Archive for the ‘Traitors’ Category.

Why Conservatives Should Not Trust Wall Street

The best argument I’ve seen yet against Wall Street – and in a Conservative magazine no less – concludes:

They are the repo men, headpiece filled with subprime-mortgage derivatives, and they are looking to repossess the Republican party they abandoned in 2008 (see “Losing Gordon Gekko,” National Review, March 9, 2009). Free-market, limited-government conservatives should be none too eager to welcome them back, nor should we let our natural sympathy with the profit motive blind us to the fact that a great many of them do not belong in the conservative movement, and that more than a few of them belong in prison.

Privatizing gains and socializing losses is not fiscal conservatism. Upholding a hereditary noble class that manipulates the political system to support its own tenure is not democracy.

Friends Like These

One of the results of the Wikileaks debacle has been to highlight America’s problem with Saudi Arabia. Secretary of Defense Gates stated that the Saudis want to fight Iran to the last American. Meanwhile al-Qaeda and other Islamofascists have treated the country as an ATM, with the kingdom funding terrorist groups around the world. Of the many questionable and downright evil things Wikileaks has done, it has shown that at least some members of our government aren’t complete idiots when it comes to the danger that kingdom presents to the world.

The Saudis have a very long track record of undermining American foreign policy. It has bought off members of both the Left and the Right in Washington DC, and has avoided scrutiny of its actions. Some apologists have noted that the Saudi government has been helpful in the fight against Islamic terrorism, and that Osama Bin Laden himself hates the House of Saud almost as much – if not more – than the United States. But they ignore the fact that the Saudis are the primary bank rollers of the puritanical Islam espoused by Bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and the vast majority of nut jobs with a suicide belt around their waists and a Koran in their hearts.

The founder of the Saudi regime, Ibn Saud, used Wahabism to achieve domination of the Arabian peninsula, and his family has used it to maintain power ever since. Religion was a potent weapon in Ibn Saud’s rise to power, but controlling it has been difficult. Over the decades the Saudis have funded Wahabist causes around the world in exchange for zero tolerance of any religious actions targeting the regime within the kingdom itself.

Saudi money has spread the Wahabi brand of religious intolerance to all parts of the globe. It has built mosques throughout the world, bringing Wahabism to places that it had never been before including Pakistan, Indonesia, and sub-Saharan Africa – areas with more tolerant, indigenous Islamic traditions. As the Saudis became wealthier after the oil shocks of the 1970s, their funding of Wahabist causes grew. The United States, locked in an ideological battle with the Soviet Union, even welcomed the Wahabist influence as a tool to undermine Soviets in South Asia, and as a potential firewall against the spread of Shiite radicalism that Iran began exporting after the Ayatollah Khomeini took power in 1979. Less than two decades later the United States would come to regret their support and encouragement of these Wahabist elements.

It is only in retrospect that we see the extent of which the Cold War defined American foreign policy actions until September 11, 2001. During those decades the United States didn’t see the threat Wahabist terror posed since it was locked in what it thought was a greater struggle with Communism. It was only after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s that the United States began to reassess its strategic threats, an action that the events of September 11, 2001 brought home.

But people cannot change their views quickly, especially after a lifetime of seeing the world through the Cold War prism where Saudi Arabia stood as an ally. In hindsight, however, it is becoming much more apparent that while we may have been the Saudis allies, they were never ours. With the Cold War over we are locked in yet another ideological struggle that threatens our way of life just as surely as Soviet nuclear weapons targeted on our cities. And the heart of that struggle is in the Arabian peninsula.

What is ironic is that some Saudis may recognize the predicament they are in. They don’t want an end to the status quo whereby they can stay in power by buying off discontent and forcing it to go elsewhere, but they cannot stop supporting jihadists without risking the jihadis turning on them. The Arabs were never great strategists – as T.E. Lawrence proved in his Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

Julian Assange wasn’t a slave to the truth; his goal was much more mundane and common amongst his Leftist supporters. He wanted to damage the United States – to punish it for its sins. But what he has inadvertently done is the opposite: he has exposed a truth that can strengthen the US if it acts upon it. And that truth is that Saudi Arabia is its enemy and must be treated accordingly.

UPDATE: SoccerDad provides some info on the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia that I wasn’t familiar with. Many thanks.

The 5 Biggest Lies of Liberalism

Dan Greenfield puts the lie to five of the biggest myths of liberalism. Here’s a sample:

This brand of feminism has as much to do with equal rights for women, as African Studies have to do with equal rights for African-Americans. They’re basically little more than ways to repackage the agenda politics of the far left in identity colors. That way socialism can be dressed up as a civil rights agenda, and opposition to it becomes racism or sexism.

That leads us to the absurd spectacle of academic feminists declaring that successful female candidates who don’t share their politics are not feminists, but male candidates who do, are. Dig down to their real definition of feminism, and it turns out to be liberalism.

Wikileaks’ Assange Too Busy to Redact Documents

So Wikileaks founder Julian Assange publishes the names, villages and father’s names of people involved with international forces within his 75,000 document cache – providing the Taliban with a veritable phone book for everyone who has done as little as spoken to NATO forces and western NGOs. Even other human rights groups are calling for Wikileaks to redact the names to prevent the murders of Afghan civilians and their families. How does Assange respond?

“I’m very busy…”

I suppose he’s too busy trying to scrub the blood off his hands.

Walter Russell Mead on the Peace Camp’s Bloody Hands

The people I have in mind are the ‘goo-goo genocidaires,’ the willfully blind reformers, civil society activists, clergy, students and others whose foolishness and ignorance was a necessary condition for tens of millions of deaths in the last hundred years. Unreflective, self-righteous ‘activists’ thought that to espouse peace was the same thing as to create or safeguard it. As a result, tens of millions died.

Source

I can think of quite a few people who that applies to. Since my hands are bloody for my support of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I figure it’s only fair that peaceniks be held partly responsible for those killed by the dictators they protect.

Raising Cash by Libeling the Military

I thought Wikileaks was above anti-American propaganda. Looks like I was wrong.

Jihadi Rights Watch

The Times has a piece on what happens when a human rights organization goes bad. Human Rights Watch has been a relentless critic of Israel and the United States.

Some conflict zones get much more coverage than others. For instance, HRW has published five heavily publicised reports on Israel and the Palestinian territories since the January 2009 war.

In 20 years they have published only four reports on the conflict in Indian-controlled Kashmir, for example, even though the conflict has taken at least 80,000 lives in these two decades, and torture and extrajudicial murder have taken place on a vast scale. Perhaps even more tellingly, HRW has not published any report on the postelection violence and repression in Iran more than six months after the event.

...

“They are thinking about how it’s going to be used politically in Washington. And it’s not a priority for them because Iran is just not a bad guy that they are interested in highlighting. Their hearts are not in it. Let’s face it, the thing that really excites them is Israel.”

This led to the criticism of the organization by the groups founder, Robert Bernstein, in the New York Times.

“Nowhere is this (bias) more evident than its work in the Middle East,” he wrote. “The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human-rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel… than of any other country in the region.”

The article in The Times also mentions Amnesty International’s alliance with the Cageprisoners – a program run by Taliban spokesman Moazzam Begg – and Human Rights Watch’s fund raising campaign in Saudi Arabia. I suppose freedom of religion and the equality of the sexes aren’t human rights worth watching by the group – at least when petrodollars are at stake and Jews still walk the earth.

UPDATE 4/29/2010:
The New Republic has a feature article on the same subject.

Obama vs. Carter

Thanks to the Watcher’s council for voting this the Council winner for the week ending December 18, 2009. I am deeply honored.

Recently fellow Watcher’s Council member Terry Trippany stated his belief that Obama is a worse president than my nominee of “worst president ever” James “Jimmy” Earl Carter. I am no fan of our current president, so I thought I would take a moment to explore why I continue to believe that our current president has a long way to go before he surpasses his mentor Jimmy Carter in the pantheon of infamous chief executives.

Any day now Jimmy Carter is going to fall permanently off his high horse. Carter recently turned 85 so it won’t be long before flags fly at half-mast and the nation eulogizes Carter. Given the current resident of the White House I expect the prose to be florid, plentiful, and a complete white-wash of the Carter era that Obama seems intent on consciously or not resurrecting. It’s not surprising; it happened to Richard Nixon – another member of the pantheon – under a Democratic president no less, so I expect the worst when Carter dies.

Human memory mixed with Time becomes adulterated. Events become blurry, and both painful events and pleasurable ones soften and fade. Take a moment to imagine the worst physical  pain you ever felt in your life; now imagine a recent event where you stubbed your toe or had a sinus headache. Which seems stronger? Most likely the more immediate pain because it is fresher and hasn’t faded with time the way the other pain you experienced has.

And that’s the difference between Obama and Carter. Carter’s four years of infamy ended nearly thirty years ago. We’re less than a year into Obama’s. It’s difficult to judge the relative strength of painful incidents when you are experiencing one.

Life under the Carter administration was indeed painful for the average American. When is the last time you waited in line for gas? Under Carter, gasoline lines were the norm and the country was gripped with an energy crisis caused by the fall of the Shah of Iran (see below). Carter’s solution? Encourage Americans to conserve energy (easy to do when you couldn’t drive anywhere or pay your heating bill). Inflation was out of control. It tends to hurt the poorest because the only assets they have are savings. High inflation is often characterized by high growth, but in the Carter era high unemployment was the norm.  Those employed couldn’t afford homes thanks to double digit interest rates. The economy was so bad that a new index was used to track it: the Misery Index. Carter used the term often in his 1976 campaign but failed to improve unemployment and inflation rates. At the time he took office the index stood at 13.57%. When he left office four years later it stood at 21.57% – its highest ever.

Carter may have been inept domestically but foreign policy-wise his administration was a disaster. By failing to support the Shah of Iran Carter allowed that nation to fall into the hands of Islamic militants – who then stormed the US Embassy in Teheran and held Americans hostage for 444 days. Carter’s sloppy handling of the crisis showed Islamic militants that terrorism worked, and that the United States was a “weak horse” as Osama Bin Laden later characterized it. The Iranian regime also became one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism throughout Europe and the Middle East. When the Israelis and Palestinians closed in on a peace deal in the mid 1990’s, Iranian-sponsored Hamas conducted a string of homicide bombings that sabotaged the peace process. Hamas sank the deal again in the summer of 2000 in the waning days of the Clinton administration when President Clinton worked feverishly to settle the conflict. Any act of Islamic terrorism today against the West can be traced to the bumbling Carter administration of 30 years ago.

Like Obama today, Carter presented a weak America to the world. It emboldened our enemies from Cuba in this hemisphere to the Soviet Union on the other side of the planet. The Soviets viewed America’s weakness in the Middle East as the opportune time to spread its sphere of influence in the region, and invaded Afghanistan. The best that Carter could do was muster a feeble boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics that penalized American amateur athletes, a boycott that the rest of the world ignored. He then covertly authorized the destabilization of the country by beginning to support the Mujaheddin, Islamic radicals opposed to the Soviets. Support of the Mujaheddin continued through the 1980’s under the Reagan administration, but it began under Carter. As History later proved, Afghanistan became the training ground for an entire generation of Islamic radicals with Osama Bin Laden one of its most prestigious graduate.

In short Carter – intentionally at times and not in others – laid the foundation for the threats America faces today, almost 29 years after he left office. While President Obama has the potential to reach this level of malfeasance he has yet to achieve it. Can he do it in the next 3 years? Given the apologies, the kowtowing to America’s enemies, the mistreatment of American allies, and the blatant ignorance of the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, he’s following in his mentor’s footsteps.

With Iran on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons he even has the potential to outdo his mentor.

Hero Cop Stops Psycho Psychiatrist

Officer Kimberly Munley is credited with taking down psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.


Munley, who had been trained in active-response tactics, rushed into the building and confronted the shooter as he was turning a corner, Cone said.

“It was an amazing and an aggressive performance by this police officer,” Cone said.

Munley was only a few feet from Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan when she opened fire.

Wounded in the exchange of bullets, the 34-year-old Munley was reported in stable condition at a local hospital.

In a posting on her Twitter page before the shooting, she wrote: “I live a good life….a hard one, but I go to sleep peacefully @ night knowing that I may have made a difference in someone’s life.”

Thanks to her wits and guts people are alive today that would otherwise be in the morgue.

NY Daily Post Photo of Sgt. Kimberly Munley

Out-Turking the Turk

One of the smartest men I know recently quoted an old Slovak proverb that states “Beware of the one turned Turk for he is more Turk than the Turk himself.” The saying has its origins in five hundred years ago when the Turkish empire kidnapped the children of Slavs and turned them into soldiers. Evidently they were far more fierce against their former countrymen than the native born Turkish soldiers.

I’m reminded of that saying when reading about this Jew turned Islamic radical. Like Adam “Mullah Fatboy” Gadahn, another American Jew turned Jihadi, these pathetic creatures feel compelled to prove that they aren’t Mossad spies to their new-found friends, while proving that they aren’t just wayward children to their blood relatives.

Mullah Fatboy
“Mullah Fatboy”, Aka Adam Gadahn

It’s a bit like “fag bashers” who feel compelled to beat up Gays in order to prove their masculinity and hide their homosexual desires. In their hearts the bashers know they are gay, and deep down these lads know they are Jews. They are born Jews, they bleed Jewish blood, and in the eyes of their masters they will always be Jews.

It’s pretty sad, but I won’t be saying Kaddish at what’s left of their remains after a Hellfire missile strike or in the case of the New York pedicab driver, a bus accident.

Why the UN Loves Obama

And why you shouldn’t.

The president scores highly at the UN for refusing to project American values and military might on the world stage, with rare exceptions like the war against the Taliban. His appeasement of Iran, his bullying of Israel, his surrender to Moscow, his call for a nuclear free world, his siding with Marxists in Honduras, his talk of a climate change deal, have all won him plaudits in the large number of UN member states where US foreign policy has traditionally been viewed with contempt. – Nile Gardiner, writing at the Daily Telegraph

Pelosi Should Apologize to Americans Not Killed In Attacks

One of the charges made against those of us who supported the war in Iraq or war in general is that we must take responsibility for each and every casualty. “Visit the parents of a Marine killed in Iraq and ask them if it was worth it,” was once spat at me. That’s a responsibility that those of us who support such actions have to bear I suppose.

But the other side of that conceit rarely figures in debate. I realized that recently during Nancy Pelosi’s struggle to square the circle of her actions in 2002 versus her beliefs in 2009 regarding waterboarding. One of the few terrorists who was waterboarded gave intel during the procedure that prevented an attack in Los Angeles. That attack could have killed thousands of Americans.

So if I am burdened philosophically with facing the loved ones of each and every dead American soldier killed in a war that I support, shouldn’t Nancy Pelosi and those opposed to waterboarding face those who are alive today and state their regret that our American principles have been compromised and they would rather these Americans be dead? Perhaps they should visit the homes of those who weren’t killed and explain to their loved ones why their beloved should have perished to spare a terrorist some discomfort.

Liberals and Terrorists

Oh, during last night’s presidential press conference did anyone catch Helen Thomas’s use of the term “supposed terrorists” to describe al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan? I’m not sure what one would have to do to qualify for the label in her book on the very day they release another snuff video.

Vindication

It has been a long tough slog supporting the Iraq War, although nowhere near as hard and tough as it has been for our forces fighting it and the Iraqi people living through it. Championing an unpopular position – especially one involving warfare and the building of a nation – is never easy. In the case of Iraq it was the choice between a freed people and American determination, or genocide and American weakness that encourages its enemies whether the Japanese view of the US as “paper tiger” or alQaeda’s perception of the US as “the weak horse.”

For the past five years Iraq War supporters have dealt with tactical and strategic errors in Iraq. This should be no surprise given that war tends to shred even the best laid plans, the slow progress three-steps-forward two-steps-back that comes with a counterinsurgency strategy, a political party hell-bent on returning to power on the coffins of dead American soldiers and the blood of Iraqis shed by al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias, and an antagonistic mainstream media establishment. Epithets like “Haditha“, “Abu Ghraib“, and “Guantanamo” were hurled along with the standard “quagmire,” ”blood for oil,” and ”Vietnam.” Some of these epithets were deserved; in the end most were not.

Those of us who supported the Surge trusted in General Petraeus at the same time the nation’s most respected newspaper ran an ad calling him “Betray Us” at an embarrassingly discounted rate.

With a mainstream media firmly entrenched in the anti-war camp, war supporters were forced to find alternatives like the views of soldiers returning from the field, or in many cases actually still there, as well as the writings of Bill Roggio, Michael Totten, Michael Yon and others who reported what they witnessed amongst the Iraqi people and embedded with US soldiers. These reports were in stark contrast to the mainstream reports written from the Green Zone using material from pro-insurgent stringers, and early on sowed the seeds of hope for those of us who wanted nothing less than victory by our forces and a free Iraq that would eventually join the ranks of normal democratic nations.

In the end the contrast between the two became laughable – as Dave Price regularly pointed out the MSM’s often breathless reports of Moqtada al-Sadr’s (aka “Mookie”) “victory” over Iraqi forces in Basra and Baghdad this past spring. It was only a matter of time before the mainstream media came gave up and began writing positive stories about Surge’s success in Iraq – although with more caveats than are found in any drug commercial. A few sundays ago the local Delaware newspaper – which is horribly biased against anything that 1)doesn’t support the Democratic Party or 2)questions the banking industry – ran an AP wirestory on its front page, “US Now Winning War That Seemed Lost”. It was the first positive story on the Iraq War I had ever seen on the paper’s frontpage.

Delaware News Journal - 072708

I waited five years to see column header, five very long years in which I felt the American press had become the propaganda arm of al-Qaeda in Iraq or Mookie’s Jaish al Mahdi (JAM).

The history of the Iraq Surge makes for interesting reading. I never saw the War as lost, nor did I want to see us and the Iraqis lose – unlike Sen Harry Reid. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both voted sometimes forsometimes against funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq depending which way the wind blew. Iraq War opponent Congressman John Murtha disgraced himself with his slander that his fellow marines slaughtered civilians “in cold blood” in a case that eventually led to a defamation case being filed against him (make that two defamation suits) .

Even the political party I freely chose hasn’t been immune. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-France) voted against the surge, and now demands that we quit talking about its success or who voted for it. I suppose he would want us to forget considering his consistent anti-military position and his current push for a place in an Obama administration. Even my own Congressman Mike Castle – Delaware’s lone Republican voice in a state dominated by Democrats  - voted against a bill funding the war in early 2007.

One writer – I’m trying to figure out whom – early on in the surge wrote a piece about General Petraeus that has inspired me through the dark days. It described the chaos that was Iraq, and the hope for a better future that seemed more distant day by day as the nation descended into the heart of darkness. It portrayed General Petraeus in almost mythical tones, and promised that though the times were desperate he would lead his forces and the Iraqi people out of the darkness and into the light of victory and peace. The writing conveyed to me, a civilian of untested loyalty, what it must have been like for my father to serve under Gen. MacArthur in 1944-45. General Petraeus was that kind of leader, one whom good men willingly follow to their last breath.

Michael Yon in his four part series, The Ghosts of Anbar (one of the best pieces of wartime writing I’ve read), complemented the General thus:

It took enormous guts to take the job at this stage of the war, when it’s like an airplane with one of the wings blown off, and there is this pilot in the back of the airplane who easily could have parachuted out the back—where some of the others already have gone—but instead he says, “I can still fly this thing!” Had David Petraeus jumped and landed safely, he’d still have been one of the few who could land with a sterling reputation after his previous commands here. If this jet crashes while Petraeus is flying it, we will always know that the best of the best did not jump out the back; he ran to the cockpit.

The Real Man of the Year - Gen. David Patraeus

Now we have finally made it into the light, and Freedom’s enemies now scurry back to their caves in Pakistan or rewrite history like the denizens of the Kremlin of old in order to portray themselves as fathers to success.

But I can’t forget. And I can’t forgive. Too much has been done; too much said to warrant forgiveness or forgetfulness. A rubicon was crossed – I’m not sure exactly when or where, but crossed nevertheless, and we find ourselves in a new land where judgments must be made, debts repaid and accounts settled. While leftists ponder war crimes tribunals held under an Obama administration, it’s only fair for those of us who stayed the course to not forget what has been said and done by those determined to see America humiliated and genocide prevail in Iraq.

We are at long last vindicated, but we must not forget. Forgive? Perhaps. But not forget.

The Council Has Spoken: May 30, 2008

Watcher of Weasels has announced this week’s results. Kudos to Bookworm Room for the post Why Jews Are Right to Suspect Obama’s Advisors, and Kaboom! A Soldier’s Journal for my favorite non-council post Deep Thoughts with Biggie Smalls. Biggie is the soldiers’ Iraqi interpreter who shows humor betrays his deep humanity. Congratulations to both of this week’s winners.