Archive for the ‘Foreign Policy’ Category

Syria: The Establishment’s War

Sunday, September 8th, 2013

The message went out from the establishment intelligentsia: Link Syria to Iran and talk about the Iranian nuclear weapons program, and more in Congress will buy it.  John Boehner continues to “lead” House Republicans into President Obama’s pocket, as the word circulated that if a House vote on the use of force looked like a loser, they would spare Obama the embarrassment by simply tabling the matter.  Why are House Republican leaders seeking to spare Barack Obama the humiliation of losing a vote on anything?  If Boehner were any kind of opposition leader, he would revel in it.  The plain truth of the matter is that one can imagine a vital US interest in Syria’s civil war by the most contorted linguistic machinations.  We, the American people, have no interests there, and as polls reveal, we damned-well know it.

John McCain(R-AZ) can shout down detractors at town hall meetings all he likes, but simply put, the Senator is representing somebody the interests of somebody else when he advocates sending American forces to attack Syria.  Karl Rove is pushing, and all the rest of the DC intelligentsia is demanding a war on Syrian dictator (until recently referred to simply as “President”) Bashar Assad.  What is Assad’s grave crime?  Allegedly, forces under his command employed chemical nerve agent(s) against some number of civilians, estimated by the media in the range of 1,400.  Meanwhile, in the last two years, under the horrors of civil war, nearly 100,000 people have perished.  The calculation in use by Washington DC is that because Assad is alleged to have crossed this “red line,” employing these weapons of mass destruction, he must be punished(and ejected or killed) while they deny being after regime change.

Civilian death is horrible, but it is also an ugly and sometimes unavoidable reality of war.  The US has bombed civilians into oblivion in every war since the advent of the airplane. We excused those deaths as unavoidable  “collateral damage.” I don’t believe the method much matters.  This is another instance of Washington DC imposing its morality on the rest of us.  In 1994 Rawanda, when an estimated one-million Tutsi were murdered by the Hutus, nobody in Washington DC batted an eye.  You see, they weren’t slaughtered with chemical weapons, but in the main by Hutus wielding machetes.  Once again, the Washington DC establishment is more concerned with the weapon than the fact that people died.  More Americans will die prematurely as a result of Obama-care than have died in Syria as a result of chemical weapons.  Can we consider Congress and the President war criminals too?If chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, what then must we call Obama-care? It’s a legalized genocide machine, but nobody in the DC establishment seems the least bit perturbed by it.

For his part, President Obama has conducted his foreign policy like a lunatic.  Since he’s a looney-tunes leftist, this isn’t much of a surprise, but what has been more maddening is the voices of establishment Republicans rushing in to support him.  Most notable among these is that daft bugger with an anger-management issue from Arizona, who cannot wait to oust dictators in the Islamic world in order to replace them with even worse enemies of freedom in the form of al-Qaeda and its affiliate groups.  What sort of madman would demand a replacement of a known quantity of evil with a potentially more vast one?  John McCain believes apparently that any change is good change.

In fact, it seems as though McCain has been on a mission to sabotage the American people.  Some will cite his status as a war hero when excusing his bizarre policy positions in favor of illegal immigration, restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of Americans, as well as the First Amendment rights against which he legislated(McCain-Feingold.)  Frankly, it doesn’t much matter whether he’s incompetent or nefarious.  The fact is that his open support of this President’s anti-American agenda is all that one needs to know that something is wrong with McCain.  McCain was openly challenged by Arizonans at his town-hall meeting this week.  Every one of his detractors appeared more sensible than did the Senator.  While some think he’s senile, I think it’s worse than a touch of dementia.

The fact is that John McCain has joined the DC establishment-class at least a decade-and-one-half ago, as he sought the GOP nomination for President in 2000.  His treatment of the American people is driven by apparent disdain, and his contempt for plain old American values is shocking.  Why would he impel our country to intervene on behalf of rebels who are linked to the people who attacked us throughout the 1990s and particularly on 9/11/2001?  There are plenty of conspiracy theories, naturally, but whatever his reasons, they simply don’t add up in the manner he’s pitching them.  Of course, it’s more than John McCain.

The entire DC establishment wants this war.  As our economy careens toward a cliff, and as Washington DC inflates our money while preparing to stiff us on amnesty/illegal immigration and the funding of the WMD known as Obama-care, they want us watching Syria.  After all, if people in a town-hall are clobbering McCain over Syria, they’re not clobbering him over immigration or Obama-care.  I’m not suggesting that Syria is entirely a distraction, except that as creatures of opportunity, the establishment doesn’t mind using it that way.  Once again, however, the people who run this country are pushing an agenda the American people largely oppose.  Obama-care, amnesty, and military action in Syria are all things to which the citizens of this nation currently stand opposed.

It is for this reason that Iran and its nuclear weapons have now resurfaced as an issue linked to Syrian action.  Meanwhile, the people in Washington continue to angle for the creation of a vast new caliphate spanning the Islamic world, and they’re willing to use US forces as the mercenaries in that pursuit, as the Saudis and others offer to pay for the costs of removing Assad.  It’s become so bizarre that McCain claimed “Allahu Akbar” means “thank God.” Literally translated as the battle-cry it has been, it means “Allah is greater[than your God.]“  For those who have bought the misplaced notion that Islam worships the same god as Christians and Jews, this might pass the sniff-test, but for those who have studied the matter, McCain’s comment reeks of a naiveté or blatant dishonesty, either of which represents a clear and present danger to our country.

We have no business in Syria, never mind assisting the radical elements there.  1,400 civilians have been killed allegedly by chemical weapons, allegedly employed by Assad, but the American people have seen no evidence.  Instead, the DC establishment chatters about “intelligence briefings” as if the same people who didn’t prevent 9/11 are some sort of omniscient Oracle that knows, or that having seen such alleged intelligence, we, the American people ought simply to believe them, and accept it without further discussion.  Honestly, we’ve been here before.

While Washington DC prepares for war against Assad, we should remain mindful that the government is largely in a war against us.  No longer interested in serving the interests of the American people, and no longer bothered by that fact being obvious, they intend to have their war whatever we may think about it. Just like Obama-care, and exactly like amnesty.  It’s all part of one war: Washington DC against us.

 

Why Sarah Palin Is Right About Syria

Sunday, June 16th, 2013

Why Should We Go to Syria?

At Saturday’s session of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference in Washington DC, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made some remarks, and among those that prompted the media to go berserk, she said of the potential of US involvement in that conflict that we “should let Allah sort it out.”  I actually saw one site on which she was referred to as an “isolationist” for this view, but such claims are laughable given her in-depth understanding of international trade and national security.  I saw another site suggesting that she didn’t know what she was talking about, or wasn’t qualified to comment.  Either way, it seemed more likely that the sites and authors in question had more trouble with who said it, or how it was said, because I believe the vast majority of Americans probably side with Governor Palin on this issue.  Apart from the fact that most Americans haven’t the patience for another middle-eastern  military engagement with indistinct goals and a muddled mission, there are some very practical reasons why she is right about all of this.  Mostly, it comes down to the fact that it’s a no-win situation for us, because while the horrors of what is going on in Syria is tragic in human terms, nothing the US can do will effect an end to the suffering, instead only adding to it with our own losses.

The reports this past week that the Assad government had crossed Obama’s “red line” on chemical weapons seem not to be as certain or as specific as our engagement should require.  There are reports that Sarin nerve gas had been used, and that more than one-hundred had been killed in this manner.  If true, it’s an egregious and brutal use of some very insidious weaponry, but it must also be said that if killing one-hundred or more civilians by this manner is a trigger for war, why did it take so long for us to engage Saddam Hussein? In the early years of the Clinton administration, Hussein used precisely this sort of weapon on his own civilians in Southern Iraq.

Advocates of intervention in Syria claim that what we should do is enact a “no fly zone” over that country.  They insist that this is as far as we need go, but there are a few problems with this thinking.  Russia has recently delivered more advanced surface-to-air missile capability to Syria, meaning that our aircraft would be subject to shoot-down in a much more threatening fashion.  Is all of this really worth losing our airmen and our aircraft?  I don’t see a rational justification.  If this were about defending the United States, our men and women will go to the ends of the Earth in pursuit of our defense, but I know few who think we ought to spend their lives frivolously or as a matter of charity, particularly in a place where we have no particular interests or friends.

The fact is that the so-called “rebels” are simply al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda-backed fighters much like those who took down Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Nobody misses Gaddafi, but as the events at Benghazi last September demonstrate, the volatile nature of an environment only loosely-controlled by provisional governments but dominated on the ground by foreign fighters is not the sort of outcome for which Americans should be fighting.

Bashir Assad is a brutal dictator, but those “rebels” who face him are not much better.  We have seen this scenario play out before, and we’re witnessing its aftermath in Libya and Egypt.  The attack on our facilities at Benghazi was born of a similar situation, inasmuch as after we provided air cover for the “rebels” in that country, they immediately shifted gears and wanted us out as they began to build their Islamic Republic.  In this sense, we have no friends at all, by any definition, so that it’s impossible to understand why we would put Americans’ lives at risk to assist any of them.  In this context, it is easy to understand Governor Palin’s sentiment.  We don’t have any friends there, no real national security interests, and therefore, no justification for jumping in.

At the same time, the Russians are heavily invested in Syria and the Assad regime.  Iran is pledging forces to his defense.  Should we really consider placing our already over-stretched forces at risk for this?  Do we risk a wider war in the region if some Russian technical advisers are killed in a raid on a surface-to-air missile site?  More, if al-Qaeda-connected groups were to take over Syria as they have done in Libya, what will that mean for Israel that must live under the constant threat of Syria.  Which is worse for that island of liberty:  A neighbor that is predictably antagonistic and dangerous, or a volatile tempest filled with elements that feel no restraint born of relations to Russia or any other major power?  I’m not inclined to guess as to how the Israelis might feel about the matter, but I suspect that an al-Qaeda-driven neighborhood is not the most pleasant prospect the Israelis could imagine.

There is one final consideration in all of this, and it goes to the absolutely detestable leadership we’ve had over the last few years:  Americans can hardly trust a foreign policy that has squandered opportunities and lives in the manner that has been the hallmark of the Obama administration.  Do we wish to subsidize a foreign policy that is concocted by the likes of Samantha Power?  Do we wish to see the United States entangled in yet another quagmire in that region in which we have far too few friends given our more than two decades of exertions?  How much treasure has been spent, and how much of our blood has been spilled in the pursuit of policies with only vague platitudes about creating or supporting “democracy?”  In which pest-hole has that so far succeeded?

When critics of her remarks launch into their narrow-minded tirades against her alleged lack of foreign policy knowledge, or her supposed “isolationist” views, I can’t help but remember that these same critics would attack Governor Palin whatever her position had been.  Instead, her remarks serve as a flashpoint not for their true policy objections, but instead for their unabashed, unremitting hatred of Sarah Palin, the person.  When one carefully evaluates the facts on the ground in Syria, the hopelessness of the situation becomes evident, and the foolishness of any American engagement there becomes clear.  In Syria, we have no friends, but only enemies, who hate us as much or more than they hate one another.  Were we to intercede on behalf of the so-called “rebels,” were they to prevail, we would soon find ourselves under the gun to get out.  Most Americans are well beyond fatigued by this procedure, as it has been the trend in all our engagements throughout the Muslim world in the last two decades, so that unless the United States or its interests come under direct threat of some sort from actors in the region, our answer should be as Governor Palin wryly noted:  “Let Allah sort it out.”

 

Note to Obama: America Hasn’t Fallen Short – You Have

Saturday, January 12th, 2013

Blaming America First

This President possesses a peculiar penchant for knocking his own country and countrymen.  In his statement during a joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, he explained how America had fallen short of its ideals in Afghanistan, but I wonder about the meaning and the relevance of this claim.  After all, who has been at the helm of American efforts in Afghanistan (or anywhere else) these last four year?  The other problem with his statement is that he references ideals.  I have serious doubts that he’s acquainted with the ideals of America, as evidenced by his repeated attacks on liberty.  No, when he says America has “fallen short,” what he means is that you and I have fallen short, or that our troops have fallen short, but the punishing truth is that the only manner in which the American people may have fallen short had been in missing the opportunity to eject him from office.  To the degree America may have failed in its engagements anywhere around the globe, the truth is quite easy to observe:  Mr. Obama, America has not fallen short.  You have!

To suggest that our oft-deployed troops who spend more time in foreign pest-holes than they do at home have in any measure failed is to ignore both the scale of their mission and the limitations placed upon them by their Commander-in-Chief.  In Afghanistan particularly, our troops are saddled with the grim task of pacifying a region that is inherently unsuited to that end, while looking nervously over their shoulders to see if our alleged ‘friends’ and ‘allies’ in the Afghan Army will open fire on them from behind.  The Chain of Command has created rules of engagement that are so patently absurd that our soldiers must now fear both to follow them or not follow them, because to follow them can be a suicidal act, and to not follow them can result in punitive legal action against them.

Of course, before we descend even to the nuts-and-bolts of a particular policy, we must examine what Mr. Obama considers the “ideal.”  For most Americans, the ideal in Afghanistan is to exterminate the terrorists, and to gain victory by totally annihilating the people who together with al Qaeda fashioned the capacity to attack the United States on 9/11, and in other places and times.  That’s the American ideal.  Obama’s ideal in Afghanistan is something else altogether, and it’s patently clear that it’s an end never to be achieved:  To make peace with an intractable enemy whose only wish and desire is to kill us, even if they must strap bombs on their own children to do so.  Obama’s notion of the ideal is in conflict with what America is and has been all through its nearly two-and-one-half centuries long history, requiring America to volunteer as a sacrificial lamb for those who want to kill it anyway.

To make friends of enemies that hate you is an impossibility.  We did not seek to make friends of the Germans or the Italians or Japanese in WWII.  Only after pounding them into complete submission did we seek to make peace, but even then, we did not make peace with those who had been conducting the ideology driving the conflict on their side.  We merely asserted that they would now be in full compliance with our will, or we would pummel them into dust, resuming the combat against them.  This is the American ideal of how a war is to be conducted, because the American ideal recognizes the sad realities of war, and the sickening aggregation of human frailties that leads inevitably to them.

Mr. Obama does not adopt the American ideal for war-making, or near as this writer can discern, much of anything else.  If America has fallen short of his ideals, that may be just as well because his ideals are not attainable on this Earth.  His ideals lead to the construction of walls, and the building of gulags, and to the unemployment and welfare lines.  His ideals end with an unarmed citizenry unable to oppose a growing, oppressive state.  Those will be your choices if you are to be governed by the ideals of Mr. Obama and his henchmen.  It is not possible to attain the Utopia he has imagined in his narrow mind, but he doesn’t care how great will be the human carnage left in his wake because he sees those things as “bumps in the road,” much as Mayor Bloomberg now suggests that if his new pain medication regulations in New York cause some unnecessary pain to patients, they must simply suck it up.

Imagine living your entire life dominated by these people, who disregard the torments they inflict on your lives with a shrug.  Given a chance, that will be the nature of our existence, but for our soldiers toiling away in kill-zones like Afghanistan, this is already the case.  There, Obama’s ideals have obtained the condition to which we might all look forward under the next four years of his so-called “leadership.”  There is death everywhere, and behind every corner lurks another killer who is sheltered by rules of engagement that permit him to slip away again, unharmed, and free to work his terror against you.  Famine and human need are monumental, but no amount of distributing goods and services can satisfy the want.  Afghanistan is a grim disaster in human terms, on all sides of the battle, and all is being directed and managed from the office of the “idealist” at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, in Washington DC.

For the President of the United States to stand before the world and proclaim that America has “fallen short” of ideals that he has constructed within the narrow confines of his skull is not to impeach America, but instead to admit that his own ideals are unattainable on this Earth.  Our soldiers have not failed this President, but he has failed them, and awfully so.  Soon, this same despotic mind will tell us, the American people, how we have failed to live up to the twisted ideals with which he has been inculcated and indoctrinated by such thoroughly bent minds as those of Bill Ayers and Frank Marshall Davis. The truth is that on our current course, America will soon resemble Afghanistan in both imitation and mockery of Obama’s bloody “ideal.”

The American people are as fallible as any other, but it takes a peculiarly wretched mind to lead us to the disasters we now endure both at home and abroad.  In this moment, and in this speech lies a grave confession for all those with the courage to recognize it: Barack Obama has established a bizarre and twisted ideal that is unattainable, but he now blames America for failing to reach it.  You see, in his view, the ideal is wonderful, but it is only your human failings that prevent you from meeting the challenge.  As a narcissist, in his view, there is nothing wrong with the ideal to which he adheres, but only with you (and America) for failing to approach it.  In his view, it is you who fail to perfect yourselves, but not his failure for expecting compliance with an ideal that would require you to drink his preferred flavor of the same deadly koolaid.  This false attribution of guilt is the hallmark of statists, seeking always to blame their victims for the vast failures they have initiated.  The truth is something else, and it’s simply this:  Barack Obama’s vision has fallen short of America’s ideals, and the sooner we re-establish them, the sooner our long national nightmare will come to an end, because unlike his, they are attainable on this Earth.

It’s not America, Mr. Obama.  It’s you.

Americans Died, Obama Lied

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012

Would I Lie to You? Next Question...

On Tuesday evening, Greta Van Susteren reported the astonishing but predictable news: The Obama administration knew within hours or even minutes who had perpetrated the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, ultimately killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.  The cover story about an anti-Islamic video was merely a scapegoat of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on our consulate, but the sickening fact is that President Obama’s administration, including the State Department, and high level national security officials were well aware of the truth even as they continued to try to sell its cover story to the American people.  The reason is simple:  The Benghazi attack was the first successful strike on American soil by organized radical Islamic supremacists since September 11th, 2001, on its 11th anniversary.  Fourteen days after this attack, Barack Obama was still telling the American people it was about a video, desperately hoping to disconnect the events from the obvious failures in his leadership and foreign policy.  Barack Obama has deceived the American people.  For seven hours, in full possession of the facts, as the attack raged and Americans were slaughtered, this President and his administration did nothing except to concoct a cover story.

Perhaps the most galling meme put forward by the Obama administration in the wake of this dismal failure was the attempt to accuse Mitt Romney of politicizing the event.  The facts speak for themselves: The Obama administration commenced the politicization of this attack by lying to the American people on the basis of politically motivated calculations about the impact the truth would have on the upcoming election.  Barack Obama and his administration clearly have no shame, but while they have sought to hide the truth, on Tuesday evening, emails were disclosed that should put an end to the obfuscation.  From FoxNews:

The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence.

Fox News was told that an estimated 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. People who received these emails work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials, Fox News was told.

That Candy Crowley would give Obama cover on the cover-up during the second Presidential debate is bad enough, but to now discover that the whole administration was quite well aware of the source of the attack means that we not only have a President willing to lie to the American people, but that he has surrounded himself with a cadre of bureaucratic henchmen who share his contempt for Americans.  The Obama administration may be amateurish with respect to its handling of foreign policy, but they are first-rate professionals when it comes to lying to the nation.  The mainstream media continues to cover and hide the lengths to which this administration has gone in its disinformation campaign against the American people.

Joe Wilson was right when he yelled at Obama during a State of the Union address: “You lie!” Worse, however, President Obama isn’t a man who once told a lie and got away with it: He is a reprobate.  He is a liar by trade, and nothing he says may be trusted.  Cataloging the lies of his debate appearance on Monday night would take many pages, but suffice it to say that even some in the mainstream media are having a difficult time covering his tracks.

What readers need to know about Barack Obama is this: There is no lie he won’t tell, and no American whose life and memory he will not sacrifice to his political desires.  This President yammers about the politicization of a tragedy as a pre-emptive strike against the shocking truth that political calculations were and remain the motive for the cover-up of the events in Libya.  Obama hopes the American people will be fooled again, and that when he says he has “kept us safe,” they will forget the deadly attack on our consulate, and the Fort Hood shooting, among other acts of terrorism he refuses to acknowledge as such.  That’s all this really is, and all it’s intended to do.  His entire administration is convicted of a lie, and he’s betting the American people will be too.

Terrorism?  What terrorism?

 

Mr. L Cuts Through the Nonsense on Islamic Supremacists

Friday, September 14th, 2012

Telling You What the Media Won't

Take a little time and listen to Mr. L’s Tavern from Thursday, the 13th of September.  His commentary is on the money.  It’s disgusting that our lame-stream media won’t offer honest appraisals like this, but it’s the reason they’re slowly losing the last of their readers and viewers. Mr. L takes on the coddling of Islamic supremacists, as performed [again] by Barack Obama and his foreign policy.  It’s a disaster for this country, and whether you believe he is simply naive, or you believe that Barack Obama is actively engaged in undermining this nation, it’s impossible to dismiss what Mr. L explains in this installment of his show:

 

Be sure to check out Mr. L’s Tavern for more great commentaries!

Obama Administration Had 48 Hour Warning – Did Nothing

Thursday, September 13th, 2012

Arabs Spring a Trap

The UK Independent is reporting that there had been a high level security leak that provided the militants al-Qaeda the information necessary to carry out the attacks in Benghazi, including timing about Amb. Steven’s visit, and information about the safe-house location that ultimately came under mortar fire.  Worse, the White House knew about the threat but did nothing to pass the information along to personnel on the ground in Libya, waiting until after the disaster to send a special Marine anti-terror team into Libya.  No warnings were issued to personnel that would have permitted them to call off the Benghazi trip or otherwise augment security.  It was a set-up.  It had nothing to do with any film, except perhaps as a cover.  With this new information, it should be clear that Barack Obama is incompetent to lead this nation, and his lack of leadership is now a security threat all its own.

The entire attack was orchestrated, and it is now becoming clear that somebody who had extremely sensitive inside information about the movements of the Ambassador and other Embassy and Consular personnel must have provided that information to the attackers.   Muslim Brotherhood links to the White House must be examined, as must all Libyans, or other personnel working in and around the Department of State both in Washington and on the ground in Libya.   This crisis evinces the most stunning foreign policy and intelligence failures since the “Bay of Pigs” in 1962, and it appears to be worsening.

Given past threats on or around the 9/11 anniversary, one would think there would have been at least general warnings sent out to Embassies and Consulates worldwide, but neither the State Department under the leadership mismanagement of Secretary Hillary Clinton nor anybody in the Executive branch answering to the President seems to have been the least bit concerned.  More, we ought to suspect there are insiders in either the State Department or in the Executive branch feeding information to al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Not only do we have amateurs in the White House and in the State Department, but we must have somebody playing for the other team in close proximity to sensitive information.   Barack Obama has left us financially broken, militarily naked, and isolated from our only reliable ally in the region, Israel.  He has no time for Benjamin Netanyahu, no time for security or intelligence briefings, and no time to lead this nation.  Meanwhile, the lapdog media in the US continues to pretend none of this is happening, while  none of our reporters will even attempt to ask President Obama a question.  We had 48 hours or more of warning, and President Obama didn’t bolster security? Nobody in the lame-stream media is even slightly curious?

This is a dereliction of duty that shouldn’t be forgiven or forgotten.  I don’t want to hear any excuses about him having a blind spot with respect to Islam because of his acculturation.  No way.  This is the President who bowed his way through the Middle East, and apologizes repeatedly to Islam.  This is a wreck, and he made it.

Barack Obama’s Despicable Conduct of US Foreign Policy

Thursday, September 13th, 2012

Hoisting al Qaeda's Colors

We’ve known for some time that US foreign policy has become the instrument by which America has been ceding its interests around the globe, but what the response of President Obama and his State Department to attacks on US personnel in Libya reveals is a sickness that pervades this administration from top to bottom.   We have seen administrations in the past that have failed to put America’s interests first in our global relations, but it is clear from the record that Obama’s foreign policy consists of a single maxim: “America Last.”  This nightmarish projection of the dreams of Obama’s father onto American foreign policy is not merely wrong-headed, or ill-conceived, but instead plainly and virulently anti-American.  At every turn, Obama and his minions place the interests, the safety, and the security of the American people dead last, and the media scurries to cover it up.  Examining what’s happened in Libya and around the Middle East, it is impossible to conclude that the results were accidental.  The events we’re witnessing are the direct result of a policy that puts America last, at home, and around the world, and Barack Obama is that policy’s author.

On September 11th, 2012, American consulates and embassies came under attack by radical, militant Islamists.  In Benghazi, our ambassador to the nation of Libya, Chris Stevens was murdered, his life poached by murderous thugs who were bent on attacking Americans on the eleventh anniversary of the attacks of 9/11/2001.  Outside the consulate, the chant  “Take a picture, Obama, we are all Osama,” could be heard, and while Americans were under attack, the first assumption the State Department made about the motives of the attackers was that it had been a backlash against an anti-Islamic film aimed at exposing the crimes of Islam against the Coptic Christians of Egypt.

This is not merely naive, but foolish.  In what is clearly a coordinated effort to attack US possessions and personnel, our ambassador was beaten and killed, dying of “severe asphyxia.”  Meanwhile, Barack Obama does nothing, but as bad as that is, I am astonished by Hillary Clinton’s naive remarks in a statement released in the aftermath of the attacks:

“How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be.”

These are the words of the Secretary of State of the United States of America?   A few things come immediately to mind:  When many responsible Americans, myself among them, warned that the so-called “Arab Spring” was a farce, we were mocked as “reactionary” and “conspiracy theorists.”  When we looked on in horror as Senator McCain(R-AZ) went to Libya, and actively supported the imposition of a no fly zone in Libya, many were horrified because all the signs were present that we had climbed into bed with al Qaeda and affiliate organizations.  Secretary Clinton’s advancement of the “Arab Spring” and “Democracy Movement” notions of the Obama administration are simply deplorable, and this question posed as a rhetorical device by Clinton simply serve to demonstrate the point that she should resign in disgrace.

Naturally, in her long and rambling statement, she expressed appropriate grief at out losses in Libya, but then she began the excuse-making on behalf of Libya:

“But we must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or Government of Libya. Everywhere Chris and his team went in Libya, in a country scarred by war and tyranny, they were hailed as friends and partners. And when the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post.”

This is disgraceful.  It is true that Libyan security teams moved our consular staff, but what Mrs. Clinton doesn’t state here is that it was these very Libyans who told the militants where they had moved our people, essentially giving them up.   Meanwhile, as of this writing, there are al Qaeda flags flying over at least two US facilities in the Middle East, and other facilities are now under attack, including Yemen, and al-Jazeera is propagandizing as flags are burned in Tunisia.  The consulate in Berlin has been evacuated because of a suspicious package.  Iraqi militants are threatening, and new attacks have been launched on US facilities in Cairo, Egypt.  The Examiner is now reporting that Ambassador Stevens was raped before he was murdered.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama is too busy to attend security and intelligence briefings, since he can’t miss a fund-raiser anywhere.  I find it simply mind-numbing that our consular staff in Libya  is left to issue a statement or that Hillary Clinton is issuing statements, while Barack Obama appears long enough to say a few words, takes no questions, and walks away.  “The buck stops here” apparently doesn’t apply to President Obama, but I have some questions:

  • Why wasn’t a coordinated attack of some sort on the 11th of September anticipated by the Obama administration?
  • Why wasn’t security augmented before the attacks?
  • When Ayman al-Zawahiri issued a statement a urging Muslims to rise up and attack Americans around the world, why didn’t this administration react to the danger?
  • Why hasn’t President Obama attended all the security and intelligence briefings?
  • Why is this President still playing patty-cakes with the Muslim Brotherhood in the West Wing of the White House?

Rather than seeking answers to these questions, the American press has largely gone into a protective mode, giving aid and comfort to President Obama, instead going after Mitt Romney by pretending there had been some gaffe by virtue of his statements on this matter.  The truth of the matter is that these had been some of the finest moments of what has been a mostly lackluster campaign by Team Romney.

Ladies and gentlemen, the United States is once again under attack, and as the acts of war against us accumulate at consulates and embassies around the globe, we need a President who is willing to take on the threats arrayed against us.  Governor Sarah Palin made a strong statement on Wednesday, rebuking the intolerably useless under-reaction of the Obama administration.  It’s clear that Barack Obama isn’t going to stand up for America, her interests, or even her citizens serving abroad.  There’s something fundamentally broken with Barack Obama’s worldview that would permit him to continue on his current course in light of all that has happened.  We have a man in the White House who is seeking to damage the country, and through his inaction in the face of mayhem and murder is abetting the enemies of America.  Barack Obama should heed now his own advice to Hosni Mubarak. Speaking of Egypt, Obama said: “[the transition] must be meaningful, it must be peaceful and it must begin now.”

Amen.  Go home, Mr. Obama…and take Mrs. Clinton with you.

 

Obama Sabotages Israelis: Can They Remain Our Ally?

Sunday, April 1st, 2012

Iranian Nuclear Sites

The most thoroughly disturbing story to appear last week was the information suggesting that the Obama administration is actively undermining Israel in its preparations to strike Iran, and disclosing its plans to the press in order to prevent them from being carried out.  This story appeared in YNet News on Thursday, and it offers details about what’s at stake, but more, the treachery of the Obama administration in seeking to undermine our ally Israel in its preparations to make strikes against nuclear facilities in Iran.  Apart from the fact that this is a serious leak that should result in firings, the problem is that this may be official US policy behind the scenes. My question is this:  If these leaks didn’t have the official sanction of the President, what is he doing to identify the leakers?

The information leaked suggests that Israel has formed some sort of alliance with Iran’s neighbor to the North, Azerbaijan.  The basic idea contained in the leaks is that Israel would launch strikes from airbases in that country, flying across the Caspian Sea in low-level sorties designed to fly under radar coverage.  The serious problem lies in the fact that all of this information has done serious damage to Israel, and even to the United States, as the article details in this summary of the damage inflicted:

  • Iran now has a decent picture of what Israel’s and America’s intelligence communities know about Tehran’s nuclear program and defense establishment, including its aerial defenses.
  • The Iranians now know about the indications that would be perceived by Washington and Jerusalem as a “nuclear breakthrough”. Hence, Iran can do a better job of concealment.
  • The reports make it more difficult to utilize certain operational options. These options, even if not considered thus far, could have been used by the US in the future, should Iran not thwart them via diplomatic and military means.

As you can well imagine, these leaks have created a serious problem for Israel, and it effectively takes this range of strike options off the table.  With the Obama administration undertaking such a program of intentional leaks, it’s hard to imagine relations could grow much cooler between the US and Israel.  One of the problems I foresee in this instance is wondering what happens when Israel, that increasingly views Iran as a potential existential threat to its people, comes to see us as taking on the role of effectively aiding that threat.

These are dangerous times, and the United States has a president who seems intent upon making them more volatile.  By making such information known to the press, it is likely to act to prevent an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, but the problem is that Iran may be making serious strides in the development of nuclear weapons.  So armed, they would pose a serious threat to the existence of Israel, particularly since they have a leader who has promised repeatedly to immolate Israel and her people.

If this administration is serious, what it will do is investigate the leaks and bring the sources to justice because these are classified documents and assessments, and any who have access to such material ought to be limited strictly, thus making it easier to discern who is doing all the leaking.  Failing even to attempt to identify the sources of the leaks is as good as an endorsement of them, and what that suggests about this administration is too terrible to contemplate.

The original story broke in Foreign Policy Magazine, and former Ambassador John Bolton was among those who responded with severe criticism of the Obama administration.  One unnamed intelligence officer quoted in the article said:

“We’re watching what Iran does closely,” one of the U.S. sources, an intelligence officer engaged in assessing the ramifications of a prospective Israeli attack confirmed. “But we’re now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we’re not happy about it.”

To have American officials of any description making such remarks to the press is abominable, but to see that the Obama administration is doing nothing about it gives the appearance of official sanction. This makes one wonder what the Obama administration’s actual policy is toward Israel.  Whatever you may choose to call it, it doesn’t seem to fit the term “ally.”

 

Sarah Palin Is Right About Obama’s Intentions

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

The Gov Weighs In

When President Obama was caught by an open microphone telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he needed more flexibility because this is an election year, he wasn’t saying this as a means to buy time for negotiations as his staff later claimed.  He was plainly delivering a promise on our missile defense systems that endangers every American from sea to shining sea.  This ridiculous behavior caught the attention of many, but it brought down a hail of criticism from former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who has embarked on a mission to thoroughly vet Barack Obama since the media didn’t do it in 2008, and since Obama now has a record from which he cannot escape.  In an article entitled The Audacity of Obama’s Intentions Revealed, Governor Palin makes the strong case that Barack Obama isn’t looking out for American interests, and may indeed by hurting them.

She offers the following quote from the open-mic transcripts:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

“Vladimir” is none other than Vladimir Putin.  What Medvedev does is agree to be a courier for Obama and deliver a message to Putin.  He’s buying time, but it’s political time, meaning he is offering to come across with what Putin wants but he has to wait until after the election when he’ll be able to get away with almost anything if re-elected.  From Gov. Palin’s Facebook note:

“I pointed this out as Governor of Alaska when he proposed reducing Alaska’s missile defense system capabilities. I explained then that the President’s proposed military cuts would diminish Alaska’s opportunity to defend the union with our strategic location’s defense infrastructure. We also know that in 2009, as part of his “reset” with Russia, President Obama turned his back on our Eastern European allies by abandoning past promises for a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.”

Governor Palin is spot-on about this.  President Obama has done everything he could to weaken the United States position with respect to Russia, and it hasn’t gone well for America’s defenses as Obama has cut our vital strategic capabilities.  Among other things she notes, Gov. Palin points out the disastrous results of just three short years of Obama’s defense policies for American national security:

“He has consistently taken a position of weakness and naïve trust in Putin’s Russia. Consider that one-sided New START Treaty as an example of this. Or consider those cuts to Alaska’s missile defense system, which leaves us much more vulnerable in the face of a nuclear North Korea. Now consider the state of our national defense under a President who whispers to a foreign power that he needs even “more flexibility” to weaken us further.”

This is demonstrably true, and it should cause great concern for Americans.  Read the rest of Governor Palin’s article here.  I think it’s a dangerous sign that the President of the United States is making whispered assurances of this sort to Putin’s emissary.  What Obama clearly has in mind is the ability to rule without worry about being kicked to the curb for his disgraceful behavior in this matter, but also his general lack of concern for the defenses of our nation.

My questions are simple, and I’ve asked them many times before, in various forms:  What is Barack Obama after?  Why is he undermining our country?  What will he gain?  Whose interests does he serve, since it cannot be ours?  Why do I get the feeling that if re-elected, Barack Obama might well leave this country even more fully open to attack than his policies have already made it?

As Governor Palin points out elsewhere in her article, while we can’t know what’s in Barack Obama’s mind, we can make educated guesses based on his past performance as a decryption key in speculating about his future actions.  In my own view, with the past as prologue, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to imagine that Barack Obama isn’t intentionally undermining America and bolstering its enemies at home and abroad.  As I have pointed out before, I do not believe that Obama’s actions owe to incompetence.  What he’s doing is by design, and the increasing threat of an Obama second term should be terrifying to Americans who love their country.

Sarah Palin Tweets Hilarious Video as the Vetting of Obama Continues

Monday, March 26th, 2012

Different Dignitary, Same Schlock

This is video is both hilarious, and sad, but I think we should be able to get a laugh from this, while also realizing the more serious nature of what it implies about the character of this president, and what Governor Palin termed his “empty, recycled rhetoric” in a tweet just minutes ago.  It’s true.  Barack Obama doesn’t seem to have an original thought in his head, and his treatment of our allies in this video is a classic reminder.  Thanks to Governor Palin for reminding us of this scandalously poor commander-in-chief’s behavior, and the sort of national embarrassment his presidency has become.  One can imagine foreign leaders coming to our country, wondering if they’re going to be given the same old song and dance.  It’s cookie-cutter foreign policy, and it’s typical of Barack Obama’s pathetic leadership.

Classic Obama:

You can read more of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s tweets here: @SarahPalinUSA

Obama Will Have More Flexibility After the Election – As Will Romney After Nomination

Monday, March 26th, 2012

The Flexibility To Betray Us?

Much as Democrats can’t wait to point out the “Etch-a-Sketch” tendencies of Mitt Romney, Barack Obama has similar problems, and another example arose when he told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he(Obama) would have more flexibility after the election.   What he means is that it will be easier to get away with selling out American interests, since he’ll never be forced to answer to voters again.  Of course, as you can tell, Obama already thinks he has this election in the bag, and there’s really no getting around the fact that if he is re-elected, he will have free reins and many expect he will extend his executive authority to rule without reference to Congress.  It points out the reason that character matters, as politicians promise one thing in campaigns, and deliver another afterward, but it’s not only Obama about whom conservatives should worry on this basis.

It also tells us something important about the minds of politicians.  The positions he will take before the election will have no bearing on his actual policies afterward, translating the remark.  That’s an egregious instance of Obama bragging about effectively lying to the American people.  Republicans have a similar problem in their own party, where Mitt Romney’s Communications Director openly admits that the general campaign is like starting over, and he likened their flexibility to an “Etch-a-Sketch.”  This has precisely the same meaning as Barack Obama’s remark, leading me to wonder why any Republican would choose Mitt Romney over the others.  If they find this attitude and conduct disgusting in the behavior of the President, but not in the campaign of Mitt Romney, one must wonder why.

We all recognize that Barack Obama will try to hide his radical side through the coming election, but as bad as that is, our own nomination front-runner is currently doing the same thing to us.  I have no problem with those who wish to point to Obama’s duplicity based on this and other statements, but if we accept Mitt Romney as our nominee, aren’t we falling for the same thing we decry in Obama?

Obama’s Well-Heeled Friends Splurge for State Dinner

Friday, March 16th, 2012

Where are the Collection Baskets?

You don’t get into a State Dinner hosted by the White House without an invitation, particularly when the guest will include somebody like Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron.   Unfortunately, there’s a twist to this, and it has gotten to be ridiculous:  The best way to receive an invitation from the Obama White House is to buy one.   Millions of dollars poured in for Barack Obama by virtue of the efforts of all his top campaign bundlers who were invited this latest State Dinner, and when you consider the laundry-list of the well-heeled, it’s small wonder that they didn’t hire a banker to print the invitations.  ABC News provided the list of guests and how much they had gathered for a chance at this affair, and as you might guess, it’s a list of the who’s-who of top Obama bundlers.

Here’s a sample:

  • Gerald Acker, Huntington Woods, MI – $200,000-$500,000 (Goodman Acker PC)
  • Mark Alderman, Bryn Mawr, PA – $200,000-$500,000 (Cozen & O’Connor)
  • Jean-Phillipe Austin, Miami, FL – $200,000-$500,000 (Physician)
  • Matthew Barzun, Louisville, KY – $500,000+ (Brickpath LLC)
  • Tom and Andrea Bernstein, New York, NY – $500,000+ (Chelsea Piers Mgmt)
  • Neil Bluhm, Chicago, IL – $200,000-$500,000 (Walton Street Capital)
  • Wally Brewster, Jr., and Robert Satawake, Chicago, IL – $200,000-$500,000 (General Growth Properties/Keller Williams Realty)
  • Jim Crown, Chicago, IL – $200,000-$500,000 (Henry Crown & Co)
  • John Crumpler, Durham, NC – $500,000+ (Hatteras Venture Architects)
  • Meredith  DeWitt, Harvard, MA – $200,000-$500,000 (Political Consultant)
  • Fred Eychaner, Chicago, IL – $500,000+ (Newsweb Corp)
  • Joseph Falk, Miami, FL  – $200,000-$500,000 (Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson)
  • Rajiv Kumar Fernando, Chicago, IL – $200,000-$500,000 (Chopper Trading)
  • John Frank, Bellevue, WA — $500,000+ (Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Microsoft,)

As you can see, you won’t get in with a “Benjamin” dropped in the basket to join this crowd.   Of course, it will be argued that all presidents due this, but I think that’s part of the problem.  For you and I, there is no hope of rubbing elbows with the rich and famous at one of these events, even assuming momentarily that our politics were ‘right,’  because it has become a game of buying access.  Worse, it’s buying access to foreign heads of state, and it leads one to wonder what else it might buy.  How many of these people or the organizations they represent will be the recipients of some government hand-out or other cronies’ deal?

With this sort of thing being routine, how can the American people this or any president claims to represent get any kind of say in their government?  The message is pretty clear: Bundle enough campaign contributions, and you get a seat at a well-placed table.  It’s another despicable abuse of the office, and I don’t care which party is doing it.

New Mini-Movie Shows Obama’s Anti-Israeli Record

Sunday, March 4th, 2012

Friend of Israel?

This Youtube video was released in time for the AIPAC conference in Washington DC this week, by the Emergency Committee for Israel, and it highlights the despicable record Barack Obama has built in his dealings with the Israeli security issues, but also his befriending of radical anti-Israeli elements around the world.  It calls into question Obama’s sincerity on his campaign promises about the security of Israel, while pointing out that some of the President’s actions have been downright hostile.  It’s a bit lengthy, and it provides a bit of background for the narrative, but what viewers should understand is that Barack Obama and his administration have been systematically undermining Israel all along.  This sabotage of Israel clearly isn’t in the long-term interests of the United States, and it shouldn’t be ignored.

The mini-movie runs approximately thirty minutes:

I find the parade of Democrat politicians chastising Obama’s policy entertaining, if for no other reason than the remarks of Hillary Clinton last week, and what it reveals about the sincerity of their support for Israel. If nothing else, it certainly proves the point that the Obama administration isn’t playing straight with the American people, or with Israel. Barack Obama has been a disaster for US-Israeli relations, and for the prospects of peace and Israeli security.  The fact is that given another four years of his presidency, Israel will be among the biggest losers, second only to the American people.

What Hillary Revealed About Democrats’ Real Thoughts on Israel

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

Friend of Israel?

When America isn’t watching closely, or the event in question appears well away from the bulk of domestic media, occasionally one of the left’s officials will slip up and show their true face.  If you listen to what Democrats in Congress and in the Obama administration say about Israel, you would think they support Israel, and are fine friends of the Jewish state.  The lavish oaths of friendship upon Israel, and swear they have no bigger supporter than the Democrat Party.  That is, if you can believe them.  Ordinarily, it’s tough to prove, but in this case, one of their own has put her big foot in her mouth, all without the help of her slick former-President husband.  None other than Secretary of State Hillary Rodham-Clinton has made a statement that reveals the truth about her party.  Watch this short video:

That’s right.  In this video, when asked by somebody in the audience about the state of politics in the US, and how it is that any Muslims from around the world could trust either party, since both seem to support their enemy, Israel, Mrs. Clinton gives a stunningly honest answer.  For those Americans of any persuasion who had thought the Democrats a friend of Israel, I want you to decipher her answer, because it was clearly intended to intimate a dark secret, and that is that what politicians say in public is one thing, but what they believe may be something else entirely.

Surely you understand that this confirms what I have told you about how the radical left has taken over the Democrat party, and how they now practice an institutional antisemitism that blows kisses to Jews in public, while undercutting Israel ferociously in private.  They view Israel as a problem to be dealt with, and if you’re wise, you’ll realize that historically, this is far from the first time the Jews have been regarded as a “problem” to be solved.  Let’s not beat around the bush about it:  The left hates Israel, and it’s partly because they see a potential ally in the Muslim world, and partly because they view Israel as the obstacle to that alliance.

Just as in the Cold War, Teddy Kennedy was willing to participate in secret talks with Soviet leaders in order to undercut President Reagan, the left will makes it friends anywhere they believe will advance their agenda.  Currently, they look to the Islamic world as another source of support, which is why they have linked up with militant Islamists in some cases, in the furtherance of the so-called “Arab Spring,” but also in support of the so-called “Palestineans.”  What Secretary Clinton describes in her too-candid answer is the mechanism of carrying out a ruse. In public, they must continue to support Israel, for now, but in terms of our actual foreign policy, we are currently very much pro-Islam.

The hardcore left has been pushing in this direction for many years, decades in fact, and what you quickly realize is that they have merely transformed their animosity.  These same America-hating leftists have simply identified Israel as a domino that must fall in order to finally vanquish America.  Once they realized this, it was only a matter of time until they began to form strategic alliances with a militant Islam that views Israel as the Lesser Satan and America as the Great one.  I read an interesting posting on Tammy Bruce’s site by a guest contributor named Shifra, self-described as a Jew who discovered the universe of leftists’ rage against Israel.

While I’m not Jewish, it comports well with my own knowledge and observations, but more importantly, it reveals how the American left has slowly adopted positions that are now not only antagonistic toward Israel, but hostile to Jewry in general.  For this reason, the only reason I am surprised about Hillary Clinton’s remark is that she would leave that implication hanging so publicly.  The institutional left, of which Hillary is the queen bee, with her Soros-funded career, and her Soros-funded boss, is armed to the teeth with a rage she dare not exhibit.  She can only make not-so-subtle intimations in public, but what is hidden behind the facial expression is the coldly-calculated leftist who knows what expressions in public are too much, and will hurt the cause.  Hillary walked all over that line here, but you should view it as an opportunity to demonstrate the point.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Iran Prepares for War

Monday, February 27th, 2012

I have been told that Iran is led by “rational actors,” but I see little evidence of it.  In order to acquire their own nuclear arsenal, they are making plans to disrupt the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, and to carry out attacks on US air bases in the region in order to hold off the Americans who they are expecting will at some point attack them.  Meanwhile, they still seem to intend to strike Israel, and wipe them out, so it’s difficult to see them as rational. One could make the argument that they’re merely prepa for a US or Israeli strike, but the continued promise to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth is the most troubling thing of all.  If they do obtain nuclear weapons, Iran’s leaders may well be just irrational enough to use them.

According to the WND article, the Iranians are preparing to make attacks on US air assets.  Such a strike would be more likely than most Americans think to disrupt our ability to respond to threats in the region:

The Guards’ publication Mashregh, in a warning to America, revealed a detailed plan to attack U.S. bases in the region, including, in Kuwait, two air bases, Ali Al Salem and Ahmed Al Jaber, and the U.S. military camps of Buehring, Spearhead, Patriot and Arifjan. Also targeted are U.S. air bases in Afghanistan, the super U.S. base Al Adid in Qatar, its other super base at Al Dhafra in the United Arab Emirates and Thumrait Air Base in Oman.

Such an attack could certainly cause chaos, or worse, but it would almost certainly send the US scrambling, and it might open a window of opportunity for the Iranians to make good on their promise to close off the Straits of Hormuz, at least for a while.  That might be enough to hamper our logistical chain, making it difficult to carry on war-fighting operations.  At the same time, the Iranians have armed a number of small, fast boats with explosive warheads that would be delivered by ramming in suicide attacks:

The Guards have also armed hundreds of speed boats with high explosives for suicide attacks against U.S. Navy assets and the shipping traffic in the Gulf. Sources within the Guards also reveal that the Guards have been training pilots for suicide attacks against U.S. assets in the Gulf by using smaller planes loaded with explosives.

Rational?  I wouldn’t have considered the Japanese all that rational in 1944-45 as their young pilots rammed aircraft into our warships in Kamikaze attacks, yet this is the same sort of mindset we now face.  We’re in particularly bad shape, because just as this threat is rising, our military is undergoing vast cuts, and we have poor national leadership across the board.  Barack Obama has shown no willingness to take on the Iranians, but we know he’s capable of making apologies.  This president is so unwilling to defend America against its enemies that there really is no precedent in American history.  If Iran’s leadership decides it’s willing to wage a war in order to protect its nuclear weapons program, they may win.  If you think the Ayatollahs are irrational, what must we conclude about the man Rush Limbaugh has called “Imam Obama,” who now leads our country into a blind alley?  How rational is Obama?  For our country, the prospects are too frightening to consider.

Reminder: Go here to sign up as a user, or otherwise migrate to the new site.

Is Iran a “Rational Actor?”

Friday, February 24th, 2012

"Rational Actor?"

When you see that even scientists have become so irrational, you know you’re not dealing with an ordinary regime, or rational actors who can be counted upon to follow norms of behavior as we perceive them to be in the West.  The Israeli National News is reporting that the Iranian nuclear scientist who was assassinated in Tehran in January was very  much concerned with and focused on the annihilation of Israel, according to his widow.  Whether she was prompted into this statement by the Ahmedinejad government, or whether she volunteered the information on her own, this speaks to the plainly irrational desires of that regime. There are those who suggest that there’s no proof Iran is an irrational actor, but I think that flies in the face of more than thirty years of evidence to the contrary.

Iran remains the leading state sponsor of terrorism, and they continue to back operations by Hezbollah along with others throughout the Middle East.  More, their current dictator and his theocratic overseers are so-called “Twelvers” who believe in the 12th Imam and a theology that specifies the end of their “oppression.”  These are people who have beliefs more irrational than the worst cultists you’ve ever known in the West, and yet there are those who think we can somehow negotiate in good faith with them.  Worst of all, their leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, professes a devout belief in this theology, and says that the oppressors are the “Great Satan” (the US) and the “Lesser Satan” (Israel.)

For those who suggest we can deal with such thinking, I’d remind them that nobody took Hitler and his occult beliefs and practices seriously outside of Germany until it was much too late.  I wonder if these same critics would contend that Hitler had been a “rational actor.”   The Iranian dictator is a maniac, and to pretend he’s less dangerous than he is would be to subject this country to unnecessary risks and a threat of serious harm.  This guy is no more rational than David Koresh, but Koresh had a few rifles, and for that Janet Reno laid siege to his Mt. Carmel compound.  This mad-man is seeking nuclear weapons, and has already tried to carry out political assassinations in the US.  By what standard can anybody conclude he is rational?

Fox in the Henhouse: Obama’s Undermining of US Defenses Escalates

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

"I...Am So In Love With You..."

Barack Obama’s defense policies appear to be the most foolish, irresponsible, and negligent in modern American history.  This president is cutting our defenses to the bone, and he knows it.  Not satisfied with wreaking havoc with our conventional forces, he’s now examining the elimination of our strategic nuclear arsenal to as few as three hundred warheads.  That’s fewer than China, and many fewer than Russia.  If the United States gives up this deterrence to attack, we are effectively naked to such designs as other nations may have on our country.  Three hundred nuclear warheads?  While it sounds like tremendous destructive capacity, and it is, it does not offer the sort of strategic deterrent that our current nuclear arsenal comprises, and against a nuclear giant like Russia, it’s wholly insufficient to prohibit them from nuclear blackmail or outright nuclear attack if the relationship with them sours further.  This policy proposal is a national suicide pact, and Barack Obama knows it.  Let it be stated forthrightly: He is destroying the United States.

We are already at our lowest levels in decades, and the problem is that while most of us think of nuclear weapons and warfare in a global apocalyptic vision, the facts are much different.  A nuclear warhead in the range of one megaton is a terribly destructive device, but it is enough to wipe out one large city.  Across the vastness of the Russia, or China, it is a small impact.  More, since priority targets are generally opposing nuclear weapons sites, it is impossible to cover all targets even at our current level if it came to that.  I am not here making light of nuclear weaponry, except to say that such diminished levels as three hundred warheads means we would then have a force insufficient to deter a nuclear-armed Iran, if they can be deterred at all.  From the article linked above:

John Bolton, former U.N. ambassador and undersecretary of state for international security during the George W. Bush administration, said in an interview that the administration’s plan to cut nuclear force to as low as 300 “alone is sufficient to vote against Obama in November.”

“Congress should urgently adopt a resolution rejecting the idea that any of these levels is consistent with American national security,” Bolton said. “Let’s just see who is prepared to support Obama.”

This is only the start. Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney went even further:

“No sane military leader would condone 300 to 400 warheads for an effective nuclear deterrent strategy,” McInerney told the Washington Free Beacon.

“Going down to 1000 to 1,100 is risky enough and frankly in today’s world, very risky. The purpose of our nuclear force structure is to deter any adversary from even thinking that they could minimize our attack options. Such thinking is very dangerous and will only encourage our adversaries to make bold decisions.”

This is an intentional attack on our strategic defense infrastructure, and President Obama must be held accountable even for suggesting it.  I am much beyond the polite discussions of policy in bureaucratic terminology here.  These cuts are a disaster that may ultimately cost millions upon millions of Americans their lives, never mind the future of the Republic itself, as a viable political body.  The fox is in the hen-house, and many Americans still see him as an off-kilter hen.  Let us not pretend that Barack Obama is here exercising the best interests of the United States, or the oath of his office to defend and protect the constitution.  Recent actions by this president demonstrate he has no love of our constitutional system, and this is an egregious abandonment of his duties as commander in chief. Also from the article:

Kenneth deGraffenreid, a former Reagan administration National Security Council official, said in an interview that the plans for sharp nuclear cuts are “part of the administration’s purposeful decline of American military power.”(emphasis added)

Some people wonder why I become frustrated as they watch their football games, or their reality TV shows, but otherwise check out on the whole question of our nation’s affairs.  Ladies and gentlemen, this cannot be permitted, and John Boehner had better get off of his whining duff, and step up to the plate.  Mitch McConnell had better be all over the TV, and he’d better stop using weasel-words, if he remembers how to speak plainly any longer, because our nation is under attack from within.  It’s time we stop mincing words to disguise this fact from our people and from ourselves.  President Obama is no friend to this country, never mind its allies, and this strategic proposal for what is essentially unilateral nuclear disarmament makes of our nation a sitting duck.  This is not simple incompetence.  This is not mistaken thinking.  This is not a case of good intentions leading to unintended consequences.  This is a monstrous betrayal of the American people by a leftist ideologue who hates the country he is sworn to lead, defend, and protect.

Hillary Inconsistency: Need Syrian Consent for Troops – Why Different From Libya?

Tuesday, February 14th, 2012

Different Thug, Different Policy?

I must admit that I don’t quite understand this one yet, because while we entered the fray in Libya on the basis of the Samantha Power argument of a “Responsibility to Protect,” the idea that nations had a duty to protect a people from a tyrannical regime, this same theory doesn’t apparently apply in Syria.  Instead, after a meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Hillary Clinton said in a joint press conference with Foreign Minister Ahment Davutoglu that there would be no troops sent to Syria without the consent of the Syrian government.  Why is one brutal thug’s regime exempt, while the other was not?  While leftist protesters marched under the banner of “no blood for oil” in successive wars initiated by Republican presidents, there’s no similar outrage now that it has become patently obvious that this is the only justification for the differential in policy: Syria has no oil. Libya has plenty.  It’s either that, or something more nefarious.

This is another example of the apparent contradictions in Obama’s foreign policy.  When the people of Iran were rising up, Obama said nothing, and did nothing.  In Syria, we’re getting some words from the State Department, but nothing of substance, and it seems there’s no intention on the part of this administration to have a consistent policy.  We surely didn’t wait for Gaddafi’s consent before bombing in Libya.  We were trying to bomb him!  Meanwhile, Assad is every bit as monstrous as Gaddafi, and perhaps worse, yet there we are wearing kid gloves.  This doesn’t make any sense at all unless one begins to account for the differences between the two countries, or leaders.

Is there some reason the Obama administration favors Syria’s Assad?  If one applies the principles of the idea called “Responsibility to Protect(R2P,) one must wonder as thousands of civilians in Syria have been murdered in the streets over the last few months.  If Gaddafi was a rabid dog who needed to be removed for the safety of his country’s people, why not Assad?  Why is he exempt from a similar fate?

Don’t misunderstand: I am not advocating an attack by NATO on Syria, but I find it curious that the same people who less than one year ago could not wait to pound Gaddafi into submission before he was slaughtered at the hands of a mob(as he deserved) are now reluctant about treating Bashar al-Assad in similar fashion.  This discontinuity in policy means something, just as the reluctance to criticize Ahmedinejad in Iran meant something, but it’s not yet clear what the meaning is.  Cynical folk would point to the Libyan oil, but even if that is a factor, I don’t think it’s the only one.  Something else must account for this differential in policy.  Could it be that Assad has something else Obama wants?  Could it be related to the proximity of Syria to Israel?

Time will tell, but when one sees such distinct and different actions by lefties in similar circumstances, one knows there’s something more to the story.  Leftists are simply too stuck in their ideological ruts to act this way without ulterior motives.

Ruth Bader-Ginsburg Goes to Egypt, Criticizes Constitution

Saturday, February 4th, 2012

Justice Ginsburg in Egypt

Conservatives have known ever since this leftist was shoved onto the Court by Bill Clinton that she would be a thorn in our sides until she departs that body.  On a trip to Egypt, Associate Justice Bader-Ginsburg was interviewed and asked her opinion about the process by which Egypt was creating its own constitution, and this Supreme Court justice used the opportunity to talk about the US Constitution and its history, but saying ultimately that it was not an example for others to follow, and that Egyptians should look to the South African Constitution, the Canadian Constitution, and the European Conventions on Human Rights. She did at times speak positively about the US Constitution, but she did  so while slinging a little mud at the founders for slavery and the rights of women, among others.

I must say that if I’m a Supreme Court justice, and I am asked such a question by people who are about to write a Constitution, I am going to say some things she didn’t, and omit a few she did, and I am going to point to the superiority of the US Constitution as distinct from those others she named.  She may not have said anything terrible, but  one gets the sense that she has a different sort of reverence for our constitution, not in what it is, but for what she’d like to make of it.

A Note About The Marine Incident

Sunday, January 15th, 2012

A Forgotten Border

Much has been made of this incident on which I reported Friday, and it reminds me of something else I witnessed many years ago.  I was serving in the Army in Germany, and the year was 1985.  I hadn’t been in my unit there very long when an opportunity arose to see a bit of the German countryside.  Of course, the area I was able to look at on this trip wasn’t something most people younger than 35-40 really remember or understand, and it wasn’t a pleasure trip.  Periodically, the battalion would charter a bus and take all the new people who’d arrived over the last ninety days on a tour of the border between West Germany and Czechoslovakia.  It was a part of the unit’s effort to show us the ground we would likely defend, and the nature of the enemy we would face if a war broke out between the Soviet Union and NATO.  On that fateful trip, our tour triggered an “international incident” due to the behavior of one of my fellow soldiers.

At various points along the path, the bus would stop, and we would unload and be told about the things at which we were looking.  One of those stops took us right up to the border, onto a road that runs parallel and on the west edge of what had been the frontier between East and West.  We could see the fences, and the razor-wire were hung with dew on the cold, damp, dreary morning.  In easy earshot, never mind rifle shot, of a guard tower, we unloaded and looked around.  We were under strict instructions to do no pointing or make any gestures of any kind, because they could be taken as a sign of hostility, and could lead at the very least to a serious incident, since the guard towers had not only machine-gun emplacements, but also cameras with which to document our tour.  One of the geniuses in my unit thought it would be a great idea to walk off by himself and drop trow facing East, and take a whiz facing directly at the tower.

The public affairs officer who had us on the tour saw this and fairly tackled the guy.  It was too late, as we could hear the rapid shutter snaps as a pictures were taken.  It was nearly a three hour ride by bus back to our installation, and nobody said a word.  As we pulled up at the Headquarters building, our Battalion Commander and our Sergeant Major(the battalion’s highest ranking enlisted man) were waiting on the sidewalk.   The incident had been reported already up the chain on the Eastern Bloc side, traveled through diplomatic channels, and down through our chain of command, beating the bus back to our post by more than two hours.  The Sergeant Major stuck his head in the door of the bus as fast as it opened, and pointed at the offending soldier and said simply his name and “You’re with me, NOW!”  He and the Lt. Colonel disappeared through a crowd of suits I hadn’t noticed before, but our comrade in arms was effectively gone.  This incident began the end of his short Army career.  Even in 1985, the Department of Defense didn’t take lightly the notion of giving the “adversary” a propaganda victory.

The reason I recount this to you is because on Friday, after Congressman Allen West’s statement made mention that the Marines in the current incident should receive Field Grade Article non-judicial punishment, and there was murmuring from some quarters that nothing should happen to them at all.  I wanted you to know that such a punishment was precisely the first step in disciplining a soldier back in 1985 when our unit’s urination incident occurred.  While it’s easy for you and I to say that yes, “Hooah, piss on those corpses,”  more is at stake in this situation than four Marines’ momentary indiscretion.  At present, our government is negotiating with the Taliban, and whether you or I, but particularly those Marines like it or not, they are servants of this nation’s foreign policy, no matter how much any of us think that policy is mistaken. Soldiers don’t make foreign policy, but must serve the chain of command in implementing it.

My fellow veterans will know precisely what I mean, because they understand that once you put on that uniform, you are not a sovereign individual for the length of your service.  This is one of the reasons I chastise police officers who occasionally like to think of themselves in terms of a military organization.  As I point out to them, if they’re in the midst of a stand-off, they can surrender their badge and walk away, and other than the difficulty they might have in ever working in that field again, they face no real consequences.  If a soldier tries that on the battlefield, he may well be shot.  It’s for this reason, this matter of unit discipline that these soldiers must be prosecuted and punished in some form by the chain of command.  I don’t like it in this case, and I wish it weren’t so, but that’s the truth of the matter, and I owe it to tell you so, much as any person among their chain of command might feel sympathy for their position, but must nevertheless contend with the issue at hand.

It’s for this reason that I understand Allen West’s statement all too well.  It’s the mark of a solid leader that he understands what must happen in this case, despite the fact that he may well not like it. These four Marines are in for a hard time over this incident, and you had better prepare to read of their eventual punishment.

On the other hand, I suspect the Obama administration may seek to make an unduly harsh example of these four, and I hope that isn’t the case.  Since the State Department has been negotiating quietly with the Taliban for some time, I expect this will now become a new sore spot.  While I believe that we shouldn’t be negotiating with these people, it is nevertheless current US foreign policy, otherwise known as “elections have consequences.”  I just hope for the sake of these Marines that they’re not dealt with in a severe fashion in order to appease the Taliban.  That’s the biggest worry they now face, and I hope this will serve as a reminder to service-members everywhere that you are an instrument of US foreign policy, so it’s best not to do these things, and it’s certainly not a good idea to record it, much as I suspect I’d have felt and perhaps acted in much the same way had I been among them.

Note: For those of you who are too young to really remember the Cold War, or in fact, for anybody who wishes to refresh their memory, I’d encourage you to check out this site, from which the image above was gathered, as the gentleman who runs the site seems to have served there contemporaneously with me, and you can learn a good deal about what it was really like.

Israel Being Pressured Not to Strike Iran

Sunday, January 15th, 2012

Click for Larger Image

In another bit of misdirected bluster, the Obama administration warned Israel that strikes against targets in Iran could have dire consequences.  Israel is increasingly concerned with Iran’s nuclear designs, and it may be considering actions aimed at taking down the threat posed by the potential  of Iran being armed with nuclear weapons.  According to the Wall Street Journal article, President Obama was on the phone Thursday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an attempt to get Israel to stand down.  Obama’s argument is that they want to give sanctions time to work, but they haven’t worked thus far, and while there is talk of tightening those sanctions, Tehran has shown little willingness to budge.  This is part of the problem with US foreign policy over the last to decades:  We struggle to keep thugs in check while demanding Israel stand down as they absorb attacks from every direction.

That policy prevailed during the 1991 Gulf War, as Saddam Hussein used Scud missiles against Israel in an attempt to provoke a response from Israel that offered the possibility of fracturing the coalition that included many Muslim nations in the region.  We moved batteries of Patriot missiles to Israel, and we had our forces scouring Iraq for the launchers, and all the while, President George H.W. Bush kept Secretary of State James Baker in constant contact with the Israelis, trying to keep them from acting in their own defense.  Of course, this was a different question, with the Scud missiles being armed with conventional munitions, and the ability of the Patriots to knock some of them down, it helped keep things from getting out of control politically.

This situation involved the development of nuclear arms, and if Iran comes into possession of them, they have promised repeatedly to use them against Israel.  Given the small region that is the Jewish state, there’s no way they can absorb even one hit with nuclear weapons without devastating their population.  It cannot be permitted to occur, and on this basis, I am certain the Israeli government is considering all sorts of remedies that likely include military strikes against relevant targets in Iran.  Last year, the Israelis were in talks with the Saudis in order to secure over-flight permission, should it come to that, and the only reason the Saudis would consider it is that they don’t want a nuclear-armed Iran any more than Israel does, because they could just as easily become a target of the rogue regime in Tehran.

I oppose telling Israel that it must not act in its survival interests.  I don’t think there’s any reason to suspect that Iran will come to heel on this matter, and I think the Israelis are right to believe this is a threat the existence of which they dare not suffer.  In truth, this is why many on the left wish Israel would simply go away.  Many of them have begun to consider it in veiled terms much like the “Jewish problem” described by former tyrannical regimes.  In other words, there are those in this administration, and in the general leftist movement of activists who think the world would be so much the better if Israel ceased to exist, and some are quite willing to let the Islamists in the region have their way with the besieged Jewish nation.  At this point, I think Netanyahu is facing a serious crisis because the pressure from the White House continues to be what it was more than twenty years ago:  “Don’t act. Don’t retaliate. Don’t do anything. We’ll handle this.”  The problem is that in three years of Obama’s administration as this crisis has been developing, we haven’t handled it, and the Israelis may well be forced into action.  I don’t blame them.

Obama Will Hold Off On 1967 Borders Until Post-Election

Saturday, January 14th, 2012

 

Tougher For Israel in 2013?

WND is reporting that Palestinean Authority officials who wished for their identities to be withheld told the online publication that the Obama administration has told the Palestinean Authority to be patient through the elections, and to not make trouble until Obama is re-elected.  That would make perfect sense given the Obama  administration’s abysmal record in supporting Israel, and its ceaseless devotion to restoring the 1967 borders that would leave Israel indefensible.  It’s no secret that this administration has given support to the so-called “Arab Spring” in neighboring Egypt, and continues to down-play the Islamists’ takeover of that nation, while attacks upon Israel continue from all directions.  WND’s Aaron Klein quotes the source as saying:

“We were asked by the (U.S.) administration not to make special demands or scandals during the elections,” said the official.

“After elections, the negotiations will be renewed on basis of the Clinton plan and Obama’s speech in Cairo of the 1967 borders,” the official said.

This is not surprising, after Obama took such a strong public relations hit in his press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year, and I suspect in a second term, the fangs would come out from behind the polite smiles, and the Obama administration will begin to pressure Israel very strongly.  This remains one more reason that Barack Obama must be defeated in 2012.  Left to carry out his foreign policy agenda, Israel would soon lay in ruins, or be overrun.

 

Hand-Wringers Whine About Marines Urinating on Corpses of Taliban Fighters

Friday, January 13th, 2012

Who's "Deplorable?"

There are those who simply cannot avoid rushing in front of a camera, expressing their outrage at the behavior of the Marines in this video that surfaced, showing graphic footage of four Marines in Afghanistan urinating on the corpses of three dead Taliban fighters.  Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called the incident “deplorable” and “inappropriate,” but I think the administration’s outrage is inappropriate.  These Marines, when captured, are subjected to far worse at the hands of the Taliban fighters, and frankly, it’s time to stop being a bunch of whiners about this. War is Hell, and while we shouldn’t encourage this, it is a natural result of the stresses of combat, but some of us clearly need to harden up.

Was it dignified?  No.  But to entertain the complaints of people like Afghan President Hamid Karzai as though his chief concerns about the inhumane nature of this act is in any way relevant is a sham.   The Department of Defense is investigating, and it is now being reported that the Marines have been identified as part of an ongoing Marine Corps investigation. You can view the video below, but as the still frame indicates, it is graphic:

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.1010216&w=425&h=350&fv=allowfullscreen%3D]

I cannot believe Senator John McCain came before cameras today to condemn this.  As those of you who follow this blog will know, I’m not given to fits of profanity and I don’t generally resort to such things, but to the senior Senator from Arizona, Campaign Suspender and Self-Saboteur of 2008,  RINO-endorser, and perpetual Republican thorn in the side, let me say this: STFU!  And Senator, if you don’t know what this means, ask your delightful daughter who regaled the MSNBC studio with an odd statement about an “emoticon of privacy.”  I’m sure she can tell you.  As an unrelated sidebar, for those who don’t understand, watch Mehgan McCain’s brilliance.  Apparently, like father, like daughter in this case:

Meanwhile, I have only one remaining question: How is Obama going to handle this?  When he issues a statement, will he say that the Marine “Corpse” is investigating?

If you want to know why we’re losing in Afghanistan, you need only consider that we’re more interested in prosecuting Marines who used poor judgment in directing their streams of urine than we are in prosecuting our war.  If this is to be considered some sort of “atrocity,” then I think we all need to consider who’s really taking the piss, and at whose expense.

Is Ron Paul a Conservative?

Friday, December 16th, 2011

Separated from the Rest

The supporters of Ron Paul say he’s a conservative.  They cite his strong commitment to the US Constitution on economic issues.  They remind us about his focus on the 10th Amendment.  They point out his desire to return to a solid currency. What they scurry to cover is his naive, nonsensical ideas about national defense and foreign policy. What they rush to ignore are the asinine contentions of Ron Paul that seek to pander to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and his child-like view that Iran will be fine if it develops nuclear arms.  Even if these weren’t bad enough, his supporters use stealth and misleading approaches to sell him as a conservative.  I’m weary from all those who tell me Ron Paul is a conservative, because in fact, he is not.  Instead, he’s a libertarian, and he’s in the wrong party, and I have no problem suggesting he should take his act elsewhere, and if need be, take his followers with him.  Conservatives don’t pander to so-called “truthers” or to the hemp lobby, but that is the core of his support.  Conservatives don’t blame America for the September 11th attacks of 2001.  Ron Paul does.

Even during Thursday night’s debate, Ron Paul was clearly out of place on the stage with fellow Republicans.  His views on several issues of national import made it plain that he’s missed something basic in how he regards the role of the United States in foreign affairs, but more fundamentally, something is broken with respect to the extremely naive view he takes of foreign governments and their actions.  What Congressman Paul supposes is that Iran will act every bit as rationally as the United States, but we have no evidence upon which to base such a supposition. History is replete with examples of regimes that were fundamentally irrational and completely unmoved by the notions of human rights or natural law, and supposing that they would accept our moral basis or standard for rational conduct is every bit as absurd as the proposition that we must accept theirs.  In point of fact, the Islamic Republic of Iran has enshrined in its constitution the requirement to spread Islam to all parts of the world.  When Paul argues that we might reasonably rely upon a notion of peaceful Iranian intentions, he does a serious disservice to the American people, either through purely wishful thinking, or through sheer dishonesty.

In his heated exchange with Representative Bachmann in Thursday evening’s debate on FoxNews, he exhibited the ridiculous extent to which he has bought into leftist mythology about Iraq, too.  He cited a number of Iraqis killed as more than one million, but this reflects the most absurd estimates of the most radically anti-war propagandists.  Even WikiLeaks, having stolen and released actual classified US estimates of Iraqi War dead is around one tenth of that number.  Don’t get me wrong: This is a tremendous number of deaths, but it is a small portion of what Ron Paul reported, and what it reveals is his willingness to rely upon the most ridiculous claims of conspiracy theorists and anti-war propagandists.  Had he relied upon the more accurate number, he wouldn’t have come across as a bizarre conspiracy nut, but by exaggerating this number by relying upon numbers from sources of dubious credibility, he became his own worst enemy.

When Ron Paul talks about the overbearing size of government, he makes much more sense, because in that arena, he speaks to issues wherein he needs no bombastic, incredible claims in order to demonstrate his point.  He can merely reference the laws made by Congress, signed by the President, and this is sufficient.  When he gets into the discussion of foreign policy matters, it is as though he loses all grounding in credible facts, both in history and law, but more importantly in his flawed understanding of human nature.  The tyrants of our world do not care for the arguments of John Locke, or Adam Smith, or Thomas Jefferson, to name a few.   Such despots care not for the facts of human nature or human rights, or they wouldn’t be despots at all.  When Ron Paul pretends to himself or to others that one can contend with the Islamic Republic of Iran in the same manner one can deal with Canada, he is ignoring the facts of the world in which we live, and in which a President must successfully navigate the ship of state.  Ron Paul’s misunderstanding is so thorough as to be dangerous, not merely to individual citizens of the United States, but to the country as a whole.  This is a dire misreading of our founding documents, the design of our government, and the purpose for which it stands, and it negates the value he might offer in other areas of discourse.  On this basis, Ron Paul is wholly unfit to claim the mantle of conservatism, never mind to be sworn in as President of the United States.