America has a darkness, a darkness on the edge of our liberties and that darkness now operates out of Washington DC
Czarist Insanity In America
By Bill Turner Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Boss, Bruce Springsteen sings:
Everybody’s got a secret, Sonny,
Something that they just can’t face,
Some folks spend their whole lives trying to keep it,
They carry it with them every step that they take.
Till some day they just cut it loose
Cut it loose or let it drag ‘em down,
Where no one asks any questions,
or looks too long in your face,
In the darkness on the edge of town.
America has a darkness, a darkness on the edge of our liberties and that darkness now operates out of Washington DC, the White House specifically. President B. Hussein Obama has the darkness of the czars wrapped around him as if they were the shrouds of war, the war upon America. As Americans we are obligated to take a very close look at the minions B. Hussein Obama surrounds himself with and then determine if Dear Leader is committing crimes against America and is in violation of his oath of office, to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Housing Czar, Adolfo Carrion Jr. is a former Bronx Borough President and now he is the Housing and Urban Development Czar. He also sits on the New York City Off Site Betting, Site Selection Committee. He is a former President of a race based group that helped people become permanent resident aliens. Adolfo was integral in helping the Yankees build a new stadium in New York, using public funds. He is also in favor of taxing drivers who use their cars to get to work, “Carrion is the most vocal outer-borough supporter of Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan which would charge drivers a fee to enter Manhattan between the hours of 8am and 6pm in an effort to reduce congestion and minimize the City’s air pollution”. I do not see anything in his career that would warrant such a position in the White House, unless of course you give extra weight to his desire to tax people for driving to work.
Alan Bersin is the Border Czar. In preparation for this important position, Alan was the Secretary of Education for California, where he saw first hand what happens when you say, “Red rover, red rover, send all your illegal’s on over”. Given Dear Leaders desire to give amnesty to all the criminals who are in America illegally, I guess Mr. Bersin doesn’t really need to know anything about border security. I’m sure he has a pulse and is taking up space.
Michael Taylor the Food Safety Czar seems to have upset the left. So far, so good. But, I have to admit I am torn on this one. Mr. Taylor is a former Monsanto executive who helped draft the Food Safety Bill, which has upset the left. The bill will do away with hippie created farmers markets wherein they sell “organic foods” they grew and “organic soap” they apparently do not use. So far, so good. Two pluses for Mr. Taylor. But, there is this:
According to Gunny G Online: “This astounding control will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides. Farmers, thus, will be locked not only into the industrialization of once normal and organic farms but into the forced purchase of industry’s products.”
HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation. Does it include judicial review, Congressional oversight, a defined and limited set of penalties and punishments for a defined set of “crimes”? Not even. The so called Food Safety Bill hands carte blanch enforcement to the whims of Obama’s Food Czar.
Although I am in favor of fining hippies and putting them jail, it just isn’t practical, as it violates their liberties and if it violates their liberties, it poses a threat to mine. Herein is where we see the fatal flaw with Mr. Taylor, he has no regard for individual liberty.
The office of Technology Czar is held by Aneesh Chopra. Chopra was Managing Director for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals and health systems. While there, he led the firm’s Financial Leadership Council and the Working Council for Health Plan Executives. Well, I guess Chopra is here for his health care work, not his computer skills. Lets face it, he headed technology for the State of Virginia, not a pre-cursor for his current position as czar, unless you throw in the health care piece.
Arne Duncan, the Education Czar developed his skills for this position by, uh, um, being the CEO of Chicago Public Schools. Arne was raised in Hyde Park, home of Bill Ayers, B. Hussein Obama and Louis Farrakhan. Draw your own conclusions. Aside from playing basketball in Australia, living in Dear Leaders hood, and giving Obama someone to shoot hoops with, there seems to be no real qualifications for the position of Education Czar. Chicago connections, keep you connected. Welcome to the machine.
The Latin America Czar is Arturo Valenzuela. Aside from being a leftist from Chile, working for Walter Mondale, and serving under Bill Clinton handling foreign policy for Mexico, why is he here? Aside from the exportation of illegal immigrants & drugs, I didn’t know Mexico had a foreign policy.
Ashton Carter is the Weapons Czar. Aside from being the head of the ATF, this has got to be the coolest job in the presidents administration. His time spent in the Clinton administration included the agreement freezing North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. We all know how well that worked. Cough. Ashton was also a consultant at Goldman Sachs, an interesting place for someone who specializes in weapons and nuclear weapons.
Cameron Davis is the Great Lakes Czar. I could not figure out why the Great Lakes, the not so great lakes, or any other lakes needed a czar, then it hit me, this knucklehead must be from Chicago. So, I started looking and guess what? He is. The Great Lakes Czar is responsible for cleaning up the Great Lakes (never mind the rest of them, Obama doesn’t live near there). Cameron Davis is President of the Alliance for the Great Lakes, an environmental group wanting to spend $20 billion dollars of tax payer money to clean up the great lakes. While we are spending all this money to clean up the American side of the Great Lakes, what is Canada doing to clean up their side? Letting the wind carry their trash into Chicago.
Carol Browner, Energy Czar/Climate Change Czar, is a Clinton legacy, serving under Bill for two terms. She worked hard to create a ban on offshore drilling in Florida, so I am guessing “drill here/drill now” is not part of the energy plan. Given what people say about her, “She kicks the door open, throws in a hand grenade, and then walks in to shoot who’s left. She really doesn’t like to compromise”, she should fit right in with Dear Leader, the Emmanuel’s and Axelrod. Algore is described as her most important ally. Swell. Not that she would be the first one in the Obama cabinet to have ethics issues but, she is on the board of directors for APX, Inc., which specializes in technology infrastructure for the environmental commodities markets, including those for carbon offsets. Aside from having her hand in “carbon offsets” she continues to say that “global warming is the biggest challenge ever faced”.
Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein appears to be one of B. Hussein Obama’s most controversial appointees, not just because he appears to be a taco shy of the combo plate, but because, well, because he does appear to be a taco shy of the combo plate. Sunstein is a visiting professor at the University of Chicago. Shock. Cass advocates the Second Bill of Rights, as presented by FDR. Among these rights are a right to an education, a right to a home, a right to health care, and a right to protection against monopolies; Sunstein argues that the Second Bill of Rights has had a large international impact and should be revived in the United States. He also argues that the internet weakens democracy because it allows people to obtain information outside what is fed to them. He is also an advocate of and author of a book about “nudge”, wherein he states that policies should not be radically changed, just nudged in the direction of the cause, until they are nudged to where the left wants them to be. Sunstein also was openly and actively opposed to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. He wrote a book, “Animal Rights”, in which he argued that attorneys should be permitted to sue for violations of existing animal protection laws, naming the animals as plaintiffs. Yes, he thinks your dog should have an attorney and if the cat feels like she is not getting equal representation, she gets one too. Cass wants to limit free speech and there is no liberty without dependency upon the government is his creed. This is the man in charge of regulations. He is the poster child for why White House Czars should be vetted by Congress.
GITMO Closure Czar Daniel Fried has a mandate, from B. Hussein Obama, to persuade European countries as well as Yemen to take back some of the 240 or so long-held prisoners at GITMO. We are at war and his job is to release enemy combatants to go back to the battlefield to kill US troops. He is opposed to recognizing Armenian genocide, kind of like denying the holocaust happened, but different.
Water Czar, David Hayes, aside from working on the Kerry campaign, an almost unforgivable act, has an annual budget of over $16 billion dollars. Unlike Cass, this guy looks relatively normal for a progressive. Wow.
Admiral Dennis Blair serves as the Intelligence Czar. Given the fact he has not arrested or filed charges against all of the oath breakers in the White House, one can assume he has no intention of honoring his oath either. Blair disobeyed orders from civilians in the Clinton Administration during the 1999 East Timorese crisis during his tenure as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Command. Amid growing international concern over violence against the independence movement in Indonesian-occupied East Timor, Blair was ordered to meet with General Wiranto, the commander of the Indonesian military, and to tell him to shut down the pro-Indonesia militia, instead he presented Wiranto with an offer of military assistance and a personal invitation to be Blair’s guest in Hawaii.[6] Consequently, Wiranto’s forces increased the Timor killings. A rogue Intelligence Czar could be fun‚Ķ.or a whole lot of trouble. Not to be outdone by the tax cheats in the obama administration, Blair sits on the board of directors for the company that makes the F22 Raptor and is a shareholder as well. While still a skipper in the Navy, Blair attempted to water ski behind his destroyer.
Mid East Policy Czar Dennis Ross is disliked by the Palestinians because he is Jewish and not liked by Israel because they say he is self hating. I guess B. Hussein Obama didn’t think the Mid-East had enough excitement.
Douglas Lute, Czar of War was put in place by President Bush and president obama had the sense to keep him in place. He is still a czar and as such, has to go, buh bye.
Stimulus Czar (aka Fox Watching Hen House Czar) Earl Devaney is a former police officer, secret service officer and US Inspector General since 1999. He has led numerous investigations of notoriety, but the Jack Abramoff scandal tops the list. Good man, but still a czar.
Auto Recovery Czar, Edward Montgomery, former Dean of Behavioral Science, elbow deep in recovery money and in charge of the factories that will build our cars. Interesting.
TARP Czar Elizabeth Warren, a contributing blogger to the obama friendly Huffington Post and contributor to the Dr. Phil show. In 2009, Warren co-authored a second study on medically-related bankruptcies, claiming the number of medical bankruptcies had increased to 70%. This study attracted significant national attention and controversy. Economics blogger Megan McArdle noted out that no other studies find this same proportion of medical bankruptcies and that the number of medical bankruptcies is actually falling (though not as rapidly as other bankruptcies). So, by providing Dear Leader with ammunition, albeit, false ammunition for his health care campaign, Elizabeth is given the job of overseeing TARP funds. Nice.
This is the first in a series regarding the czars in the obama White House.. I will leave it up to you as to how many of them are loons, communists, anti-capitalists, un-American, or just plain self serving.
Keep in mind, the Constitution does not allow for nobility in America, nor does it allow for a governmental structure outside the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Czars are not Constitutional.
These clowns must go, even the ones who don’t appear to be ethically or morally challenged. More to come.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
USEFUL IDIOT BRENNAN DOES OBAMA'S BIDDING -- SAYS ABOUT HEZBULLAH "THEY CANNOT BE TERRORISTS, THEY HAVE LAWYERS"!!!
by Barry Rubin
It wasn't enough that President Obama's counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan gave a speech which-possibly for the first time in U.S. history-gave a government definition of a religious practice, endorsing Jihad as a noble pursuit. No, he also gave a basic endorsement to a terrorist group which has murdered several hundred Americans.
Please understand, Brennan is not engaging in appeasement. It's much worse.
He thinks he's a brilliant strategist who is going to manipulate Hizballah into being pro-American without knowing very much about the Middle East, Lebanon, Iran, Islamism, or even his supposed subject of expertise, terrorism.
Sound like an exaggeration? Keep reading.
Brennan made clear his views on Hizballah before being appointed by the president, which means he shouldn't have been appointed. The problem isn't just that his view is politically unpalatable and strategically disastrous, it is also enormously ignorant.
Here's what Brennan wrote in an article for ANNALS, AAPSS, 618, July 2008. What it says on Iran is equally bad. But let's focus today on Hizballah:
"It would not be foolhardy, however, for the United States to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon's political system, a process that is subject to Iranian influence. Hezbollah is already represented in the Lebanese parliament and its members have previously served in the
Lebanese cabinet, reflections of Hezbollah's interest in shaping Lebanon's political future from within government institutions.
This political involvement is a far cry from Hezbollah's genesis as solely a terrorist organization dedicated to murder, kidnapping, and violence. Not coincidentally, the evolution of Hezballah into a fully vested player in the Lebanese political system has been accompanied by a marked reduction in terrorist attacks carried out by the organization.
The best hope for maintaining this trend and for reducing the influence of violent extremists within the organization-as well as the influence of extremist Iranian officials who view Hezbollah primarily as a pawn of Tehran-is to increase Hezbollah's stake in Lebanon's struggling democratic processes"
This kind of thinking would do far more than bury Lebanon. It would bury U.S. interests and influence in the Middle East. And so it is only appropriate to quote William Shakespeare's lines for another funeral oration: "If you have tears, prepare to shed them now!"
Yes, it would be foolhardy for the United States to encourage growing influence and power for a radical Islamist terrorist group that is a client of Syria and reasonably close to being an agent of Iran. Brennan seems to give no evidence of any serious knowledge about the Middle East.
Hizballah isn't being "assimilated" into Lebanon's political system, it is trying to take over Lebanon to the greatest extent possible. Just like when the Bolsheviks and Nazis ran candidates that wasn't proof that they were being "assimilated" into the Russian and German systems. (Imagine if a British minister had proposed back then a policy of encouraging Communist or Nazi participation in government on the grounds that this would moderate them.)
But why can't a terrorist or Islamist revolutionary group engage in normal politics? Yes, it might not kill people for a bit, mainly because it plans to do so when that's necessary to advance its cause or--even better---when it takes power.
Hizballah's maximum goal is to seize state power in Lebanon and to drive out all Western influence, while wiping Israel off the map and extending Islamist rule over the entire region. But that doesn't mean it can't have interim goals. It's minimum goal (already accomplished) is to become the strongest single force in the country, to build up a powerful, highly trained militia, to attack Israel whenever it desires, and to gain full control of all Shi'a areas in the country especially in south Lebanon.
How does involvement in electoral politics prove-and the same applies to Hamas-that it doesn't remain a revolutionary Islamist group promoting Iranian and Syrian influence which will indulge in terrorism when it feels that tactic to be useful?
And how could anyone be so dumb not to understand this?
By the way, he knows nothing about how Hizballah has behaved in politics. What have been its efforts? To gain control of the government or at least veto power, to prevent any attempt to disarm its militia or limit its arms' smuggling (Syrian arms paid for with Iranian money).
And why did Hizballah walk out of the government the first time? Over its demand to kill the international investigation of the murder of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and a dozen other terrorist acts.
In other words, the "moderate parliamentary" Hizballah left the government in order to protect previous terrorist attacks from being punished. Doesn't this show their continued involvement in...terrorism?
Yet even this nonsense is dimmed by what Brennan says next. It just so happens that Hizballah stopped doing terrorism because it was entering politics? Has Brennan forgotten the attacks on Israel which triggered a massive war, so destructive for Lebanon, just two years earlier? Hizballah claimed victory but suffered material defeat.
Note the inability of administration officials-this isn't the first time-to discount totally the fact that force sometimes has a deterrent effect. Contemplate the meaning of that for America's future foreign policy.
But that's what he said before taking office. After his Jihad-endorsing speech, Brennan answered questions. Only one newspaper in the world published the transcript, as far as I can discover, the Seoul Times in South Korea. But Brennan's statement can be found online in a sound recording.
Let me point out that he was answering a question from Bob Dreyfuss of the far-left The Nation magazine, who is not exactly a flaming American patriot. Dreyfuss mentioned that he has had personal discussions with Brennan in which the latter, "suggested that it might be possible to have a dialogue with Hamas and Hezbollah."
[Dreyfuss is determined to "out" Brennan as he tries to pull him further to the left. On his blog, Dreyfuss writes: "In fact, as I alluded to in my question, Brennan had told me (before taking a job in the Obama administration, but while serving as Obama's top adviser on intelligence issues) that talking to Hamas and Hezbollah is the right thing to do."]
Brennan didn't deny it but did say he thought Hamas was still a terrorist group. [This might just be for public consumption. Privately, if what he says about Hizballah is true--once a movement runs candidates that must mean to him that it is a candidate for being an American ally.]
But here's what he said about Hizballah:
"Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early 1980s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization.
"However, within Hezbollah, there's still a terrorist core. And hopefully those elements within the Shia community in Lebanon and within Hezbollah at large - they're going to continue to look at that extremist terrorist core as being something that is anathema to what, in fact, they're trying to accomplish in terms of their aspirations about being part of the political process in Lebanon.
And so, quite frankly, I'm pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion."
So in other words it cannot be terrorist because it has parliamentarians, doctors, and even lawyers. Sticking with doctors for the moment, I can think of terrorist doctors who led some of the most terrorist PLO and Palestinian groups, the number-two leader of al-Qaida, and several of Hamas's top leaders. And by the way, doesn't Hamas have parliamentarians and cabinet members?
You see, friends, that's why I use the word "stupid" here even though, forgive me, it isn't a proper academic or analytical term. The following is my satire, not an actual quote:
Brennan: Hizballah can't be terrorist because they have cabinet members, lawyers, and doctors but Hamas is terrorist.
Reporter: But doesn't Hamas have cabinet members, lawyers, and doctors, too?
Brennan: Um, er, uh....
You don't make a statement so easily reduced to rubble if you really understand your topic.
As for "terrorist core," what are we talking about, some small marginal group? In Arabic, Hizballah leaders are constantly explaining there is no such thing as a "military" and a "civilian" wing. They speak freely of their devotion to Iran's regime and the parliamentarians talk about their devout loyalty to the same leaders who give orders to the militia and for terrorist operations.
And who are "a lot of Hezbollah individuals" renouncing terrorism and violence? Don't you get it, Brennan, that Hezbollah never ever had to renounce terrorism and violence to enter politics? (Neither did Hamas for that matter.)
Here are just two examples among many regarding things the president's terrorism advisor is unaware.
Nawaf Musawi, head of Hizballah's "political wing" says:
"Fundamentally, our role in the party is Jihad work. Without it, there's no value or role for Lebanon. If I had the opportunity to go back, I would have chosen the path of military jihad, because the position of a true warrior (muhajid) is more important than that of a member of parliament."
And here is Hizballah second-in-command Naim Qassem:
"All political, social and jihad work is tied to the decisions of this leadership. The same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads jihad actions in the struggle against Israel."
Moreover, is Brennan unaware of the fact that:
--Hizballah's arms are paid for by Iran and supplied by Syria, Is the United States going to compete with their influence when Hizballah leaders admit the organization was formed and ran for parliament only with approval from Tehran?
--Does Brennan know the name of Hizballah's political party?
--Has he any clue that Hizballah buys influence with Iranian money?
--Is he aware that Hizballah has been repeatedly threatening to wage terror attacks on UNIFIL if it tries to fulfill its UN mandate of keeping the group out of the south?
--Does he recall that Hizballah launched an invasion of the Christian and Druze areas, being stopped only because of ferocious fighting by the Druze militia?
--Has he ever read any of the antisemitic, anti-American speeches made by Hizballah leaders?
--Is he aware at all of Hizballah involvement in terrorist acts against Americans, including kidnappings, murders, and the assault on the Marine barracks to name a few examples? (Leaving aside a long list of attacks on Israel and the terrorist bombing of the Jewish center in Argentina with great loss of life?)
--Incidentally, shouldn't someone in his position be talking about punishing, not rewarding, terrorists with so much American blood on their hands? Shouldn't he be setting some tough preconditions--turn over those responsible, apologize and formally reject terrorism--before talking about U.S. support for Hizballah?
--Extra credit question: How do you think Lebanese opponents of Hizballah--which include the majority of Christians, Sunni Muslims, and Druze, along with a Shia minority--feel about having the world's leading democracy endorse those who want to turn their country into a nightmare dictatorship? How do you think Hizballah leaders and Iran's regime feels in reading stuff like Brennan's speech? Compare and contrast.
I'll stop here but there's a lot more one can say. This man is dangerously ignorant and holds very scary policy views. There is something seriously wrong with an administration who would have such a man as its counterterrorist advisor.
Frankly, Brennan should be pressed into resigning or at least subjected to some serious and detailed questioning about his views, statements, and alleged knowledge. "It seems," as one Syrian dissident put it, "that instead of peeling Syria away from Iran, Obama administration's strategy is peeling America away from the West."
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200908115906/editorial/brennan-on-hizballah-they-cant-be-terrorists-they-have-lawyers.html
It wasn't enough that President Obama's counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan gave a speech which-possibly for the first time in U.S. history-gave a government definition of a religious practice, endorsing Jihad as a noble pursuit. No, he also gave a basic endorsement to a terrorist group which has murdered several hundred Americans.
Please understand, Brennan is not engaging in appeasement. It's much worse.
He thinks he's a brilliant strategist who is going to manipulate Hizballah into being pro-American without knowing very much about the Middle East, Lebanon, Iran, Islamism, or even his supposed subject of expertise, terrorism.
Sound like an exaggeration? Keep reading.
Brennan made clear his views on Hizballah before being appointed by the president, which means he shouldn't have been appointed. The problem isn't just that his view is politically unpalatable and strategically disastrous, it is also enormously ignorant.
Here's what Brennan wrote in an article for ANNALS, AAPSS, 618, July 2008. What it says on Iran is equally bad. But let's focus today on Hizballah:
"It would not be foolhardy, however, for the United States to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon's political system, a process that is subject to Iranian influence. Hezbollah is already represented in the Lebanese parliament and its members have previously served in the
Lebanese cabinet, reflections of Hezbollah's interest in shaping Lebanon's political future from within government institutions.
This political involvement is a far cry from Hezbollah's genesis as solely a terrorist organization dedicated to murder, kidnapping, and violence. Not coincidentally, the evolution of Hezballah into a fully vested player in the Lebanese political system has been accompanied by a marked reduction in terrorist attacks carried out by the organization.
The best hope for maintaining this trend and for reducing the influence of violent extremists within the organization-as well as the influence of extremist Iranian officials who view Hezbollah primarily as a pawn of Tehran-is to increase Hezbollah's stake in Lebanon's struggling democratic processes"
This kind of thinking would do far more than bury Lebanon. It would bury U.S. interests and influence in the Middle East. And so it is only appropriate to quote William Shakespeare's lines for another funeral oration: "If you have tears, prepare to shed them now!"
Yes, it would be foolhardy for the United States to encourage growing influence and power for a radical Islamist terrorist group that is a client of Syria and reasonably close to being an agent of Iran. Brennan seems to give no evidence of any serious knowledge about the Middle East.
Hizballah isn't being "assimilated" into Lebanon's political system, it is trying to take over Lebanon to the greatest extent possible. Just like when the Bolsheviks and Nazis ran candidates that wasn't proof that they were being "assimilated" into the Russian and German systems. (Imagine if a British minister had proposed back then a policy of encouraging Communist or Nazi participation in government on the grounds that this would moderate them.)
But why can't a terrorist or Islamist revolutionary group engage in normal politics? Yes, it might not kill people for a bit, mainly because it plans to do so when that's necessary to advance its cause or--even better---when it takes power.
Hizballah's maximum goal is to seize state power in Lebanon and to drive out all Western influence, while wiping Israel off the map and extending Islamist rule over the entire region. But that doesn't mean it can't have interim goals. It's minimum goal (already accomplished) is to become the strongest single force in the country, to build up a powerful, highly trained militia, to attack Israel whenever it desires, and to gain full control of all Shi'a areas in the country especially in south Lebanon.
How does involvement in electoral politics prove-and the same applies to Hamas-that it doesn't remain a revolutionary Islamist group promoting Iranian and Syrian influence which will indulge in terrorism when it feels that tactic to be useful?
And how could anyone be so dumb not to understand this?
By the way, he knows nothing about how Hizballah has behaved in politics. What have been its efforts? To gain control of the government or at least veto power, to prevent any attempt to disarm its militia or limit its arms' smuggling (Syrian arms paid for with Iranian money).
And why did Hizballah walk out of the government the first time? Over its demand to kill the international investigation of the murder of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and a dozen other terrorist acts.
In other words, the "moderate parliamentary" Hizballah left the government in order to protect previous terrorist attacks from being punished. Doesn't this show their continued involvement in...terrorism?
Yet even this nonsense is dimmed by what Brennan says next. It just so happens that Hizballah stopped doing terrorism because it was entering politics? Has Brennan forgotten the attacks on Israel which triggered a massive war, so destructive for Lebanon, just two years earlier? Hizballah claimed victory but suffered material defeat.
Note the inability of administration officials-this isn't the first time-to discount totally the fact that force sometimes has a deterrent effect. Contemplate the meaning of that for America's future foreign policy.
But that's what he said before taking office. After his Jihad-endorsing speech, Brennan answered questions. Only one newspaper in the world published the transcript, as far as I can discover, the Seoul Times in South Korea. But Brennan's statement can be found online in a sound recording.
Let me point out that he was answering a question from Bob Dreyfuss of the far-left The Nation magazine, who is not exactly a flaming American patriot. Dreyfuss mentioned that he has had personal discussions with Brennan in which the latter, "suggested that it might be possible to have a dialogue with Hamas and Hezbollah."
[Dreyfuss is determined to "out" Brennan as he tries to pull him further to the left. On his blog, Dreyfuss writes: "In fact, as I alluded to in my question, Brennan had told me (before taking a job in the Obama administration, but while serving as Obama's top adviser on intelligence issues) that talking to Hamas and Hezbollah is the right thing to do."]
Brennan didn't deny it but did say he thought Hamas was still a terrorist group. [This might just be for public consumption. Privately, if what he says about Hizballah is true--once a movement runs candidates that must mean to him that it is a candidate for being an American ally.]
But here's what he said about Hizballah:
"Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early 1980s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization.
"However, within Hezbollah, there's still a terrorist core. And hopefully those elements within the Shia community in Lebanon and within Hezbollah at large - they're going to continue to look at that extremist terrorist core as being something that is anathema to what, in fact, they're trying to accomplish in terms of their aspirations about being part of the political process in Lebanon.
And so, quite frankly, I'm pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion."
So in other words it cannot be terrorist because it has parliamentarians, doctors, and even lawyers. Sticking with doctors for the moment, I can think of terrorist doctors who led some of the most terrorist PLO and Palestinian groups, the number-two leader of al-Qaida, and several of Hamas's top leaders. And by the way, doesn't Hamas have parliamentarians and cabinet members?
You see, friends, that's why I use the word "stupid" here even though, forgive me, it isn't a proper academic or analytical term. The following is my satire, not an actual quote:
Brennan: Hizballah can't be terrorist because they have cabinet members, lawyers, and doctors but Hamas is terrorist.
Reporter: But doesn't Hamas have cabinet members, lawyers, and doctors, too?
Brennan: Um, er, uh....
You don't make a statement so easily reduced to rubble if you really understand your topic.
As for "terrorist core," what are we talking about, some small marginal group? In Arabic, Hizballah leaders are constantly explaining there is no such thing as a "military" and a "civilian" wing. They speak freely of their devotion to Iran's regime and the parliamentarians talk about their devout loyalty to the same leaders who give orders to the militia and for terrorist operations.
And who are "a lot of Hezbollah individuals" renouncing terrorism and violence? Don't you get it, Brennan, that Hezbollah never ever had to renounce terrorism and violence to enter politics? (Neither did Hamas for that matter.)
Here are just two examples among many regarding things the president's terrorism advisor is unaware.
Nawaf Musawi, head of Hizballah's "political wing" says:
"Fundamentally, our role in the party is Jihad work. Without it, there's no value or role for Lebanon. If I had the opportunity to go back, I would have chosen the path of military jihad, because the position of a true warrior (muhajid) is more important than that of a member of parliament."
And here is Hizballah second-in-command Naim Qassem:
"All political, social and jihad work is tied to the decisions of this leadership. The same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads jihad actions in the struggle against Israel."
Moreover, is Brennan unaware of the fact that:
--Hizballah's arms are paid for by Iran and supplied by Syria, Is the United States going to compete with their influence when Hizballah leaders admit the organization was formed and ran for parliament only with approval from Tehran?
--Does Brennan know the name of Hizballah's political party?
--Has he any clue that Hizballah buys influence with Iranian money?
--Is he aware that Hizballah has been repeatedly threatening to wage terror attacks on UNIFIL if it tries to fulfill its UN mandate of keeping the group out of the south?
--Does he recall that Hizballah launched an invasion of the Christian and Druze areas, being stopped only because of ferocious fighting by the Druze militia?
--Has he ever read any of the antisemitic, anti-American speeches made by Hizballah leaders?
--Is he aware at all of Hizballah involvement in terrorist acts against Americans, including kidnappings, murders, and the assault on the Marine barracks to name a few examples? (Leaving aside a long list of attacks on Israel and the terrorist bombing of the Jewish center in Argentina with great loss of life?)
--Incidentally, shouldn't someone in his position be talking about punishing, not rewarding, terrorists with so much American blood on their hands? Shouldn't he be setting some tough preconditions--turn over those responsible, apologize and formally reject terrorism--before talking about U.S. support for Hizballah?
--Extra credit question: How do you think Lebanese opponents of Hizballah--which include the majority of Christians, Sunni Muslims, and Druze, along with a Shia minority--feel about having the world's leading democracy endorse those who want to turn their country into a nightmare dictatorship? How do you think Hizballah leaders and Iran's regime feels in reading stuff like Brennan's speech? Compare and contrast.
I'll stop here but there's a lot more one can say. This man is dangerously ignorant and holds very scary policy views. There is something seriously wrong with an administration who would have such a man as its counterterrorist advisor.
Frankly, Brennan should be pressed into resigning or at least subjected to some serious and detailed questioning about his views, statements, and alleged knowledge. "It seems," as one Syrian dissident put it, "that instead of peeling Syria away from Iran, Obama administration's strategy is peeling America away from the West."
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200908115906/editorial/brennan-on-hizballah-they-cant-be-terrorists-they-have-lawyers.html
Sunday, August 9, 2009
IS OBAMA A HUGE SECURITY RISK FOR THE USA FOR HIS AL QAEDA LINKS? AND HOW!
Obama and Odinga: The True Story"
Posted by africanpress on August 10, 2008
By Paula Abeles Friday, August 8, 2008
The mainstream media has justified ignoring this story based on a “conspiracy theory” chain email (politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/465) making the rounds from some African missionaries. Politifact.com examined the email—which claims Obama gave $1MM to Odinga’s campaign—and declared it “ a LIAR, LIAR, pants on fire”.
However, the underlying (more important issues) are verifiably true. In August and September 2006, Senator Barack Obama traveled to South Africa, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Chad and Kenya as a congressional delegation of one (Codel Obama) (“Codel Obama” The Hill 9/7/2006) While in Kenya, Obama consistently appeared at the side of fellow Luo Raila Odinga (“your agent for change’), who was running for President. (“Senator Rebukes Kenya’s Corruption” Chicago Sun Times 8/29/2006)
Because of his African heritage, Obama was treated as a virtual “Head of State” in Kenya While campaigning with Odinga, Obama was openly critical of governmental corruption under President Mibaki –usually a fair, if undiplomatic, criticism from an objective observer.
However, Kibaki’s government has been better than most—and Odinga has his own corruption issues.(“Loud and Populist, But No Political Outsider” The Guardian 12/29/2007)
Obama’s partisan support for Odinga was considered so transparent, that the Kenyan Government spokesman, Alfred Matua, complained of political posturing to aid Odinga’s election chances: “It is very clear that the senator has been used as a puppet to perpetuate opposition politics,”(“Walking The World Stage” Newsweek 9/11/06)
And, “…we earlier thought he was mature in his assessment of Kenyan and African politics,” Mutua told AFP.”We forgive him because it is his first time in the Senate and he is yet to mature into understanding issues of foreign policy,” he said.”(“Obama’s Kenya Honeymoon Ends Abruptly After Graft Rebuke” 8/29/06) Subsequently, Ambassador Ogingo Ogego made a public complaint to the US.(“Kenyan Envoy Kicks Off Diplomatic Row” My Africa 9/27/2006)
Raila Odinga subsequently lost the controversial (probably rigged) presidential election. In what appeared to many—including Human Rights Watch– as a coordinated strategy from the top, (“Violence We Fled was Planned, Say Kenyan Refugees” Reuters 1/26/2008 and “Kenya: Violence Planned Before Poll, Says Report” The Nation 3/18/2008) his Luo supporters (a core of whom call themselves
The Taliban”(“Ethnic Gangs Rile Kenyan Slums” Newsweek 1/10/08)) engaged in what US Envoy Jendayi Frazer called “clear ethnic cleansing” (“US Envoy Calls Violence in Kenya ‘Ethnic Cleansing’” USA Today 1/30/2008) of the Kikuyu opposition.
Odinga’s supporters went on a rampage—burning Kikuyu homes and businesses, (“Ethnic Cleansing in Luoland” The Economist 2/7/2008) raping Kikuyu women, and murdering everyone in their path—including at least 50 Christian Kikuyu woman & children who had sought refuge in a church. They burned them alive. (“Mob Burns Kenyans Seeking Refuge In Church” CNN 1/10/2008)
“We have evidence that ODM [Odinga’s party] politicians and local leaders actively fomented some post-election violence,” Georgette Gagnon, acting Africa director for the New York based Human Rights Watch (HRW), said on Thursday.” (Violence We Fled was Planned, Say Kenyan Refugees” Ibid)
So: who is Raila Odinga that Senator Obama would expend his political capital and risk the goodwill of half the population of Kenya?
Their relationship is unclear. The BBC initially reported that Obama and Odinga were first cousins.(“Odinga Says Obama is His Cousin” 1/8/2008) The Obama campaign has since denied a familial relationship. Raila Odinga’s father Oginga Odinga was leader of the “Kenya People’s Union” and perceived as a “committed socialist” (“Oginga Odinga: Kenya’s Most Persecuted Politician” Kenya: Key Issues 8/21.2002).
Odinga Sr. was also the political ally of fellow Luo; Barack Obama Sr., Obama's father. (The Risks of Knowledge (Ohio University Press, 2004) p. 182)
What we do know about Odinga is not good. A former Minister of Energy, Odinga is reported to have been set up in the oil business by the al Bakri Group and Muammar Quaddafi (“How Rich is Raila-The ODM Kenya Presidential Aspirant?” African Press 4/26/2007) Abdel Qader Bakri (or- Abdulkader al Bakri) was listed on the infamous “Golden Chain”–an internal Al-Queda list of wealthy Saudi financial sponsors seized by Bosnian police in a Islamic “charity” raid in 2001. (“Terrorist Financing Staff Monograph 9/11 Commission and “The Golden Chain”)
According to his website, Odinga was educated in Communist East Germany, (Herder Institute, Leipzig & Otto von Guericke Tech. Institute, Magdeburg) (http://www.raila07.com/) Odinga’s eldest son is named “Fidel” (http://www.raila07.com/)
Perhaps most troubling is Odinga’s links to Islamic extremists in Kenya. According to Voice of America and the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, on 8/29/07, Odinga signed a secret agreement (exposed 11/27) with Sheikh Abdullah Abdi of the National Muslim
Leaders Forum (NAMLEF) in which he agreed to institute Islamic law in exchange for Abdi’s support (eakenya.org)–thereby potentially disenfranchising and curtailing the liberties of millions of Christian Kenyan women. Further, he promised that Muslims suspected of terrorism would be safe from extradition—thereby establishing a ‘safe haven’ for terrorists in Kenya.
After the public outcry, Odinga denied signing a secret agreement. Angry at Odinga’s apparent repudiation, a member of NAMLEF subsequently released the agreement to the press. Odinga then claimed the document was a forgery, but acknowledged a secret agreement had been signed in exchange for Muslim support.
Finally, under constant pressure, Odinga released what he claimed was the actual document (“Real” MOU) a considerably watered down version of the original; but still anathema to many Christian groups. “In response to the revelations, The Evangelical Alliance of Kenya released a statement in which church leaders said Raila, in both MOUs, ‘comes across as a presumptive Muslim president bent on forcing Islamic law, religion and culture down the throats of the Kenyan people in total disregard of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of worship and equal protection of the law’” (“Concerns Raised Over Alleged Vow To Enforce Islamic Law in Kenya” Christian Post 12/18/2007)
To many westerners, the idea of imposing Sharia in a predominantly Christian country may have seemed fanciful. However, Kenya has had Sharia courts for family law (not criminal law)—called Khadi courts—since 1963.
For the US and “the war on terror”—the most worrisome section—contained in both agreements– concerns extradition (or renditions) of suspected terrorists to the US andelsewhere.
The Kibaki government had been a leading supporter of the US’s efforts to dismantle Al-Queda cells in Kenya (National Commission of Terrorist Attacks on the United States- 9/11 Report) and elsewhere.
Raila Odinga made opposition to the government’s crackdown of suspected Al Queda supporters a cornerstone of his campaign “In Kimanthi’s view, ‘only some of the leaders’…were Al Queda sympathizers. The renditions- along with frequent police sweeps on the Swahili coast-had become an emotional issue in the presidential race.
Islamic outrage had placed the incumbent, Kibaki, on the defensive and provided Raila Odinga with a tool to rally the support of Kenya’s Muslims.” (“The African Front” New York Times Magazine 12/23/2007) And, “Our government will not be held at ransom to extradite Muslims to foreign lands”, Odinga told supporters in the coastal city of Mombassa. ‘This government is behaving as if it is still a colony.’” (“Outcome of Kenyan Election Could Impact Anti-Terror Cooperation” CNSNews.com 10/17/2007)
So, how much of a national security concern is this? Well, actually: huge “…
proximity to the volatile states…including Somalia and Sudan have made Kenya especially vulnerable, in the views of counterterrorism experts, to the call for jihad. Since the early 1990s, the mosques of Mombasa and other towns have resonated with militant Islamic rhetoric.
Radical imams have preached violence against Westerners, attacked the Kenyan government as the lackey of the United States and Israel and called for the implementation of Shariah. Members of the Qaeda cells that blew up the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania…were recruited in mosques near the Indian Ocean beaches [in Kenya]“ (“The African Front” , ibid)
At no point has Senator Obama tried to distance himself from Odinga. Odinga visited Obama on a fundraising tour of the US in 2007 and it is believed that political strategist Dick Morris assisted in Odinga’s presidential campaign- gratis- at Obama’s request (Morris only acknowledged the suggestion came through “mutual friends”). (“Bridges Burned in US, Political Kingmaker Hits Africa” ABC News 11/20/2007)
Odinga has claimed that he and Obama speak regularly and whether this is true or not– the similarities between their campaigns are startling. (“Kenya Tests New Style of Politicking” The Washington Post, 12/22/2007)
In fairness to Senator Obama, after Kenya erupted into violence ( and at the request of Condoleezza Rice), Obama did record a message “. …calling for calm…” and had “..near daily conversations with the US Ambassador…and Raila Odinga” (“The Demons That Still Haunt Africa” TIME magazine 1/10/2008).
Perhaps not surprisingly, President Kibaki apparently declined to take his call.
Kibaki’s not the only one no longer filled with enthusiasm for Senator Obama’s brand of diplomacy. As Nicholas Kristof reported (with some surprise) in February: “You might think that all Kenyans would be vigorously supporting Mr. Obama. But Kenya has been fractured along ethnic lines in the last two months, so now Mr. Obama draws frenzied support from the Luos ethnic group of his ancestors, while many members of the rival Kikuyu group fervently support Hillary Rodham Clinton. (“Obama’s Kenya Roots” New York Times 2/24/2008)
Curiously, it has been the Kenyan press (almost alone) who have realized the potential implications: “… this is what may be the most memorable effect of the ODM’s [Odinga’s party] post-election campaign for State House. The longer their protests last, and the less disciplined they are – or the more atrocities like Eldoret [church massacre] are conducted in the party’s name- the more likely Kenya is to be stuck on the front pages of the world’s media and the more embarrassment it will bring to the Senator.” (“The Kiss of Death, How Kenya Could Spoil It For Obama” KenyaImagine 1/13/2008)
Clearly, Obama campaigned for someone who is corrupt, ruthless and has financial ties to terrorists. More importantly, Obama campaigned for a candidate who had the stated objective of dismantling US & Kenyan government efforts to root out Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. Organizations that had already caused the deaths of hundreds of Americans and Africans in embassy bombings.
Senator Obama’s actions—intentional or not—were in direct conflict with the efforts and interests of US national security. I think this raises serious questions about the judgment, maturity and readiness of Senator Obama.
(and even more so now as Usurper Oba-Hussein-Khomeini)
Respectfully submitted,Paula Abeles
Posted by africanpress on August 10, 2008
By Paula Abeles Friday, August 8, 2008
The mainstream media has justified ignoring this story based on a “conspiracy theory” chain email (politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/465) making the rounds from some African missionaries. Politifact.com examined the email—which claims Obama gave $1MM to Odinga’s campaign—and declared it “ a LIAR, LIAR, pants on fire”.
However, the underlying (more important issues) are verifiably true. In August and September 2006, Senator Barack Obama traveled to South Africa, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Chad and Kenya as a congressional delegation of one (Codel Obama) (“Codel Obama” The Hill 9/7/2006) While in Kenya, Obama consistently appeared at the side of fellow Luo Raila Odinga (“your agent for change’), who was running for President. (“Senator Rebukes Kenya’s Corruption” Chicago Sun Times 8/29/2006)
Because of his African heritage, Obama was treated as a virtual “Head of State” in Kenya While campaigning with Odinga, Obama was openly critical of governmental corruption under President Mibaki –usually a fair, if undiplomatic, criticism from an objective observer.
However, Kibaki’s government has been better than most—and Odinga has his own corruption issues.(“Loud and Populist, But No Political Outsider” The Guardian 12/29/2007)
Obama’s partisan support for Odinga was considered so transparent, that the Kenyan Government spokesman, Alfred Matua, complained of political posturing to aid Odinga’s election chances: “It is very clear that the senator has been used as a puppet to perpetuate opposition politics,”(“Walking The World Stage” Newsweek 9/11/06)
And, “…we earlier thought he was mature in his assessment of Kenyan and African politics,” Mutua told AFP.”We forgive him because it is his first time in the Senate and he is yet to mature into understanding issues of foreign policy,” he said.”(“Obama’s Kenya Honeymoon Ends Abruptly After Graft Rebuke” 8/29/06) Subsequently, Ambassador Ogingo Ogego made a public complaint to the US.(“Kenyan Envoy Kicks Off Diplomatic Row” My Africa 9/27/2006)
Raila Odinga subsequently lost the controversial (probably rigged) presidential election. In what appeared to many—including Human Rights Watch– as a coordinated strategy from the top, (“Violence We Fled was Planned, Say Kenyan Refugees” Reuters 1/26/2008 and “Kenya: Violence Planned Before Poll, Says Report” The Nation 3/18/2008) his Luo supporters (a core of whom call themselves
The Taliban”(“Ethnic Gangs Rile Kenyan Slums” Newsweek 1/10/08)) engaged in what US Envoy Jendayi Frazer called “clear ethnic cleansing” (“US Envoy Calls Violence in Kenya ‘Ethnic Cleansing’” USA Today 1/30/2008) of the Kikuyu opposition.
Odinga’s supporters went on a rampage—burning Kikuyu homes and businesses, (“Ethnic Cleansing in Luoland” The Economist 2/7/2008) raping Kikuyu women, and murdering everyone in their path—including at least 50 Christian Kikuyu woman & children who had sought refuge in a church. They burned them alive. (“Mob Burns Kenyans Seeking Refuge In Church” CNN 1/10/2008)
“We have evidence that ODM [Odinga’s party] politicians and local leaders actively fomented some post-election violence,” Georgette Gagnon, acting Africa director for the New York based Human Rights Watch (HRW), said on Thursday.” (Violence We Fled was Planned, Say Kenyan Refugees” Ibid)
So: who is Raila Odinga that Senator Obama would expend his political capital and risk the goodwill of half the population of Kenya?
Their relationship is unclear. The BBC initially reported that Obama and Odinga were first cousins.(“Odinga Says Obama is His Cousin” 1/8/2008) The Obama campaign has since denied a familial relationship. Raila Odinga’s father Oginga Odinga was leader of the “Kenya People’s Union” and perceived as a “committed socialist” (“Oginga Odinga: Kenya’s Most Persecuted Politician” Kenya: Key Issues 8/21.2002).
Odinga Sr. was also the political ally of fellow Luo; Barack Obama Sr., Obama's father. (The Risks of Knowledge (Ohio University Press, 2004) p. 182)
What we do know about Odinga is not good. A former Minister of Energy, Odinga is reported to have been set up in the oil business by the al Bakri Group and Muammar Quaddafi (“How Rich is Raila-The ODM Kenya Presidential Aspirant?” African Press 4/26/2007) Abdel Qader Bakri (or- Abdulkader al Bakri) was listed on the infamous “Golden Chain”–an internal Al-Queda list of wealthy Saudi financial sponsors seized by Bosnian police in a Islamic “charity” raid in 2001. (“Terrorist Financing Staff Monograph 9/11 Commission and “The Golden Chain”)
According to his website, Odinga was educated in Communist East Germany, (Herder Institute, Leipzig & Otto von Guericke Tech. Institute, Magdeburg) (http://www.raila07.com/) Odinga’s eldest son is named “Fidel” (http://www.raila07.com/)
Perhaps most troubling is Odinga’s links to Islamic extremists in Kenya. According to Voice of America and the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, on 8/29/07, Odinga signed a secret agreement (exposed 11/27) with Sheikh Abdullah Abdi of the National Muslim
Leaders Forum (NAMLEF) in which he agreed to institute Islamic law in exchange for Abdi’s support (eakenya.org)–thereby potentially disenfranchising and curtailing the liberties of millions of Christian Kenyan women. Further, he promised that Muslims suspected of terrorism would be safe from extradition—thereby establishing a ‘safe haven’ for terrorists in Kenya.
After the public outcry, Odinga denied signing a secret agreement. Angry at Odinga’s apparent repudiation, a member of NAMLEF subsequently released the agreement to the press. Odinga then claimed the document was a forgery, but acknowledged a secret agreement had been signed in exchange for Muslim support.
Finally, under constant pressure, Odinga released what he claimed was the actual document (“Real” MOU) a considerably watered down version of the original; but still anathema to many Christian groups. “In response to the revelations, The Evangelical Alliance of Kenya released a statement in which church leaders said Raila, in both MOUs, ‘comes across as a presumptive Muslim president bent on forcing Islamic law, religion and culture down the throats of the Kenyan people in total disregard of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of worship and equal protection of the law’” (“Concerns Raised Over Alleged Vow To Enforce Islamic Law in Kenya” Christian Post 12/18/2007)
To many westerners, the idea of imposing Sharia in a predominantly Christian country may have seemed fanciful. However, Kenya has had Sharia courts for family law (not criminal law)—called Khadi courts—since 1963.
For the US and “the war on terror”—the most worrisome section—contained in both agreements– concerns extradition (or renditions) of suspected terrorists to the US andelsewhere.
The Kibaki government had been a leading supporter of the US’s efforts to dismantle Al-Queda cells in Kenya (National Commission of Terrorist Attacks on the United States- 9/11 Report) and elsewhere.
Raila Odinga made opposition to the government’s crackdown of suspected Al Queda supporters a cornerstone of his campaign “In Kimanthi’s view, ‘only some of the leaders’…were Al Queda sympathizers. The renditions- along with frequent police sweeps on the Swahili coast-had become an emotional issue in the presidential race.
Islamic outrage had placed the incumbent, Kibaki, on the defensive and provided Raila Odinga with a tool to rally the support of Kenya’s Muslims.” (“The African Front” New York Times Magazine 12/23/2007) And, “Our government will not be held at ransom to extradite Muslims to foreign lands”, Odinga told supporters in the coastal city of Mombassa. ‘This government is behaving as if it is still a colony.’” (“Outcome of Kenyan Election Could Impact Anti-Terror Cooperation” CNSNews.com 10/17/2007)
So, how much of a national security concern is this? Well, actually: huge “…
proximity to the volatile states…including Somalia and Sudan have made Kenya especially vulnerable, in the views of counterterrorism experts, to the call for jihad. Since the early 1990s, the mosques of Mombasa and other towns have resonated with militant Islamic rhetoric.
Radical imams have preached violence against Westerners, attacked the Kenyan government as the lackey of the United States and Israel and called for the implementation of Shariah. Members of the Qaeda cells that blew up the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania…were recruited in mosques near the Indian Ocean beaches [in Kenya]“ (“The African Front” , ibid)
At no point has Senator Obama tried to distance himself from Odinga. Odinga visited Obama on a fundraising tour of the US in 2007 and it is believed that political strategist Dick Morris assisted in Odinga’s presidential campaign- gratis- at Obama’s request (Morris only acknowledged the suggestion came through “mutual friends”). (“Bridges Burned in US, Political Kingmaker Hits Africa” ABC News 11/20/2007)
Odinga has claimed that he and Obama speak regularly and whether this is true or not– the similarities between their campaigns are startling. (“Kenya Tests New Style of Politicking” The Washington Post, 12/22/2007)
In fairness to Senator Obama, after Kenya erupted into violence ( and at the request of Condoleezza Rice), Obama did record a message “. …calling for calm…” and had “..near daily conversations with the US Ambassador…and Raila Odinga” (“The Demons That Still Haunt Africa” TIME magazine 1/10/2008).
Perhaps not surprisingly, President Kibaki apparently declined to take his call.
Kibaki’s not the only one no longer filled with enthusiasm for Senator Obama’s brand of diplomacy. As Nicholas Kristof reported (with some surprise) in February: “You might think that all Kenyans would be vigorously supporting Mr. Obama. But Kenya has been fractured along ethnic lines in the last two months, so now Mr. Obama draws frenzied support from the Luos ethnic group of his ancestors, while many members of the rival Kikuyu group fervently support Hillary Rodham Clinton. (“Obama’s Kenya Roots” New York Times 2/24/2008)
Curiously, it has been the Kenyan press (almost alone) who have realized the potential implications: “… this is what may be the most memorable effect of the ODM’s [Odinga’s party] post-election campaign for State House. The longer their protests last, and the less disciplined they are – or the more atrocities like Eldoret [church massacre] are conducted in the party’s name- the more likely Kenya is to be stuck on the front pages of the world’s media and the more embarrassment it will bring to the Senator.” (“The Kiss of Death, How Kenya Could Spoil It For Obama” KenyaImagine 1/13/2008)
Clearly, Obama campaigned for someone who is corrupt, ruthless and has financial ties to terrorists. More importantly, Obama campaigned for a candidate who had the stated objective of dismantling US & Kenyan government efforts to root out Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. Organizations that had already caused the deaths of hundreds of Americans and Africans in embassy bombings.
Senator Obama’s actions—intentional or not—were in direct conflict with the efforts and interests of US national security. I think this raises serious questions about the judgment, maturity and readiness of Senator Obama.
(and even more so now as Usurper Oba-Hussein-Khomeini)
Respectfully submitted,Paula Abeles
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
IRAN PLANS TO BLOCK GULF WITH ENEMY SHIPS AND SUPPORT TERRORISM IN SYRIA
Russian Yakhont Missile to deploy on Syria's Coastline?
David Eshel writes
The recent delivery of an advanced Russian-made anti-ship missile to Iran has Israeli defense officials concerned it will be transferred to Syria and Hizbullah and used against the Israel Navy in a future conflict. According to media reports, the P-800 Yakhont, the supersonic cruise missile can be launched from the coast and hit sea-borne targets up to 300 kilometers away. The missile carries a 200-kilogram warhead and flies a meter-and-a-half above sea level, making it extremely difficult to intercept.
The supersonic P-800 Yakhont (Gem) is a ramjet version of P-80 Zubr (SS-N-7 Starbright). The ship, submarine and coastal-launched Yakhont is launched from the unified ampoule-shaped transport-launching container (TLC). The container is 9 m long, 10.71m in diameter. The firing range reaches 300 km (162 nmi.) when flying along a combined trajectory and 120 kg (265 lb.) when following only a low-altitude trajectory. Flight speed varying over the range from M=2.0 to M=2.5 is provided by the kerosene-fueled multi-mode liquid-fuel ramjet. The P-800 Bolid is the encapsulated, submarine launched version of Yakhont. An air-launched version of the missile with the take-off weight of 2,500 kg (5,507 lb.) is also being developed. The closest American counterparts, the Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles, are subsonic; the best French antiship missile, the Exocet, has a range of only 45 miles.
Although its performance looks good on paper, these types of missiles lack sophisticated targeting capability since they need accurate targeting data to be provided from a great distance (hundreds of kilometers away) to operate effectively. While this is more feasible for air-launched operating schemes, the likelihood of the missile acquiring the correct target from this range is questionable, particularly under complex electronic warfare environment.
When engaging smaller targets, in open sea crowded with commercial shipping, such as the Eastern Med - this missile could be quite a serious threat to civilian vessels but is less likely to defeat protected, prepared and properly responding military vessels. Since the missile closes-in on its target at supersonic speed, the most likely line of defense against it are 'soft kill' ECM. Engagement by close-in weapon systems (CIWS) or point defense missiles which are effective against high subsonic missiles (such as C-802, Exocet or Harpoon) could be too late for active defense. However, being able to engage such threats from extended range, by defensive systems, such as the Standard SM-2/3 or IAI/Barak 8 will be very effective.
David Eshel writes
The recent delivery of an advanced Russian-made anti-ship missile to Iran has Israeli defense officials concerned it will be transferred to Syria and Hizbullah and used against the Israel Navy in a future conflict. According to media reports, the P-800 Yakhont, the supersonic cruise missile can be launched from the coast and hit sea-borne targets up to 300 kilometers away. The missile carries a 200-kilogram warhead and flies a meter-and-a-half above sea level, making it extremely difficult to intercept.
The supersonic P-800 Yakhont (Gem) is a ramjet version of P-80 Zubr (SS-N-7 Starbright). The ship, submarine and coastal-launched Yakhont is launched from the unified ampoule-shaped transport-launching container (TLC). The container is 9 m long, 10.71m in diameter. The firing range reaches 300 km (162 nmi.) when flying along a combined trajectory and 120 kg (265 lb.) when following only a low-altitude trajectory. Flight speed varying over the range from M=2.0 to M=2.5 is provided by the kerosene-fueled multi-mode liquid-fuel ramjet. The P-800 Bolid is the encapsulated, submarine launched version of Yakhont. An air-launched version of the missile with the take-off weight of 2,500 kg (5,507 lb.) is also being developed. The closest American counterparts, the Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles, are subsonic; the best French antiship missile, the Exocet, has a range of only 45 miles.
Although its performance looks good on paper, these types of missiles lack sophisticated targeting capability since they need accurate targeting data to be provided from a great distance (hundreds of kilometers away) to operate effectively. While this is more feasible for air-launched operating schemes, the likelihood of the missile acquiring the correct target from this range is questionable, particularly under complex electronic warfare environment.
When engaging smaller targets, in open sea crowded with commercial shipping, such as the Eastern Med - this missile could be quite a serious threat to civilian vessels but is less likely to defeat protected, prepared and properly responding military vessels. Since the missile closes-in on its target at supersonic speed, the most likely line of defense against it are 'soft kill' ECM. Engagement by close-in weapon systems (CIWS) or point defense missiles which are effective against high subsonic missiles (such as C-802, Exocet or Harpoon) could be too late for active defense. However, being able to engage such threats from extended range, by defensive systems, such as the Standard SM-2/3 or IAI/Barak 8 will be very effective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
