as are all Manchurian candidates, operatives and cells.
Posted on 11/06/2009 1:20:51 PM PST by Fido969
See page 29.
???
Wasn't this the report that told us we should stop calling it the "war on terror," and start focucing on our national security on "conservative extremists" instead"
bookmark
Why am I not surprised? Is the shooter protected from on high?
Yes, this was mentioned on one of the many threads about this yesterday.
has somebody already started a “duh wtf do you expect from a muslim in the army” thread?
Well, well, well. Better get Beck on this one too.
WOW! HOW DID YOU FIND THIS?............................
Sorry, I did a search and didn't see it.
Didn't see it on the MSM either, but I don't watch it much!
thanks I never knew this.
Is there a link which goes to the evidence right away please so I can mail it off to others I know
A pic of Bin Laden in the background? Is it photoshopped?
Good Grief - Nidal is posing in front of a portrait of Osama.
WTF???????
CHECK THIS OUT!!!!!!!!!!.........
Nidal Hasan
Uniformed Services University School of Medicine is listed in Appendix C, which is a list of Task Force Event Participants. Not sure what that means. I don’t think he was on the Task Force but did participate in an event the task force sponsored?
I just heard someone (Might have been Brent Bozelle-missed his name) on Hannity say there are reports that phone numbers on his phone and url’s on his computer are those with known terrorist connections.
He also said Hasan’s parets were Palestinian refugees who went to Jordan. They were not Jordanian.
(needs confirmation)
The Homeland Security .pdf he is listed on is here.
http://bobmccarty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/PTTF_ProceedingsReport_05.19.09.pdf
Why am I not surprised?
Good job,man!
saw that too? WTH?
Figures this terrorist POS radical was an Obama goon.
This is page 29, Appendix C - unformatted.
Appendix C
Task Force Event Participants 21 3
THINKING ANEW—SECURITY PRIORITIES FOR THE NEXT
ADMINISTRATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The nation is in the midst of a crossroads in its consideration of security policy. A coherent strategy to address 21st century threats to the United States, one that treats national and homeland security as a seamless whole, has yet to emerge. Washington is now marked by a new Administration, a new tone, and a new space – offering a rare opportunity to catch our collective breath, to think creatively and anew about the most vexing challenges this country faces, and to put the most powerful of those reasoned ideas into action.
To help fuel this process, in April 2008 The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) established the Presidential Transition Task Force, comprised of national and homeland security experts, policymakers and practitioners. Task Force members included representatives from past Administrations, State government, Fortune 500 companies, academia, research institutions and non-governmental organizations with global reach. The goal was to determine the top strategic priorities to advance the nation’s security in the coming decade and to further policy discussions by identifying the benefits and challenges to achieving these goals, as well as the way forward. Given prevailing fiscal realities, prioritization of security efforts and resources becomes all the more important.
The Task Force held internal deliberations, which included a number of briefings from subject-matter experts at the forefront of their fields.1 From these discussions and debates, four strategic priorities emerged that serve to inform the new Administration:
• development and implementation of a proactive security strategy at the federal level that integrates international and domestic aspects of security, is founded upon the concepts of resilience, and is effectively resourced;
• enhancement of a national approach to preparedness and response through the development of a risk-based homeland security doctrine that effectively draws upon and coordinates all available assets (governments, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and the public);
• realistic public discussion of the threats the nation faces and constructive engagement of the American public in preparedness and response efforts; and
•re-invigoration of the United States’ role in the world, through a recognition that our security and that of our allies depends upon the stability and engagement of other nations.
To further develop and vet these priorities, HSPI and the Presidential Transition Task Force hosted a series of public roundtables titled, Thinking Anew – Security Priorities for the Next Administration, to draw upon the expertise, insights and perspectives of the broader policy community. The
1 For a list of briefers, see Appendix A.
- 1 - THINKING ANEW—SECURITY PRIORITIES FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION
roundtables drew significant audiences and featured respected speakers from a variety of relevant arenas, including policymakers; federal, state and local government officials; concerned and involved citizens; recognized think tank experts and academics in international studies; leaders in the NGO community; and media experts steeped in an understanding of new media and behavioral research. Reports of these proceedings follow; a roster of participants and an overview of media coverage is also included at the end of this document.
The security policy priorities identified by the Task Force, as well as key findings and recommendations, are as follows:
Proactive Strategy and Resilient Foundations: Striking the Right Federal Stance
Challenge and opportunity within the security realm exist for the new Administration. The chance to think creatively and anew accompanies the myriad complex matters on the horizon. The Task Force determined that a coherent strategy to address 21st century threats to the United States requires that national and homeland security be treated as a seamless whole; but that strategy has yet to emerge. To achieve a proactive and resilient posture, U.S. strategy, policy, practice and organizational structures may need to be revised or recalibrated. The following findings and recommendations underscore gaps in the current circumstance, and suggest specific steps for how the new Administration might best meet the challenges ahead.
Findings
• The US has adopted reactive rather than proactive strategic approaches to homeland security and national security.
• The US has not built sufficient resilience into its strategic security posture.
• Since 2003, homeland security and national security policy have been treated as separate and distinct enterprises.
• The budgeting process for homeland security investment priorities is opaque and oriented towards the short-term.
Recommendations
The President should:
• more closely align homeland and national security entities within the executive branch of government in order to get ahead of the threat;
• use the forthcoming Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) to leverage long-term planning and budgeting for homeland security and national security priorities; specifically, align the QHSR with the Quadrennial Defense Review;
• streamline congressional oversight of homeland and national security entities by working with Congress to enact Department of Homeland Security authorization legislation;
• embed privacy protections and due respect for civil liberties in homeland and national security program development; and
• invest in education and professional development training, to include rotation details, for the homeland security professional civilian corps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.