Sunday, September 14, 2014

Why Wasn't the Murder of 19 Year Old Brendan Tevlin Front Page News?

Gunned down by a gang of black Muslims isn't newsworthy?
Brendan Tevlin, 19. Killed for being an American
Both Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missiouri and Brendan Tevlin of Livingston, New Jersey were on their way home the night they were killed. Brown, 18 and with drugs in his system had just robbed a convenience store and assaulted a police officer while trying to take away his gun. Brendan Tevlin, 19 and a straight A student who had just finished his freshman year of college had just texted his mother he was on his way home.

Brown was shot by a Police Officer while apparently rushing the officer. Tevlin was shot dead in his car at an intersection by a gang led by Ali Muhammad Brown who believed the killing was justified because of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Killers of Brendan Tevlin claim the murder was a "just kill" and "vengeance" for U.S. Middle East policy.
There weren't any riots after Tevlin was shot in June. No protest marches, no one trying to use the tragedy for fundraising or to register voters. Al Sharpton didn't show up to accuse blacks of waging a war on whites and Attorney General Holder didn't show up to commiserate on the danger we all face from terrorism. Neither did reporters flood into the New Jersey trying to ring every drop of blood from the scene.

The death of Brendan Tevlin went largely unremarked. Yet, in terms of the danger that faces each of us it is far greater than the tragedy which took place in Ferguson, Missouri.  But I suppose there's no political gain to be made by drawing attention to Tevlin's death!

Friday, September 12, 2014

Sen. John McCain Schools Former Obama Press Sec. Jay Carney

Carney has been lying for a living for so long, a cold dose of truth might be too much for him!

A month ago Obama dismissed any alliance with the Free Syrian Army as a "fantasy." Now they are Obama's new ally in the war (oops... sorry, can't call it a war even though we are bombing them) against ISIS. McCain had been closely following the situation for years and requesting we arm the rebels. Carney tries to put the old White House spin on it but he no longer has a lectern to hide behind and McCain just blasts him. McCain then proceeds to describe how all of Obama's  bad decisions in Iraq have brought us to where we are today.

Well worth watching:

CARNEY: I think we have to agree to disagree on this.

McCAIN: No, facts are stubborn things, Mr. Carney, and that is his entire national security team, including the Secretary of State said we want to arm and train and equip these people and he made the unilateral decision to turn them down. The fact he didn't a residual force in Iraq, overruled all of his military advisers, is the reason why we're facing ISIS today.

So the facts are stubborn things in history and people ought to know them. And now the president is saying basically that we are going to take certain actions, which I would favor, but to say that America is safer, and that the situation is very much like Yemen and Somalia shows me that the president really doesn't have a grasp for how serious the threat of ISIS is.

CARNEY: Well, again, Senator, we're going to have to agree to disagree. And I think on the question of the residual force, there was another player in that which was the Iraqi government. A, and B, it was the fulfillment of the previous administration's withdrawal plan. And it was also the fulfillment of the president's promise to withdraw from Iraq and not maintain a true presence, in perpetuity, which is pretty consistent with what the American people wanted and believed it was the right approach.

McCAIN: Mr. Carney, you are again saying facts that are patently false. The fact is because [Senator] Lindsey Graham, [former Senator] Joe Lieberman and I, we were in Baghdad, they wanted a residual force. The president has never made a statement during that or after that he wanted a residual force left behind. The Iraqis were ready to go. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the number cascaded down to 3,500. That was not sufficient to do anything but to defend themselves. And you in your role as a spokesperson bragged about the fact that the last American combat troop had left Iraq. If we had left a residual force the situation would not be what it is today. And there would be a lot more...
History has vindicated McCain's view of national security policy. With absolute certainty, I can say that if McCain had been elected in 2008 instead of the Community Organizer Iraq today, and the entire Middle East, would be a more peaceful place. None of this ISIS nonsense would be going on!

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Obama's Get Tough on ISIS Speech: More Politics, Little Strategy

Still, at least he's committed to acting in Syria!

I apologize for the following rambling discourse of Obama's Wednesday speech. Considering how rambling and incoherent Obama's policy remains I am sure readers will forgive me. My thoughts on the speech.

First, Obama's announced strategy:"This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years." That took a year to develop? And is the limited air strike with drones approach sufficient to remove what Obama calls the ISIS "cancer" after it has metastasized so much? Doubtful.

Second, Obama refused to strike in Syria a year ago without congressional authorization. In Wednesday's speech he said he "welcomed congressional support" but did not say he would wait for it. Fine by me. I actually agree that the Commander in Chief does not need Congressional approval for every action by the U.S. military. However, candidate Obama said in 2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Chalk that up to more hypocrisy from Mr. O.

While some Democrats, and some Republicans, are calling for a vote authorizing strikes in Syria, my guess is that the Dems really do not want to vote on it. Too many peaceniks to get angry if they vote yes and many, MANY more real Americans who would hold Dems accountable in November if they vote no.

Third, Obama talked about a "broad coalition" joining the U.S. in this fight without mentioning any names. Probably because there are so few. One count puts U.S. and coalition partners at nine. Contrast with George W. Bush's coalition in Iraq that included 47 nations with 37 putting "boots on the ground" in one form or another.  Bush's coalition was called the "coalition of the willing." So far, Obama's coalition appears more reluctant.

One element of that coalition are fighters in Syria. Obama said we have "ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition." This comes only a month after insisting that support for the Free Syrian Army was a "fantasy" that "an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists" would be effective in the fight in Syria. That was then, this is now.

Fourth, the timing of the speech, coming as it did after so many missteps and Obama's cratering poll numbers has all the appearance of a strategy that has more to do with the politics of the moment rather than a robust and effective war fighting strategy. With Obama getting dinged badly for repeatedly looking at national security from a political perspective (as contrasted with Bush according to Bill Clinton) and the American forces being sent to Iraq (now totaling nearly 1600) have much confidence in the mission if the political winds shift again?

Finally, overall I am pleased that Obama is finally doing something. But I have grave doubts about his willingness to stick to the plan as time goes on. In both Iraq and Afghanistan he's demonstrated that he will cut and run if that's what the politics of the moment call for. Doing so again now would be a disaster!

Tuesday, September 09, 2014

A Tragedy for Young Yazidi Women: 17 Year Old Begs for Death from ISIS Rape Camp

Where are the women's rights activists?

From the Daily Telegraph:
A young woman from the Yazidi religious minority captured by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil) has described the horror of being kept as a sex slave by the extremist group.

The 17 year-old said she was one of a group of about 40 Yazidi women who were still being held captive and sexually abused on a daily basis by Isil fighters.
The woman said her captors had initially confiscated her mobile and those of all the other women, but had then "changed strategy", returning the phones so that the women and girls could recount to the outside world the full horror of what was happening to them.

"To hurt us even more, they told us to describe in detail to our parents what they are doing. They laugh at us because they think they are invincible. They consider themselves are supermen. But they are people without a heart.

"Our torturers do not even spare the women who have small children with them. "Nor do they spare the girls - some of our group are not even 13 years old. Some of them will no longer say a word." The woman, given the false name Mayat by La Repubblica, said the women were raped on the top floor of the building, in three rooms. The girls and women were abused up to three times a day by different groups of men.
The young woman has begged her captors for death as the shame and horror of what is happening to her is too much to bear but the ISIS monsters just laugh and rape her more.

Monday, September 08, 2014

Bill Clinton: George W. Bush Did What He Thought Was Right Without Concern for Politics or Party

I doubt we'll hear Bill say the same thing about Obama!

Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush got together on Monday to announce a new leadership program in conjunction with their presidential foundations. The goal of the program is to bring "motivated leaders across all sectors an opportunity to study presidential leadership and decision making and learn from key administration officials, practitioners, and leading academics." The full video of the event is here. In between a series of humorous exchanges between the two ex-Presidents was this serious remark Bill Clinton made about George W. Bush. If the player below does not work, clickhere.

CLINTON: "When he decided what he thought was right, he went for it. Sometimes I didn't agree with what he thought was right. But, I recognize that he was doing what he thought was right not what he thought the politics of the moment required or what the constituencies even within his own party required."

Nope... Bill will never say that about Obama. So many examples of where Obama has been seen to act solely for political purposes, the latest being his delay in granting promised amnesty to illegal aliens to help vulnerable Democrats in the fall election.

Clinton also said that as President, Bush would call him a couple of times a year and have an extended talk. Bill said the talks "meant a lot to me." Bush was, and still is, a class act!

Friday, September 05, 2014

Too Bad Obama Didn't Listen to Bush on Iraq

We might have avoided this entire big mess!

Obama was swept into office on a messianic cloud that suggested he was just so smart and wise and would never make the mistakes of his predecessor whom the Obamatons derided as a dunce or worse. You'd be called a "racist" if you used the same language to describe Obama as the Obama people routinely used to describe Bush.

What a shame that the hubris of the faculty lounge syncophants who followed Obama into the White House blocked them from considering that Bush might have been right when it came to pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq. And yes, it was Obama's failure to secure a standard of forces agreement, he bragged about it (1,2), that brought about the outcome we see today.

Bush warned about the consequences in 2007. The same year Obama was telling us that his name and face would be an important tool to bring about peace. How'd that work out?

BUSH: To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready … would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.
Now, as Bush warned, we have the killings "on a horrific scale" and U.S. troops are going back to Iraq to confront an enemy that had been defeated but is now more dangerous than at any previous time. Tell me again why Obama's policy is so smart?

What's Wrong w/ Obama? Does He Really Believe the Hype About Himself? Can He Change Before it's Too Late?

Is he either incompetent, delusional or both?

The Editorial Page of the Washington Post is becoming increasingly alarmed by Obama's weakness in foreign policy. Here's a sample of recent editorials and columns:

There are big holes in Obama Mideast strategy

Yet despite the criticism coming from the Post and from Democrats (1,2,3) who are increasingly concerned about Obama's passive foreign and national security policy. (When you've lost Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), formerly one of Obama's biggest cheerleaders, you're in trouble).

But the president who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing doesn't seem to share the immediacy of concern that others do. He dismissed fears of ISIS by suggesting social media is to blame. After all, he's given several speeches on these subjects and his soothing words alone are supposed to be enough. Who cares if he heads to the golf course after he's done?

You might think that's a bit flippant but remember where Obama came from:

OBAMA 2007:I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country, and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view…
My sister is half-Indonesian. I traveled there all the way through my college years. And so I’m intimately concerned with what happens in these countries, and the cultures and the perspectives that these folks have. And those are powerful tools for us to be able to reach out to the world.
That theme was amplified by writers like Andrew Sullivan who said:
What does he [Obama] offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy.
Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.
And how did that work out? Well, we've just seen two videos of Americans being beheaded by another brown-skinned man who was calling out Obama by name.

Did Obama make them love us?
You might think that after trying the "give peace a chance" policy for over five years and seeing the danger grown exponentially, that a wise man might decide it's time to try something else. Some Obama defenders insist that he's just playing it cool in a sort of patient long game. Yet, as the situation continues to deteriorate, we are losing ground that will have to be made good later at significant cost in blood and treasure. Does that sound like a smart policy?

Wednesday, September 03, 2014

In Estonia Obama Sends Confusing Signals on ISIS. Doing So Encourages the Terrorists!

Is it any wonder Obama doesn't have a strategy when he can't even seem to keep his story straight?

At a press conference in Estonia on Wednesday Obama read from a prepared statement and had these strong words to say:
So the bottom line is this: Our objective is clear, and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL so that it’s no longer a threat not just to Iraq but also the region and to the United States.
More broadly, the United States will continue to lead a regional and international effort against the kind of barbaric and ultimately empty vision that ISIL represents.
Ann Compton of ABC News was confused with some equivocation in the full statement and asked "Did you just say that the strategy is to destroy ISIS, or to simply contain them or push them back?" Later, another reporter made a similar inquiry to which Obama responded below. It's important for readers to watch this short clip more both for what Obama said and more importantly HOW he said it:

OBAMA: We know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem. And the question is going to be making sure we’ve got the right strategy, but also making sure that we’ve got the international will to do it. This is something that is a continuation of a problem we’ve seen certainly since 9/11, but before.
There's no passion in his voice. When he speaks about the minimum wage or is bashing Republicans he gets fired up yet can't seem to display any emotion when he's talking about the terrorist monsters who are killing Americans? By contrast, Vice President Joe Biden was in New Hampshire and said this:

What Would FDR or Churchill Say?

Obama's weak, tepid response also stands in contrast to other Presidents and world leaders facing similar situations. Can you imagine Franklin Roosevelt coming out after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and saying we would "shrink their sphere of influence and manage the problem?" Would Winston Churchill have been regarded as a great war time leader if he had told the British people: "we're going to manage the Germans on the beaches?"

It's no secret that Obama can't seem to say the words "Islamic radicals" or terrorists in the same sentence. Now, he isn't even clear what our ultimate objective should be. It's no wonder we have no strategy. And just how will Obama lead that worldwide coalition when he can't even decide what the goal is?

Obama's confusion simply feeds the current image of ISIS that is attracting so many recruits to it's cause. If Obama had been resolute and decisive when ISIS first reared it's head it's doubtful they would been so successful and at such a cost of human life. Obama's dithering makes it appear to the Islamic terrorists that perhaps god is on their side! Thanks Obama!

Tuesday, September 02, 2014

Another American Beheaded by ISIS and Obama White House Only Offers "Thoughts and Prayers"

Plus: Obama warned for over a year about threat of ISIS!

ISIS has released a video showing the beheading of Steven Sotloff. This is the second American murdered in this barbaric, horrific fashion in the past two weeks. The only reaction to date from the White House is from Press Secretary Josh Earnest who sends the family "thoughts and prayers."

Still no strategy from Obama on how to deal with the problem despite his own statement more than a year ago stating that we needed a strategy (see below). And now, we learn that not only was Obama repeatedly warned for over a year about the threat from ISIS in the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDF) from the intelligence community but that he also passed up opportunities the Pentagon had prepared to take military action against the group when it might have mattered most.

Meanwhile, the British Prime Minster David Cameron continues to speak out and act forcefully to highlight the danger and act against the threat. One wonders if he were an American politician he would be required to undergo sensitivity training to avoid offending Muslims!

How many more Americans will die before Obama gets a clue, let alone a strategy? START BOMBING ISIS IN SYRIA NOW!

UPDATE: I was listening to Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamic radical who said that Obama's dithering on this issue plays right into the hands of ISIS who see it as proof that god is on their side. Thanks Obama!

Monday, September 01, 2014

How Much Longer Will Obama Wait Before Implementing a Strategy to Combat ISIS Terrorism?

If he waits until a successful attack on the American homeland it will be too late!

Over a year ago, on August 9. 2013 Obama was asked at a press conference what he planned to do about the explosion of Al Queda and related groups all over Africa and the Middle East. He responded by saying that it "requires us, then, to make sure that we have a strategy" to strengthen regional partners to deal with the issue.

A year later and the problem has gotten much, much worse. Asked about the problem on Thursday, August 28, 2014 Obama said: "I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet." He was talking specifically about Syria and ISIS but the statement might as well cover the entire range of terrorist threats.

Of course following this admission that he has no strategy to deal with the most serious and immediate problem in Syria he turned around on Friday and jetted off for more fundraisers and a wedding. Apparently bashing Republicans at a fundraiser is more important than developing and then implementing a strategy to deal with what his own Secretary of Defense declares is a threat "beyond anything that we’ve seen," and “so we must prepare for everything. And the only way you do that is that you take a cold, steely, hard look at it…and get ready.”

Does anyone think we are ready?

British Prime Minister Has Strong Words and Strong Action

Contrast Obama's weak response with these words from British Prime Minister David Cameron the day after Obama spoke:
The first ISIL inspired terrorist acts on the continent of Europe have already taken place. We now believe that at least 500 people have travelled from Britain to fight in Syria, and potentially Iraq. Let’s be clear about the source of the threat that we face. The terrorist threat was not created by the Iraq war 10 years ago. It existed even before the horrific attacks on 9/11, themselves some time before the Iraq war. This threat cannot be solved simply by dealing with the perceived grievances over Western foreign policy. Nor can it be dealt with by addressing poverty, dictatorship or instability in the region, as important as these things are.

The root cause of this threat to our security is quite clear. It is a poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism that is condemned by all faiths and by all faith leaders. It believes in using the most brutal forms of terrorism to force people to accept a warped world view and to live in an almost medieval state. A state in which its own citizens would suffer unimaginable brutality, including barbaric beheadings of those who refuse to convert to their warped version of Islam; the enslavement and raping of women; and the widespread slaughter of Muslims by fellow Muslims. And, of course, the exporting of terrorism abroad.
Now, we cannot appease this ideology. We have to confront it at home and abroad. To do this we need a tough, intelligent, patient and comprehensive approach to defeat the terrorist threat at its source. Tough, in that we need a firm security response whether that is action to go after the terrorists, international cooperation on intelligence and counter terrorism or uncompromising measures against terrorists here at home.
Cameron followed that statement with a series of strong measures his government is taking to combat the threat. No need to wait and certainly not wait another year like Obama.

Winston Churchill decried the fact that politicians who lack clear vision or strong leadership qualities often act in a way that is too little, too late. Sadly, this describes Obama!

V.P. Biden Wants to "Take Back America" From Whom?

Did he forget his party is in charge? And is use of that phrase racist only if a GOP candidate uses it?

So, Vice President Biden was in Detroit telling residents of that city not to give up trying despite the fact the city is in a shambles after decades of Democrat rule. He tried to fire up the crowd by saying “it’s time to take back America.” Take it back from whom? From Obama?

And how odd that Biden would use this phrase since both Attorney General Eric Holder and Obama have declared the phrase is racist when used by those criticizing Obama.

Oh well, just another example that there are two sets of rules for Democrats and Republicans. Anything goes for Democrats!

fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator