A federal judge has turned aside calls to publicly release video and photographs of the U.S. military raid and aftermath that left al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden dead.

Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, had asked the Department of Defense to comply with a Freedom of Information request for the material, especially photos of the September 11 mastermind lying dead on the third floor of his Pakistan hideout.

The group argued it was being “irreparably harmed” by the Obama administration’s “unlawful withholding of requested records.”

But Judge James Boasberg ruled Thursday there were legitimate national security interests to deny disclosure.

CONTINUED at CNN.

Taliban militants battled their way into a prison in northwest Pakistan on Sunday, freeing close to 400 prisoners, including at least 20 described by police as “very dangerous” insurgents, authorities and the militants said.

The raid by more than 100 fighters was a dramatic display of the strength of the insurgency gripping the nuclear-armed country. The escaped prisoners may now rejoin the fight, giving momentum and a propaganda boost to a movement that has killed thousands of Pakistani officials and ordinary citizens since 2007.

The attackers, armed with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades, stormed the prison before dawn in the city of Bannu close to the Afghan border, said police officer Shafique Khan. They used explosives and hand grenades to knock down the main gates and two walls, said Bannu prison superintendent Zahud Khan.

“They were carrying modern and heavy weapons,” said Zahud Khan. “They fired rockets.”

Once inside the building, the attackers headed straight to the area of the prison where death-row prisoners were being kept, he said. They fought with guards for around two hours, setting part of the prison on fire before freeing the 380 inmates, including at least 20 “very dangerous Taliban militants,” said Shafique.

One escaped prisoner, Adnan Rashid, was on death row for his involvement in an assassination attempt against former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, said Zahud Khan.

The prison in Bannu housed 944 inmates.

CONTINUED at the Chicago Sun Times.

China, India and South Korea – three of the most vibrant economies in Asia – are also beefing up their military arsenals with new weapons systems from the United States, Russia, Germany, France and the UK.

According to the latest figures released Monday by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the world’s five largest arms importers in 2007-2011 were all Asian states beating out the traditional frontrunners – the rich, oil-blessed Middle Eastern countries.

India was the world’s single largest recipient of arms, accounting for 10 per cent of global arms imports, followed by South Korea (six per cent of arms transfers), Pakistan (five per cent), China (five per cent) and Singapore (four per cent).

The five biggest arms suppliers in 2007-2011 were the United States, Russia, Germany, France and the UK.

With the exception of Germany, the four other suppliers are veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The top five suppliers accounted for 75 per cent of all international arms transfers.

New deals

Still, the most significant purchase in 2011, and the largest arms deal for at least two decades, was Saudi Arabia’s order for 84 new and 70 rebuilt F-15SG fighter planes from the United States.

CONTINUED at Al Jazeera.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

I was late watching this debate, as I had to check the replay. Unfortunately, I wasn’t home and I was unable to take serious notes on it. I was at my boss’ house due to it being the annual national sales meeting for my real job and between the alcohol and festivities, this thing was hard to watch in any serious sort of manner. I regret not being able to give it my full attention but the whiskey and wine were flowing, the girls were distracting to say the least and the copious amounts of food transplanted from several of the world’s most exotic regions somehow took precedence over watching the most recent episode of ‘Three Tyrants and a Wizard’. I do apologize as I have been trying to chronicle every damn one of these things but there are just so many, seven this month alone, and turning down a chance to literally spend the night at a party thrown at the mansion of the Indian version of Caligula is incredibly hard to pass up. Bourbon soaked tits are better to stare at than three dudes arguing over their dicks and the fourth shaking his head because America’s fallen so far that we’re literally having a debate about three dicks.

Now I did go back and read the transcripts from the debate and I did watch Ron Paul’s highlights – the only important parts, as the other three’s highlights would’ve put me to sleep in my hungover stupor. If it wasn’t for my boss’ brother handing me a Bloody Mary when I walked through the office door this morning, I’d probably be curled up in a ball under my desk hiding from the flickering power-draining headache-inducing fluorescent lights over my head. Needless to say, I am not a Bloody Mary fan by any stretch of the word, as it just conjures up the thought of drinking vodka with some ketchup spilled in it, but that fucking cocktail hit the spot today and I’m about 70 percent recovered from guest-starring in the Bollywood version of ‘Eyes Wide Shut’.

I know I’m rambling about my drunken escapades and that might disinterest you, as you came to this article to experience my certain style of critique on these things, so for that I’m sorry. I will do my best to give you the rundown of the debate, as I saw it between nude champagne showers and Chilean sea bass dodgeball.

So I’m just going to go down the line and analyze the candidates one-by-one starting with Rick Santorum. He started by talking about illegal immigration, border fences and telling the story about his immigrant family for the umpteenth time. He got into it with Ron Paul on foreign policy and failed miserably as he tried to cover up the fact that he’s a goddamned idiot on the affairs of Central and South America. I’ll write more on this when I get to Ron Paul, who owned Santorum like a twenty dollar prostitute. Santorum goes on to bitch about Fannie and Freddie and in turn blasts Newt and Mitt for playing personal politics and distracting everyone from discussing the real issues. On the subject of space, Santorum said that America is a frontier country and space is the next frontier to conquer. He calls for the private sector to be more involved with NASA but doesn’t fully support government being out of it. On health care he goes on and on about how awesome he is for trying to create health savings accounts. If you were so awesome, you would’ve got it done pal! He then gets into a health care argument with Romney that is neither interesting or worth writing about but what the hell, I’ll give you the nutshell version. Basically it went something like this:

Rick Santorum: “Fuck Romneycare”
Mitt Romney: “But it was only at the state level Ricky Baby!”
Rick Santorum: “I don’t care Mitt! You’re a bitch and you gave Obama the blueprints to evil!”
Mitt Romney: “Ricky Baby, you’re so silly!”
Rick Santorum: “Jesus Bible! No health care for the gays!”

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich spent most of their time arguing about who was a bigger bastard while both looked like big bastards. Mittens talked about “self-deportation” again. If these guys believe in such a thing as an effective way of handling a situation, can we get them to believe in “self-governance”? If they trust those illegal immigrants to leave on their own accord after sneaking in here in an effort just to come back in a way that is much more difficult, they’ve got to believe that we’re all capable of managing every other aspect of our lives? I mean, they are putting blind faith into something so farfetched that they’ve got to be down with just saying “fuck it” and letting us run our own shit, right?

On the immigration subject, Newt says that Romney is the most anti-immigrant candidate out of the four. Romney gets all pissy and pulls his two Latino cards. The first he pulls is Marco Rubio, the Cuban American senator that came to his defense on immigration. The second card Mitt pulled was Mexico, as his father was born there. I was born in a hospital bro, that doesn’t make me a doctor!

Romney and Gingrich argue about immigration for awhile and then they argue about Fannie and Freddie and who is the biggest crook. Newt, once he gets away from the lame feud for a minute, goes on some tangent about making a moon base. Newt later said that Jacksonville was going to get big pimpin’ because the Panama Canal was widening and would bring them more boat traffic. Shortly after that we were treated to a Santorum-Gingrich-Romney three-way which was like stumbling upon a middle-aged homosexual version of Cinemax at three in the morning. It was a bitch and rant fuck fest that no one in their right mind needed to see, unless of course you’re into middle-aged gay men. If you are, I mean absolutely no disrespect. Do ya thang homegirl!

Fuck all these queens, let’s get to Ron Paul, the only adult in the room. On immigration, he says that if we had a working healthy economy we wouldn’t be so worried about the immigration issue as we’d be looking for workers to fill jobs. He adds that the way we are handling our borders is actually harming our economy. He points out that we don’t have the right amount of resources on the border and that we should pay more attention to our border instead of the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

On the Latin America issue, Ron Paul says, “Free trade is the answer.” He throws in the fact that we’d be a lot better off if we practiced free trade with Cuba. He adds that he doesn’t like the idea that America thinks that they can go down to Central and South America and try to dictate which kind of leaders they need down there, as it is none of our business. He says that the best way to influence other nations isn’t by telling them what to do, it is by practicing friendship and free trade. Paul then references Santorum who said that we have to stand up for these nations. Paul explains that standing up for nations often times comes with us imposing ourselves on the people of these countries while picking their dictators, undermining their government and sending them a lot of money. He warns that this sort of tactic always backfires and the people we are “supporting” end up hating us. Ron Paul calls Rick Santorum’s ideas on foreign policy the “bully way”. Paul adds that he knows a better to way to work with people other than using force. Santorum shakes his head, mumbles some stupid crap and then changes his tampon while wiping his bitch tears. Checkmate Paul!

Ron Paul is asked if Mitt and Newt should return the money they’ve made off of Fannie and Freddie and he responds to thunderous applause when he says, “That subject doesn’t interest me a lot.” Paul says that Fannie and Freddie should have been auctioned off right after the crash came. He said that if it was sold, the problem would’ve been “cleansed” by now. Ron Paul says that he’s been trying to prevent this stuff which is why we need to end the Federal Reserve.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asks says that Ron Paul, if elected, would be the oldest president ever. He asks Paul if he would make his medical records public to show the people that he is healthy. Blitzer basically wants to paint Ron Paul as a geezer who could croak tomorrow and I find the question to be repugnant, just as I found it distasteful when the same issue was brought up with Ronald Reagan years ago. Paul said that he’ll prove how healthy he is by delivering an open challenge to all the other candidates to face him in a 25 mile bike ride in the heat of Texas. Ron Paul face-palmed the shit out of Wolf Blitzer and the other candidates with that answer. He also took a shot at Wolf himself when he jokingly pointed out that there are laws against age discrimination and that Blitzer should be careful. Wolf, after getting bitchslapped, tries to cover up the stupid question by asking the other candidates if they’d release theirs. What a tool.

On space spending, Ron Paul says that he would only approve funding on stuff that fits under defense. He says that going to the Moon and Mars is fantastic but that it could be done better by the private sector if their hands weren’t tied. Ron Paul then takes a shot at Newt, saying that he has stretched the truth with all his “balanced budget” claims from the days when he was Speaker of the House. Ron Paul is taking solid shots backed by facts and there is nothing that can be done about it when he brings these guys a dose of the truth. Strangely, Newt Gingrich was very polite and gracious to Ron Paul all night and gave him props for his ideas in several areas.

In the end, the debate was lightyears better than the NBC debate a few days prior. CNN does the best job, in my opinion, and I’ve watched every single one of these debates. Kudos to Wolf for rocking the house, even with a few prickish questions. Ron Paul owned the motherfucker, Santorum did decent if you are into his religio-fascist bullshit while Newt and Mitt looked like a few bickering Tinas arguing over the last pack of Lee Press-On Nails at K-Mart.

And that’s all I got because I immediately returned to my whiskey-scented orgy on the south lawn.

Grading Scale:
Grade A+: Ron Paul
Grade C-: Rick Santorum
Grade D+: Newt Gingrich
Grade D: Mitt Romney

*Best debate moment in recent memory:

*Written by Rob Rimes.

This is the first debate after voting has officially started. It is also the first of two New Hampshire debates, the second one being just twelve hours later at nine in the morning. I’m already dreading waking up that early on a Sunday to watch it. I guess my typical Saturday night must be put on hold so I can type up this debate critique and prepare for tomorrow’s early morning rap battle between six whiteboys.

Anyway, this debate started with your typical intro, which was actually nice and fair to everyone involved in the debate. That’s not something I can say about myself because I am about to let the douchebags have it, as I always do. As with every ABC debate, we are stuck dealing with Diane Sawyer, who is a really feminine looking fellow, as well as George Stephanopoulos. There is also some dude named Josh sitting at the table this time. Everyone is announced and there are no cheers or boos so either the crowd is boring as fuck or ABC decided to get all Mussolini about the rules. They’ve also brought out that red light, yellow light, green light timer thing again, which is just fucking stupid. Have a real fucking timer people, colors are confusing. Besides, what if one of the candidates are color blind? You liberal shitcocks didn’t think of that did you? You wouldn’t want to be insensitive would you?

Now with this debate, I’m going to just write about the key moments. The reason for this is because this debate was literally a mess. It was easily the worst one yet and even though I’ve said it before, this one was plagued with amateurish technical issues and the questions, format and refereeing were so poor that this was like a free-for-all 12 and under night at CiCi’s Pizza Buffet. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the cable channels, with smaller budgets, put together better debates than the major networks. ABC sucks mule cock because this damn thing was almost unintelligible and to top that off, it ended twenty minutes early!

So of course, the first question goes to Mitt Romney. Although ABC sits on the left and the candidates are supposed to sit on the right, there is an obvious bias towards Romney in this debate. Reason being, at the end of the day, ABC and Mitt Romney are both progressives. It’s also worth noting the Rick Santorum is now standing at one of the center podiums. That’s bullshit! He isn’t one of the top two frontrunners. He didn’t win Iowa and in New Hampshire he is polling 4th out of 6! The guy polling second is Ron Paul but god forbid they put him center stage with Romney.

So Mitt is asked about job growth. He says that he is optimistic and that the current growth is great but he then points out that Obama is going to take credit for it when in reality he had nothing to do with it. In fact, Romney goes on a tangent about how Obama’s policies have made the situation worse and made the road to recovery that much harder.

Rick Santorum is questioned next and all he does is ramble about how great he is and all the great things he has done. Yep, he’s fantastic! In fact, I just wrote an article about this moron and his moronic policies (read it here). Ricky Boy warns that Iran is the most pressing issue of the day. No it isn’t, unless you are an Islamophobic warmonger that can’t pull their finger off the trigger. He tells us that we need to strengthen our ties with our allies and we need to throw our weight around with our enemies. Santorum then takes a shot at Mitt and says that we don’t need a CEO as commander-in-chief. Apparently Santorum isn’t worried about jobs and the economy. He just thinks that the president needs to be a military man above everything else. Well Santorum, you are neither a CEO or a military man, so go fuck yourself.

Mitt Romney responds by saying that people who spend their life in Washington, like Santorum, don’t understand how a CEO or a business owner could be a real leader. Mitt says that his experience is in real leadership. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney then go back and forth about records and other boring shit I’ve covered in the other seven dozen debates. Mitt ends the exchange by going on and on about all the jobs he’s created; he claims that the 90,000 jobs at Staples were part of what he helped start.

Jon Huntsman is asked about Mitt’s record and he immediately goes in to say that it is fair for the country to dig into any of their records because everyone’s is quite extensive and will most likely have something questionable in it. Huntsman points out though that the candidates need to realize that in their current position, they have to expect their record to be picked apart, analyzed and scrutinized. He then finishes by touting his economic successes in Utah.

Ron Paul and Rick Santorum got into it, which was great. It started when Paul was asked about his attack ads against Santorum and he started to defend them but was immediately interrupted by the buzzer. Then Santorum cut in and yelled at Paul that he was lying. Fuck, Santorum is such a whiney wimpy bitch with extremely thin skin. Paul goes on to explain Santorum’s shitty record but the buzzer continues to malfunction in the background. It’s like ABC is just trying to throw Paul off. Whatever, I’m not going to get all conspiratorial about it.

Santorum, who is just acting like a pissed off pussy, says that the group Dr. Paul cites that labeled him “corrupt” is a liberal attack group and that Dr. Paul should be ashamed for even bringing it up. Aw, poor baby. Santorum then tries to go on and defend his big government waste and just fails miserably at convincing anyone. He just talks about how great he is and how his garbage policies have saved America. He then fallaciously attacks Ron Paul on earmarks. Really? Did he not hear Dr. Paul’s answer to this last debate? Maybe if he’d shut up and listen to someone else for a change then he wouldn’t be such a self-centered egomaniacal asswipe.

Shaking his head, Paul makes it clear that he has always voted against big spending. He goes on to explain that Santorum is a big government conservative and no matter how he tries to explain himself it doesn’t matter. He’s a statist and that’s all there is to it. Santorum snaps back saying that his record is good, which is by far the most laughable thing in this entire debate. He then disses Paul’s libertarianism and says that he isn’t like Paul because he doesn’t vote against everything. He says that as if it’s a bad thing! Santorum is a fucking cry baby dork dick pissant that was seriously about to break out in tears or have a meltdown if Paul kept pushing him on the truth. The moderators stepped in and saved us from full Santorum meltdown, which was the stupidest thing they could have done! Fucking ABC! Just when Icarus was getting too close to the sun, you you handed him a fucking parachute!

Rick Perry, who is still in this race somehow, points to Paul and Santorum and says that Washington insiders are a problem and since he’s not an insider, he’s the man for the job. Yeah, you’re a Bilderberger dude; you can’t get much more “insider” than that. Stephanopoulos asks Perry to clarify if he is calling Ron Paul an “insider” and Perry says yes and then goes on a rant that ends with him calling Ron Paul a “hypocrite”.

Cutting in, Huntsman says that we just witnessed a bunch of insider “goobly goop”. He then reminds us again that he did a bunch of amazing stuff that helped take Utah to the moon. Huntsman says that the United States has a “trust deficit”. This is becoming his “999″. He then says that “everyone knows that Congress needs term limits”. No dude, everyone doesn’t know that. In fact, I’m undecided about it. It’s something I need to do more research on. On paper it sounds good but you can’t just go off of that.

Crazy ass Diane Sawyer turns to Mitt Romney, who gets confused because Sawyer forgot to ask him a question! God, ABC sucks! Mitt goes on to say anyone up there would be better than Obama. He then rambles a bunch of gibberish and I can’t follow what he’s saying. I just hear something about a “dangerous world” and “shrunken military”.

We then get to the next good fight of the night and this time it is between Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. Newt is asked about Paul’s “chicken hawk” comments which refer to Newt being so pro-war yet never having served his country as a soldier. Newt responds to this by talking about how his dad was in the military and that he was an army brat. He tells some story and then tries to convince us all that he “gets it”. Great, are they going to start making former Army brats generals now?

Ron Paul is asked if he would use that phrase again to describe Newt. He says yes and then he goes on to defend all the youngsters that are being pulled into war by non-military leaders who have never served a day in their lives. Ron Paul reminds the other candidates that the Constitution has rules and that all these wars break those rules. He doesn’t like it when leaders who have never experienced war send our kids off to die over some bullshit.

Newt rebuttals by saying, “Ron Paul has a long history of saying things that are inaccurate or false”. Shit, I just spit my soda across the room.. hahahahahaha! Did Newt really say that?! Yes he did! Jesus Newt, you talk more bullshit than most of these people combined and you’re going to try and call the only honest man on stage a liar? Really? Newt closes by saying that he resents Paul’s comments and the fact that he slurs people. Newt really can’t stand personal attacks by other politicians. In fact, he was on Fox News this past week urging Mitt Romney to pull his attack ads off the air. Naturally, Mitt just laughed at him. Ron Paul comes back at Newt and says that when he was drafted he had a wife and two kids and he still went. Ron Paul, believe it or not people, is the real experienced military candidate.

Ron Paul is then asked about the racist newsletter issue again and he is asked to explain it for the umpteenth time. Paul says that he did not write it and says that looking at something he didn’t do 20 years ago is distracting from what’s important in the world right now. He adds that the moderators need to ask him what he will do to work against racism. He goes on to talk about how the drug war hurts minorities because they are treated much worse than whites when hit with the law. He also points out that minorities suffer more in war due to how they are treated. He promises to end this sort of racial tyranny.

Mitt is asked if states have the right to ban contraception, which just kicks off a really weird five minute block of strangeness starring Mr. Romney. First of all, Santorum rudely cuts in and mumbles something because he is an attention-starved whore. Mitt says that he would oppose any ban to contraception. He is asked if states wanting to ban it is Constitutional. Mitt immediately looks confused and tells the moderators to ask “the constitutionalist” Ron Paul. So Mitt doesn’t know and he’s looking for  Dr. Paul to bail him out. He then diverts the discussion and goes into a rant about the Supreme Court but George Stephanopoulos asks Mitt to answer the question again. Once again, he cannot answer it and brushes it off by saying that no state wants to ban contraception so why is this being brought up. Stephanopoulos asks Mitt a third time and this time the crowd boos, they’re over it.

Ron Paul while discussing the Constitution says that the 4th Amendment is clear and that you can’t just go into people’s houses and disrupt their lives. He talks about how thew PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional which causes America’s favorite shit stain Rick Santorum to chime in that the PATRIOT Act does not violate the 4th Amendment. Apparently Mr. Santorum has never read the fucking thing. He then throws in that he wants to turnover Roe v. Wade.

The topic shifts over to gay marriage. Gingrich says that marriage is exclusive to a man and a woman but regardless of that, we don’t have to make gays miserable. He says that we need to clearly define it. Okay, so where’s the part about not making gays miserable? Huntsman says that civil unions are fair and that his marriage and his family aren’t threatened by civil unions. Huntsman says that recognizing a civil union between gays and lesbians “brings dignity to their relationships” and he feels that it is “absolutely appropriate”. Santorum on same sex adoption says that it is a state issue. He says that marriage is a federal issue however. Huh? He says that you can’t get married in one state and not have it recognized in another, so therefore it has to be defined at a federal level. Okay, so if a gay couple has a kid in California but then they go to Nevada, is the child magically not theirs then? This logic makes no sense. Plus, if marriage is defined at the federal level, then doesn’t that eliminate gay marriage across the board and thus eliminate a married gay couple from adopting a child, even at the state level? On gays, Mitt Romney says that everyone has the right to form long-term relationships but that doesn’t mean that they have to call it marriage. He says that gays could have some sort of “contractual relationship”. Aw, how sweet!

Ron Paul starts to talk and is immediately interrupted, not sure if it was Romney or Santorum but whoever it is should shut the fuck up. These idiots are so afraid of this guy that they can’t even let him get out a sentence. Paul says that we need drastic changes in foreign policy and monetary policy. He adds that there has been no real talk about cutting spending in this debate. Well, no shit Dr. Paul, you’re on progressive ass ABC with a bunch of progressive ass neo-con RINOs and Jon Huntsman. Paul does point out that the “cuts” to military spending that everyone is bitching about is really just an end to future increases.

Joining the military discussion, Huntsman says that it is time to bring the boys home. He says that our occupation of Afghanistan is not to fight an insurgency but that it is to nation build and it’s time to end it. Huntsman warns that civil war is around the corner in Afghanistan and he doesn’t want to stick around and endanger our troops any longer.

Newt jumps in to say that we’re asking the wrong questions about Afghanistan. He claims that Afghanistan is one piece of a larger puzzle. Gingrich goes on to point fingers at Pakistan, Iran, Syria and pretty much everywhere else that doesn’t have Christianity as their state religion. Newt’s solution? Bomb him some motherfuckers!

Santorum says that America is soft and can be pushed around too easily. He blames Obama’s handling of Iraq as to why we are so soft. He then gets mad at Huntsman for wanting to leave Afghanistan and goes on an angry rant about “RADICAL ISLAM! RADICAL ISLAM! RADICAL ISLAM!” He then gives the fucking spiel about how they hate us so we have to murder them. He obviously can’t wrap his fucking peanut brain around the fact that maybe they hate us because we are bombing the shit out of them and setting up bases in their backyards!

Super-fucking-genius Rick Perry jumps right in and says that he would send troops right back into Iraq. He then drunkenly rambles about treasure and blood money. Perry claims that Iran will move into Iraq. Wait, didn’t all these guys, like a month ago, say that Iran would move in the second we left? Okay, so where are they? None of them really care about solving this problem. In fact, Newt says that if you want to stop Iran coming into Iraq, you just have to go stop Iran at the source. For the uninformed, that means he wants to flatten their country.

Ron Paul is asked about his questionable foreign policy and how he expects to win when that is seemingly his Achilles’ heel. Ron Paul says that the president is the commander-in-chief not a king. He says that we need to go to war the right way and not the way that we have been for the last 50 years.He points to all the countries that we are in and how many of our leaders now want to bomb so many others. Ron Paul tells us that we need to change our ways. He then tells a story about how just this week, the Navy rescued some Iranians from pirates and how those sort of actions are what we need to be doing to build relationships with other countries. He warns against throwing around sanctions and threatening aggression. He says that our actions push those that we perceive as enemies into the arms of China, which is bad for all of us.

Rick Santorum then comes on and explains that the Iranian people want to be liberated and that they have taken to the streets and protested against the current regime. He says that Obama missed an opportunity by doing nothing. Of course, even though he knows there are innocent people who want freedom, Santorum’s answer is to sanction them to death and then bomb them if they’re still alive.

The next topic is jobs and truthfully, every dickhead on stage just talks about how Obama sucks and how they have created trillions of jobs in the private sector, yada yada yawn. Santorum does go on some long-winded sanctimonious speech about spending cuts. Funny, considering the douche only knows how to spend. Honestly, I can’t listen to this fucking prick anymore so when he comes on, I’m just going to put my earbuds in and listen to Morse code because at least that’s more exciting.

Ron Paul is asked to give a realistic vision of what he feels would be a great America. He says that people need to understand economics, not of the Keynesian variety obviously, and that they need to learn about bubbles and how they break. Ron Paul says that we are in the midst of a really big economic correction. He talks about how the Republican Party used to stand for real cuts but that they don’t any longer. He continues by saying that we need to stop bailing people out and we need to truly understand the business cycle.

The debate moves over to Huntsman and he warns against putting tariffs on China. He says that we need to sit down with China and work through our trade issues. Mitt Romney jumps in and takes a cheap shot at Huntsman by pointing out that he worked for Obama as Ambassador to China. Well no shit asshole, that’s why he knows so much about China! Maybe you should STFU and listen to him, eh? Nope, Romney goes on to talk about how China manipulates our money and sends us computer viruses. First of all Mittens, WE manipulate our fucking money! Romney says that he won’t talk about how we need to get along with China. He says that they need to play by the rules and not kill our jobs. All I can think of right now is that ‘South Park’ episode where the town rednecks repeatedly yelled “They took errrrrr jobs!” Huntsman says that Romney is just using easy talk to get easy applause and says that his ideas will create a real trade war. Romney essentially says that he is willing to call China’s bluff.

We come back from our final break and the moderators ask some stupid fucking question I won’t even address here. I’m tired of time wasted on dumb shit that doesn’t move the debate forward. I guess it doesn’t matter though because they end the debate twenty minutes early and that’s that.

This debate was horrible. End of fucking story.

Grading Scale:
Grade A: Ron Paul
Grade B-: Jon Huntsman
Grade D+: Newt Gingrich
Grade D: Mitt Romney
Grade D-: Rick Perry
Grade F: Rick Santorum

A US Congressional panel froze $700 million in aid to Pakistan until the country gives assurances it is joining the fight against the spread of homemade bombs in the region,Reuters reported.

The latest move by the United States may only further hurt ties with Pakistan and contribute to the growing sense of anti-Americanism in the population, a senior Pakistani official told NBC News. The relationship between the two counties suffered greatly in May when US forces killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

Read more at GlobalPost: US complies with Pakistan’s order to evacuate Shamsi air base

The cutback in aid shows the United States’ frustration over what it sees as Islamabad’s reluctance to act against militant groups, the BBC reported. Pakistan is one of the largest recipients of US foreign aid. The cutback announced by Congress on Tuesday is only a small portion of the billions in civil and military assistance the country receives each year, Reuters reported.

Read more at GlobalPost: Pakistan to US: vacate military base

Still, the freeze in aid, which is a part of a defense bill expected to be passed by Congress later this week, could cause further cuts, the BBC reported. The US has given about $20 billion in security and economic aid to Pakistan since 2001, mostly in the form of reimbursements for assistance in fighting militants. Congress says Islamabad has not only failed to act against the militant groups, it has actively provided help to them in some cases, the BBC reported.

After news of the US cut in aid, members of the Pakistani government immediately said this will further hurt the relationship between the US and Pakistan. On Nov. 26 a NATO cross border strike in Pakistan left 24 Pakistani soldiers dead and caused the government to call for a reassessment of the relationship with the US.

Source: Global Post.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

I actually really dig these Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Granted, I bitched about the last one while writing about it but that was because I wasn’t all that interested in watching a Cain-Gingrich dick sucking contest. Apart from that, I like the format. However, I would really like to see one with Ron Paul in it but I guess that’s wishful thinking. Either way, it is refreshing to see Jon Huntsman get so much time devoted to him, as he goes head-to-head with Newt Gingrich here.

The debate starts with some dude talking for five minutes, which I just skip through because I have to watch it on a delayed stream, due to my work schedule. A few minutes later, Newt and Huntsman sit down and both give nice introductions. Newt gives props to Huntsman and his wife for being gracious hosts. Newt also applauds Huntsman’s passion for trying to maintain America’s image throughout the world. Huntsman says that it’s an honor to be debating Newt and that he loved having Newt and his wife at his place in Beijing when he was the ambassador to China. He then says that we need to fix our core, promote our values as well as liberty and free markets. Huntsman calls for a foreign policy that puts economics first. He also says that we need to realistically engage terror the right way. Lastly, he adds that he wants the world to know what it is like to be a friend and ally to the United States.

The first subject of the night is our relationship with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Huntsman points out that we have been in the Afghan war for over ten years already. He says that too many military families have already given the ultimate sacrifice. Huntsman calls for us to bring our troops home. He says we need to stop focusing on this idea of nation building in Afghanistan and we need to really focus on terror. Huntsman reminds us that we knocked the Taliban out of power and have been able to establish free elections. He mentions that we have uprooted Al-Qaeda and taken care of business by killing Osama bin Laden. In essence, it is mission accomplished. He says that we don’t need 100,ooo troops on the ground, we just need a serious counter-terror effort and to work on our intelligence gathering in the area. He also wants stronger special forces to deal with a threat if it arises. He calls for better training of the Afghan soldiers, so that they can defend themselves from further tyranny. Huntsman explains that Afghanistan is a tribal country and goes on to describe what that means by using the words of Hamid Karzai, who told Huntsman that it is a very difficult country to be the leader of, as he can’t even return to his own region due to the lack of respect his tribe has for him due to their differences that grew over time.

On Pakistan, Huntsman runs through our history in dealing with them and how it was China that initially got us in there to be allies with them. He also talks about how we set up shop in Pakistan to help Afghanistan deal with the Soviet invasion back in the 80′s. He says that the Ministry of Defense and the Islamist groups have now made dealing with Pakistan somewhat difficult. He says that it is one of the youngest countries in Asia, as far as the average age of its citizens, but that there is a growing anti-American mentality that is spreading. Huntsman wants us to just recognize it for what it is, which is a transactional relationship and country where we have real interests, mainly because it is a nuclear country. He says that we need to work on them to get them to help us in our counter-terrorism efforts. Huntsman believes that foreign aid should be based off of how our relationship goes in the future.

Newt Gingrich starts by telling us that you can now have a 5-star hotel in a third world country that is only a block away from a slum that is made up of people who came out of the jungle. He paints a picture about the different worlds, as the person in the hotel is used to living a very Western life with proper sanitation and things taken care of, where the guy a block over lives in filth. He says that this is what Karzai was talking about in Afghanistan, that those living in filth, even in close proximity to immense wealth, just can’t relate to that sort of life.

Gingrich talks about how if you asked him a year ago where Osama bin Laden was, he would’ve never guessed that he was living in a large compound out in the open in a major Pakistani military city. Newt feels that that would only have been possible if Pakistani intelligence was protecting him. He then points out that when we killed him, the Pakistani government was happy about it, in fact they were mad at the people within their own country that helped the United States take him out. Newt asks what the lesson of this is. He says that it tells him that we have a much deeper problem across the region than we think we do. Apparently Newt hasn’t been listening to those of us who have said for years that hanging around in these countries will build anti-American sentiment and eventually breed more terror. How would we feel if the Chinese constantly drove their tanks up our streets?

On Iraq, Newt says that since we eliminated Saddam Hussein the numbers of Christians in that country has gone from 1.2 million all the way down to 500,000. He says that that is not a success story. He cites all the x-factors of Libya, Syria, Egypt and Tunisia and says that we never know how these things will pan out. Newt says that we just randomly use our forces and drones but that we don’t have any clear cut understanding of what we are doing and what our objectives are. He calls for us to go back to the drawing board as we aren’t any safer than we were ten years ago and our economic situation is much worse now. Gingrich goes on to warn us that a movement that is willing to train their children to be suicide bombers in an effort to blow themselves up, just to kill a few of us, would stop at nothing if they were able to acquire a nuclear missile. The two then exchange a few extra points but really just revisit what has already been said before moving on to the next question.

The second topic is the issue of Iran. Gingrich starts by asking if we are willing to accept them having nuclear weapons or not. He says that everything else is secondary to the issue of them having WMDs. He then says that we need to work on forcing regime change, which never works if he would pay attention to all the other times we’ve done this throughout history. He says that the Iranians have huge underground facilities that are protected and that we can’t just wipe out their nuclear strongholds without harming tons of a civilians in the process. So he feels that we need to start forcing them to change through economic bullying. He goes on saying that they produce lots of oil but import a large portion of their gasoline because they only have one refinery. By stopping the importation of gasoline we would stifle them. He says that we cannot tolerate them having a nuclear weapon. Yep, so as long as we have all the bombs, we can dictate the rules.

Huntsman says that he agrees with a lot of what Gingrich has said. He says that Afghanistan and Iraq are no longer our problems and that we need to focus on how we are going to meet the challenges of the 21st century. He adds that these challenges are economic and educational and that they will play out over the Pacific Ocean. He says that the biggest threat and challenge is Iran. He talks about how our relationship started and how it evolved over the years. He points out that we missed a huge opportunity with the Persian Spring in 2009. Huntsman believes that Obama dropped that ball and if we had done something earlier we could’ve built up good relations with those in Iran opposing the current regime. He asks the same question Newt did, when he wants to know if we are okay with Iran having a nuke. He says that China seems to be fine with it and Russia isn’t really concerned. He adds though, that if Iran gets one, the Saudis will and then the Egyptians and then everyone else in the region. Huntsman says that ALL options need to be on the table in regards to stopping a Iran from becoming a nuclear threat.

Newt adds that all it would take is two or three nukes to create another Holocaust and thus, it would kill Judaism on the planet. M’kay, has he ever been to New York or Hollywood? This is what gets me, where Newt can often time make good points, he ruins it by going over the top with this fear-mongering bullshit. He says that he doesn’t want to be the one guy that would stand to the side and allow Israel to be susceptible to a future holocaust.

Huntsman says that there will be talks of sanctions against Iran but says that it won’t work. He points out that China and Russia won’t work with us and that Iran will still build a nuke anyway. He says that the United States needs to do it their way and that the U.S. works best when it is left to its own devices.

The third topic up for discussion is the Arab Spring. Huntsman goes first by saying that we are in a period of great uncertainty in the Middle East. He said that we make a mistake whenever we try to get involved and pick a winner. He talks about how when he was the ambassador to China, they were on high alert over Middle East issues because depending upon what happened with all the dictators and regime changes, it affected their bottom line. Huntsman says that we need to look for and support groups that share American values but we need to make sure we don’t back those whose viewpoints are inconsistent. So what he is hinting at is that we need to not help a rebellion made up of Al-Qaeda and Taliban soldiers that used to kill American soldiers: Libya is where that happened. Huntsman goes on to say that he couldn’t see a national security issue that could justify us going into Libya. He says that Syria is different however as it is an ally of Iran and it is used as a pipeline by Iran to help keep the region destabilized. He feels that this makes Syria a national security issue, unlike Libya. In my opinion, Libya probably will be a huge threat down the road considering who we propped up there. Egypt also fits this mold now, even though we weren’t involved.

Newt talks about how we made a mistake not doing anything in regards to Egypt. He says that Honsi Mubarak was our ally for decades and that he did a lot to help the United States in that region. So Newt, is basically ignoring the fact that this propped up “president” who fixed elections for over thirty years, deserved to be protected from his subjects who just wanted fair elections and regime change. Newt is excusing Mubarak’s tyranny because we created and approved the tyranny. This whole stance is crap. I’m not saying that the Muslim Brotherhood is better by any means but who are we to say who Egypt can chose as their leaders? Newt feels that we are allowed to dictate the fate of other countries. Newt just goes on and on about how Obama turned his back on our friend and how he was forced to step down without any dignity. Shit, is it just me or was Mubarak’s entire presidency severely lacking any dignity?

Gingrich then goes on a second rant about how poor our intelligence is. He says that we didn’t know who these people were who wanted to overthrow Gaddafi but we helped them because Gaddafi was an evil dictator (and Mubarak wasn’t?). He talks about how the biggest influx of anti-American fighters joining terror cells came out of Saudi Arabia and Libya. Funny because it was widely reported that the rebels fighting Gaddafi, who we were helping, were made up of several former Al-Qaeda and Taliban soldiers. Well, the mainstream media ignored this but the alternative media was all over it. So Newt is saying that alternative media outlets have better intel than the U.S. government. Newt is a good talker and he wins over a lot of people with this bullshit but being a good talker can’t save you from digging your way out of your own bullshit when actual facts are present. Keep building the fear though buddy.

The next topic is how to bring down the debt without destabilizing America’s place in the world. The multiple problems with this discussion topic should be obvious. First, it implies that American imperialism is okay and is essentially wondering how we can continue to maintain our military’s overreaching power. Keep in mind that we are currently in over 130 countries; there are only 196 in the world, so we are roughly in two-thirds of all the countries. Sorry, but I find that to be insane and incredibly wasteful. The second problem with this question is that it completely ignores the difference between defense spending and military spending. The vast majority of our military actions aren’t done as a means of defense, they just lump them into the categorization of “defense” because they need to sell it and they need to keep us controlled through their manufactured fear. That may sound crazy but Newt’s been manufacturing fear all night: read between the lines.

Gingrich kicks it off by saying that you have to build strategies off of all the things that threaten you in the world. He actually says that this is the “first priority of government”. He says that Obama’s proposal of randomly cutting “defense” by 500 billion is horrible and that cutting the military budget in that way is basically bad policy. He then cites the fact that he established the Military Reform Caucus in 1981 under Reagan and that he helped eliminate waste in the area of defense. He then recycles his point from a few debates ago about how Apple can develop new products so quickly and frequently but the military takes a dozen years or so to develop a single weapon. He says that you can’t balance the budget until you make the military you need and handle the foreign policy issues first. Newt is so far from the Founding Fathers it’s like they are separated by more than two centuries!

Jon Huntsman talks about the Navy service of his two sons and how important the military is to him and his family. He goes on to say that the fact that we are 15 trillion dollars in debt, is crazy and that it is our biggest national security issue. Yeah Newt, take that! You and your phantom menaces! He talks about Japan and Europe and their debt to GDP ratio and how much trouble they are all in. He says that everything needs to be on the table, there are no sacred cows. We don’t have the right to bitch about our entitlements like we live in the lap of luxury anymore: this includes defense. He points out that we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined and that we are spending much more than we did at the height of the Cold War. He goes on to say that terror is a real problem and that it isn’t going away anytime soon. He is for counter-terrorism measures and developing the tools necessary to stop the evil bastards but that we need to really look at where we can cut military spending regardless. Bringing the troops home from all these pointless ongoing wars would be a big start. Huntsman also points out that the cost of making a fighter jet now as compared to before is ridiculous. He says that the huge spike in cost isn’t reflective of parts and labor, instead it is reflective of the high cost of red tape and bureaucratic bullshit. Both candidates conclude this discussion by agreeing that we need to look at wasteful spending like having bases in Germany and other silly places.

The final topic is China and the Pacific Rim. Huntsman, the former ambassador to China starts. He talks about how we have elections in America and how China doesn’t, they just have leadership changes. He says that they are in for some major changes as the leadership will soon shift again. He says that the younger generations are of a different mindset of their predecessors. This is very true considering the growing Jasmine Revolution going on that the Chinese government is trying to stop. Huntsman then asks what our objectives should be. Talking about their future economic woes, he talks about how the numbers of active farmers have gone from 800 million down to 200 million and that there are now 600 million ex-farmers that are creating a major burden on the major cities, as they are looking for work in the manufacturing industry. Unlike Mitt Romney and all the other candidates who are trying their damnedest to make us fear China, Huntsman just hits us with logic, reason and actual knowledge of the situation. Huntsman says that we would be “crazy” to not “recognize the tectonic shifts that are happening in the macroeconomic environment.” He adds that we need to prepare ourselves for these shifts and to be ready to make a serious impact. Huntsman is so positive when it comes to this stuff. He closes this point by saying that this country is on the cusp of a “manufacturing renaissance” if we do this the right way. He goes on to another point where he says that we need to communicate with China better because they are the “greatest long-term strategical thinkers in the world” and we are “the greatest short-term tactical thinkers in the world”. He believes that we need to find a way to make these two cultures mesh and to develop a dialogue that works in a respectful way that shows dedication to each other. Huntsman tells us that from 2014 to 2017 we will have more flexibility to work and develop a better relationship with China, due to their next and younger regime coming in.

Newt re-enters the discussion and immediately admits that Governor Huntsman knows more than he does on the China issue. Newt feels that the most important relationship over the next fifty years is the one that the American people need to have with the Chinese people. He says that we have to understand that even though their totalitarian ways go against our American values, that we need to not forget that we are still better off being on good terms with each other. Newt says that where China is now getting more expensive in manufacturing, America is getting better at modernizing it and eventually that will be a big benefit to us. However, fear-monger Newt takes over and immediately starts talking about how we need better weapons to deal with a potential Chinese military threat. At this point, I think Newt is winning in the polls just because he is scaring the shit out of enough people. Vote for me or get bombed! Bwahahahaha!

The candidates then go on to give their closing statements. In the end, I thought this debate was very good and it really provided the viewer with deep insight into Huntsman’s policy, which is always overshadowed by the moderators of other debates giving too much airtime to Romney, Gingrich and Perry. Unfortunately this wasn’t on TV, except for a tape delay on C-SPAN. Personally, I had to watch it online. I really wish that more people would have had access to this discussion as it provided a lot of new ideas and insight on issues that most of the other candidates either don’t fully understand or just use in an underhanded way to scare votes out of us. Unlike the majority of the choices the GOP is providing right now, Huntsman isn’t your typical narrow-sighted fear-mongering bastard. As far as China and foreign policy go, Jon Huntsman fucking gets it. If Ron Paul wasn’t in the race, Huntsman would be my guy in the GOP. This is also assuming that Gary Johnson is now jumping ship to the Libertarian Party.

Grading Scale:
Grade B+: Jon Huntsman
Grade C-: Newt Gingrich
Grade I: Ron Paul
Grade I: Mitt Romeny
Grade I: Rick Perry
Grade I: Rick Santorum
Grade I: Michele Bachmann
Grade I: Gary Johnson

A senior Pakistani military officer said a NATO air strike killing 24 Pakistani troops on the Afghan border last month was pre-planned and warned of more attacks, comments likely to fuel tension with the United States.

Major General Ashfaq Nadeem, director general of military operations, was also quoted by newspapers on Friday as saying that Pakistan, a strategic U.S. ally, would deploy an air defence system along the border to prevent such attacks.

Nadeem made the remarks to a Senate committee on defence on Thursday. Senator Tariq Azim, who attended the briefing, confirmed to Reuters that Nadeem had made the comments.

The Daily Times said Nadeem described the attack as a plot. Another newspaper quoted him as saying it was a “pre-planned conspiracy” against Pakistan.

“We can expect more attacks from our supposed allies,” the Express Tribune quoted Nadeem as saying at the senate briefing.

U.S. and Pakistani officials have offered differing initial accounts of what happened.

Pakistan said the attack was unprovoked, with officials calling it an act of blatant aggression — an accusation the United States has rejected.

Two U.S. officials told Reuters that preliminary information from the ongoing investigation indicated Pakistani officials at a border coordination centre had cleared the air strike, unaware they had troops in the area.

Nadeem ruled out the possibility that NATO forces may have thought they were firing on militants, who often move across the porous frontier and attack Western troops.

One newspaper reported that he told the Senate committee that militants do not leave themselves exposed on mountain tops, like the ones where the Pakistani border posts were located.

Senator Azim also quoted Nadeem as saying that NATO helicopters singled out one army major as he was crossing from one border post to another after losing communications, and this also led the military to conclude the attack was planned.

Pakistan responded to the attack by suspending supply routes to NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Idle drivers of trucks carrying fuel and other supplies to the neighbouring country fear being attacked by Pakistani Taliban militants who oppose cooperation with NATO.

Militants fired a rocket-propelled grenade at such trucks in the southwestern city of Quetta in Baluchistan province on Thursday night, setting fire to 29 vehicles, police officials said.

Washington, which sees Pakistan as critical to its efforts to stabilise Afghanistan ahead of a combat troop pullout in 2014, has tried to sooth fury over the NATO incident.

President Barack Obama called Pakistan’s president to offer condolences over the strike that provoked a crisis in relations between the two countries. He stopped short of a formal apology.

Pakistan boycotted an international conference in Germany on the future of Afghanistan because of the NATO attack.

U.S.-Pakistani ties were already frayed after the secret U.S. raid in May that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

(Writing by Michael Georgy; Editing by Jonathan Thatcher)

Source: Swiss Info via Reuters.

In a newly released audio message, al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri claims that his organization is holding hostage Warren Weinstein, a 70-year-old American who went missing in August in Pakistan.

Zawahiri’s statement is the first official claim of responsibility by any group in relation to the kidnapping, and a U.S. official said the statement buttressed earlier “indications” that al Qaeda might be holding the American.

“I tell the captive soldiers of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and our female prisoners held in the prisons of the crusaders and their collaborators, we have not forgotten you and in order to free you we have taken hostage the Jewish American Warren Weinstein,” says Zawahiri in the 30-minute statement, which appeared on jihadi websites Thursday and otherwise focuses mainly on the situation in his native Egypt.

The leader of Al Qaeda addresses Weinstein’s family, telling them that “your government tortures our prisoners, but we have not tortured your prisoner.” He also warns them not to trust President Obama’s assurances that everything is being done to secure Weinstein’s release, accusing the president of wishing “[Weinstein] would be killed to get rid of his problem.”

A U.S. official told ABC News that although there has been no “proof of life” offered by al Qaeda or its allies that proves they have Weinstein, there were already “indications” he may be held by al Qaeda.

CONTINUED at ABC News. Video at link.

The Chinese military has scheduled a massive wargame exercise in Pakistan in response to a build-up of U.S. troops in the region as a top Chinese government official warned that any threat to Pakistan would be taken as a direct threat to China.

In a report by China’s Central Television translated for us by a native Mandarin speaker, an unnamed government official warned, “Any threat to Pakistan is a threat to China,” in response to increasing hostility directed towards Pakistan by both the US and NATO in the aftermath of a NATO bombing that killed 26 Pakistani soldiers last week.

Pakistan responded to the airstrike by sealing its border with Afghanistan, preventing supplies from reaching the US-occupied country.

According to the report, the United States is massing troops on Pakistan’s border in an act of aggression that China sees as a direct threat to its close alliance with the country. In response, China has sent large numbers of Second Artillery PLA troops armed with sophisticated DF-21C and short-range DF-11A tactical missiles to northwestern Pakistan in preparation for a huge military exercise designed to reflect China’s “attitude towards the US threat to Pakistan.” The drill is set to begin on December 16.

The report strongly emphasizes the Chinese position that its alliance with Pakistan represents a “brotherhood,” and that “China will never be in peace if Pakistan is lost.”

CONTINUED at Prison Planet.