybe there is more truth to the matter than we are told. Maybe the safe way to say it is that Ukraine has many more Nazi’s that the United States, per capita.

But is this an “enemy of my enemy” situation? Yeah, probably:

Enemy Of The Enemy

In its existential struggle against Russian invaders, Ukraine, a pro-Western democracy, has elevated some problematic heroes with fascist origins. And its allies — including Jewish leaders and liberal politicians usually on guard against such forces — have largely downplayed or denied this phenomenon.

Here is a story by NBC NEWS I read a while back:

Of the many distortions manufactured by Russian President Vladimir Putin to justify Russia’s assault on Ukraine, perhaps the most bizarre is his claim that the action was taken to “denazify” the country and its leadership. In making his case for entering his neighbor’s territory with armored tanks and fighter jets, Putin has stated that the move was undertaken “to protect people” who have been “subjected to bullying and genocide,” and that Russia “will strive for the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine.”

On its face, Putin’s smear is absurd, not least because Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Jewish and has said that members of his family were killed during World War II. There is also no evidence of recent mass killings or ethnic purges taking place in Ukraine. Moreover, labeling enemies Nazis is a common political ploy in Russia, especially from a leader who favors disinformation campaigns and wants to stir up feelings of national vengeance against a WWII foe to justify conquest.

But even though Putin is engaging in propaganda, it’s also true that Ukraine has a genuine Nazi problem — both past and present. Putin’s destructive actions — among them the devastation of Jewish communities — make clear that he’s lying when he says his goal is to ensure anyone’s welfare. But important as it is to defend the yellow-and-blue flag against the Kremlin’s brutal aggression, it would be a dangerous oversight to deny Ukraine’s antisemitic history and collaboration with Hitler’s Nazis, as well as the latter-day embrace of neo-Nazi factions in some quarters.

On the eve of World War II, Ukraine was home to one the largest Jewish communities in Europe, with estimates as high as 2.7 million, a remarkable number considering the territory’s long record of antisemitism and pogroms. By the end, more than half would perish. When German troops took control of Kyiv in 1941, they were welcomed by “Heil Hitler” banners. Soon after, nearly 34,000 Jews — along with Roma and other “undesirables” — were rounded up and marched to fields outside the city on the pretext of resettlement only to be massacred in what became known as the “Holocaust by bullets.”

The Babyn Yar ravine continued to fill up as a mass grave for two years. With as many as 100,000 murdered there, it became one of the largest single killing sites of the Holocaust outside of Auschwitz and other death camps. Researchers have noted the key role locals played in fulfilling Nazi kill orders at the site.

Nowadays, Ukraine counts between 56,000 to 140,000 Jews, who enjoy freedoms and protections never imagined by their grandparents. That includes an updated law passed last month criminalizing antisemitic acts. Unfortunately, the law was intended to address a pronounced uptick in public displays of bigotry, including swastika-laden vandalism of synagogues and Jewish memorials, and eerie marches in Kyiv and other cities that celebrated the Waffen SS.

In another ominous development, Ukraine has in recent years erected a glut of statues honoring Ukrainian nationalists whose legacies are tainted by their indisputable record as Nazi proxies. The Forward newspaper cataloged some of these deplorables, including Stepan Bandera, leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), whose followers acted as local militia members for the SS and German army. “Ukraine has several dozen monuments and scores of street names glorifying this Nazi collaborator, enough to require two separate Wikipedia pages,” the Forward wrote.

FROM THAT ABOVE LINKED ARTICLE:

L’viv and two other locales — 1.5 million Jews, a quarter of all Jews murdered in the Holocaust, came from Ukraine. Over the past six years, the country has been institutionalizing worship of the paramilitary Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, which collaborated with the Nazis and aided in the slaughter of Jews, and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), which massacred thousands of Jews and 70,000-100,000 Poles. A major figure venerated in today’s Ukraine is Stepan Bandera (1909–1959), the Nazi collaborator who led a faction of OUN (called OUN-B); above are his statues in L’viv (left) and Ivano-Frankivsk (right). Many thanks to Per Anders Rudling, Tarik Cyril Amar and Jared McBride for their guidance on Ukrainian collaborators.

THAT BEING SAID, the leader of Ukraine is proud and vocal about his Jewish heritage:

… When Volodymyr Zelensky won his election in 2019, it meant that for the first time in Ukraine’s history, the country had a president and a prime minister, Volodymyr Groysman, who were both Jewish and open about their Jewish background. For a time, Ukraine was the only country outside of Israel where the heads of state and government were Jewish. Yet neither promoted nor relied on ethnicity in their politics.

In fact, Tsyba, a childhood friend and now MP in Zelenksy’s Servant of the People party, says Zelensky rarely mentioned his Jewish background and it was not something people talked about. “It never mattered … There were a lot of Jewish people around yet there was no particular interest in who was who.”

Grandparents

Days before taking office in 2019, Zelensky put flowers on the grave of his Jewish grandfather, who fought the Nazis in World War II.

“[Simon] went through the whole war and remains forever in my memory one of those heroes who defended Ukraine from the Nazis. Thanks for the fact that the inhuman ideology of Nazism is forever a thing of the past. Thanks to those who fought against Nazism — and won.” …

(THE JEWISH CHRONICLE)

So, while I agree that the Left in Canada is horrible, like they are here. They in no way support “Fascists” openly…. sorta (BREITBART):

See my posts:

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has many political issues right now, from his suppression of the Freedom Convoys Covid protests to how the Canadian government froze bank accounts of those involved in the protest. But his problems do not include openly supporting historical Nazism.

He is a Lefty who was a horrible replacement for Stephen Harper, an awesome balance to Barack Obama to have North America hold the freedom line… but we are stuck with our Northern Neighbor’s choice till 2025. Hopefully the Canucks elect a “Pierre Poilievre” type.

One can only hope.

FLASHBACK: Russian Bounties and Fallen Soldiers (#FakeNews)

Published by Papa Giorgio

RUSSIAN BOUNTIES

A SUPERCUT sandwiched in the middle of Kaylee McKenna in April of 2021 discussing the #FAKENEWS aspect of  the media’s running with one of MANY fake stories meant merely to hurt the Presidency of Donald Trump. Former President Trump’s White House spokeswoman, Kaylee McKenna, also notes another #FAKENEWS story [media lie] regarding President Trump calling fallen soldiers losers.

Here are some related articles for the reader:

  • The Russian bounties story was apparently fake news all along (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)
  • Surprise! The ‘Russian Bounty’ Story Hyped Up By Corrupt Media To Hurt Trump Turned Out To Be Fake News (THE FEDERALIST)
  • Pentagon Exposes NYT Fake News About Russian Bounties to Kill US Troops (STEPHEN LENDMAN BLOG)
  • McEnany rips apart ‘coordinated attempt’ on Russian bounty story (FOX NEWS VIDEO)
  • Tucker: Elites pushed false narrative to get what they want (FOX NEWS VIDEO)

FALLEN SOLDIERS

(FLASHBACK to September 2020) An Atlantic story says President Trump military men and women who died in WWII “suckers” and “losers.”

Here are some articles for the reader:

  • Stench of lies: The Atlantic runs fake news about Trump supposedly calling fallen servicemen ‘losers’ (AMERICAN THINKER)
  • Atlantic Editor Concedes Central Claim Of Trump Hit Piece Could Be Wrong (THE FEDERALIST)
  • John Bolton Rejects Atlantic Story: ‘I Was There’; ‘I Didn’t Hear That’ (BREITBART)
  • The Atlantic Fabricates Another Anti-Trump Story (RED STATE)

The Atlantic published an article claiming via unnamed sources that President Trump refused to honor fallen U.S. soldiers because they were “losers”. Does that really sound like Trump? Andrew Klavan explains.

Whoopi Goldberg MAD (Ben Shapiro)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Whoopi Goldberg is reportedly furious that she was suspended from ABC’s “The View” over highly controversial remarks that she made about the Holocaust. Shapiro weighs in.

According to People, the name “Whoopi” comes from, you guessed it, a whoopee cushion. Whoopi Goldberg told The New York Times how the name came about during an interview in 2006: “If you get a little gassy, you’ve got to let it go. So people used to say to me, ‘You’re like a whoopee cushion.’ And that’s where the name came from.”

As for “Goldberg,” it turns out that it is a name she has family connections to. Per the Jewish Chronicle, she revealed in 2011 that while Whoopi was not her mother’s choice for her name, Goldberg was, “Part of my family, part of my heritage. Just like being black.” It’s been rumored that her mother thought the name Johnson wasn’t “Jewish enough” for Goldberg to make it big, but that’s not been confirmed.

Either way, it’s clear that the name Whoopi Goldberg has a memorable quality that Goldberg’s birth name lacks, and it can’t have been a bad decision to change her name — she’s had a remarkably successful career, becoming one of the biggest and most-loved names in Hollywood……….

(THE LIST)

 

 

TRIGGERED! Teaching History Is Now A Hate Incident

Published by Papa Giorgio

Armstrong & Getty Show from May 20th (part one) and from May 21st (part two), 2021: “teaching history is now a hate incident“.

A CA high school teacher has been suspended after students complained about the use of Nazi flags during an English lesson about propaganda. Raj Rai from the San Juan Unified School District joined Armstrong & Getty to explain the circumstance that lead to the suspension. (See more at the isolated post/podcast at ARMSTRONG & GETTY)

Shooting a WW2 Ball Turret with Twin .50 Cals (Sunday Gun-Day)

Published by Papa Giorgio

From the video description:

One of the highlights at this fall’s Big Sandy Shoot was a vintage WW2 ball turret with twin .50 cals that spectators could shoot.

Although it’s not uncommon to see unique and rare guns and military vehicles at the event, the fully functioning ball turret garnered a lot of attention.

Taigh Ramey, president of Vintage Aircraft, towed the Sperry A2 ball turret all the way from Stockton, California to the shoot, which takes place every April and October just outside of the town of Wikieup, Arizona.

Sperry A2 ball turrets were commonly mounted underneath either a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress or the Consolidated B-24 Liberator. They were used to defend the bomber against aircraft attacking from below.

Ramey found the turret in a surplus shop many years ago. It took him 15 years to convince the owner to sell it, and he’s sure glad he did. Ramey fixes up and maintains vintage aircraft for the Stockton Field Aviation Museum. The ball turret has proven to be very popular with visitors.

The turret was new ‘old stock’ from the 1940’s, so it never saw service. Despite having sat on a storage skid for half a century, Ramey says he brought it back to his shop, put hydraulic fluid, fired it up, and the turret ran like a charm.

Rumored to have inspired the inside of the cockpit of the Millennium Falcon from the Star Wars films, the Sperry turret was operated by the gunner inside using two hand controls that operated two Vickers hydraulic units. It could rotate 360 degrees and tilt up up and down. Atop two control handles were fire buttons that engaged two .50 caliber light-barrel Browning AN/M2 machine guns. The guns fired 850 rounds per minute, and each gun was fed by a 500 round box of ammunition. The guns could not be reloaded in flight, so gunners had to be careful.

Contrary to popular myth, ball turrets were not always manned by tiny people. People up to six foot could fit inside comfortably. Gunners sat in a fetal-type position, and aimed the guns using a Reflector sight in front of a small circular window between their legs.

Statistically, the ball turret was one of the safest crew positions during WWII as ball turret gunners had the lowest loss rate.

Ramey was at the Big Sandy Shoot not only to live fire the turret, something he’d never done before, but also to promote Bomber Camp. It is a two-day event held on May 29 and 30 of every year at the Stockton Metropolitan Airport in California. Participants get a chance to step back in time to train for a bombing mission, and then to fly it for real.

Participants learn how to use original bomber sights and compensate for height, distance and wind. Gunnery classes familiarize them with the ball turret and other aircrafts mounted guns, all of which can be fired in flight using airsoft propane ‘blanks’.

The grande finale is a flying mission in which dummy cement bombs are dropped from high altitudes on targets from a B-24 or B17 aircraft. Bomber Camp offers a once in a lifetime experience to gain a greater appreciation for the men and women of the “greatest generation”. Enrollment is tax deductible.

The Reluctant Hero | Nicholas Winton

Published by Papa Giorgio

This was posted last year – but I updated the file source on one of the videos.

Discover the inspiring true story of Sir Nicholas Winton in the award-winning film “Nicky’s Family,” now on DVD.

Playing a Little “Concepts” Catch Up (Romney and Torture)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Originally posted June of 2010) My favorite debater [at the time] Mark Thiessen was in was on CNN:

(Originally posted December of 2012) Just some notes on two pre-and-post-election articles from the Country journals “Concepts.” I will follow this post with one dealing with “Concepts” dealing with “free will” and how Mr. Van Huizum’s position is unattainable without the theistic view of God. But first this. In the October 20th, 2012 edition of the Country Journal, John said something I agree with. Whether he realizes it or not, he made a case FOR Romney over the horrible budgeting leadership Obama and the Democrats have shown. He says, and I quote:

The only purpose of a democratic government is to provide services for its citizens. Since the two purposes are totally different, it is doubtful to begin with that having a talent for business is going to be any yardstick as a talent for governing. When government money enabled Mitt Romney to hold a successful Olympics, does it speak well of Romney or of government?

And this is the point I think John was making… government monies create success (a broad generalization), I think he is arguing for the government spending success on “events,” it body-politic. However, he showed that Romeny took a failing Olympics where money, and more money, was being carelessly thrown to the wind via mismanagement, a lack of accountability, and corruption. Romeny took that, the classic end of Big-Government, and managed the resources well, organized opportunities to succeed for the most bang for the buck, and the Olympics were saved. Too bad this same experience John spoke of from the business sector, proven in the micro-sense with the Olympics didn’t come to Washington. Instead, you have a President who, unlike Bill Clinton who, yes, raised taxes but REFORMED social programs and CUT spending at the time. Obama is offering another stimulus (more government spending) that is about equal to any forecast gain in tax increases/revenue — the exact opposite of Clinton! (See my, “Examples/Evidence of Obama’s Policies Not Working, Thus Proving the Republican Position Works.“) At any rate, John I am sure voted for continued mismanagement, and the answer to John’s question is “Romney.”

Moving on.

This was torturous to read, honestly. More of the “blame Bush” mentality, what is called BDS: Bush Derangement Syndrome. I cannot tell you how many discussions I have had of late rehashing Halliburton, Iraq, WMDs, and other myths/conspiracies that came from the left in regards to these historical events.

The above is a great example of how the emotional argument from a non-sequiture making the above also a great example of an informal fallacy:

“Fallacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments” (source). Recognizing fallacies in everyday arguments may be difficult since arguments are often embedded in rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical connections between statements. Informal fallacies may also exploit the emotional, intellectual, or psychological weaknesses of the audience. Having the capability to recognize fallacies in arguments is one way to reduce the likelihood of such occurrences. (Wiki)

What is being done is that the readers emotions are being “ginned up” by examples of real torture and death, and dictatorial regimes, and then… wayyyy at the bottom we read:

If our body is a shrine, the torturer delights in invading, defiling and desecrating that shrine. He does so publicly, deliberately, repeatedly and often sexually. For our government to tolerate torture such as water-boarding should be a stain on our conscience.

One can see that John is still trying to connect something that didn’t happen to the U.S. governments use of water-boarding of three individuals. Three. Here is an old post on the subject… it is in-depth and is one of two (the other is found here) dealing with this topic:

  • The CIA waterboarded its gold-star detainee, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 183 times in a single month to force him to reveal potential further strikes, according to the Senate’s 500-page report Tuesday on CIA interrogation techniques. (NBC)

From a friendly challenge to me on my FaceBook:

Rumsfeld said point blank that they did not get this info from enhanced interrogation but through regular interrogation. I had a Newsmax link which I knew you’d like better but it did not want to post for some reason. I’ll try again.

The whole debate between the efficacious nature of enhanced interrogation is back in the news, thanks to the wonderful killing of Osama bin Laden. As the Atlantic Journal notes well the politically charged topic this brings to the debate between Left and Right:

The shot-up corpse of Osama bin Laden was barely wet at the bottom of the sea when conservative heavyweights began praising Bush-era “enhanced interrogation” tactics as a big reason why U.S. soldiers were able to know in which multistory house in which million-dollar compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, the al Qaeda leader was holed up. With a spectacularly successful “end” to the bin Laden story, the we-told-you-so crowd evidently now wants to go back and re-litigate the legitimacy of the “means” by which they claim it all came about.

And, in the absence of any other juicy political conflict surrounding the news of bin Laden’s death, serious journalists were only too happy to oblige the counterfact festival choreographed (typically without attribution, of course) mainly by the nation’s various spies and spooks. One earnest reporter after another, from the right and the left and in between, dutifully stoked the suddenly “reignited” fires of debate over the effectiveness of torture as a means of gathering material information from terror detainees.

On Monday into Tuesday, as a running sidebar to the main story about how the bin Laden assault took place, there were a slew of news articles arguing the back-and-forth of the torture meme as if the two sides to the argument came to this august moment in American history on equal footing in fact or law. For example, NBC’s mighty Michael Isikoff tried to finesse the matter by describing the torture of terror law prisoners as “aggressive interrogations” or “sometimes controversial interrogations.” And then he wrote:

The behind-the-scenes story of how bin Laden was finally located is yet to be fully told, but emerging details seem likely to reignite the debate over whether “enhanced interrogation” techniques and other aggressive methods that have been widely criticized by human rights groups provided useful – or timely — intelligence about al-Qaida. While some current and former U.S. officials credited those interrogations Monday with producing the big break in the case, others countered that they failed to produce what turned out to be the most crucial piece of intelligence of all: the identity and whereabouts of the most important figure in bin Laden courier’s network.

One of the “behind-the-scenes” nuggets apparently involves Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, who was said by some unidentified analysts to have given up the nicknames of some of bin Laden’s couriers only after being subjected to waterboarding. One of those couriers, we now know, was brilliantly tracked by American operatives to the Abbottabad hideout and thus to bin Laden himself. But here’s what the Associated Press had to say about that:

Mohammed did not reveal the names while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.

Just exactly why the merits of waterboarding as an honorable tool of U.S. policy are “once again up for debate” based upon the Mohammed example was left unwritten by the AP.

…(read more)…

Firstly, a shout out to the many years from multiple administrations and the intelligence community and our boys in uniform. Now down to business. I have gotten a couple of people pointing out some discrepancies in my previous post, Without Bush Implementing Water-Boarding and Guantanamo Interrogations, Osama Would Still Be Alive. What is actually happening – I believe – is a misconception of times and places on the part of the liberals entering into this discussion. It is important to know as well that “first reports” are always a bit confused. As you read the following you will see that the Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and other liberal sites ran with responses to questions that don’t fit the outcome to the conclusions made. What the questions were that were originally posed to Rumsfeld seem to be a bit out of context, as we will see.

To wit I have been given multiple articles to read, some from liberal sources, others from conservative source… sources rejected except in this singular instance – speaking here of the NewsMax article. In it NewsMax starts out with this:

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells Newsmax the information that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden was obtained through “normal interrogation approaches” and says the notion that terrorist suspects were waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay is a “myth.”

Lets bullet point this for clarity sake:

1) information that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden was obtained through “normal interrogation approaches

2) the notion that terrorist suspects were waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay is a “myth.”

Nothing I wrote or conservatives posted disagree with this notion, and it is beyond me why DailyKos, the Huffington post, and other sites take Rummies words and misconstrue them. A great post dealing with this issue is found over at SayAnythingBlog.com:

Liberals have been touting these comments from Donald Rumsfeld in which the former Bush administration Secretary of Defense says that the intelligence used to find Osama bin Laden wasn’t obtained through waterboarding because waterboarding didn’t happen at Guantanamo Bay:

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells Newsmax the information that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden was obtained through “normal interrogation approaches” and says the notion that terrorist suspects were waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay is a “myth.”

Rumsfeld also claims that elements of Pakistani intelligence could have been complicit in hiding the terrorist mastermind, asserts that his killing exonerates George W. Bush’s approach to fighting terrorism, and warns that terrorists will likely try to avenge bin Laden’s death with new attacks against America or its allies.

“Another wingnut myth bites the dust,” writes Bob Cesca, but I’m not sure this really disproves anything.

First, we know that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was interrogated not at Guantanamo Bay but at CIA detention centers in eastern Europe. We also know that KSM was subjected to so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” which is pretty much political speak for waterboarding.

Also, as Stephen Hayes notes on Twitter, the question isn’t whether or not KSM gave up the intelligence during a waterboarding session but whether or not the waterboarding we all know KSM went through made him compliant with his interrogators, something that lead to him giving up the intelligence at a later date.

Say Anything Blog goes on to point out that Congressman King still stands by the position that this beginning info came from those waterboarding moments. However, even if we accept the liberal spin, Say Anything goes on to point out the following:

But really, this is all a moot point. Even it we stipulate that waterboarding, or “enhanced interrogation techniques,” had nothing at all do to with KSM giving up key details which lead to bin Laden’s capture the intelligence was still gathered at facilities (Guantanamo Bay and the CIA prisons in Europe) Obama wanted shut down.

No matter how this is spun, the reality of how the intelligence which brought down bin Laden was gathered is a black eye for President Obama and the liberals who spent years campaigning against the very policies which made that intelligence gathering possible.

…read more…

Excellent points! Also, many sources in the prevailing articles coming out hourly is another indicator of the factual points of the varying sides of this argument. For instance, over at the Denver Post (was at the Charlotte Observer):

Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, detainees in the CIA’s secret prison network told interrogators about an important courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti who was close to bin Laden. After the CIA captured al-Qaida’s No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he confirmed knowing al-Kuwaiti but denied he had anything to do with al-Qaida.

Then in 2004, top al-Qaida operative Hassan Ghul was captured in Iraq. Ghul told the CIA that al-Kuwaiti was a courier, someone crucial to the terrorist organization. In particular, Ghul said, the courier was close to Faraj al-Libi, who replaced Mohammed as al-Qaida’s operational commander. It was a key break in the hunt for in bin Laden’s personal courier.

“Hassan Ghul was the linchpin,” a U.S. official said.

Finally, in May 2005, al-Libi was captured. Under CIA interrogation, al-Libi admitted that when he was promoted to succeed Mohammed, he received the word through a courier. But he made up a name for the courier and denied knowing al-Kuwaiti, a denial that was so adamant and unbelievable that the CIA took it as confirmation that he and Mohammed were protecting the courier. It only reinforced the idea that al-Kuwaiti was very important to al-Qaida.

If they could find the man known as al-Kuwaiti, they’d find bin Laden.

The revelation that intelligence gleaned from the CIA’s so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history.

“We got beat up for it, but those efforts led to this great day,” said Marty Martin, a retired CIA officer who for years led the hunt for bin Laden.

Mohammed did not discuss al-Kuwaiti while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He acknowledged knowing him many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.

…read more…

Take note that the source that mentions that we did get the info via enhanced interrogations was sourced by name. Again:

The revelation that intelligence gleaned from the CIA’s so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history.

“We got beat up for it, but those efforts led to this great day,” said Marty Martin, a retired CIA officer who for years led the hunt for bin Laden.

The sources apparently saying different are simply referred to as former officials, But note that the article says this, “Mohammed did not discuss al-Kuwaiti while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He acknowledged knowing him many months later under standard interrogation.” In two separate posts on my FaceBook I pointed out the misunderstanding some seem to have:

The name of the courier did not come from KSM under enhanced interrogation. KSM cracked and agreed to share what he knew BECAUSE of enhanced interrogation. I don’t know how I can be clearer? …. ‎(I read the Newsmax article.) KSM, after many short intervals of water-boarding combined with sleep deprivation, caved in. And over many months/years of “tea and crumpets” he divulged names, places, tactics, and the like. This info led to many plots being foiled [like the planned attack on the Library Tower in L.A.]. The codename for the courier was one of the items given up during these talks AFTER they water-boarded him, which could have been months after or years after this initial event. Clear?

For those who have the time, I highly recommend Larry Elders dealing with this topic yesterday. I combine highlighted moments from his radio broadcast where he makes many similar point:

The Sage Talks KSM, Osama, and Liberal Rants! from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

Gateway Pundit likewise deals with his topic in a way that refutes the many positions stated by my liberal friends:

Obama CIA chief admitted today that intelligence gleaned from enhanced interrogating techniques led the US to Osama Bin Laden. Today reported:

Intelligence garnered from waterboarded detainees was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him, CIA Chief Leon Panetta told NBC News on Tuesday.

“Enhanced interrogation techniques” were used to extract information that led to the mission’s success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.

Panetta, who in a 2009 CIA confirmation hearing declared “waterboarding is torture and it’s wrong,” said Tuesday that debate about its use will continue.

“Whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question,” Panetta said.

Additionally, Gateway Pundit has video of Rumsfeld saying the same (video is gone – poof… here is a rundown of the misquote):

  • RUMSFELD QUOTE FROM HANNITY: “CIA Director Panetta indicated that one of the individuals who provided important information had in fact been waterboarded… There was some confusion today on some programs, even one on FOX I think, suggesting that I indicated that no one who was waterboarded at Guantanamo provided any information on this. It’s not true. No one was waterboarded at Guantanamo by the US military. In fact no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo period. Three people were waterboarded by the CIA away from Guantanamo and then later were brought to Guantanamo. And, in fact, as you pointed out the information from these individuals was critically important.” (GATEWAY PUNDIT)
  • There has been a lot of misquoted information surface on this topic because it came from 3rd, 4th and 5th party repeaters. Rumsfield was misquoted. He appeared on TV and stated that he never said that the information wasn’t obtained from waterboarding, only that the waterboarding of KSM didn’t occur at GITMO. Actually the correct information was that KSM gave up the info while being interrogated in the country he was captured and that’s where the waterboarding took place not after he was sent to GITMO. Congressman Peter King made the statement and stands behind it. (See more on how this misquote was used against people like Rep. Peter King, HERE). (AARP)

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

“CIA Director Panetta indicated that one of the individuals who provided important information had in fact been waterboarded… There was some confusion today on some programs, even one on FOX I think, suggesting that I indicated that no one who was waterboarded at Guantanamo provided any information on this. It’s not true. No one was waterboarded at Guantanamo by the US military. In fact no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo period. Three people were waterboarded by the CIA away from Guantanamo and then later were brought to Guantanamo. And, in fact, as you pointed out the information from these individuals was critically important.”

Once again… Ace of Spades put together the timeline that started back in 2003 during the Bush years that led to Osama’s death on Sunday.

The Obama Administration is lying. They don’t want to give Bush credit for leading them to Osama’s compound. And, they don’t want to admit they were wrong about waterboarding.

Once Again, my Democrats and Liberal friends are wrong as well as major liberal sites such as the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post are wrong. Too bad, sooo sad. I wish to point out that many of the truther leftist out there seem to running into a wall of competing emotions and logical conclusions within their models. (Here I suggest my C-O-N-Debunker page for the truther.) For instance, one friend on FaceBook posted this in regards to Rossie O’Donnel:

The killing of Bin Laden must pose a dilemma for leftist truthers like Rosie O’Donnell, who think 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration. As a loyal liberal, she wants to praise Obama, but for what — killing the wrong guy?

Another person chimed in:

It’s worse than that Mike, if you include the rare bird known as the truther-birther. That guy not only believes the wrong guy was killed, but that the wrong guy ordered the killing. And now add the newly-minted, “deather,” who doesn’t believe OBL was really killed. Thus, you can in theory have someone who believes that the wrong guy issued an order to kill a guy that didn’t die for a crime he did not commit.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first try to deceive, which are what the conspiratorialists — of which I use to be one many years ago — are doing to themselves. But it sure is fun to watch.