by Jack
“Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.” Mahatma Gandhi
The world is facing an old enemy, with an old ideology. but its packaged new self-righteousness. This is ISIS, fighting with 21st weapons against a weak, demoralized and confused opposition in Syria and Iraq, but at the same time spreading its Islamist influence far beyond anything we might have imagined just two years ago.
In 2012 President Obama said this about ISIS, “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe” Bryant.” And how’s that JV team doing now? Wrong and if he really believes it, he’s delusional.
But, the disinformation and delusions didn’t stop there. Obama and staff were not about to acknowledge that ISIS has anything to do with Islam, they were just making that up to recruit terrorists. Obama tells us “They’re not a state, and they’re not Islamic.” Like that will help buy popularity in the Muslim world. Our liberal infested State Department mostly backs him up, because they’re being pressured not to admit these people are true Islamists, when they clearly are in every sense of the word. This has a lot of Americans wondering if Obama and company know what they’re doing or if they are lying to us to conceal another agenda, a pro-Islamist agenda?
For now, I’m going with… they don’t know what they’re doing, because the other is almost unthinkable. And to prove it here’s another Obama quote: “But let’s just keep in mind, Fallujah is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. (Well, they weren’t in 2000, but they are now) And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology is a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.”
So being denial of what ISIS is somehow going to help things? And now Fallujah belongs to ISIS and does 2/3rds of Iraq, and not just because they were conservative Sunni, but because we were either not paying attention or we didn’t care…power vacuum to follow. This allowed the sectarian power grab by Maliki’s Shi’a government created by the precipitous withdrawal of US forces. Iraq was not stable when we pulled out, even though we just spent hundreds of billions on training a 200,000 man national guard. They were poor led, (we fired all the professional officers from Saddam’s army) their pay was sporadic, and they could only function well in Shiite territories because we had kicked out all the Sunni soldiers.
The massive unemployment, bad economy, breakdown in basic utilities, political ineptness and corruption soon had the frustrated and poverty stricken Sunni’s looking for a way to resist Maliki’s heavy hand, unfortunately the only militant opposition at the time was ISIS forces under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (see pic upper left) preaching a return to Islamic fundamentalism, as it was 650 AD. This is why we have all this barbarism, the rules of engagement have changed a lot since 650 AD, now these guys want to bring it all back, rape, torture, beheadings…etc.
“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again” Ecclesiastes 1:9
The Seeds of Discontent: Egypt - 2011: There was this huge youth bulge; 2/3rds of the population was under 30. Although, they were generally well educated, they lacked a future. For every 700,000 college graduates there were only about 200,000 jobs. it doesn’t take too many years and this becomes an impossible situation solve.
The economy was poor and had been for decades. Government had not been responsive to the needs of the people and further Egypt’s foreign policy was completely divorced from people to the point most citizens felt Egypt’s government was being controlled by America. Social divisions were breaking down along sectarian lines. The Egyptian government was fast losing its legitimacy to rule.
(See any correlation to events here in America? We have a faltering economy. We have a foreign policy draining our wealth and involving us conflicts that do not reflect the wishes of the people. We have too many under-employed and unemployed educated young. And we have a social breakdown caused not by sectarianism, but racism. )
In this information age with Twitter, Face Book and other social medias, people were able to rally support, organize and stage huge protests almost overnight. This media also helped some small-time radicals became big time leaders by default. The people were looking for someone, anyone, to challenge the oppressive government and the people who had been in the shadows and planning for this day were the radicals.
Egypt’s brutal mishandling of the protests made matters worse. Their scare tactics that included assassinations only caused more violent responses and more support for the protest movement and over through of the current regime. It was like the perfect storm, so many factors coming together to form Egypt’s “Arab Spring” revolt. The kind of cruelty and oppression that set off the revolt in Egypt were not much different in neighboring Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq. And once again the people turned to the radicals, the Islamists, the political arm of Islam because they were the only option.
The advantage is now with the Islamists. About 52% of Arab people now approve of a return to strict Sharia Law. This empowered fundamentalists preaching a return to the original interpretations of the Koran. However, as we’ve seen in ISIS, radicals don’t know a lot about keeping the power on, restoring economies or promoting real equality. However, they do know a lot about order…at the point of sword.
The corruption and dysfunction in weak kleptocracies like Egypt, Syria and Iraq been a perfect setup for Islamic radicals seeking followers. The founders of ISIS just happened to be in the right place at the right time. ISIS pays $600 a month to be a comrade in arms to defend Islam; a chance to be a killer just like on the video games; they also offer women captives as slaves and a chance to lord it over others like a crime boss. This has a great appeal to the hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Muslims and adventure seekers too.
The radicalism under ISIS brainwashing is being replicated across the Middle East and is spreading into many African countries, Europe and even in the United States. 2 years ago could you have imagined ISIS recruiting young men in Minnesota, Colorado, New York, Arizona, Washington and California? But, there it is.
There is no end in sight for the spread of Islamists and they are operating under any number of banners, ISIS, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, IRGC, Taliban, Haqqani… and here we are with President Clueless who favors Hamas over Israel?
“Evil isn’t the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as Evil, maybe more so, and it’s a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against Stupid. That might actually make a difference.” ― Jim Butcher
“President Clueless”? I don’t buy that. What is happening is all part of the plan. It has been since 1928.
Link to The Betrayal Papers, parts I through IV.
http://bethanyblankley.com/thebetrayalpapers/
Jack: “and here we are with President Clueless who seems to favor Hamas over Israel.”
Chris I regret that I was forced to remove your extensive commentary because you opened with an insult targeting my character.
I offered up my opinion and one that is widely shared among conservatives, you may not like it and that is your right, but you have no right to insult me in such a vile way. When you calm down and offer a reasonable reply I will include all your comments. -Jack
Re #2: Typical Chris. And he complained grievously on many occasions when I was inspired to throw his steady barrage if insults right back at him.
Great post Jack.
I would take one thing a step further. ISIS is not “extremist” Islam, it is Islam.
Sunnis and Shiites have been competing with and slaughtering each other for centuries. Muslims have been slaughtering infidels for centuries. ISIS is just the latest manifestation of Islam.
Pie, yes, what you said is spot on. Muslims have a long history of aggression with people that don’t want to be any part of their religion. They also have a long history of aggression against Muslims
who disagree with their aggression. I’m hoping that as communication grows and we share culture and values between the Middle East and West that the aggressors will gradually die off until they go extinct.
Jack, perhaps it was over the line to call your statement that President Obama favors Hamas over Israel a “lie.” I apologize. I am sure you believed it was true when you wrote it; regardless, it is not true, no matter how many conservatives agree with your opinion.
I posted extensive evidence that this is not true, and that Obama has praised Israel and condemned Hamas numerous times; I wish you would not have removed all of that simply because of one offending sentence. I’m not about to post all of that evidence again; you saw it, so hopefully you will now retract your statement, now that you know it is false. That would show that you really are committed to honesty.
Chris, apology acknowledged and accepted. Lets move on.
Jack, I hope a glance at RHT’s link will illuminate why I don’t automatically take opinions “widely shared by conservatives” very seriously. Not all conservatives, but way too many of them, believe things that are not only false, but ridiculous. RHT believes that the American government has been infiltrated by radical Muslims since 1928. He believes that Common Core is a jihadist conspiracy. Your party cannot and will not survive if it continues to not only tolerate, but encourage such radical views. RHT’s link warns against “taquiyya,” but really, the people behind it practice a form of this daily. They are willing to say anything, no matter how crazy, if they think it will make enough gullible people follow them. And frankly, the statement that Obama favors Hamas over Israel is just one more brick in the wall.
Did you all see this?
Finally after almost three years the Benghazi cover-up is exposed. At least the families of the four brave Americans who died needlessly that long night of fighting now know the truth. Now, will those responsible be held accountable?!
The Benghazi-Syria Weapons Connection:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/arnold-ahlert/the-benghazi-syria-weapons-connection/
Obama administration knew that al-Qaeda had planned Benghazi attack:
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-had-planned-benghazi-attack
Is Mike Morell trying to rewrite history on Benghazi?:
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/05/12/is-mike-morell-trying-to-rewrite-history-on-benghazi/
Good links Peggy. You know what the come back is going to be now, right? Attack the messenger.
From Judicial Watch—
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-state-department-documents-reveal-obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-terrorists-had-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/
Peggy: “Finally after almost three years the Benghazi cover-up is exposed.”
Why do I feel like I’ve heard this before?
Peggy, it’s not at all clear to me that the documents obtained by Judicial Watch prove what Judicial Watch claims they do.
OK, so DIA reported that BOCAR was responsible for the attack and that it had been planned ten days in advance. And? The CIA reported something completely different. Why should the administration have believed the DIA over the CIA?
It’s very obvious that there were conflicting reports over what happened. It is not obvious that the White House “knew” the DIA was right and the CIA was wrong.
Now, is it possible that the Obama administration chose to believe the reports they found most politically advantageous? Of course. That would not be the first time a president has done this,first time a president has done this, nor would it be the most catastrophic. We should hold our elected officials to a high standard and criticize them whenever they get the information wrong.
But that’s not what’s happening here. Republicans are accusing the White House of an unprecedented cover-up, even though multiple investigations–at least two of them Republican-led–have turned up no evidence for this.
And the Judicial Watch-obtained documents, which is the latest in a string of “smoking guns” in Benghazi, still does not provide evidence of an orchestrated cover-up.
As for the weapons transfer claims, I’ve no doubt it’s true. Name me a modern president who didn’t sell weapons to terrorists and I might be a little more sympathetic to the “Obama is the worst president ever” crowd.
Jack: “Good links Peggy. You know what the come back is going to be now, right? Attack the messenger.”
Well, since you mentioned it, this would not be the first time Judicial Watch has overhypedtheir findings to make false claims.
Yes Jack, I know and fully expect it. Here is one liberal who learned the truth the hard way.
Juan Williams: Liberal media will ‘shut you down, stab you, kill you, fire you’ if you disagree [VIDEO]:
“Fox News political analyst and “Special Report” panelist Juan Williams said in an interview with The Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas that mainstream media outlets “stab” and “kill” dissenting voices.
Williams was fired from National Public Radio in 2010 after saying he sometimes gets “nervous” when seated on an airplane with Muslims, while making a broader point about the importance of religious tolerance.
“I always thought it was the Archie Bunkers of the world, the right-wingers of world, who were more resistant and more closed-minded about hearing the other side,” he said. “In fact, what I have learned is, in a very painful way — and I can open this shirt and show you the scars and the knife wounds — is that it is big media institutions who are identifiably more liberal to left-leaning who will shut you down, stab you and kill you, fire you, if they perceive that you are not telling the story in the way that they want it told.”
Catch the rest of the Ginni Thomas’s interview with Juan Williams this week exclusively on The Daily Caller.”
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/23/juan-williams-liberal-media-will-shut-you-down-stab-you-kill-you-fire-you-if-disagree-video/
No he didn’t. Oh yes he did.
You will NOT believe the threat Obama just gave to the military:
http://allenbwest.com/2015/05/you-will-not-believe-what-obama-now-defines-as-dereliction-of-duty/
Off Topic
Since the riots, Baltimore has had a spike in violence.
Here is an interactive map of Baltimore homicides. Now, there is no telling who committed these various homicides since there are, as yet, no convictions but given the prevalence of black on black crime, it kind of makes you ponder the slogan “Blacks Lives Matter”.
http://data.baltimoresun.com/bing-maps/homicides/index.php?range=30&district=all&zipcode=all&age=all&gender=all&race=all&cause=all&article=all&show_results=Show+results
Benghazi is sounding more and more like the Iran-Contra operation. Remember this.
May 5, 1987 Iran-Contra Hearing:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=iran-contra+hearings&FORM=VIRE4#view=detail&mid=73E9286AEEE0D3B3E0DA73E9286AEEE0D3B3E0DA
#17, yep, sure is.
Peggy, I certainly agree that the firing of Juan Williams was a very real example of liberal political correctness gone awry. It was clear to me that Williams was making a point about how we all have racism and need to fight it. NPR was absolutely wrong to fire him.
I’m also glad to see you’re not a fan of Reagan’s shady dealings in Iran-Contra.
“No he didn’t. Oh yes he did.
You will NOT believe the threat Obama just gave to the military”
This, however, is ridiculous. There was absolutely no threat given by Obama anywhere in that speech. He was absolutely right to say that climate change poses a huge national security threat, something the Pentagon has acknowledged for quite some time.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/220575-pentagon-unveils-plan-to-fight-climate-change
Also worth mentioning: Obama’s speech was given to the Coast Guard.
Do you really think the Coast Guard shouldn’t be concerned about climate change?
Chris will forever deny the Obama administration’s failures and coverup. So what? His opinion amounts to nothing.
Brit Hume Destroys Former Congresswoman Jane Harmon on Benghazi Talking Points
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EodbzU2Ru0
#20 Pie, Brit Hume, in my opinion, has always been a good and fair reporter. Did you recognize him in the Iran-Contra video when he was at ABC?
Is it just me or do others notice the press seems to be asking Josh Earnst tough questions these days about ISIS and the Clinton mess? It would be nice to see them do their jobs instead of courting favors from this administration. Heaven forbid they end up on the BO hit list like Fox News. But, then again maybe they realize it’s how Fox got to be #1 in the ratings by doing the job they should have been doing.
Also, did you all hear about Kirsten Powers new book? She’s on liberal I really do admire, because she’s honest and bright enough to issues from both sides and when her liberal side is wrong she says so. She doesn’t carry anyone’s water which is to be admired, in my opinion. I just ordered it for my Kindle.
The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech:
“Lifelong liberal Kirsten Powers blasts the Left’s forced march towards conformity in an exposé of the illiberal war on free speech. No longer champions of tolerance and free speech, the “illiberal Left” now viciously attacks and silences anyone with alternative points of view. Powers asks, “What ever happened to free speech in America?”
Oops, can’t leave the link, because it’s for my Amazon account.
Here a Kirsten Powers video instead.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=kirsten+powers&FORM=VIRE7#view=detail&mid=49AA4D82F824802DF85C49AA4D82F824802DF85C
I saw her on TV…what a courageous lady!
#21 Jack, do you believe the Benghazi to Syria gun running will be treated the same as the Iran-Contra was? I don’t. Not with a different party in the WH and the major changes to the media. This country is on its way to becoming a banana republic. And if Hillary get in it will be one.
More On Benghazi —
Hillary emails indicate she was informed almost immediately that the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with a video protest.
Fox News synopsis of a New York Time article —
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/21/emails-reportedly-show-confidant-told-clinton-benghazi-attack-planned-by-aq/
Original NYT report —
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/us/politics/a-closer-look-at-hillary-clintons-emails-on-benghazi.html?_r=1
As I recall, the Obama administration persisted with the phony video protest narrative for a week after the attack.
Why do you think they did that?
TRUTH: Cartoon Compares Bush’s Legacy to Obama’s:
http://www.youngcons.com/truth-cartoon-compares-bushs-legacy-to-obamas/
Re #18 Chris:”I’m also glad to see you’re not a fan of Reagan’s shady dealings in Iran-Contra.”
SHEESH! Who would be? You really are an insufferable snot-nosed kid.
Peggy: “do you think the Benghazi to Syria gun running will be treated the same as the Iran-Contra was?”
You seem to be implying that Iran-Contra was treated harshly, which is simply wrong. Reagan is still lauded by many as one of our greatest presidents, even by liberal publications. Oliver North, the orchestrator of Iran-Contra, still has a thriving career and is often cited by Fox News and other right wing media outlets as an expert on foreign policy. No one behind Iran-Contra suffered any real punishment or even social consequences.
So yeah, I think it will be treated the same.
I do like Kristen Powers and I will have to check out her book.
Defending Bush’s foreign policy legacy at this point is nothing short of delusional.
Pie: “Why do you think they did that?”
Maybe, and I’m just spitballing here, because the CIA said that the attackers were protesting over the video, and journalists who were there said that the attackers were protesting over the video, and the attackers themselves said on tape that they were protesting over the video, and one of the captured terrorists said that they were protesting over the video, and radical Muslims all over the Middle East were protesting over the video.
And maybe “al Qaeda linked group” and “protesting over the video” are not mutually exclusive.
Conspiracy theories are fun and all, but at some point, Occam’s Freaking Razor has to kick in.
From the office of Trey Gowdy.
Statement on the Release of Secretary Clinton’s Benghazi Emails:
http://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/statement-on-the-release-of-secretary-clinton-s-benghazi-emails
Re #23: If Hillary gets elected this country will be run like the Sicilian Mafia.
Chris, in case you didn’t know the Coast Guard is serves overseas too.
The U.S. Coast Guard In World War II:
http://www.uscg.mil/history/uscghist/bib/WW2bib.asp
U.S. COAST GUARD IN VIETNAM:
http://www.uscg.mil/history/uscghist/VietnamPhotoIndex_A.asp
Coast Guard Reserve unit deploys to Middle East on security mission:
http://www.uscgnews.com/go/doc/4007/1470635/Coast-Guard-Reserve-unit-deploys-to-Middle-East-on-security-mission
Oops, take out the word “is” from the above sentence.
Bob Woodward says Bush didn’t lie about WMDs in Iraq and implies Obama blew it.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/24/bob-woodward-shoots-down-story-that-bush-lied-to-get-u-s-in-iraq-war-implies-obama-troop-pullout-was-wrong-move/
Wow, Bush wasn’t the first president to call for an attack on Iraq because of their WMDs. Here him in his own words.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=29b_1431983712
Peggy,
Obama did not pull the troops out; they left on Bush’s timetable, and Obama tried and failed to keep us there longer. You know this.
I agree with you that Bush did not intentionally lie about WMDs in Iraq, as I already made clear in comment #12. Still, there was plenty of reason to distrust “Curveball” and the buck has to stop at the top. There are many people on both the left and the right who should be held responsible for the clusterfrak in Iraq. It should be noted that Senator Barack Obama was one of the few who opposed the war at the time. Had we listened to him, many more people would be alive today.
Looks like Judicial Watch misled their readers about their findings. Again. And the right-wing media fell for it. Again. And the “smoking gun” about Benghazi was not, actually, a smoking fun about Benghazi.
Again.
From former CIA director Mike Morell:
ike clockwork, every several weeks, someone discovers a new document that, to their minds, “proves” that what the administration and the intelligence community have been saying about Benghazi is a bunch of lies. But time and again these documents don’t add up. They don’t show what the pundits think they show—and the Benghazi broadsides miss their mark anew.
Here is a recent example: Earlier last week a handful of number of news organizations, including Fox News, breathlessly reported that they had just gotten their hands on a Defense Intelligence Agency report—acquired through a FOIA request by Judicial Watch—that they say proves that the government knew very soon after the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/12 that they had been planned ten or more days in advance. These news organizations suggest that this document puts the lie to what I and other current and former intelligence officials have been saying—that there was little planning before the attacks.
But the only thing that newly released document proves is that the people who trot out these reports do not understand the world of intelligence and do not take the time to ask the right people the right questions before publishing the “news.” The DIA report in question was an “Intelligence Information Report” or IIR. It is what we term “raw intelligence.” It was not the considered view of DIA analysts. Often from a single source, these bits of information represent one thread that some intelligence collector has picked up. The all source analysts in the Intelligence Community are charged with looking at that snippet of information and every other bit of available information from communications intercepts, human intelligence, open source material and much more to come up with an overall judgment.
Those all source analysts—without any input or pressure from above—looked at all the available information and determined that there was not a significant amount of planning prior to the attacks. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can look at the briefing slides produced by the National Counterterrorism Center (which is not part of CIA) and coordinated across the Intelligence Community. These slides were declassified over a year ago and were appended to the report on Benghazi produced by the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee. In describing the attacks at the State Department facility, the slides say “attackers moving in multiple directions,” “attackers do not appear well coordinated” and “no organized effort to breach every building.” Not the words one would expect to see associated with an attack planned well in advance.
Some of the media reporting on the DIA IIR say that they have found another gotcha as well. They say DIA’s report was issued on September 16th—the same day that former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows, so she must have known before she went on the air, right? Wrong. The DIA report was issued hours after her final TV appearance that day. Some accounts, including the first piece written on the DIA report by Judicial Watch, erroneously say that the report was issued on September 12th, four days before Rice was on national television. They simply misread the report…
While there are no shortage of new arguments on this old subject, there are also some old ones that resurface on a regular basis. One is the debate on whether an anti-Islam YouTube video played any role in sparking the Benghazi attacks. The short answer is that we still don’t know with absolute certainty. Intelligence community analysts in the days immediately after the attack said that the attackers were probably motivated by an attack that happened in Cairo earlier in the day. We know that that attack was motivated at least in part by the video. However the analysts also said that the attack in Libya might have been motivated by Al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri’s call just two days before the Benghazi attack for avenging the death of the terrorist Abu Yaya al-Libi earlier in the summer.
The most strident voices on Benghazi ridicule the notion that a video might have played any role. But among those who have argued that the video may have been a factor include the FBI, who told the House Intelligence Committee in February 2014 that the attacks were ordered in response the YouTube video and to Zawahiri’s call for avenging the death of al-Libi. You can read that on page 18 of the House Intelligence Committee’s report on Benghazi.
What those who focus on the questions of the amount of pre-planning and the role of the YouTube seem to miss is that the answers to those questions make no difference to the bottom line: That the attacks were terrorism and that the terrorists murdered four Americans. And they make no difference to the most important point going forward—that the U.S. must do the best job it can in protecting its diplomatic, intelligence and military personnel serving in dangerous places.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/michael-morell-debunking-the-benghazi-myths-118271.html#ixzz3bICeOttA
Like any sane person would believe anything Mike Morrell said about Benghazi.
Mike Morell: Man in the Middle of Benghazi Talking Points Scandal:
“Recent reporting has centered on CIA deputy director Mike Morell as a key player in critical and misleading changes made to the Obama Administration’s Benghazi talking points.”
http://dailysignal.com/2014/02/11/mike-morell-man-middle-benghazi-talking-points-scandal/
Peggy,
Morell was the head of the CIA. That’s like being the Head Liar in Charge of Lying. Of course he shouldn’t be trusted by default.
That said, nothing in your linked article disproves his claims.
These seem to be Morell’s main points:
–That the DIA report which said that the attack was pre-planned was just one “snippet” of information, not the final word (basically what I predicted myself back in comment #12; we already knew there were conflicting reports, so a little bit of critical thinking could have saved the “smoking gun” embarrassment).
–That other intelligence reports at the time, including one from the National Counterterrorism Center, said that the attack was indeed motivated by the video, and that there was no significant pre-planning (we know all of this already, as multiple journalists on the ground reported the same thing, and you have seen video of one of the attackers citing the video, and one of the captured terrorists cited the video as his motivation as well. In addition, every single congressional investigation, including the Republican-led House investigation, concluded there was not significant pre-planning).
–That Judicial Watch and others misreported the time and date that the DIA report was issued to make it appear that it was before Susan Rice appeared on the talk shows, when really it was issued after.
Do you have a counter-argument to any of these claims? If not, can you see why you have failed to provide any shred of evidence for the conspiracy theory that the CIA and the Obama administration lied about the causes and nature of the Benghazi attack for political gain, let alone a “smoking gun” proving that?