For the Sake of the Libyan People

The events today in Libya are long overdue considering Muammar Qaddafi's actions towards his people in the wake of the troubles in the Middle East in the past couple months, but, as the saying goes, late is better than never.

The rebels who had had the momentum and captured many important cities in the country had lost it and were the victims of their own leader, a malicious tryrant who has no problems victimizing his own people just as he has victimized the world over the years with his support for international terrorism. Even though the no fly zone should have been insituted weeks ago when the rebels had the initiative and even though it would've been preferred if the US had taken the lead and not waited on international organizations such as the UN, we can only hope that the actions taken by this coalition which includes French, British, and US naval and air assets, will suffice to take out enough of his military assets so that it is demoralized enough to not only result in defections, but also allow for a boost in the rebels morale.

Much debate has gone on in the wake of the revolts in the Middle East as to what the US role should be, especially with President Obama in the Oval Office, but it should be remembered that just because the occupant of the White House changes, it does not alter the fact that the US should remain the leader of the world and keep its moral imperative to aid people when in need regardless of whether it is popular or not. If we do not act, and wait for other countries to and depend on the UN in the future, it will only result in more suffering. Hopefully President Obama will learn from this and realize that as president of the United States, you must lead. It does not mean you act alone, but you must be the one who leads the world and comes to the aid of rebels when they call for you.

President Obama and the Ground Zero Mosque

The controversy that the Ground Zero Mosque has created has brought to light many things that should receive attention, namely Imam Rauf's past statements and President Obama's fumbling maneuvers to try to position himself on every side of the issue.

Some Muslims it seems believe the opposition is based solely on Islamophobia when this is far from the truth. The opposition is around two factors mostly. The first is the mere placement of the mosque, two blocks from Ground Zero, the second is the character of Imam Rauf. In the preceding weeks it has been discussed that Rauf has a record that is far from moderate, saying two weeks after 9/11 that the US was complicit in the attacks and that Osama bin Laden was made in America. He also has refused to denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization. It is these revelations along with the sheer insensitivity of the placement that have created such opposition. As Americans we are always asked to be tolerant and show sensitivity to others, a trait we boldly embrace, but why cannot the Muslims who seek to build this show the same sensitivity? They do not need to build it there. This is an action intended to be provocative, not build bridges. The building of this establishment will not in fact build bridges, but rather create divisions and create a backlash against Muslims.

The White House initially chose not to get involved in this controversy, but the President last Friday chose to finally wade into the fray at a Ramadan dinner. Whereas he did say he supported it legally, he did not comment on the wisdom of the project. Rather he chose to back pedal on his comments the next morning though. The problem and real irony here though is that for being supposedly so eloquent President Obama spends a lot of time clarifying his statements and secondly, it would have been braver of him if he had spoken on the wisdom of it at the dinner instead of the next day in Florida. This would have been an opportune moment  to make the feelings of the American people known and explain to the audience that building it elsewhere would prove better for all. The President failed at this though, due to the fact that that might offend the audience at the dinner and perhaps cause them to not adulate over him.    

It can be said though that Americans, even after 9/11, showed no ill will towards Muslims overall. President Bush made it clear that we were not at war with Islam as a religion, but extremists. The fact remains though that it is hallowed ground and should be respected as such. If they built it six blocks away there would be no issue, but the proximity is what is causing the controversy. This is not a freedom issue when it comes down to it, but one of sensitivity.

The UAE and the Iranian Threat

In a recent speech on Aspen Colorado, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba said he would fully support a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. He said:

I think it's a cost-benefit analysis. I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion … there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what.

If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,' my answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the UAE.

Supposedly this shocked some, but quite to the contrary it shouldn't. As I mentioned earlier in this blog, an Iranian nuke would have dire effects in the region. Not only does Israel have serious concerns about such a development, but the Gulf states have also to worry that a nuclear Iran would be a nation able to impose its will on the smaller countries in the region and in so doing be able to control what those nations did in terms of economic and foreign policy. It is no wonder that the UAE ambassador voiced such an opinion. He, though, is most likely not alone. More likely than not officials from Oman and Bahrain feel the same way that a nuclear Iran will act as a regional bully and that they are willing to put up with any protests that may result if their security is threatened. Why the Obama Administration does not understand this concern is beyond belief. If Iran was to go nuclear the US would have to also be prepared to intervene for those nations should Iran threaten them. It seems President Obama just doesn't understand all the consequences.

Not surprisingly this story was under-reported in the media this week and I only heard about it from Charles Krauthammer on Friday's edition of Special Report with Brett Baeir.

Neconservatism: The Biography of a Movement (Book Review)

Justin Vaisse's book, Neoconservatism: The Biography of a Movement, proved to be a fair-minded and educational read on the movement that has garnered much attention in the last decade.

Vaisse explains the history in a very linear, chronological fashion so as to explain exactly how it developed and who helped it get there. Other authors, when discussing the topic, don't do this, but he explains this method is the best in his introduction. What he does in the book though is explains that neoconservatism can be divided into three distinct ages. The first age which took place in the 1960s and was compromised of Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Norman Podhoretz, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In this phase it primarily addressed domestic issues in the pages of The Public Interest and was a reaction against the New Left and the protests it inspired on campuses some of these men taught at. It must also be noted that a good portion of these men such as Kristol were former Trotskyists at City College of New York.

It was in the second age when foreign policy started to become its primary concern. In fact many second age and third age neoconservatives overlap. This group of people, including luminaries such as Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, and Paul Wolfowitz were greatly inspired by Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA) and the nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter. Their primary concern was opposition to Henry Kissinger's detente and a desire to maintain military dominance over the Soviet Union. The strong support for Israel, which is characteristic of neoconservatives also began here.

In the third age, which is said to have started in 1995, Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan are to said to have made their names known. Although many second age neocons are active in this phase, it was here that such institutions as the Project for the New American Century and The Weekly Standard began under the direction of Bill Kristol and where they came to occupy places of influence in the Bush Administration. Vaisse makes sure to be fair to the neocons when discussing this phase and not lay all the blame for the Iraq War at their feet as some do. Even though he is fair, he does take them to task for having a narrow view of what it would take to make their vision succeed. He does not go overboard in doing so, but rather gives the movement constructive criticism.

Overall I can say the book is well-written and fair on top of being very informative. He lays out precisely what compromises the current neoconservative vision of foreign policy and through his narrative gives the reader a well-informed idea of how they developed it and who contributed to it. He dispels some alleged "myths" about neoconservatism as well. He says that despite what some authors say, philosopher Leo Strauss did not have an that much of an influence on future neocons. This of course can be disputed depending on who you are discussing. For the neoconservatives though, he ends the book on a high note. He says that despite the road bumps that the movement has encountered of late that it in fact is not dead, far from it in fact. It has ingratiated itself into influential think tanks such as American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute as well as being the chosen foreign policy of the Republican party and conservative movement in general and as a result will return to influence world affairs in the future.

Israel and the Flotilla Incident

Yesterday in a raid by Israeli commandos a flotilla transporting 10,000 tons of "relief" materials to Gaza was interdicted and resulted in 9 being killed.

The larger problem in the operation is the fact that this operation has caused an international incident that has resulted once again in the international community's condemnation of Israel. In addition to the larger international problems, the fact of the matter is that if Israel suspects weapons are being smuggled into Gaza they have the responsibility to act
in their nation's interest and prevent them from entering. Turkey, an ally since 1996, should realize this.

What will come of this latest incident is unknown, but it will most likely contribute to frustrating the Obama Administration's Middle East peace process, which at this point is going nowhere due to an amalgam of failed policies. One thing the administration must remember though in this process is to not join the international community's condemnation, but rather come to Israel's defense in their time of need.

The Implications of an Iranian Nuke

It does not appear to be clear that President Obama and his administration understand all the implications that allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon would entail. For there are many that could essentially transform the Middle East.

One of the unintended consequences of allowing this to occur would be the growth of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. The first nation that can be expected to pursue nuclear weapons is Saudi Arabia. Considering its proximity to Iran and that it is made primarily of Sunni Muslims, they would most likely want to offset the "Shia bomb" of Iran. This could happen also due to the fact that of Iran acquired a bomb it will feel emboldened and could try to pressure the surrounding Gulf states into following its will possibly vis-a-vis oil. This would only make sense to protect their interests.

From there it could be a domino effect. Considering Iran had one and Saudi Arabia was working on acquiring one the bigger nations in the region could also see it as only being their prerogative that they have one as well. These nations could include Egypt, Turkey, and possibly Syria. If all these nations were to acquire nuclear weapons you would see a dramatically different Middle East, one where an arms race has transformed it into a nuclear hotbed.

In addition to the threat of nuclear proliferation, Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon poses an existential threat to Israel. There is no question in the mind of the Israeli leadership that they can risk that Ahmedinejad is posturing for his domestic base. They cannot risk a nation such as Iran acquiring such a capability and either directly threatening it or passing it off to a terrorist organization such as Hezbollah or Hamas. President Obama does not seem to understand this position of Israel, which in and of itself is disconcerting. If Israel feels Iran is close to acquiring the bomb it, without a doubt, will take action. This should be allowed.

These are only two of the most obvious consequences that the administration is not willing to face for one reason or another. They cannot simply submit to the inevitability of it and give up and in the process abandon allies such as Israel most importantly, and others in the region such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

How Not to Treat an Ally

This past week has proven to be another week in which the Obama Administration has chosen to alienate our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel.

The way in which President Obama treated Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House was deplorable. He treated him as if he was the Prime Minister of a pariah state (such as North Korea or Iran) in his not meeting with him in public and snubbing him afterwards. Add to this the fact that the Administration has been scolding Israel for building settlements in Jerusalem in the preceding weeks and you have a situation where this president is showing outright hostility to Israel. Considering he is not showing the same hostility to Iran through sanctions, but instead lessening the severity of them and you are left with a very strange foreign policy, one that can be said to be inconsistent with previous policy of both Democrat and Republican presidents and dangerous in the message it sends to our historical allies as well as our current enemies. President Obama should back off the bullying of Israel and instead turn his enmity to nations that pose a real threat to not only us and our allies but the world at large. Nations such as Iran.

America Will Survive

Considering the passage of the healthcare bill and what it means for our country I can't help but think our country will come through this. It will take more than one man or one bill to change the core of what makes America great. We survived the Great Depression. We are the country that came out victorious in World War II and won the Cold War through the leadership of Ronald Reagan. We were attacked on September 11 and rose from the ashes of that tragedy. The US is a beacon to the world, a symbol of hope and freedom. It takes more than one president to alter what makes America exceptional. It takes more than one man to fundamentally alter age old alliances. Just as we always have done we will bounce back. Our history and what makes us so great are bigger than President Obama despite what he thinks. This is something we must remember.

The Dutch Inquisition

By Johanan Raatz

To my fellow serfs, knights and lords, I wish to inform you of a great crime that hath been committed in the Netherlands. The apostate Geert Wilders, of the infamous Party for Freedom, hath knowingly and willingly denied and rejected the sacred doctrines of tolerinthe and diverthity, therein committing a mortal sin.

For those of you who have not been following this story, allow me to back up and start from the beginning. In 2008, Wilders produced a blasphemous video called Fitna, wherein he portrayed Islamist ideology negatively and drew comparisons between the Koran and Mein Kampf. This hateful speeth offended a politically correct minority, thereby promoting hatthred and intolerinthe in the community.

For his shameful sin, Geert Wilders hath been arrested and brought before the Dutch Inquisition on charges of heresy and hate speeth. If he refuses to recant his heresy and repent his hateful speeth, he will be sentenced to one year in jail and/or burning at the stake.

Wilders, however, remains defiant in his sin against political correctness and denies that he hath insulted Islam. Instead, he insists that he was merely telling the truth. In his defense, he has asked that the court consider eighteen expert witnesses, among them renowned academics who have studied Islam as well as radical Islamists.

However, the court in its supreme wisdom hath rightfully rejected fifteen of these witnesses. With these witnesses, Wilders was attempting to use unholy means to obtain knowledge through rational analysis and empirical investigation. For example, instead of obtaining knowledge through the divinely-inspired dogmas of political correctness regarding oppressed minorities, he intended to interview radical Islamists themselves in an attempt to learn their views first-hand. The court, however, knoweth that justice can only be reached if the proceedings are based on politically correct dogma.

This tactic by the fiend Wilders is especially pernicious though. If he were to convince the masses that true knowledge could be obtained by such unholy means he would corrupt them, leading many souls to believe that the holy writ of Political Correctness is false. Heresy would then run rampant and many would go astray.

Lest any are tempted to follow Wilders in his heresy, let your faith not be shaken. If sound testimony and scientific observations from pagan academics side with Wilders, knowest that your ears and eyes are deceiving you for it contradicts the divinely inspired dogma of Political Correctness.

Many in the heathen land of the Americans have taken part in Wilders heresy and so damned their souls. These impious Americans say that Wilders is exercising his right to free speech and that this is necessary for a free and democratic society to flourish. However, we should not follow them into the evil of reason and vain philosophy that dares to exalt itself above the Divine Dogma of Political Correctness. Let us never forget that Western Europe hath the One True Enlightenment of Progressivism and Political Correctness, and that any who espouse that enlightenment is based on reason rather than sacred dogma are in grave error.

In closing, let us remember to intercede to Saint Marx on behalf of Geert Wilders’ soul. Perhaps after his mortal body is burned at the stake for hate speech the God of Progressivism and PC will have mercy and save him from eternal damnation.

This article first appeared in the The February 15th edition of the UWM Post.

The US and the Crisis in Haiti: A Case for American Exceptionalism

The response of the US in the wake of the humanitarian crisis in Haiti should show the world as well as fellow Americans how exceptional this country is. This American Exceptionalism that has been on display is something President Obama failed to acknowledge in the series of speeches in his first year in office.

This exceptionalism goes beyond just what our political leaders and military do though, although that should not be dismissed. This extends to what the average American does. It is average Americans who, when disaster happens, reach into their personal finnaces to give to those in need even when they do not have much to give. It is also these Americans who are the ones acting as missionaries in Haiti before the earthquake occurred that exemplify how the US is the nation who provides the most support.

I've heard some say we owe Haiti due to the fact that due to their rebellion against France the US was able to acquire Louisianna. I don't agree with this line of thinking for two reasons. Firstly, it is not known that the United States would not have acquired Lousianna then, what can be said though is that it would've been acquired if not at that time then soon after. Secondly and more importantly, we are not providing aid to the Haitians because we owe them, not at all. We do it because it is what makes us exceptional. When we see another nation in dire straits we provide help because it is the right and just thing to do and as a people it is in our nature as compassionate people to reach out and help those who could benefit from our resources.

The Perils of Trying KSM in New York

The recent decision by the Obama Administration to try the 9/11 conspirators in New York City, but blocks from the attack on the World Trade Center will prove to be an awful one.

This is an awful decision for a number of reasons. The most prominent is the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will use the trial as a venue to espouse his belief in jihad and put the victim, the United States, on trial. He will discuss why al-Qaeda attacked the US in the first place, for our support for Israel, and the overall Middle Eastern policy of the United States. After he's done that him and his defense team will put the Bush administration and the CIA and their usage of enhanced interrogation techniques on trial. This serves no purpose. He'll make sure to divert attention from the fact that the US was attacked to why al-Qaeda felt compelled to attack.

Secondly, there is no precedent upon which the US has tried such a figure who has been captured in another country. Since KSM was captured in Pakistan the FBI was not able to follow its regular proceedings. After his capture he was taken to a secret prison where he was interrogated and although he eventually ended up giving lectures on al Qaeda, he was initially subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. It was these techniques that got intel that allowed the US to prevent further attacks such as the one on the Library Tower in Los Angeles. This evidence though will not be admissible in a federal court whereas it would've been in a military tribunal.

When these facts are revealed in an American court the information will be disseminated throughout the world and be displayed on al Jazeera where it will inflame the Muslim world. These trials will do more damage to the effort against Islamic extremism than help in showing the world how humane the US is. This decision will go down as one of the worst in the Obama administration and drag out for years in a media circus.

A Runoff Election Won't Make a Difference

On 20 October Afghan President Hamid Karzai said he would allow a runoff election to take place to assuage the concerns of the Obama Administration.

The problem that the administration has not yet realized is the fact that a runoff election will not make much difference. Whether Hamid Karzai or Dr. Abdullah Abdullah is in office the culture of corruption that reigns in Afghanistan will still be present. Troops on the ground are what is really needed.

One of the primary needs in a counterinsurgency strategy is to control the population. Different strategists have different force ratios, yet all agree one needs a sufficient amount of troops to provide security to the population. Unless a populace feels secure they will not likely provide the intelligence necessary to track down the insurgents/terrorists the US is seeking. Even Vice President Biden's counterterrorism strategy will not work without more troops. That's why it is so essential.

Even though having a legitimate government in power is important in counterinsurgency, it appears that regardless of who wins, the government will remain a weak one with the same entrenched corruption in its bureaucracy. That being said, the administration should focus on getting General McChrystal the resources he requires. This decision should not be postponed on these merits any longer. Considering in a country with such a history of corruption Karzai could still win, and the corruption could continue, it leaves the United States in an obvious bind.

The establishment of security is what is required. Once that can happen the other issues can be addressed in the proper fashion, as they should be so as to fully succeed in this strategy.

An American President Wins the Peace Prize

This morining it was announced that President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. This is absurd, so absurd even liberal supporters are surprised.
 
President Obama has been in office a little over 8 months, and has not accomplished anything that would warrant him being awarded such an honor. Could he accomplish something in the future? Of course he could. He could surge in Afghanistan and bring stability to the country for instance. That would be an accomplishment worth praising, but as of now he hasn't done anything to deserve it. So why give it to him?
 
This is clearly a political move. The committee obviously chose to bestow such an honor upon him because he is the opposite of George W. Bush. But wait, is he? Currently he is prosecuting two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, and is considering sending additional troops to the latter. Hopefully he does. He is using UAVs en masse in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a tactic that kills more civilians. He is using rendition, which is far worse than anything that happened at Guatanamo Bay.
 
So what say you?

An Evolving Afghan Policy

It appears as if the Administration is split over how to proceed in Afghanistan, a split they cannot afford to have.

General Stanley McChrystal wants an additional 30,000-40,000 troops, something Admiral Michael Mullen and General David Petraeus support and Secretary Clinton and Richard Holbrooke are leaning toward. On the other hand Vice-President Biden and National Security Advisor Jones do not. Secretary Gates is on the fence.

This is a problem that needs to be amended quickly. President Obama, lacking in experience, is dependent on these advisers and when a split of such proportions exists, he is in trouble. Whereas he does in fact need to listen to his advisers he also must choose a side and stick to it, preferably in favor of sending more troops.

Afghanistan cannot be lost. If the US was to pullout it would be an enormous triumph for the forces of Islamic extremism, al-Qaeda would once again gain a foothold, and the return of the Taliban would likely destabilize Pakistan. If he decides against it, also his campaign rhetoric of committing to Afghanistan will appear to be all for nought.

He does have an important decision to make; go all in, in a counterinsurgency campaign that succeeded in Iraq, and is manpower intensive, continue strategic assaults with UAVs and Special Forces units, as Biden is recommending, or as many in his party and especially the left wing are saying, leave entirely. It is time for President Obama to sit down, listen to all sides in his Cabinet, and make a choice.

RIP Irving Kristol (1920-2009)

By Johanan Raatz

 

  A few weeks ago on September 18^th Irving Kristol, also known as the "Godfather of Neoconservativism," passed away at the age of 89. He wasn't a movie star or a famous politician, but his ideas have permanently changed the face of American politics.

  Born in 1920, Kristol started his life in politics as a student of City College of New York, where he became a vocal Trotskyite. Though a Marxist at the time, he had the moral clarity to oppose the totalitarianism of Stalinist Russia.

  After college, he served in the 12^th Armored Division as an infantryman during World War II. After the war he came to see that Marxism could not work, and instead began to embrace Western ideals.

  Later, when the Cold War was in full bloom, his ideological evolution led him to become a hawkish member of the Democratic Party. During this time his career as a political writer began in earnest. He worked for several public policy magazines, including Commentary, The Reporter, and The National Interest and Encounter, the last two of which he helped found.

  Then during the 1960's, something happened that would change his political outlook significantly: Irving Kristol was "mugged by reality." The counterculture broke out, causing him to see how many liberal programs despite their best intentions caused negative results due to their naïve treatment of human nature.

  At this time he, along with a number of other like-minded intellectuals, became increasingly disgusted with the cultural decadence, moral relativism, and disrespect for authority of the insurgent counterculture. Once this reaction had fully crystallized, a new mode of political thought, neoconservativism, had been born.

  Eventually as the counterculture of the 60's began to increasingly dominate the Democratic Party, he and others like him decided that their party had become too extreme, and they switched parties. Eventually the neoconservative movement that Kristol helped found would rise to dominance in the Republican Party and the political landscape at large, during the presidencies of Reagan and both Bushes.

  After helping to found neoconservativism, Kristol would go on to become a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In 2002, seven years before his death he received the Medal of Freedom, from President George W. Bush, the highest honor for a civilian.

  Even though many of Kristol's ideas were the product of the 1960's, they are perhaps even more relevant today then when he first introduced them. Kristol provided a rational framework for social and cultural conservativism in refreshing contrast to the moral relativism of the left and the blind adherence to tradition on the right.

  As opposed to brushing them aside as some do, he argued that private morality and civic virtue are necessary for the overall health and greatness of a civilization and promoted patriotism and family values as such. Also he warned against the fetishization of democracy, how the public good should be the prime focus and not necessarily whatever the whim of the current majority happens to be. In a time when most people do not know the difference between a liberal and an illiberal democracy we would do well to take a look at some of his ideas.

  Irving Kristol is survived by his wife Gertrude Himmelfarb, his children Bill Kristol and Elizabeth Nelson and a tradition of uniquely intellectual conservativism that he helped found. Rest in peace Mr. Kristol. May your legacy live beyond you.

Remembering 9/11, Eight Years Later

Today is September 11, 2009, eight years since the horrific attacks on our country. That day is ingrained in my memory as I'm sure it is all of you.

The question is though what have we learned since then. This is our first year with a new administration, an administration for that matter, which has a view of fighting terrorism that differs to a great degree from the Bush Administration. I have detailed these developments here, so won't go over them again, but it could be said that their view is pre-9/11 one, in which terrorism is looked to as more of a criminal matter than an act of war. In my opinion this view is wrong in the light of the threat al-Qaeda poses to the world.

I will not prognosticate what will happen in the coming years with the new regulations going into effect, but I hope whatever happens and whoever is in the White House, whether President Obama now, or others in the future, that we continue to enjoy a homeland that is free from threats.

Mahmoud Abbas: Dossier on Who Israel Will be Negotiating With

Mahmoud Abbas, the supposed "moderate" leader of Fatah in the Palestinian Territories, is in fact anything but. His history is one that is dotted with subversion, collusion, and acts of terrorism.

Abbas was one of the original members of Fatah and has been kicked out of a number of countries in the Middle East for subversive activities in accordance with those activities, among them Egypt, Jordan, and Qatar.

During the Cold War he was the main contact for the Soviets in their dealings with the PLO. This is no surprise considering Abbas went to Patrice Lumumba University where he got his Ph.D.

In 1972 he was an instrumental part in the killing of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, being that he provided the funding for the operation.

In the Persian Gulf War he, as a ranking member of the PLO, colluded with the Iraqi Army in the plundering of Kuwait.

This is not the picture of someone who is a moderate. This is a picture of a terrorist. In addition to his past actions he has failed to moderate Fatah. Instead of being these "moderate" partners of Israel, they are promoting terrorists to lead their security forces and continue to refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.

ALERTT :: OBAMA PLANNING ISRAEL AMBUSH AT OPENING OF UN ASSEMBLY!

• This is a recent post that was on One Jerusalem. I feel everyone should be aware of this.
  
  ALERTT :: OBAMA PLANNING ISRAEL AMBUSH AT OPENING OF UN ASSEMBLY!
  Several sources have informed One Jerusalem that the Obama Administration is planning to significantly step up the pressure on Israel by announcing a comprehensive plan for Israel and the Palestinians at the opening of the United Nations General in September. Picture this: The anti-Israel nations of the world surrounding President Obama as he demands that Israel give up sovereignty over Jerusalem, abandon settlements, and recognize a terrorist state on the West Bank. If this happens, Israel will be isolated from the rest of world in a very dramatic manner. The first sign that something was up came when Egyptian President Mubarak said that the Obama Administration was ready to propose a plan in September and the White House rushed to dampen expectations by declaring that they are nowhere near to readying a plan. Our sources confirmed that the Obama administration is contemplating this ambush of Israel at the United Nations. At the moment, friends and supporters of Israel can help derail this insidious plan by:

Helping to publicize the intentions of the Obama administration. Use your access to the Internet to spread the news to family and friends.

When you come across a a news story or discussion about Israel write a comment, and copy the link to this Alert page.

Encourage friends and family to Sign the One Jerusalem Petition.

By focusing public attention to this ambush, we can help avert it.

Much Ado About Nothing

By Johanan Raatz

Several weeks ago, a CIA program was declassified revealing that the intelligence agency was planning to hire the private military contractor company Blackwater USA (now Xe International) to assassinate top Al-Qaeda operatives. Because the program was only in the early planning stages it had not yet been revealed to congress.
Once it was CIA director Leon Panetta released it to congress it was received with much whining and obsessive bluster. Rather than being viewed negatively though the so-called "scandal" of this program was actually a good idea for several reasons:

1.) The CIA has had long standing close ties to Blackwater so it would only be reasonable for the intelligence agency to work with them. Blackwater's intelligence division, Total Intelligence Solutions is even run by former members of the CIA including former Coordinator for Counterterrorism Cofer Black and Deputy Director of Operations Robert Richer. Thus it is only logical that the two organizations would work together.

2.) Blackwater has had an excellent track record in accomplishing their objectives. They have a perfect 100% success rate in protecting their "nouns" or VIP's they are assigned to guard, and have been a useful partner in the Global War on Terror. In many cases they are hired so that they can fight without there hands tied by meddlesome regulations. In this way they have certain advantages over governmental agencies.

3.) While the CIA is solely American, Blackwater has operatives from all over the world, including Iraqi's. This provides valuable experience that can simply not be taught to government agents, allowing for greater flexibility in CIA operations. Additionally it has another advantage. Using foreign Blackwater operatives the CIA can remove American fingerprints from their operations as has already been pointed out by at least one CIA official.

With all of this in mind the question changes from why should the CIA work with Blackwater on counterterrorism operations to why shouldn't they? With the aforementioned reasons in mind it would be only logical that they would and in fact foolish for them not to. Tantrum throwing congressmen and blubbering bureaucrats would do well to think on this and let the intelligence agency do it's job without meddlesome interference.

The Politics of Interrogation

With the announcement of the formation of an interagency interrogation unit and the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate, we are seeing more of the Obama administration's misguided policies regarding the War on Terror.
 
These announcements are very disturbing. The appointment of such a prosecutor to investigate past interrogators could go in unknown directions. Even though it's intended to solely look into these people and their activities, it could spiral out of control and go after Justice Department attorneys like John Yoo among others. The real White Whale for the Democrats though is former Vice President Dick Cheney. Since they never could impeach President Bush and Dick Cheney, they will stop at nothing to go after them after they've left power.
 
The new interrogation unit also is a problem in the making. Considering it can only abide by the Army Field Manual, it cannot use many of the techniques that were vital in breaking high-ranking al-Qaeda operatives. Besides waterboarding, temperature modifications are not allowed and stress positions. This will demoralize the CIA to no end and their interrogators in particular. Also we must keep in mind how will this affect our influence and relationships with allies, especially allies in the region who may not want their participation made public. This could result in the drying up of intelligence,  and in the long run affect how we are able to conduct operations in the Middle East and other places.