HEADLINES

Loading...

Thursday, March 31, 2011

America Again Arming its Enemies

Richard M. Salsman:

Evidence grows with each passing week that in Libya the U.S. government and its allies are providing air cover and arms directly to its avowed enemies–including thugs from al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and Taliban–those who’ve devoted the past decade to slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Worse, top U.S. and U.K. officials now acknowledge this and condone it.

Click here to continue.

FACT: Eastern Libya has been an important source of suicide bombers for Islamist terrorist groups.

One More for the Archives: Hillary Praising Assad

N. KOREA TO SOUTH: CHOOSE WAR OR DIALOGUE


Another Korean conflict is increasingly likely, as this article shows, and the Obama administration is prepared to put American troops under South Korean command. Thinks about that: a South Korean general could "command U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force personnel and equipment that support the South Korean military in case of various provocations from the North."

American troops under South Korean command? WTF?

Where's the outrage?

Fact is, Democrats and Republicans alike have sold out America and stabbed ordinary Americans in the back, over and again, and the crazy, above-referenced agreement with a country that would be conquered tomorrow if not for the United States is just another example of the perfidious pattern. The greedy globalizers and craven cowards masquerading as leaders have no regard for regular folks. The sons and daughters of Main Street Americans are cannon fodder for the political, economic, and intellectual elites--crooks and crackpots--and their mad schemes and dreams.

LIBYA IS FUBAR

Mixed messages ... Al Qaeda-linked rebels ... looming stalemate ... never-ending lunacy.

Libya is FUBAR (Google it).

Related: Obama's former friend and ally defends Khadafy:

View more videos at: http://nbcchicago.com.

WHY LIBYA?


Regarding Libya, R2P is a sideshow, certainly not the main event.

True, the CPR (Clinton/Power/Rice) faction aims to use the deceptive "responsibility to protect"- civilians-from-slaughter rationale, which U.S. President Barack Obama cited in his Libyan intervention speech, as a precedent for future "humanitarian" interventions--including, in Power's case, an invasion of U.S. ally Israel in support of Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah--and for a U.S.-armed and financed UN world police force; but all this insanity is of secondary importance to the Libya mission's primary purpose.

Which is to manipulate political Islam--i.e. to install a so-called Islamist democracy that will be ruled by "moderate" Islamists instead of by Al Qaeda, the only Islamist group that the administration is presently not prepared to engage. Really. The overthrow of Khadafy, a deranged dictator and ex-terrorism sponsor who no longer posed any threat to the United States and its allies, is all about ... Islam. Political Islam, to be precise. Unbeknownst to most Americans, their Commander-in-Chief is competing with Al Qaeda commanders for leadership of "the Muslim world." He hopes to win the competition by delivering to Muslims what Al Qaeda has thus far not been able to deliver--namely, the overthrow of despised secular states across the Middle East, starting with the toppling of the pro-U.S. but apparently no longer useful to Washington Mubarak regime in Egypt, and the "liberation" of "Palestine" with Jerusalem as its capital (in a temporary two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict that would set the stage for a final solution--Israel's destruction or eventual disappearance).

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, similarly, hopes that he can out-Islamize the "extreme" Islamists--and prevent a Muslim uprising in France--by siding with the Islamist-influenced, if not Islamist-led, Libyan rebels. Lots of luck.

Incredibly, both Western leaders appear to have learned nothing from America's Cold War intervention in Afghanistan--which succeeded in hastening the collapse of the Soviet Union but also succeeded in unleashing and arming the global jihad in the first place--and Israel's terribly misguided support for Hamas in its earliest days, when the Muslim Brotherhood-backed Palestinian group was seen as a counterbalance to the secular, Left-leaning, Soviet-bloc-backed PLO. (Shortly before he was assassinated, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin reportedly referred to Israel's covert support for Hamas as Israel's "fatal error.") It has time and again been proved--the British, too, learned this the hard way during the Great Game of imperial rivalry--that the Islamist tiger will inevitably attack anyone who tries to ride it.

Put differently, just as leaving a country is harder than invading it, and running it is harder than bombing it, dismounting a wild beast is more dangerous than riding it.

Political Islam is far more dangerous than a wild beast. It is a manmade monster, like Nazism, that must be thoroughly defeated and destroyed--eliminated, not engaged.

AT LEAST 13 DEAD IN SUICIDE BOMB ATTACK ON PAKISTAN ISLAMIST SUSPECTED OF COLLABORATING WITH AMERICA

Radical Islam in action. Click here to read all about it.

Has anyone noticed that apart from oil, on which our civilization depends--and will continue to depend for at least the next 20 years--Muslim societies produce nothing of significant value or real importance for the rest of the world? Their chief export is ideology--i.e. a clerical fascist creed called Islamism.

LIBYAN REBELS TRANSFERRED LOOTED CHEMICAL SHELLS ... MUSTARD AND NERVE GAS ... TO HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH

WHY IRAN IS SUPPORTING THE REBELS

Related:

Must Read: 'The Mythology of Intervention'

Regarding intervention in Libya, a must-read essay on "distorted and misremembered" history: The Mythology of Intervention | Foreign Affairs.

Crude Rises On Libyan Conflict

FIGHT FOR CONTROL OF 'OIL CITIES'

Springtime for Al Qaeda, Winter for the West


Ignore the mis/disinformation disseminated by mainstream media outlets.

Contrary to the notions of liberal idiots and left-wing loons, the unrest in the Arab world--dubbed the "Arab Spring"--is bad for the West and good for Al Qaeda.

Stability and inter-agency cooperation are prerequisites for intelligence activities aimed at rooting out Al Qaeda and its offshoots--and preventing terrorist attacks on Western targets. Instability in Egypt, Yemen, and Libya makes it easier for Al Qaeda to operate in those countries.

In Yemen, already, as the country's Islamists escalate their efforts to overthrow the government--with the help of agents and Islamist sympathizers in the security services--Al Qaeda must be enjoying the new season. Thus, the American-born terrorist cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki was not merely propagandizing when he said that the Arab uprisings will enable the jihadist movement to flourish. He was being frighteningly--terrifyingly--truthful.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Piece by Piece, Biblical Jerusalem is Being Unearthed

MYTHICAL WATER TUNNEL NEWEST DISCOVERY
CERTAIN TO ENRAGE ISLAMIST FANATICS BENT
ON CONQUERING CAPITAL OF JEWISH PEOPLE

MEDVEDEV VOWS TO CRUSH ISLAMISTS

WILL OBAMA CLAIM A 'RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT'
RUSSIA'S BLOODTHIRSTY ISLAMIST SEPARATISTS?

ISLAMISTS MARCH IN LONDON FOR SHARIA LAW FOR LIBYA

EGYPT REACHING OUT TO IRAN

POST-MUBARAK REGIME SEEKS

LIBYAN REBELS RETREAT

Mission accomplished?

Not really. Click here for the latest developments.

GLENN BECK: 'I STAND WITH ISRAEL'

ASSAD BLAMES ISRAEL FOR UNREST

DESPERATE SYRIAN DESPOT REJECTS REFORM,

IN FOCUS: ASSAD DYNASTY'S DECADES-LONG RULE


GOLD GAINS AGAIN

LIBYA NEWS SPURS DEMAND

Internet Sites Allege Fake Obama Photos

A GRANDFATHER'S DISCONNECTED 'THIRD ARM'
SEEMS TO BE PART OF A DISTURBING PATTERN


AL QAEDA PREACHER HAILS LIBYAN REVOLT


WANTED TERRORIST CALLS ARAB UPRISINGS

SLIPPERY SLOPE TO UN HELL: OBAMA'S 'R2P' RATIONALE PAVES THE WAY FOR SAMANTHA POWER'S WORLD POLICE FORCE


'RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT' AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Tripoli today, Tel Aviv tomorrow? That's the plan. Not for nothing did a veteran Palestinian Holocaust denier help devise Obama's deceptive R2P doctrine. Click here for the story, here for more historical background, including the doctrine's Hitlerian origins, and here to read all about "Palestine" and Gaza and the future of R2P.


Related: Russia's use of air power against Islamist terrorists. Will the world police lobby target Moscow?

IN THE SCARIEST VIDEO GAME EVER, NORTH KOREA AND IRAN NUKE AND CONQUER ECONOMICALLY DEFEATED AMERICA


JUST A GAME? CLICK HERE TO READ SCARY SCENARIO

The unthinkable can happen, as history as shown and as this article argues.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

CHINA'S NUCLEAR PLANS UNCHANGED

Japan's nuclear accident will not stop China's nuclear expansion, according to this report.

EARLY WARNING: NEW N. KOREA PROVOCATIONS LIKELY

China Confidential analysts expect North Korea to respond militarily to new live-fire artillery drills by South Korea.

'FLICKERS OF AL QAEDA' IN LIBYA


What Happened to the American Declaration of War?


By George Friedman


In my book “The Next Decade,” I spend a good deal of time considering the relation of the American Empire to the American Republic and the threat the empire poses to the republic. If there is a single point where these matters converge, it is in the constitutional requirement that Congress approve wars through a declaration of war and in the abandonment of this requirement since World War II. This is the point where the burdens and interests of the United States as a global empire collide with the principles and rights of the United States as a republic.

World War II was the last war the United States fought with a formal declaration of war. The wars fought since have had congressional approval, both in the sense that resolutions were passed and that Congress appropriated funds, but the Constitution is explicit in requiring a formal declaration. It does so for two reasons, I think. The first is to prevent the president from taking the country to war without the consent of the governed, as represented by Congress. Second, by providing for a specific path to war, it provides the president power and legitimacy he would not have without that declaration; it both restrains the president and empowers him. Not only does it make his position as commander in chief unassailable by authorizing military action, it creates shared responsibility for war. A declaration of war informs the public of the burdens they will have to bear by leaving no doubt that Congress has decided on a new order — war — with how each member of Congress voted made known to the public.

Almost all Americans have heard Franklin Roosevelt’s speech to Congress on Dec. 8, 1941: “Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan … I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.”

It was a moment of majesty and sobriety, and with Congress’ affirmation, represented the unquestioned will of the republic. There was no going back, and there was no question that the burden would be borne. True, the Japanese had attacked the United States, making getting the declaration easier. But that’s what the founders intended: Going to war should be difficult; once at war, the commander in chief’s authority should be unquestionable.

Forgoing the Declaration

It is odd, therefore, that presidents who need that authorization badly should forgo pursuing it. Not doing so has led to seriously failed presidencies: Harry Truman in Korea, unable to seek another term; Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam, also unable to seek a new term; George W. Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq, completing his terms but enormously unpopular. There was more to this than undeclared wars, but that the legitimacy of each war was questioned and became a contentious political issue certainly is rooted in the failure to follow constitutional pathways.

In understanding how war and constitutional norms became separated, we must begin with the first major undeclared war in American history (the Civil War was not a foreign war), Korea. When North Korea invaded South Korea, Truman took recourse to the new U.N. Security Council. He wanted international sanction for the war and was able to get it because the Soviet representatives happened to be boycotting the Security Council over other issues at the time.

Truman’s view was that U.N. sanction for the war superseded the requirement for a declaration of war in two ways. First, it was not a war in the strict sense, he argued, but a “police action” under the U.N. Charter. Second, the U.N. Charter constituted a treaty, therefore implicitly binding the United States to go to war if the United Nations so ordered. Whether Congress’ authorization to join the United Nations both obligated the United States to wage war at U.N. behest, obviating the need for declarations of war because Congress had already authorized police actions, is an interesting question. Whatever the answer, Truman set a precedent that wars could be waged without congressional declarations of war and that other actions — from treaties to resolutions to budgetary authorizations — mooted declarations of war.

If this was the founding precedent, the deepest argument for the irrelevancy of the declaration of war is to be found in nuclear weapons. Starting in the 1950s, paralleling the Korean War, was the increasing risk of nuclear war. It was understood that if nuclear war occurred, either through an attack by the Soviets or a first strike by the United States, time and secrecy made a prior declaration of war by Congress impossible. In the expected scenario of a Soviet first strike, there would be only minutes for the president to authorize counterstrikes and no time for constitutional niceties. In that sense, it was argued fairly persuasively that the Constitution had become irrelevant to the military realities facing the republic.

Nuclear war was seen as the most realistic war-fighting scenario, with all other forms of war trivial in comparison. Just as nuclear weapons came to be called “strategic weapons” with other weapons of war occupying a lesser space, nuclear war became identical with war in general. If that was so, then constitutional procedures that could not be applied to nuclear war were simply no longer relevant.

Paradoxically, if nuclear warfare represented the highest level of warfare, there developed at the lowest level covert operations. Apart from the nuclear confrontation with the Soviets, there was an intense covert war, from back alleys in Europe to the Congo, Indochina to Latin America. Indeed, it was waged everywhere precisely because the threat of nuclear war was so terrible: Covert warfare became a prudent alternative. All of these operations had to be deniable. An attempt to assassinate a Soviet agent or raise a secret army to face a Soviet secret army could not be validated with a declaration of war. The Cold War was a series of interconnected but discrete operations, fought with secret forces whose very principle was deniability. How could declarations of war be expected in operations so small in size that had to be kept secret from Congress anyway?

There was then the need to support allies, particularly in sending advisers to train their armies. These advisers were not there to engage in combat but to advise those who did. In many cases, this became an artificial distinction: The advisers accompanied their students on missions, and some died. But this was not war in any conventional sense of the term. And therefore, the declaration of war didn’t apply.

By the time Vietnam came up, the transition from military assistance to advisers to advisers in combat to U.S. forces at war was so subtle that there was no moment to which you could point that said that we were now in a state of war where previously we weren’t. Rather than ask for a declaration of war, Johnson used an incident in the Tonkin Gulf to get a congressional resolution that he interpreted as being the equivalent of war. The problem here was that it was not clear that had he asked for a formal declaration of war he would have gotten one. Johnson didn’t take that chance.

What Johnson did was use Cold War precedents, from the Korean War, to nuclear warfare, to covert operations to the subtle distinctions of contemporary warfare in order to wage a substantial and extended war based on the Tonkin Gulf resolution — which Congress clearly didn’t see as a declaration of war — instead of asking for a formal declaration. And this represented the breakpoint. In Vietnam, the issue was not some legal or practical justification for not asking for a declaration. Rather, it was a political consideration.

Johnson did not know that he could get a declaration; the public might not be prepared to go to war. For this reason, rather than ask for a declaration, he used all the prior precedents to simply go to war without a declaration. In my view, that was the moment the declaration of war as a constitutional imperative collapsed. And in my view, so did the Johnson presidency. In hindsight, he needed a declaration badly, and if he could not get it, Vietnam would have been lost, and so may have been his presidency. Since Vietnam was lost anyway from lack of public consensus, his decision was a mistake. But it set the stage for everything that came after — war by resolution rather than by formal constitutional process.

After the war, Congress created the War Powers Act in recognition that wars might commence before congressional approval could be given. However, rather than returning to the constitutional method of the Declaration of War, which can be given after the commencement of war if necessary (consider World War II) Congress chose to bypass declarations of war in favor of resolutions allowing wars. Their reason was the same as the president’s: It was politically safer to authorize a war already under way than to invoke declarations of war.

All of this arose within the assertion that the president’s powers as commander in chief authorized him to engage in warfare without a congressional declaration of war, an idea that came in full force in the context of nuclear war and then was extended to the broader idea that all wars were at the discretion of the president. From my simple reading, the Constitution is fairly clear on the subject: Congress is given the power to declare war. At that moment, the president as commander in chief is free to prosecute the war as he thinks best. But constitutional law and the language of the Constitution seem to have diverged. It is a complex field of study, obviously.

An Increasing Tempo of Operations

All of this came just before the United States emerged as the world’s single global power — a global empire — that by definition would be waging war at an increased tempo, from Kuwait, to Haiti, to Kosovo, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, and so on in an ever-increasing number of operations. And now in Libya, we have reached the point that even resolutions are no longer needed.

It is said that there is no precedent for fighting al Qaeda, for example, because it is not a nation but a subnational group. Therefore, Bush could not reasonably have been expected to ask for a declaration of war. But there is precedent: Thomas Jefferson asked for and received a declaration of war against the Barbary pirates. This authorized Jefferson to wage war against a subnational group of pirates as if they were a nation.

Had Bush requested a declaration of war on al Qaeda on Sept. 12, 2001, I suspect it would have been granted overwhelmingly, and the public would have understood that the United States was now at war for as long as the president thought wise. The president would have been free to carry out operations as he saw fit. Roosevelt did not have to ask for special permission to invade Guadalcanal, send troops to India, or invade North Africa. In the course of fighting Japan, Germany and Italy, it was understood that he was free to wage war as he thought fit. In the same sense, a declaration of war on Sept. 12 would have freed him to fight al Qaeda wherever they were or to move to block them wherever the president saw fit.

Leaving aside the military wisdom of Afghanistan or Iraq, the legal and moral foundations would have been clear — so long as the president as commander in chief saw an action as needed to defeat al Qaeda, it could be taken. Similarly, as commander in chief, Roosevelt usurped constitutional rights for citizens in many ways, from censorship to internment camps for Japanese-Americans. Prisoners of war not adhering to the Geneva Conventions were shot by military tribunal — or without. In a state of war, different laws and expectations exist than during peace. Many of the arguments against Bush-era intrusions on privacy also could have been made against Roosevelt. But Roosevelt had a declaration of war and full authority as commander in chief during war. Bush did not. He worked in twilight between war and peace.

One of the dilemmas that could have been avoided was the massive confusion of whether the United States was engaged in hunting down a criminal conspiracy or waging war on a foreign enemy. If the former, then the goal is to punish the guilty. If the latter, then the goal is to destroy the enemy. Imagine that after Pearl Harbor, FDR had promised to hunt down every pilot who attacked Pearl Harbor and bring them to justice, rather than calling for a declaration of war against a hostile nation and all who bore arms on its behalf regardless of what they had done. The goal in war is to prevent the other side from acting, not to punish the actors.

The Importance of the Declaration

A declaration of war, I am arguing, is an essential aspect of war fighting particularly for the republic when engaged in frequent wars. It achieves a number of things. First, it holds both Congress and the president equally responsible for the decision, and does so unambiguously. Second, it affirms to the people that their lives have now changed and that they will be bearing burdens. Third, it gives the president the political and moral authority he needs to wage war on their behalf and forces everyone to share in the moral responsibility of war. And finally, by submitting it to a political process, many wars might be avoided. When we look at some of our wars after World War II it is not clear they had to be fought in the national interest, nor is it clear that the presidents would not have been better remembered if they had been restrained. A declaration of war both frees and restrains the president, as it was meant to do.

I began by talking about the American empire. I won’t make the argument on that here, but simply assert it. What is most important is that the republic not be overwhelmed in the course of pursuing imperial goals. The declaration of war is precisely the point at which imperial interests can overwhelm republican prerogatives.

There are enormous complexities here. Nuclear war has not been abolished. The United States has treaty obligations to the United Nations and other countries. Covert operations are essential, as is military assistance, both of which can lead to war. I am not making the argument that constant accommodation to reality does not have to be made. I am making the argument that the suspension of Section 8 of Article I as if it is possible to amend the Constitution with a wink and nod represents a mortal threat to the republic. If this can be done, what can’t be done?

My readers will know that I am far from squeamish about war. I have questions about Libya, for example, but I am open to the idea that it is a low-cost, politically appropriate measure. But I am not open to the possibility that quickly after the commencement of hostilities the president need not receive authority to wage war from Congress. And I am arguing that neither the Congress nor the president have the authority to substitute resolutions for declarations of war. Nor should either want to. Politically, this has too often led to disaster for presidents. Morally, committing the lives of citizens to waging war requires meticulous attention to the law and proprieties.

As our international power and interests surge, it would seem reasonable that our commitment to republican principles would surge. These commitments appear inconvenient. They are meant to be. War is a serious matter, and presidents and particularly Congresses should be inconvenienced on the road to war. Members of Congress should not be able to hide behind ambiguous resolutions only to turn on the president during difficult times, claiming that they did not mean what they voted for. A vote on a declaration of war ends that. It also prevents a president from acting as king by default. Above all, it prevents the public from pretending to be victims when their leaders take them to war. The possibility of war will concentrate the mind of a distracted public like nothing else. It turns voting into a life-or-death matter, a tonic for our adolescent body politic.


The above report is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

Monday, March 28, 2011

ADVANCING TOWARD SIRTE, NATO-BACKED, ISLAMIST-LINKED LIBYAN REBELS REPELLED BY ARMED PRO-REGIME CIVILIANS

DISORGANIZED INSURRECTION

Sirte is Khadafy's Stalingrad

REBELS ADVANCE ON REGIME STRONGHOLD,

Understanding Libya Intervention and Intrigue



Perplexed about America's unnecessary intervention in Libya?

Ahead of President Obama's address to the nation, it would be helpful to read about France's interest in the oil-rich country and the Sarkozy scheme for a Mediterranean Union (which is a good idea that unfortunately may never become a reality because of Turkey and Islamist hatred for Israel and the West).

Also helpful as a guide to understanding what's really happening: reading up on National Security Council director of “multilateral affairs” Samantha Power, an anti-Israel, left-wing academic who is obsessed with "Palestine" and "social justice." She sees intervention in Libya as setting a precedent--for a future intervention in Gaza and the West Bank. Really. Obama is actually advised by someone who dreams of imposing a no-fly zone--and a final solution--on the Jewish State.

As Obama will make the case that armed intervention in Libya was necessary to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, it would make sense to research the NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia and the West's incredible, pre-9/11 creation of an Islamist beachhead in Europe.

That conflict was also justified by the Clinton administration as being necessary in order to prevent a wider war. The "wider war" argument could also come into play in Libya in line with the U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates having conceded Sunday that Libya was not a "vital national interest."

Speaking of the Clintons, in trying to understand why their government is spending $10,000 an hour on a war that will most likely result in adding yet another link in the global Islamist chain, it behooves ordinary Americans to familiarize themselves with the bizarre coalition that reportedly influenced the President's decision to bomb Libya, overcoming the objections of the Pentagon. Click here for one of many articles on the subject.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

NATO-AIDED AQ-LINKED REBELS ADVANCE

Another "Islamic democracy" looms. Click here for the war news and here for a report on alleged secret negotiations between the Khadafy regime and Britain and France.

LIBYAN REBEL LEADER ADMITS AL QAEDA LINKS


WHAT OBAMA AND SARKOZY HAVE WROUGHT:

REBEL LEADER CALLS AQ FIGHTERS 'GOOD MUSLIMS'



On the insane intervention ... Daniel Greenfield reports:

Sarkozy needs to catch fire with French voters, almost as badly as Obama does with US voters. He is polling behind Marie LePen and his UMP party barely outdrew the National Front in local elections. He has failed to rein in domestic Islamism, but bombing Libya is easy by comparison. And gives him the illusion of placing his fingerprint on history's page. Then there's France's Total S.A. oil company which has its own presence in Libya. Between its dirty deals with Saddam Hussein and Iran, Total SA makes BP look good.

Three years ago, Gaddafi was pitching his tent in the heart of Paris, on Sarkozy's lawn. Back then Sarkozy denounced "those who excessively and irresponsibly criticised the Libyan leader’s visit" and his aide explained that Gaddafi's visit was a good thing because it brought billions of euros and tens of thousands of jobs to France. But now Monsieur Gaddafi is Le Monstre.

And what were those jobs and billions of euros coming from? The sale of French fighter jets to Libya, from the country which took the lead in going after the Libyan air force. Considering the poor performance of Libya's air force, Gaddafi would be justified in asking Sarkozy for a refund.

Two years ago, UK PM Gordon Brown was expressing his "admiration and gratitude" for Gaddafi. Now Cameron had to interrupt a Middle Eastern arms sales tour to call for a war on Gaddafi for his suppression of rioting rebels. Pity then that the UK had actually been selling some 350 million dollars worth of military equipment, including a good deal of crowd control gear.

Now France and the UK are stepping in to save the Libyan rebels from the military equipment that they themselves sold to Gaddafi.
Click here to read all of Greenfield's article.


Arguing against intervention in Libya, Steve Chapman writes:
In Libya, the unknown unknowns are legion. We could be helping to bring to power a government even worse than Gadhafi's or creating a new haven for Islamic terrorists. One option is shipping weapons to the rebels—kind of like what we did in Afghanistan following the 1979 Soviet invasion.

Those weapons, as fate would have it, helped bring the Taliban to power.


A civil war is taking place in Libya--the regime of Muammar Gadhafi against rebels. The Obama administration prefers to call it "Gadhafi's war against his own people." There have certainly have been many civilian casualties, mainly in army attacks but also in rebel actions. That is deplorable but not unusual. The Turkish army has killed many more civilians in operations against Kurdish separatists (who have also not quailed at killing noncombatants ). Turkey, of course, is an important member of NATO, and no levelheaded U.S. statesman would dare propose extending air cover to the Kurds in Diyarbakir.

What the above-referenced analysts don't get, in this reporter's opinion, is that U.S. foreign policy is intentionally pro-Islamist. Installing so-called Islamic democracies--meaning "moderate Islamist" regimes--is the policy. Obama wants to be seen by "the Muslim world" as the liberator of Libya ... and Jerusalem.

Related:

Saturday, March 26, 2011

OBAMA'S FORMER FRIEND DEFENDS KHADAFY

FARRAKHAN BLASTS OBAMA ON LIBYA

Related:

Thousands in Madrid March Against US

LIBYA INTERVENTION OPPOSED BY DEMONSTRATORS

EGYPTIAN MILITARY, MB IN 'UNHOLY ALLIANCE'

A must-read essay over here about military-Muslim Brotherhood ties in Egypt. The country, long an American ally, is well on the way to becoming an Islamist state. Think "Turkish model" ... only worse.

Chavez Says Capitalism Ended Life on Mars


CRACKPOT OF CARACAS WARNS CAPITALISM

US RUSHING FRESH WATER TO JAPAN N-PLANT

ONE DEAD, 130 INJURED IN JORDAN CLASHES

PM DENOUNCES ISLAMISTS


SYRIAN UNREST UPDATE: PROTESTS CONTINUE, ANGER INCREASES BUT MANY SYRIANS STILL SUPPORT ASSAD






Friday, March 25, 2011

Islam Issue in French Local Elections

FRANCE FEARS ISLAMIZATION

SAUDIS FEEL BETRAYED BY OBAMA


US-SAUDI RELATIONS SOUR BECAUSE


China Confidential analysts say the Saudi King believes U.S. now functionally allied with Muslim Brotherhood and Iran-backed Shiite Islamists.

Gurkha Singlehandedly Fought 30 Taliban

SOLDIER HONORED FOR ONE-MAN STAND

MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD EYES LIBYA PRIZE

ISLAMISTS GRATEFUL TO US FOR BOMBING

CNN ARTICLE CONFIRMS WORST SUSPICIONS ABOUT OBAMA'S POLICY

IS NATO BUILDING AN 'AL QAEDA DISNEYLAND?' CLICK HERE.

Iran Accused of Attempted Cyberattack

TEHRAN'S ALLEGED TARGETS INCLUDED

Syria Protests Spread Across Country


SOUTH KOREA WARNS NORTH COULD ATTACK

DRAMATIC WARNING BY SEOUL DEFENSE CHIEF
SUPPORTS CHINA CONFIDENTIAL PREDICTIONS
PYONGYANG PLANNING NEW PROVOCATIONS

China Confidential analysts believe that the North--egged on by Iran--is also preparing a third nuclear test in addition to more missile launches.

China Increasing, US Cutting Third World Aid

Assistance equals influence. But "we can't give money away that we don't have." Read all about it here.

Muslim Brotherhood Rising in Egypt, as Predicted

The Islamist group that spawned Al Qaeda and Hamas is a rising force in Egypt, as this report confirms.

What the article does not say is that the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama emboldened the Islamist group by "engaging" it before, during, and after his historic address in Cairo to "the Muslim world," which elevated organized Islam to the level of a global superpower in line with Islamist ideology. The administration views the MB as "moderate," unlike AQ and so-called irreconcilable elements of the Taliban.

Click here for related coverage.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

THOUSANDS DEMAND 'FREEDOM' IN SYRIA


The despotic, secular Syrian regime, which is allied with Shiite Islamist Iran, accuses the demonstrators of being tools of "Zionism" and "U.S. schemes." Click here for the story.

In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Sunni Islamists are deeply involved in the Syrian protests, sensing an opportunity, at long last, to overthrow the Alawi Assad dynasty. Should Assad fall--and this would be as momentous for the Middle East as the toppling of pro-U.S. Mubarak--he would most likely be replaced by an even more implacable enemy of the United States and Israel.

Westerners should bear in mind that "freedom" to many Muslims means freedom to follow Islamic law--Sharia--above all. instead of viewing the amalgamation of religion and government as the antithesis of democracy, Muslim societies tend to regard religion as a sword for limiting the powers of their rulers--especially when the rulers are seen as violating or deviating from Islamic law--and as a stabilizing influence and counterweight to disruptive alien ideologies and philosophies, including nationalism and secular democracy.

Ironically, Barack Obama, America's most left-wing-ever President, is sympathetic to the Muslim perspective on religion and politics. His Third World/Muslim heritage and upbringing and past relationships with Black Liberation Theology Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan have given Obama an appreciation for the ways in which religion and politics can be combined for supposedly progressive purposes.

There is no reason to assume, for example, that Obama, even today, after all that has gone so horribly wrong in Iran, regards the (Carter-assisted) overthrow of that country's Shah Mohammed Reza Pahalavi, who was both a modernizing monarch and a staunch and strategic U.S. ally, as a bad thing. On the contrary; like the leftists who supported Iran's Islamic Revolution--before being devoured by it--Obama almost certainly sees the Shah's toppling as part of "the moral arc of the universe." Hence, Obama's determination, upon entering the White House, to engage (appease and align with) rather than replace Iran's Islamist regime, in spite of its menacing nuclear and missile programs and imperialist foreign policy (meaning a policy that aims to overthrow the status quo, or power relationships, among nations).

Samantha Power, an Irish-born academician and influential Obama advisor ... who wants to invade Israel ... clearly accepts the European Left's perfidious notion that that right-wing political Islam--a form of fascism, which is itself a socialist heresy--has a progressive side that can be harnessed and exploited in the interest of helping "a better world" to be born.


CHINA PRESSES FOR LIBYA CEASEFIRE

CHINA SAYS INTERVENTION


Related:





WILL BIDEN CALL FOR OBAMA'S IMPEACHMENT?

VP'S WORDS OF WARNING CREATE 'CONSTITUTIONAL FIRESTORM'
FOR PRESIDENT WHO CONSULTED UN BUT NOT US CONGRESS
BEFORE ORDERING ATTACK ON LIBYA DURING FOREIGN TRAVELS


Regarding the forgotten U.S. national interest--a concept that is despised by America-bashing leftists and ignored by many well-meaning but misguided conservatives--IBD gets it right in an editorial excerpted below:

The U.S. appears to be doing the U.N.'s bidding in Libya. But is there another goal that has less to do with Libya than with transforming America's global role?

Hudson Institute and Ethics and Public Policy scholar Stanley Kurtz on Tuesday reminded National Review Online readers that "Obama has had a longstanding interest in multilateral efforts to combat war crimes and genocide." Kurtz notes that Obama's senior director for multilateral engagement in the National Security Council, Samantha Power, has been seeking a way "to solidify the principle of 'responsibility to protect' in international law," which "requires a 'pure' case of intervention on humanitarian grounds." Libya may fit perfectly.

It would explain why Obama didn't go to Congress; as Kurtz put it, "he cannot afford to specify broader ideological motivations he knows the public won't buy."

But it also exposes this administration's hypocrisy.

Campaigning in Iowa in 2007, Vice President Joe Biden said that based on a treatise he had five leading constitutional scholars draft, if President Bush "takes this nation to war in Iran without congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him."

Islamofascist Iran, with its nuclear weapon ambitions, is a real threat to the U.S. The dangers of Gadhafi, whose nuke program was neutralized by the Bush administration, pale in comparison.

If the left's "responsibility to protect" ideology is to become official U.S. foreign policy, it should be debated openly first.

Click here to read the entire editorial.

Related:

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Obama's Libyan Lunacy

FUZZY UN RESOLUTION MEANS

GOP LEADER SLAMS OBAMA'S ISRAEL POLICY


REPUBLICAN LAWMAKER REFERENCES

Fact: The Republican Party stands with beleaguered, increasingly isolated Israel, while dumbbell Democrats and loony liberals and Leftists (including sick, self-hating Jewish liberals and leftists) continue to pressure and squeeze America's only real Middle Eastern ally, which is also the region's only democracy.

ISLAMIST MONSTERS BOMB JERUSALEM BUS




China Confidential analysts say Hamas is bent on provoking another war with Israel. The Gaza-based Islamists believe they can enlist Turkey--and Egypt--in the conflict. Moreover, the Islamists intend to mobilize a Palestinian uprising in order to mobilize anti-Israeli opinion around the world and calls for U.N. armed intervention in Israel--the Khadafy precedent. The Islamists, who are committed to Israel's destruction, have in part been emboldened by the rise in influence of anti-Israel Obama advisor Samantha Power, who has argued in favor of international intervention to impose a final solution on the Jewish State.


Related:


Report on Venezuela meeting confirms China Confidential early warnings that the country's anti-American strongman is helping to build a South America-based, Islamist terrorist network, involving Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Hezbollah, and Hamas, for use against Israeli and U.S. targets.

US BURNING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON LIBYA


$10,000 AN HOUR TO DRIVE UP OIL PRICE

TURKEY REBUFFS OBAMA ON LIBYA

'MODEL' ISLAMIST REGIME

VIDEO OF PROTEST IN DARAA, SOUTHERN SYRIA




Tuesday, March 22, 2011

ISLAMISTS GAIN UPPER HAND IN EGYPT

MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD FASCISTS



AQ AND MB POISED TO TAKE OVER LIBYA

What Islamist-appeasing Western elites have wrought in an Arab country that posed no threat to the United States and its allies.... Read all about it here.

Related:

Largest US Pro-Israel Group is Christian

BRIC COUNTRIES CONDEMN ASSAULT ON LIBYA

JOINING BRAZIL, RUSSIA, INDIA,

Related:


TURKEY CALLS FOR AIRSTRIKES ON ISRAEL

Obama's Model 'Islamic Democracy'

Related: